You ever heard of “Lying for the Lord”? If not, you aren’t a regular reader. Here — from MormonWiki, a wiki by, for and about Mormons one or more evangelical Christians (specifically, Aaron Shafovaloff; Google him) who know(s) far more about Mormonism than the vast majority of rank-and-file Mormons themselves do, or are willing to admit:
Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith’s denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by “anti-Mormons” and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley’s dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism’s history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light. This is part of the larger package of things that lead many to describe Mormonism as a cult. “Lying for the lord” is part of Mormonism’s larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully disclosed to investigators.
Or: A Funny Thing Happened While Investigating the Lesbian Web Site That Ran Up Against the Mormon Web Host: I Stumbled Across an International Incident.
First things first: There are only five hard-and-fast rules I follow in life, without exception:
1. Keep your marriage vows.
2. Be nice to people until they give you a reason not to be.
3. Give money to homeless people, and never question what they’re going to do with it.
Don’t give me this garbage anymore, Utahns, about how Salt Lake City is some sort of bastion of liberalism in the Theocratic State of Mormonism, a.k.a. Utah. Like this garbage:
Forget everything you think you know about Utah. Yes, it’s the reddest state in the union and the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). … But here in Salt Lake City, it’s a different story. The city and surrounding counties are a lovely blue. The current and previous mayors — Ralph Becker and Rocky Anderson — are well-known progressive Democrats with excellent records on the environment, gay and civil rights, disability access and other municipal issues, and Salt Lake County, home to four of the five most populous cities in the state, went for Obama in 2008.
Oh, bullflop, The Nation. Been there, many times. Got the stinkeye, every time. Never got arrested, thank bloody goodness, like Matt Aune and Derek Jones, but I credit luck, and never kissing anybody on the cheek, while passing through enemy territory.
We’re still very much relieved they caught him, but at the same time we’re bugged that he’s being set up for an insanity plea (just as Scott Roeder is). Murray hasn’t actually entered a plea yet, but it’s clear his parents are doing everything in their power to set the stage for it, with a big assist from the prosecutor in the case.
Before we get to the story about Murray’s court appearance, what I want to know is what church he belongs to. No, not because I’m looking for a reason to slam any particular sect (not even Mormonism), but because if he can be connected to a church, and if he shares any of his obvious (to us) religion-based insanity, then it’s not legally insanity at all.
How anybody ever let him out of their sight in the first place is beyond us (see “Feds Search for Another Would-Be Obama Assassin,” June 6), but whatever — we’re just glad they nabbed him:
Federal agents have arrested the man who went to a St. George bank and allegedly made threats against President Obama.
Daniel James Murray was arrested Friday at 7 p.m. in Laughlin, Nev., by the U.S. Secret Service and Las Vegas police, said Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the Secret Service. Wiley said agents and police apprehended Murray in the parking lot of the Riverside Casino without incident.
Terry Donaho, director of security at Riverside Casino, said Murray was never inside the casino. Neither Donaho nor the Secret Service gave further details.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Utah filed a criminal complaint Thursday charging Murray with one count of threats against the president of the United States. …
Somebody’s in serious need of schoolin’, and there’s nobody else I see who’ll take him on, so… here I am. It won’t be the first time I’ve tried to get through to him, and it probably won’t be the last.
Settle in for a long one, friends — and if you’re not in the mood for a long one, bookmark this post and come back to it when you’ve got a bigger block of time to read — really read. This involves themes of power, denial, religious delusion, blame, accountability, and “ex-gay” suicide — themes far larger than any grudge I might hold against my homophobic hometown ex-mayor.
After I stopped LOLing at the headline, I reconsidered: Heck, I’d be happy to bring the fight to Utah — if it meant draining the Anti-Gays’ coffers dry to the point that they have to rely on those vast storehouses of vittles slated for Armageddon.
LGBT rights activists in Utah, however, actually believe, in all sincerity, there’s a chance of dragging Utah out of the 14th century. Per the Salt Lake Trib:
What would happen if you crossed that creepy 1960s horror classic “The Village of the Damned” with the Broadway staple “A Chorus Line”? You don’t need to use your imagination. It’s there waiting for you on YouTube under the title “Gathering Storm”: a 60-second ad presenting homosexuality as a national threat second only to terrorism. …
Far from terrifying anyone, “Gathering Storm” has become, unsurprisingly, an Internet camp classic. On YouTube the original video must compete with countless homemade parodies it has inspired since first turning up some 10 days ago. None may top Stephen Colbert’s on Thursday night, in which lightning from “the homo storm” strikes an Arkansas teacher, turning him gay. A “New Jersey pastor” whose church has been “turned into an Abercrombie & Fitch” declares that he likes gay people, “but only as hilarious best friends in TV and movies.”
Yet easy to mock as “Gathering Storm” may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America’s anti-gay movement.
What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it’s idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.
Even the anti-Obama “tea parties” flogged by Fox News last week had wider genuine grass-roots support than this so-called national organization. Beyond Princeton, most straight citizens merely shrugged as gay families celebrated in Iowa and Vermont. There was no mass backlash. At ABC and CBS, the Vermont headlines didn’t even make the evening news. …
As the polls attest, the majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.” …
More crunchy goodness — including mentions of the latest hysteria from Moribund Mormon Glenn Beck, the Rick Warren-like one-eighty of “Dr.” Laura “Biological Error” Schlessinger, and the very fine takedown of Miss Maggie by the New York Post’s “invariably witty and invariably conservative writer” Kyle Smith — and much more, as well as one of the best closing paragraphs, ever, at the link.
…why the Radical Religiohysterics are so silent when God lets really horrible things happen to them? Come on, you know Pat Robertson blamed “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, [and] People For the American Way” for 9/11, and James Hartline declared that God was punishing California with wildfires last fall for the post-election protests over Prop 8… Uh, wait, God was punishing California for Teh Gay after The Will of the Bigots destroyed marriage equality? Because we Horrible Homos™ were out in the streets, protesting? What does Hartline think God wanted the Holy Rollers to do, kill us? Oh, wait— that is what the terminally-misguided would like to do, isn’t it? Um… Never mind. Forget I said that. No sense in giving the unhinged any more ideas for carrying out the Final Solution.
Anyway, so where are these self-proclaimed mouthpieces of God now, as we learn some 52 buildings burned down at an evangelical Christian conference center in New Hampshire? And on Easter, yet? Why wasn’t God protecting this place, even from arson (if that’s what it turns out to be)? I guess the old double standard applies: When bad things happen to other people, it’s a sign of God’s wrath (usually at gays), but when it happens to the feckless faithful, it’s… well, it’s just not.
Meanwhile, closer (than I’d like) to the Left Coast… You know that Conficker worm that was supposed to melt the Intertubes on April 1st? Well, it didn’t — but it did hit the University of Utah, which, while not BYU, is as Mormon-dominated as a school — and medical center — can get.
Now, why didn’t Heavenly Father protect all His most faithful children of the One True Church? I mean, if Moroni could lay some golden plates nobody’s ever seen on a teenage con artist who could translate Egyptian hieroglyphics by putting rocks in his hat, you’d think it wouldn’t take much for God His Big Ol’ Bad Self to waylay one lousy little piece of malware for His Chosen People… wouldn’t you?
I’m just going to reproduce this as I’ve written the record for our upcoming Proposition 8 donor database — I don’t think I need to comment further:
Corporate Legal Consultants 6009 W Parker Rd #149, M/S 301 Plano, TX 75093 Phone: (214) 476-0920
What do you get when you cross Mormonism with Dominionism?
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM (ANTI-GAY) MR. GEORGE BRUNT - ATTORNEY [Owner, per LinkedIn] CORPORATE LEGAL CONSULTANTS PROVO UT 84604-2828 10/14/08 - $250.00 - 1369259-INC104724
Mormon; BYU.
Why does Brunt gives his address for this donation as Provo, Utah, when he works in Texas… and lists himself as an attorney in Utah, when he’s not shown as a member of the Utah State Bar, but is licensed to practice law in Texas (and in California)?
Because his (presumably “real”) business, Prosper, Inc. (”executive-level coaching for individuals”), is located at 5072 N 300 W, Provo, UT 84604 (Phone: (801) 371-0755; Toll-free: 1-800-748-5199; Fax: (801) 374-2358; www.prosperlearning.com).
What’s really scary about George Brunt: His LinkedIn profile lists two URLs under Brunt’s “Websites” — one for Prosper, Inc., and the other for a 501(c)(3) non-profit called “Constitutional Freedom Foundation”; the site, www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org, is dead as of April 11, 2009, so we went to the latest archived version (2006). Bold/italic emphasis ours:
“Dear Concerned Citizen,
“America has always counted on the decency and morality of its people to preserve our values, our constitution, and our moral institutions. Sinister forces are now at work from within our own borders. They would restrict our rights of public worship, undermine our family values, alter the institution of marriage and replace virtue with vice at every turn. They are an organized and well-funded minority. They use the courts and the legal system to their advantage. They are effectively making changes in the foundation of our government – our Constitution. The Constitutional Freedom Foundation is calling upon you to help assure the preservation of our American way of life for future generations. You can make the difference.
“It is in the courts where decisions that have long-reaching impact for our people are made. The front line may be in our families, churches and civic organizations, but the final stand is in the courts. When the well-funded ACLU goes to court to stop people from praying in public or to remove the Star of David or the Ten Commandments from a Courthouse display, we want to challenge their efforts in court.
“The Constitutional Freedom Foundation has been formed to be a voice of morality, family values and responsibility in the courts. We do everything in our power to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to preserve the principles upon which it is based. …
“Timothy B. Lewis, Southern Utah University, has written a series of articles on the constitution that you will find educational and interesting. …”
“The Constitutional Freedom Foundation (CFF) is a nonprofit organization that is committed to defending religious and civil liberties and to protecting traditional marriage and the natural family from mounting threats. By educating the public and providing legal services to safeguard religious liberties, morality, and family values, the CFF acts as a nonprofit private attorney general, where appropriate, in enforcing neglected just laws.
“As a public-interest law firm, the CFF provides a national network of attorneys from disparate practice areas who are committed to defending the religious rights of Americans from every religious tradition and to upholding traditional familyvalues [sic]. The CFF cooperates and coordinates with other organizations with similar missions. …
“The CFF is also dedicated to defending and advancing the centrality of the family, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and the sanctity of human life. …”
So, we’re basically talking Dominionism here — crossbred with Mormonism. And that, friends, is whacko-fringe, out-there, scary.
So where does George Brunt fit into all of this? He’s mentioned on the CFF Web site (”If you would like to add a pending case please e-mail information to: George Brunt at gbbrunt@aol.com”), but what’s not mentioned is that he’s the head of the CFF, which Tax Exempt World shows headquartered at George Brunt’s home address in Plano, TX. (This address matches his Shantara Lane address found in Zabasearch.)
What else scares us: We find no information for the Constitutional Freedom Foundation from any of the usual sources we use to check the truth about right-wing orgs (such as SourceWatch and Right Web); Timothy B. Lewis’s ravings (here’s one prefaced with “Forward by George B. Brunt, Chairman of the Constitutional Freedom Foundation”) have been noticed only by such Mormon strongholds as Meridian Magazine, and a Mormon blog called Orson’s Telescope (which, we assume, is a reference to radical anti-gay Mormon and sci-fi hack Orson Scott Card). Even this blog calls the CFF “rather fringe-y sounding” (again, bold emphasis ours):
“Meridian magazine has posted the first of several articles authored by the rather fringe-y sounding Constitutional Freedom Foundation, (no individual author is named), a group of Mormons who see themselves as fulfilling the prophecies about the Constitution hanging by a thread and being saved by the elders of the Church, etc. … Of course, the sorts of things they want to do to protect the Constitution are the very things that others see putting it in danger–gay marriage amendment, Ten Commandments in courthouses, etc. …”
That we can find so little mention of the CFF outside its own Web site (and none whatsoever from the loyal opposition) tells us this outfit is flying way too low under the radar for comfort.
Meet the radical anti-gays of “America Forever,” who make Fred Phelps and the rest of his “God Hates Fags” clan look like the picture of sanity and tolerance:
Note the ironic headline. Note that if the Trib had refused the ad, the rhetoric wouldn’t be “boiling over.”
Chino has an idea of just “how and why it is that a fringe outfit like America Forever suddenly has the funds available to pay for full-page ads in the Utah press.” You should read what he has to say.
It’s a sick, sick world, folks. Be careful out in it.
As supporters of Gay Marriage have discovered, it’s never easy to be on the Mormon Church’s enemies list. The Church of Latter Day Saints backed the anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 in California with out-of-state funds, and gave the right a heartbreaking victory this past election cycle. But the Mormon Church has been challenged in the past. Just ask Bob Beamon.
If you know Beamon’s name it’s almost certainly because he won the long jump gold medal in legendary fashion at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. …
But you may not know that Beamon almost never made it to Mexico City. Along with eight other teammates, Beamon had his track and field scholarship revoked from the University of Texas at El Paso, the previous year. They had refused to compete against Brigham Young University. Beamon and his teammates were protesting the racist practices of the Mormon Church, and their coach at UTEP, Wayne Vanderburge, made them pay the ultimate price.
They weren’t alone. …
On June 6th, 1978, as teams were refusing road trips to Utah with greater frequency, and the IRS started to make noises about revoking the church’s holy tax-free status, a new revelation came to the Book of Mormon.
Whether a cynical ploy to avoid the taxman or a coincidence touched by God, the results were the same: Black people were now human in the eyes of the Church. African Americans were no longer, as Brigham Young himself once put it, “uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” The IRS was assuaged, the athletic contests continued, and the church entered a period of remarkable growth. …
Hit the link for the rest — it’s a quite satisfying read.
When you’re done, ask yourself if the anti-gay hysterics screaming about Prop 8 boycotts would hurl the same insults (and downright lies) at Beamon and all the other athletes who stood up against the Mormon church for its racism.
And when the Mormons, or their fair-weather defenders, start screaming that the “real” goal of the marriage equality movement is to restrict religious freedom, or at least strip churches of their tax-exempt status, or simply destroy religion altogether (all common arguments from the reality-impaired world of the religiously insane), tell them the story of Bob Beamon — and remind them that the Mormon church never lost its “right” to discriminate against blacks, or continue preaching any hateful thing it wanted (such as Brigham Young’s declaration that blacks were “uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind”).
No, the church never lost any right to practice its religious bigotry as it saw fit — it only lost the privilege of practicing the kind of discrimination that is unequivocally illegal in the public sector, on the taxpayer’s dime.
And that’s when Mormon grand poobah Spencer W. Kimball suddenly experienced the “revelation” that blacks were equal to the white man. (Was Brigham Young wrong? Or did God suddenly change His mind about the race He purposely created as “inferior”? These are questions no Mormon can answer directly, although many will expend extraordinary efforts to talk around the issue in the apparent hope that the old saying is true: “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit.”)
Funny how that works: The threat of losing something the church wants very, very badly — such as statehood — inevitably leads to a new “revelation” that changes the whole game, and leaves the faithful scrambling to come up with excuses for their god’s unpredictable caprice.
Zen Flesh Zen Bones was recommended to me when I was 19 years old, by one of those people who appear in your life briefly, and then vanish without a trace — and leave you wondering why you invested any energy at all into a relationship that was not only obviously destined to be transient, but was ultimately unsatisfactory.
Well, that’s how I saw it when I was 19. And when I was 19, and thought I knew everything, I cracked open the slim volume and began to read. And I didn’t understand any of it. “The sound of one hand clapping”? What kind of idiocy was that? And why don’t any of the stories in the book have a point — or, in lieu of a point, so much as an ending?
Nearly twenty years would pass before I plucked Zen Flesh Zen Bones out of its spot amidst the other several thousand books on my shelves and read it again. This time, I got it. All of it. The stories moved me — to laughter, to tears, to periods of brooding introspection from which I emerged clearer and calmer.
Was I suddenly enlightened? No. More open to enlightenment, certainly, but I will never expect to be enlightened. That defeats the whole purpose of enlightenment, you see — striving for enlightenment, or even expecting it. What is is, you know, and when you exist in complete harmony with what is, no matter what is, then you’re there.
Me, I’m way too flawed to even dream of achieving that state of consciousness (see? enlightenment is not something to be “achieved”), but I get the concept, completely. Just like I finally “got” Zen Flesh Zen Bones.
So, here is my favorite story from Zen Flesh Zen Bones — and anyone who has to ask why I’m including it here… well, if you have to ask, then you probably won’t care much for the story, either (although I can almost guarantee you will remember it for the rest of your life). If it doesn’t make sense, come on back in twenty years or so, and it will:
Three Days More
Suiwo, the disciple of Hakuin, was a good teacher. During one summer seclusion period, a pupil came to him frim a southern island of Japan.
Suiwo gave him the problem: “Hear the sound of one hand.”
The pupil remained three years but could not pass this test. One night he came in tears to Suiwo. “I must return south in shame and embarrassment,” he said, “for I cannot solve my problem.”
“Wait one more week and meditate constantly,” advised Suiwo. Still, no enlightenment came to the pupil. “Try for another week,” said Suiwo. The pupil obeyed, but in vain.
“Still another week.” Yet this was of no avail. In despair the student begged to be released, but Suiwo requested another meditation of five days. They were without result. Then he said: “Meditate for three days longer, then if you fail to attain enlightenment, you had better kill yourself.”
It’s a huge milestone for the Mormons, but, to us, it’s just an interesting footnote in the battle for equal rights; we wouldn’t know who the guy was if it hadn’t been for the Massachusetts Wirthlins’ high-profile (and low-class) involvement in the Mormon church’s singleminded mission to strip gay and lesbian Californians of their constitutionally established right to marry.
LDS Church Apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin has died at age 91.
Wirthlin, the oldest living member of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, died peacefully about 11:30 p.m. Monday at his home shortly after going to bed, the church confirmed this morning. Wirthlin died of causes related to old age, the church said.
Joseph B. Wirthlin Jr., the apostle’s only son, said his father went to his office Monday at LDS Church headquarters for about an hour. Last night at about 10:40 p.m., he took a couple of deep breaths and was gone. “He went on his own terms,” Wirthlin’s son said, becoming emotional. “He’s having a great reunion on the other side with our mother.”
Wirthlin’s wife Elisa died two years ago, and a member of the family had been staying with and caring for the apostle since her death. …
An LDS apostle since Oct. 9, 1986, Wirthlin held one of the top leadership position in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons believe the 12 apostles and the three men who make up the church’s First Presidency are “prophets, seers and revelators.” …
You know, if they’d stop referring to their head honchos as “apostles” (there were only twelve Apostles, with a capital A, and, if they ever existed in the first place, they’ve all been dead for more than 2,000 years), and if they’d stop pretending these common, ordinary, old white men, equally bereft of a sense of style as they are a sense of reality, had superhuman powers (you know what they say; when you talk to God, it’s praying, but when God talks to you, it’s insanity — or you’re a con artist), I might be able to muster up a genuinely sincere expression of condolence for his survivors.
Ya think the Mormons got a little persecution thing going on? I swear, the more they talk, the more convinced I am Mormonism (along with all radical-fundamentalist religions, from Osama bin Laden-style Islam to Appalachian snake-handling) is a mental illness:
Seriously, read it — I can’t begin to summarize it, even with excerpts. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Done? Now pull your jaw up off your chest.
Did you catch the second comment?
But as I read your Soylent Pink (yes, you may use it) scenario, it reminded me of back in the day when the mudslides threatened Salt Lake, and in a couple of hours the Church mobilized an army of brethren to sandbag and stave off destruction. If unruly mobs of malcontents push themselves harder— and I have to believe there’ll be at least one attempt at Kristallnacht (with a lemon twist)— heaven help them if the Church declares Rameumptom and cuts loose its attack dogs.
They’re aching for a literal, violent showdown.
“Rameumptom,” by the way, is another one of those cute, made-up Mormon code words that appears to mean: “A tower for all the good Mormons to stand on when the evil homos invade, and then die a bloody, painful death below.” I think of it like Notre Dame in the climactic scene from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (the screen version, the one with Lon Chaney) when the molten lead comes pouring out of the gargoyles’ mouths onto the hapless invaders below.
From the Book of Mormon, “Alma” (the Mormons are the perfect and righteous Nephites, and we homos are the wicked and doomed Zoramites):
8 Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites; therefore they had had the word of God preached unto them.
9 But they had fallen into great errors, for they would not observe to keep the commandments of God, and his statutes, according to the law of Moses.
10 Neither would they observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that they might not enter into temptation.
11 Yea, in fine, they did pervert the ways of the Lord in very many instances; therefore, for this cause, Alma and his brethren went into the land to preach the word unto them.
12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did aworship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;
13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person.
14 Therefore, whosoever desired to aworship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:
15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.
16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast aelected us to be thy bholy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.
17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.
18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.
19 Now it came to pass that after Alma and his brethren and his sons had heard these prayers, they were astonished beyond all measure.
20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same aprayers.
21 Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand.
We want legal recognition and protection of our civil marriages, without interference by their life-sapping, oppressive, anti-gay religious beliefs and practices — and they want war. Real war.
They’re nuts. They’re absolutely nuts.
And, taking into account this sort of sabre-rattling (read the comments, too), I’m starting to wonder, quite seriously, how genuinely dangerous they are.
(in a high-pitched mocking tone): “We’re being persecuted for our beliefs! They’re singling us out! They’re targeting us! They’re ruining our reputations! They don’t have the RIGHT!”
Yeah, well, my reply is “Bite me.” Not only do we have the right under the First Amendment — that little thing that allows you to practice your deeply held bigotry — (until you find a way to take that away from queers), but I fart in your general direction at your stunning hypocrisy.
I decided it’s time to update Conservative Babylon — which I do anyway, every time some right-wing pervert does something worth mentioning (like Robert McKee going to prison yesterday) — but sometimes I get in the mood to backfill ConBab with profiles I should have done already, but just haven’t gotten around to.
The whole purpose of ConBab (which I started in 2003) is simple: to expose the self-appointed regulators of “morality” as the lying, cheating hypocrites they really are, leaving the reader to ask: “Gee, if Newt Gingrich has burned through four wives already, dumping two while they were facing life-threatening illnesses, should I really be turning to him for guidance about the ’sanctity of marriage’?”
ConBab, not surprisingly, is by far the most popular section of any Web site I’ve ever owned; it gets a steady stream of traffic whether I update it every day or every six months. It also draws some fascinating reactions, from zombie-like followers of long-dead child molester Bob Gray, to the occasional subject himself — and my response (as it was to a certain homophobe who, out of the blue, phoned me at my home and demanded I remove my remarks about him on the Newswire, because he didn’t see himself as a bigot) is always: “You show me where I’ve written anything that is factually incorrect, and I’ll retract it. Until then, tough noogies.”
So, where was I? Oh, yeah. People don’t like it when you show the rest of the world what abominable hypocrites — and bigots — they are. When they can’t convince you it’s just not “right,” they scream about how you’re violating their privacy. Which is supreme bullshit, at least as far as I go about it: Nothing I write about these gay-bashers can’t be found in some public or publicly-accessible record, somewhere. What cracks me up the most are the anti-marriage Mormons who scream about being “outed” as Mormons, how they’re the target of a witch hunt (I say, OK, if you want to call yourself a “witch”…), and how alerting the rest of the world to the fact that they’re Mormons and they waged war on my rights is a violation of federal law. IANAL, but I think they’d be right about the lawbreaking if I (or Nadine Hansen) went around knocking on doors asking about Joe Missionary’s religious beliefs and practices while posing as an FBI agent doing a background check.
Where their complaint falls apart is in the fact that their religious choice is already public knowledge. To cut to the chase: If you don’t want the world to know you donated $10,000 to subvert the California constitution, then don’t make the donation, ’cause it’s gonna show up in the Secretary of State’s public records, and if you don’t want anybody to know you’re a Mormon, then you tell BYU to take your name off its alumni newsletters, and you stop giving newspaper interviews as the representative of the local Mormon Historical Society, and you stop crowing on message boards about how special your temple recommend is like you just won the Miss America pageant, and you stop bragging on your corporate Web site biography page about how eight of your sixteen sons are currently serving missions to convert the unwashed heathens of Dumbfuckistan to the Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-Day Made-Up Stories About Golden Plates Translated By A Con Man Putting A Rock In A Hat.
You know (she says, as she digresses even further) what’s really funny, in the ha-ha way: the threats I’ve seen across the Web from the anti-gay brigades threatening to out people who donated to No On 8. Uh, hey, dummies, go ahead. In fact, I’ll help you: My name is Joyce Rogers, and you can look up the sum of my three donations ($1,500 — I told y’all I’m dirt-poor) right here. There’s only one of me in the entire country who donated to No On 8. It’s never been a secret, and, unlike you, I am proud to stand up for doing what’s right.
(Am I afraid of some violent bigot hunting me down now? No more worried than I was two days ago.)
So there, I’m outed. Bite me.
Anyway — and yes, I do have a point — back to ConBab. Since we’ve been left with no recourse in this attack on our lives, I’m whiling away my time working on the Prop 8 donor database I’ve mentioned (and am getting ZERO help with from people who should be helping, but that’s another story), and doing some backfill on ConBab. My attention right now is naturally drawn to the institution that worked harder than any other to destroy my equality (you guessed it), the Mormon church.
I figured I’d find just a handful of “bishops” whose sexual peccadillos might be worthy of mention, but what I found was an epidemic, systemic disease of sexual abuse that rivals that within the Catholic church.
But then, you don’t have to have a bunch of diplomas on your wall to know that the more sexually repressed an institution (or a society), the sexually sicker (and more rabidly anti-gay) it is.
Leaving that thought lie there for the time being, I’ll tell you what all this is leading up to: the correlation between anti-gay religionists who rail against being outed as the bigots they are, and their own deeply-ingrained compulsion of doing it themselves, to each other.
I keep telling you: The anti-gay bigots are positively consumed by projection — projecting what they hate most about themselves onto us.
So, in doing my current ConBab research, I ran across the following — which, trust me, is only representative of dozens, hundreds, countless similar stories. Via my favorite cult-hunter, Rick Ross:
Being excommunicated for apostasy by the Mormon church is one thing, but Lyndon Lamborn is livid that his stake president has ordered bishops in eight Mesa wards to take the rare step of announcing disciplinary action against him to church members today.
Uh, it’s not that “rare.” But, never mind, go on…
“I thought if he could go public, so can I,” said Lamborn, a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who said his research into church history gave him “thousands of reasons the church can’t be what it claims to be.”
Stake President R. James Molina acknowledged Friday he intends to have Lamborn’s excommunication announced to the wards at men’s priesthood meetings and womens Relief Society gatherings, even with Lamborn now taking his case public. Molina, as well as officials at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, call such a public warning about an ousted member extremely rare.
(*clearing throat*) No, not “extremely rare” at all. Maybe seldom done quite so officially, but not at all rare.
They say, however, church members must be protected from what discordant ex-followers may say to damage the church.
In a letter to Lamborn dated Sept. 2, Molina noted that a disciplinary council had been held Aug. 19 and excommunication was ordered. Lamborn, 49, a Mesa resident who has been a priesthood leader for 20 years, was informed he was no longer a church member, could not “enjoy any membership privileges, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings.”
He could attend public meetings if his conduct is orderly, but would be denied giving any talks, offering prayers, partaking of the sacrament or voting.
“Because of the nature of your excommunication and your involvement with people in this area, an announcement will be delivered to the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society in each of the wards in our stake … on Sunday, September 23, 2007, that you have been excommunicated for apostasy,” Molina wrote.
“We need to let people know if there is a danger to them, such as him teaching doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church,” Molina said Friday.
Yeah, well, if Lamborn had raped or murdered somebody, that would be different — but he taught doctrine that is contrary to that taught by the church! OMG! The horror! The sin!
Lamborn, a member of the Thunder Mountain Ward, said his Mormon roots go back generations, with a great-grandfather in the famed Mormon Battalion that trekked from Iowa to San Diego in 1846 and 1847.
Lamborn served a two-year Mormon mission in 1977-79 in Belgium, was elders quorum president four times and led a Mormon Boy Scout troop. Most recently, he said he was assigned to teach older men in his ward and held other roles.
But everything changed in early 2005. Lamborn, an engineer employed at Boeing in Mesa for nearly 25 years, was asked by a work colleague about the wives of church founder Joseph Smith. She had read “Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith” by John Krakauer…
…and asked Lamborn if what she had read was accurate.
Smith, the first LDS prophet and president, had at least 33 wives by many accounts. “Well, I had no knowledge of multiple wives, so I did some research, including using the church’s own genealogical Web site, familysearch.org,” Lamborn said.
He found the information concurred with the book. “Nonmembers seemed to know more about the personal life of Joseph Smith than me,” he said.
Lamborn conducted further research, which led him to question many church teachings. He said he went to Molina with his questions, but received no definitive answers.
Lamborn has been attending the three-hour ward meetings with his wife and 16-year-old son. His two daughters, 22 and 24, “are totally out of Mormonism.”
He said he learned that his five brothers “were doing the same research and arriving at the same conclusions” and doubts, he said. The same was true for his best friend since childhood. In a meeting earlier this summer with Molina, Lamborn acknowledged that he wanted to give up his church membership.
“I was planning to leave the church quietly, but was denied that opportunity, presumably because I was speaking openly to other members about my findings and (was) writing things down,” Lamborn said.
Lamborn has compiled his research into a lengthy testament called, “Search for Truth 6/07,” in which he states: “There comes a time in the life of many church members when the desire to know the truth about the church becomes stronger than the desire to believe the church is true.”
He said he intends to continue to accompany his wife, Nancy, to ward services. “It is tough to go, tough to attend, but I enjoy the fellowship,” he said.
He said he has no desire to join another church, adding that the Mormon faith has many merits, such as its strong family values and its internationally recognized welfare system to help those in need.
The public announcement of his excommunication will be toughest on his wife, Lamborn said. “There’s the embarrassment,” he said. “Friends won’t know how to treat her. The awkwardness. It is going to be tougher on her than anybody.”
Clark Hirschi, manager of the area relations division in Salt Lake City, said Friday he talked to Molina after the stake president was contacted by the Tribune.
“Despite the fact that he has told you this is going to happen, it is up to the priesthood leaders,” Hirschi said. “There may be a letter read to some of the adult members this Sunday. It might be in a few weeks. It may not happen. That is going to be at the discretion and call of the stake president.”
Hirschi said he has never been in a meeting in his own 20 years as a Mormon where a public announcement about an excommunication has been made. He said he had only heard of one being made in a neighboring stake.
So, you feel brushed off by the anti-gay brigades about the reality of boycotting the state of Utah? Don’t be fooled — they are worried out there in the Land of Moroni.
As well they should be.
Me, I’m all for it. And there’s not a damned thing illegal about it, either (which I’ll get to shortly, in light of all the horse puckey about “illegal blacklists” and “McCarthyism” being thrown around by the poor, little shat-upon gaycists, who haven’t the first clue what they’re talking about).
Anyway, go see the SLC newscast Chino uploaded today — and you’ll understand why the Radical Righties are braying like stuck mules about our refusal to shut up and take it anymore; that is, they know our actions are having an impact, and they’re worried.
As well they should be.
P.S. Sorry for any collateral damage to you non-Mormon Utahns caught up in all this, but have you considered the collateral damage to our families — our parents, our siblings, our aunts and uncles, our friends… our children?
In the end, all’s fair in love and war — or at least it is since the people who run your state declared war on our love.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
— Sun Tzu
We’re going to start learning about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you and I — for the simple reason Sun Tzu — who knew just about everything there was to know about winning (which is why his treatise on war is recommended, if not required, reading for U.S. military officers and corporative executives alike) — states at left.
In fact, we’re going to post a new “Mormon Lesson of the Day,” every day, from now on, until… well, until we no longer need to. Some of these “lessons” (like this one) may be a bit dry, but many, I promise, will have your jaw hitting your chest — and all will arm you with the knowledge you need if we, together, are to stem the ongoing attack on our fundamental civil rights by a breathtakingly powerful organization which doesn’t like the truth to be known (especially by its own members).
I expect to receive many angry responses from Mormons who will cry persecution and call us “anti-Mormons” and “anti-religionists,” but there is no vendetta here; our purpose is to expose the real agenda of the Mormon church as it pertains to the subversion of civil rights, from marriage equality to freedom of speech to freedom of assembly, and well beyond, for one reason and one reason only:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”
As I wrote not long ago (in a post, or in comments to a post — I don’t remember where now), our only goal is equality, and always has been; we never set out to find or create a common enemy, as is utterly necessary for all conservative religions to do in order to keep their flocks chained, and obedient, through fear. (If you don’t understand why they need an enemy, read Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America, and you will have the key to the entire mindset.)
We did not set out to make the Mormon church, or any other church, or any other organization, or any individual, our enemy. The Mormon church made itself our enemy. They didn’t have to, and the repercussions of leaving us alone to live our lives in peace were nonexistent.
But as they have drawn the battle lines, we have no choice but to do everything in our power, legally, peacefully, nonviolently, to stop the encroachment of their peculiar beliefs into our government, into our lives, into our families.
The only place to begin is to understand who they are, what they want, and why they do what they do. These are not things they want you to know — and there’s a reason for that: I expect the LDS leadership subscribes to the philosophy — the very successful philosophy — of Sun Tzu, too.
That’s said, let’s begin with excerpts from a paper (made available by our tireless friend and hero, Chino Blanco) presented at the Conference on Religion and American Political Behavior, Southern Methodist University, October 4, 2002:
This paper was written by the pro-Mormon side; J. Quin Monson (can anyone tell us his relationship to current LDS President Thomas S. Monson?) teaches political science at Brigham Young University, and David E. Campbell teaches political science at the University of Notre Dame:
. . .
In addition to their size and growth rate, the geographic concentration of Mormons in many Western states makes Mormon voters a potentially formidable electoral bloc. Utah, settled by Mormons and home of the LDS Church’s world headquarters, has a population that is two-thirds LDS. Even beyond Utah, however, Mormons congregate in substantial numbers. They constitute 27 percent of the population in Idaho, 10 percent in Wyoming, 7 percent in Nevada, and 5 percent in Arizona. Even in areas where Mormons are not as numerous, they nonetheless have a considerable share of the religious market. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, for example, there are twice as many Mormons (40,000) as Missouri Synod Lutherans.
The potential potency of a Mormon electoral bloc is not merely a theoretical proposition. Mansbridge (1986), for example, credits Mormon voters as instrumental in the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in some key states near the end of its ratification period. In particular, Mormons have played an important role in the politics of various Western states. In California, for example, LDS Church members were urged by church leaders not only to vote for Proposition 22 (a ban on gay marriages) in 2000, but also to become actively involved in the campaign (Coile 1999; Salladay 1999). Latter-day Saints in other states have also been involved in advocating ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriages, including active support for efforts in Hawaii, Alaska, and Nevada. Mormon political involvement has also been observed outside of the Western states, as the Mormon Church has supported an anti-same sex marriage initiative in Nebraska and opposed riverboat gambling in Ohio.
. . .
We seek to contribute to the expanding literature on America’s religious mosaic by presenting a political profile of American Mormons, with particular attention paid to how the LDS Church mobilizes its members on select political issues. …
. . .
Our discussion of Mormon mobilization relies on a metaphor, what we call the “dry kindling” effect. By this we mean that Mormons have great potential for political activity. Like kindling they can be lit, ignited by the spark of explicit direction from their church leaders. However, much of the flammability is due to the relative infrequency with which Mormons are mobilized by their church leaders. …
. . .
In two words, Mormons are conservative and cohesive. For example, in the 2000 presidential election the Third National Survey of Religion and Politics found that 88 percent of Mormons voted for George W. Bush, exceeding the 84 percent of observant white evangelicals who voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket (Green et al. 2001).
There is great historical irony in the fact that contemporary Mormons are such loyal Republicans. When it was founded in the 1850s, the Republican Party had as its aim the elimination of what the 1856 party platform called the “twin relics of barbarism” – slavery and polygamy. The reference to polygamy was a direct attack on the Mormons, as they were reviled nationally for this practice (which was officially repudiated by the church in 1890).
That all seems to be water under the bridge, as Mormons have become increasingly Republican in both their partisanship and voting patterns. … In terms of institutional structure, the LDS Church has much in common with the Catholic Church. But in terms of their cultural worldview, Mormons are more like Southern Baptists (or at least like Southern Baptists are often portrayed).
…[I]n the 1970s, roughly half of Mormons identified as Republicans, climbing to 60 percent in the 1990s. While Catholics and Southern Baptists show a similarly sloping upward line, the percentage of Republicans in both groups is about twenty-five to thirty percentage points lower than among Mormons in all three decades.
Mormons not only identify as Republicans; they vote for them too. … For example, in the 1990s 65 percent of Mormons voted for GOP candidates, while nationally the average was 39 percent. … We see, therefore, that even though the percentage of Mormons voting for Republican presidential candidates fell from 75 percent to 65 percent between the 1980s and 1990s, Republican support in the general electorate fell even more sharply (which should be obvious from the fact that a Democrat won the presidential elections in 1992 and 1996, and the popular vote in 2000). While Catholics and Southern Baptists, relative to everyone else, also became more likely to vote Republican, again we see that Mormons lean much more heavily toward the GOP.
While it is perhaps a historical irony that contemporary Mormons favor Republicans, history teaches us that we should not be surprised to see that Mormons are homogeneous in their political leanings. Political unity among Mormons has deep historical roots. In the 1830s and 1840s, one of the charges leveled at Mormon settlers in Missouri and Illinois was that they voted as a bloc. In fact, in 1838 fears of Mormon bloc voting led non-Mormons to thwart Mormon voters’ attempts to cast ballots in Gallatin, Missouri. The resulting riot led the governor of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, to issue an order that the Mormons must be driven from the state or “exterminated” (Arrington and Bitton 1979, 51). Faced with this choice the Mormons opted to leave the state, crossing the Mississippi River to found the city of Nauvoo, Illinois. But their bloc voting continued. In the 1840s Mormon leaders, church founder Joseph Smith particularly, were courted by candidates of different parties vying for the cohesive Mormon vote. When the Mormons settled in Utah, the church actually had its own political party (the People’s Party), which dominated state politics until it was disbanded in 1891 by church leaders who saw that Utah’s unique political landscape was an impediment to efforts to achieve statehood. Owing to the historical antipathy many Mormons felt toward the Republican Party, Utah became a predominantly Democratic state. Concerned that the one-partyism of Utah was still an obstacle to becoming a state, LDS Church leaders “encouraged the development of the Republican party among church members” (Barrus 1992, 1102) [see also (Larson and Poll 1989; Lyman 1986, 150-184)]. These efforts were quite successful and the Mormon Church, as reflected in the politics of Utah, enjoyed a relatively healthy balance between the two parties throughout much of the 20th century, at least until the 1980s. Prominent church leaders were affiliated with both parties. …
. . .
While LDS leaders may wish to see greater partisan diversity among Mormons, their conservative leanings on social issues makes the Republican Party their natural home. As one example of their conservatism on an issue that has resonated in the so-called “culture war,” Latter-day Saints generally take a traditionalist view regarding the role of women in society. …
. . .
However, among Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Catholics, only the Mormons became – relative to the rest of the nation – more culturally conservative from the 1970s to the 1990s. In the 1970s, 38 percent of Mormons chose a traditionalist view of gender roles, while by the 1990s that had dropped to 29 percent. 8 In contrast, the national average fell from 27 to 12 percent. In other words, the mean for Mormons in the 1990s is about the same as the national average during the 1970s.
. . .
Religious Participation and Political Activity
The social distinctiveness of Mormons goes hand in hand with the distinctive level of commitment Latter-day Saints make to their church. … Members of strict churches are able to overcome collective action dilemmas because the distinctive lifestyle expected of members—abstinence from alcohol, regulation of sexual behavior, etc.—screens out free riders. In order to ensure compliance with their behavioral guidelines, strict churches
penalize or prohibit alternative activities that compete for members’ resources. In mixed populations, such penalties and prohibitions tend to screen out the less committed members. They act like entry fees and thus discourage anyone not seriously interested in buying the product. Only those willing to pay the price remain. (Iannaccone 1994, 1187)
Members of strict churches are thus expected to devote significant amounts of time and energy into volunteer activity for their faith, reinforcing these social networks (Wuthnow 1999). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a quintessentially strict church (Campbell 2003).
Even a brief description of the expectations placed upon members of the LDS Church underscores the level of commitment required within the Mormon faith. The Mormon Church asks for a considerable investment of time from its laity. First, Mormons are expected to spend a significant amount of time at church meetings—members of the LDS Church attend three consecutive meetings on Sundays, lasting for a total of three hours. Mormons may also spend considerable time traveling to and worshiping in LDS temples, which are distinct from the Sunday meetings held in the more numerous church meetinghouses. In addition to the time spent attending these church meetings, adult Mormons usually receive an assignment within the local congregation. This might include arising at the crack of dawn to teach high school students about LDS doctrine before they go to school. It might be organizing local proselytizing efforts, or participating in one of the church’s welfare activities. On top of these specialized assignments, each Mormon is also assigned a set of other members of the local congregation to visit every month, to ensure that their needs are being met by the church. Furthermore, many Mormons spend up to two years in full-time missionary work while young or when retired. This list, which is far from exhaustive, hopefully provides a sense that the Mormon Church has high expectations for the amount of time its members invest in the church’s activities.
These investments of time and energy are also accompanied by a considerable financial commitment as Mormons are taught that they must pay a literal tithe, or ten percent of their income, to the church. In addition to their tithes, many Mormons also contribute to other funds operated by the church, particularly one set aside for the assistance of the poor in their local communities.
. . .
An implication that follows from the intensive church involvement of Mormons is that their church activity provides training in what Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) call “civic skills.” These are the quotidian tasks that constitute the practice of civic involvement – holding meetings, giving speeches, writing letters, etc. They find that training in these skills is an important resource leading to political activity, and that such training is often provided by churches. …
. . .
But does their religious involvement pull them into political activity, as the dry kindling hypothesis suggests? …
. . .
As expected, we see that … The more Mormons are involved in their church, the more they are involved in politics. … Interestingly, Mormons with the lowest level of religious participation have a slightly lower rate of political activity than Southern Baptists or Catholics who have the same level of religious involvement. Mormons have the steepest sloping line, however, and so at the highest level of religious participation, they have the highest level of political involvement.
In sum… the intensive church involvement of Mormons facilitates their capacity to be politically involved. It is important that we note, however, that the higher rate of political activity of Mormons who are fully engaged with their church is not generally due to explicit mobilization on the part of LDS leaders. As we will explain in greater detail below, such direction comes infrequently. Instead, the high rate of political activity among participating Mormons is far more likely to be due to the civic skills and social networks they foster through their church activity.
Political Mobilization
The third component of the dry kindling effect centers on the emphasis within Mormonism on adherence to the instructions of the church’s leaders. These instructions are generally affirmations of LDS doctrine, but on rare — and thus significant — occasions also include direction on political matters.
Strictly in terms of its organizational structure, the LDS Church is reminiscent of the Catholic Church; it is centralized and hierarchical, with clear lines of authority. Like the Catholics, Mormons have a single leader for the entire organization. The LDS Church is led by a president, a position that is simultaneously both ecclesiastical and administrative in nature. In Mormon parlance, the president of the church is a “prophet, seer, and revelator,” and the only person entitled to receive divine instruction pertaining to the church as a whole. Mormons pay close attention to the speeches he delivers and books and articles he writes. Adherence to the prophet’s instructions in all matters is a hallmark of Mormon religious observance, including in regards to political questions. For example, in an oft-cited address to students at church-owned Brigham Young University, Elder Ezra Taft Benson – at the time next in line to become president of the LDS Church and someone who had been visibly active in political causes – emphasized that the church president’s counsel is not necessarily restricted to spiritual matters, but may extend to political issues as well (Benson 1980). Speaking of the LDS Church’s involvement in legislative and electoral politics, current LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley more recently explained the reasoning behind the church’s occasional involvement in politics by saying, “…we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church…We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society” (Hinckley 1999).
The president of the LDS Church is at the apex of an organization with a clearly defined chain of command. He is assisted by two “counselors,” (somewhat like vice presidents). These three men comprise the First Presidency, the church’s highest governing body. Immediately below the First Presidency in both stature and decisionmaking authority is a group of twelve church officials known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Collectively these church officials are known as general authorities. The general authorities oversee the global operations of the LDS Church, which is divided into geographic units. Their role is administrative as well as pastoral, as they are the key policy-making body for the entire church. Individual congregations, known as wards, are run entirely by lay members, under the close oversight of the church’s general authorities. Local leaders receive instruction from the church’s leaders through periodic visits by general authorities and training sessions broadcast on the church’s satellite network. Day-to-day operations are governed by a handbook of instruction and policies, which local leaders are advised to consult regularly. In short, within the LDS Church the doctrinal principle that church members should “follow their leaders” is not merely an abstract platitude. It is embodied within both the doctrine and the institutional structure of the organization.
The centralized organization and small cohesive congregations that characterize the LDS Church mean that church members can be rapidly mobilized when necessary. When natural disasters strike, for example, the LDS Church is often among the first groups within a community to render aid (Arrington, Fox, and May 1976). In theory, this same type of mobilization could be applied to political causes.
However, in practice it rarely has been applied to politics, at least in contemporary times. While the church’s members may be predominantly Republican, the LDS Church itself is scrupulously nonpartisan. Indeed, while it may appear that the Mormon emphasis on adherence to the church’s leadership would mean that they wield great political influence, in reality LDS general authorities have not made public statements advocating candidates or a particular party for several decades.
The authors appear to make the assumption (both within and without the excerpts quoted here) that this is due to the church’s commitment to nonpartisanship, neglecting to mention, deliberately or not, the fact that advocacy of any candidate or political party would violate IRS regulations for non-profit religious organizations, thus risking the church’s tax-exempt status.
Before every biennial U.S. election, the First Presidency issues a letter that is read during Sunday meetings to every congregation in the United States, in which the strict political neutrality of the church is emphasized. And this neutrality is not simply a formality, honored only in the breach. Political candidates (even those that are LDS) do not give political speeches in LDS meetings; campaign literature is not distributed in LDS Church buildings; and voter guides are not distributed to LDS members while they are at church.
Again, all of these activities are strictly prohibited as long as the church wants to retain its tax-exempt status.
. . .
The fact that Mormons rarely receive political direction from their church leaders does not mean that it never comes. While the Mormon Church maintains official political neutrality in partisan elections,
— again, as it is required to —
church leaders emphasize that they will take a public stand on issues deemed “moral” and not “political.” Thus, there are occasions when the LDS general authorities speak on public issues and channel the organizational energy of Mormon Church members to specific causes. For example, in 1976 LDS leaders announced the church’s official opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). In response, church members actively worked to defeat the ERA in a number of states including Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, and Virginia (Magleby 1992; Quinn 1997). Typically, the LDS Church has taken official stances on issues raised by ballot initiatives, and not campaigns for elected office. This is presumably because of the church’s reluctance to be seen as intervening in a partisan contest, as well as the fact that this is often the vehicle by which controversial social issues are brought before the electorate.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the authors are neglecting to mention IRS rules on tax exemptions for non-profits.
In recent years LDS Church involvement of some kind has been observed in numerous statewide initiative campaigns opposing gambling (Arizona, Idaho, Ohio, and Utah) and gay marriage (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada).
Because of the contest’s national profile and the relatively large number of Mormons in the state, the extensive involvement of the Mormon Church leading up to the March 2000 primary election in California is especially interesting. Local church leaders were intensely involved at all levels of the campaign to mobilize Mormon Church members to actively support Proposition 22, an initiative to ban gay marriages. The official involvement by LDS Church leaders included two letters in May 1999. The first outlined the justification for supporting the initiative and gave fundraising instructions to the leaders of local congregations. A second letter was read over California pulpits during Sunday worship meetings, encouraging church members to donate money, volunteer for the campaign, and otherwise support the initiative. The grass roots involvement of church members included participation as precinct walkers in a sophisticated voter identification effort and in subsequent phone bank and mailing operations staffed by LDS volunteers to mobilize voters. It is difficult to estimate the precise impact of Mormon Church members on the campaign, as there are no public records that record the religion of campaign donors or workers, but press accounts indicate the pressure brought to bear on Mormons in California was intense and that the subsequent level of participation in both fundraising and grass-roots political activity, especially among church attending Mormons, was quite high (Coile 1999; Salladay 1999).
We have good reason to believe that the official involvement of the LDS Church exerted a significant influence on the voting behavior of its membership. In previous research regarding Mormon voting behavior on ballot initiatives we outline two conditions that must be present in order for Mormons to respond to their leaders on political questions (Campbell and Monson Forthcoming). First, the position must receive the official institutional endorsement of the church. Second, the position of the leadership must be unified and widely known among church members. Both conditions were clearly met in the case of Proposition 22. It is also interesting to note that the model of LDS Church involvement in the Proposition 22 campaign follows closely tactics used in a 1988 Idaho lottery initiative campaign. In both cases this included using local leaders to solicit contributions from members as well as to actively recruit them as campaign workers (Popkey 1988).
. . .
The uniqueness of the Mormon capacity for sparking intense activity among its membership is highlighted with a final comparison to attempts at mobilization among Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. Christian Right organizations like the Christian Coalition, which of course target Evangelical Protestant churches (including Southern Baptists), expend great efforts to mobilize voters. Without the organizational advantages of a single centralized church, however, the Christian Coalition is less able to tap into channels of communication within a religious community the way the Mormons have done. On the other hand, a hierarchical organization is clearly not sufficient for intense mobilization. The Catholic Church has just such an institutional structure, and yet without intensive voluntarism among the laity to foster social networks, civic skills, and intragroup trust, church-directed political activity is not terribly successful. In the Proposition 22 case, Catholic leaders in California also endorsed the effort, but there is not evidence of a broad mobilization of lay Catholics in California by their leaders that compares to the mobilization of Mormons.
. . .
Since World War II, Mormon general authorities have only offered formal endorsements on a select number of public controversies, opposition to gay marriage being the most recent. Our intention has been to demonstrate that Mormons have an explosive capacity to muster their troops on behalf of these political causes – with enough firepower to conceivably tip the balance in a close contest.
Yet as we have stressed, it is the very infrequency of Mormon mobilization that accentuates its effectiveness. Because LDS Church leaders rarely speak out on explicitly political questions, when they do Mormons sit up and take notice. Should LDS leaders speak on politics more frequently, Latter-day Saints might respond in smaller numbers or with less vigor. The result is a delicate balance between frequency and potency. …
And they’ll certainly respond with less money; it’s going to take Pam and Rick Patterson a long time to raise another $50,000 to devote to the next anti-gay mobilization directive from Salt Lake City — and next time, they might regret wasting fifty grand that could have gone toward the college education of one of their five sons.
As thrilled as we are to hear that X-thousand people came out in San Francisco and New York and Chicago for Saturday’s nationwide Proposition 8 protests, we’re even more impressed by the smaller cities and towns where a hundred people, or just a dozen, gay and straight, braved brutal climates, of both the environmental and the anti-gay varieties. It’s not easy to stand on a street corner and absorb the hate even when you’ve got 2,000 people on your side; we can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to do the same thing when your group numbers a few dozen — or just a few.
So, let’s look at a quick rundown of the best numbers I could find for the “big” protests, and then take a moment to appreciate some brave souls who took up the mantle of equality for all in places you might least expect anyone to do it.
The Big Protests: 2,000 People or More
New York - ? (I’ve heard everything from 4,000 on up.)
Several dozen protested in downtown Anchorage Saturday afternoon. …
Alaska was the first state in the nation to constitutionally ban gay marriage, back in 1998, when voters approved the change by a more than a two-to-one margin.
About 25 gay rights advocates held up signs in front of Fairbanks City Hall…
Voters in Alaska approved a ban on gay marriage 10 years ago.
An Army wife organized the gathering in Fairbanks, which started at 9:30 a.m. and involved waving signs in front of passing motorists on Cushman Street.
One sign read, “Love is love.” Another: “Equal rights for all.” A man held a sign saying, “I am Sarah Palin’s gay friend.”
Kristen Magann, the organizer, described herself as heterosexual, happily married and a believer that sexual preference should not determine civil rights.
“I want to make this message heard,” she stated in an e-mail, “that all people no matter their sexual orientation should be allowed the same rights under the law.”
More than 100 people rallied on the corners of East Magnolia Street and Cornwall Avenue in Bellingham the morning of Saturday, Nov. 15, to protest California’s recent ban on gay marriage.
Chants of “It’s about love not hate,” and “Hey mister president, what do you say, don’t hate families because they’re gay” filled blocks of downtown Bellingham during the two-hour protest. …
The protesters in Bellingham were outside the Federal Building from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. A smaller group continued the protest outside the Bellingham Farmer’s Market after noon.
The ironic marquee of the Empress Theatre on Virginia Street served as an appropriate backdrop to a Proposition 8 protest Saturday night.
On one level of the marquee, the Empress Theatre advertised an upcoming gay and lesbian night, while one line below it advertised the Latter-day Saints Concert series.
The Saturday concert was what prompted about 75 people to gather in front of the theater chanting and demanding a return of same-sex marriage rights that the passage of Prop. 8 eliminated.
Solano County is the only Bay Area county where voters approved Prop. 8.
About 75 people showed up to a Fairfield rally organized by Fairfield High School student Crystal Nievera, 16.
“Not everyone voted yes on 8 (in Solano County),” said Nievera, who feared a small showing based on what her Facebook group told her.
The protesters met at Fairfield City Hall and marched to Solano County Municipal Court, where they would be more visible on busy Texas Street.
The young organizer invoked the spirit of slain Fairfield councilman Matt Garcia, a strong supporter of youth before he was gunned down in September at age 22.
“This is why today, I’m trying to make a difference,” Nievera said.
Toni Pinck stood quietly next to Chauvin, holding a “No on Prop. 8” sign. Her son was married in San Francisco Aug. 15.
“I’m here to show support for people that are still fighting for their civil rights,” she said. “I wouldn’t have been able to vote for Proposition 8 if it weren’t for people who fought for the woman’s right to vote many years ago.”
Marina Martinez and Evelyn Iraheta, also Tracy residents, were married Oct. 24 in Stockton. They said they thought their neighbors were supportive of their marriage before Proposition 8 was introduced in June, until the “Yes on 8” signs began to appear. …
Demonstrators also took to the streets of Salinas against Prop 8. The Salinas march happened to take place on the same day an event at Hartnell College called for the strengthening of families.
. . .
The latest returns in Monterey County show the Proposition 8 race was much closer, than Santa Cruz County. No on 8 collected 52% of the total vote.
Young gay students, middle-aged white and Latino couples and community activists came together Saturday on the city’s streets to protest passage of Proposition 8. …
“We are here because we need to remind people we live in a nation under civil law and Prop. 8 forces some to live according to the religious views of others,” said Randall Lopez, an organizer with the Inland Empire Human Rights Coalition, which held the local protest. …
On Saturday morning, about 30 people gathered in front of Colton City Hall to kick off the rally. …
Nicolas Daily, 19, of Redlands, who described himself as a gay black man, stood high on the steps urging the group to join him in singing “Let it Be” and “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”
“I honestly just want people to know this is not going to go away,” he said. “We are going to be out here until we get our rights.”
Cherie Stevens, Mother of gay son: “We want our son to have the very same rights as his straight brothers.”
Cherie and her husband were among a group of 60 individuals at the Bonneville County Courthouse who all wanted to make their voices and opinions heard. They say our country was founded on the idea of equality and will now just take some time before this rings true for everyone.
Jamee Greer took charge of a sizable crowd that united and protested Saturday in favor of gay marriage rights, a group pulled together in Missoula by the Internet and text messages.
He gave the group its marching orders, announcing the rules of the road, as the protesters carried signs and prepared to march from North Higgins Avenue to the Missoula County Courthouse.
“This is about basic human rights and civil rights not being met here at home in Montana,” said Greer…
In Missoula, Brian Cook wore a picture of his 21-year-old gay son, Andrew Sullivan-Cook, who was in Dallas marching with Join the Impact protesters. “I’m here, not only in support of my son’s rights, but it’s simply the right thing to do,” said Cook. “Even if my son wasn’t gay, I’d be here.”
Cook said his daughter, and 15-month-old grandson, would be marching in Dallas alongside his son.
About 65 people are gathered in front of Grand Forks’s Town Square this afternoon to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California…
The group first came together at about 12:30 p.m. in front of Grand Forks City Hall. The protest is part of a nationwide event in 300 cities, according to jointheimpact.com. The Grand Forks event is scheduled to run until 3:30 p.m.
At about 1:30 p.m., the group left their spot in front to move to Town Square at the corner of DeMers Avenue and Third Street.
Horns were honking for several hours early Saturday afternoon, supporting about 120 gay rights activists with signs and flags who were protesting the recent approval of California’s Proposition 8. …
There were many supportive honks throughout the afternoon, said John McClelland, president of the Stonewall Democrats of Denton County, a gay and lesbian political organization.
Jack Harnstrom and Jon Hill have been partners for 14 years, but when California was set to vote on banning same-sex marriages, the Duluth residents raced to Palm Spring, Calif., to be wed.
Their wedding ceremony was Nov. 3, a day before California voted to take away that right. On Saturday afternoon, the couple joined about 75 others at a gay rights rally against California’s Proposition 8 at Lake Avenue and Superior Street in downtown Duluth.
More than 120 people lined the street in front of the Federal Building Saturday afternoon to protest the recent passage of a California ballot proposal banning same-sex marriage.
Signs reading “Stop the Hate” and “Equal Rights for All” attracted honks as passing motorists showed support. The crowd stretched nearly a full block along West Michigan Avenue.
They were among about 100 people who attended the rally in front of MSU Auditorium.
Organized by MSU Alliance of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered and Straight Ally Students, the protest was one of hundreds that took place Saturday nationwide.
Among the nationwide turnouts Saturday was a gathering of about 40 people at the corner of Main and University streets in Peoria. The group protested the decision that affected an estimated 18,000 California couples seeking the legal distinction. …
“This is a more conservative area, and we know that. Everybody knows someone who is gay. A lot of times it’s just not talked about. But we still participate in the homeowners’ associations, or neighborhood watch groups. … We buy Girl Scout cookies from neighbors’ kids.
“I do what I can to support my neighbors and their families. Why not support me and my family, my relationship?”
University students and Champaign-Urbana families took to the streets Saturday to protest the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California which bans gay marriage. …
The event in Campustown was sponsored by the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resources and was organized by Brooke Elliot, senior in Education, and Virginia McCreary, graduate student.
Elliot said they planned a protest on campus because many people were not able to get to Chicago for its protest. …
About 80 protestors stood on the corners with colorful signs. Some cars driving down Green Street honked in support of the cause.
At 1 p.m. the protestors had a moment of silence which was broken by a car honking in support of the protest. The protestors then marched down Green Street to Fourth Street and back again shouting their message and waving their signs.
The protestors were met with little resistance.
On two occasions, groups of students walking past the protestors made remarks in opposition of the protest.
One worker at Potbelly Sandwich Works opened the door as the protestors were walking past and said, “Good job guys!”
Every time a car honked, they cheered. A group of about 20 people stood at the corner of Main Street and Jefferson Boulevard in downtown South Bend on Saturday, waving signs in support of same-sex marriage. …
“It sets a precedent,” said Mandy Studdard, who helped organize the South Bend rally. “People say ‘If the rest of the country doesn’t want this, why should we have it here?’ We’ve got to set a different precedent. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.”
About 50 people protested in Jackson outside the state capitol…
“[W]hen people see protests happening around the country, they’ll understand that this isn’t just an issue that’s happening somewhere else, this is an American issue happening everywhere, because it affects all of us,” organizer Brent Cox said.
A mixed group of students and local activists marched in protest today as part of a national day of action against the passage of California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Nearly 100 students and residents joined for a march from the drill field around campus and back chanting slogans, bearing signs and waving and cheering at passing cars.
“We’re in southwest Virginia, we want to improve the LGBT community’s visibility and we want people here to know we exist,” said organizer Tami Grossman.
About 35 people gathered in front of Greenville City Hall on Saturday afternoon to protest voter passage of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that reversed a state supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage. …
The group protested peacefully and without incident, displaying signs and flags representing gay pride. They sang songs of protest, led by Georgia Winfree, of the group Someone’s Sister, then marched together along Fifth Street where an occasional passing car honked in response.
In Macon on Saturday, more than 50 advocates for Join the Impact, an international organization supporting equal rights for people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, protested the California Proposition 8 vote outside City Hall.
Protesters waved signs reading “What Would Martin Do?” “Fight the H8” and “Would You Rather I Marry Your Daughter?” …
“Today’s protest is a small piece of the puzzle,” said Alex Webb, organizer of the Macon rally. “This started off as an online movement and has become a national and international phenomenon. There are people in London standing with us right now … standing with us against our treatment as second-class citizens, standing for equal rights for all.”
150 people came out on a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon to show support for same-sex marriage and solidarity with gay and lesbian people in California. …
Protesters gathered at the corner of Elmwood Avenue and Bidwell Parkway with signs that advocated equality under state marriage laws for all people. The event began at 1:30pm and also featured remarks by local activist Kitty Lambert and New York State Assembly member Sam Hoyt.
Standing on the steps of City Hall, more than 70 gay men, lesbians and their supporters yesterday protested a California vote banning same-sex marriage and called for all states to provide civil marriage “equality.” …
A steady stream of drivers crawling across usually crowded Main Street honked their horns in support of the crowd. Many drivers yelled out “Yes” and “Way to go” or waved their fists in solidarity. For at least the first hour of the demonstration, no passers-by said or did anything in opposition to the gay-marriage cause.
“Westchester is a very, very affirming place to live,” said Scott Havelka of Rye Brook, interim executive director of The Loft, a gay community services center in White Plains, which supported the rally.
About 100 supporters of marriage equality for same-sex couples stood in a steady drizzle outside Burlington City Hall on Saturday to register their disappointment with the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote in California Nov. 4.
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force field director Robyn Maguire rallied the crowd, insisting that Vermont could do better than California.
“We want Vermont to reclaim its role in this important civil rights issue,” Maguire said. “It’s been eight years and it’s time for us to move forward. Now more than ever does Vermont matter.”
Gay marriage proponents united Saturday in grass-roots protests around the country — including one in Market Square. …
“It’s a matter of equality,” said Forest Stone, a Portsmouth resident, as she stood in the rain Saturday among nearly 100 other sign-touting, umbrella-gripping demonstrators.
Like dozens of others, Stone and her 6-year-old daughter Annalie both held bright signs facing traffic in front of the North Church, while some people in passing cars encouraged the efforts with honks and shouts.
“We’re small but mighty,” said protest organizer Jennifer Rowe today.
Rowe, along with Amanda Zuke, Kyle Cardoza, Liz Laplante and two other concerned citizens, gathered outside Sault Ste. Marie’s Civic Centre to protest the recent adoption of California’s Proposition 8, outlawing same-sex marriage.
“We’re here to show our support for those in the United States who are fighting to get same-sex marriage recognized and for human rights across the board,” Rowe told SooToday.com. …
“The battle may have been fought and won in Canada to allow people to marry whoever they want, but being respected just as another human being is still a problem,” said Rowe. “There’s still a long way to go in some cases.” …
Rowe says she’s already started planning something to happen locally in support of Join the Impact’s fight.
“Gays and lesbians fight for human justice in refusing to tolerate inhuman sexual abuse from the Mormon Church. Mormon leaders may think they were born to command, but those who wish to live their own lives were born to countermand. One can try to be polite to them — but being polite to a bully still gets one a bloody nose.”
This is a must-read.
In 2002, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Steve Benson, grandson of Ezra Taft Benson, 13th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave two talks to gay Mormons and ex-Mormons. In this combined version of his remarks, he reveals what’s really behind the maniacal homophobia of the LDS church and its longstanding commitment to injecting Mormon doctrine into civil law, and why Mormons themselves follow every edict of LDS, Inc., like braindead zombies.
Benson also describes his long journey from Mormon-indoctrinated homophobe (”a Pat Buchanan wannabe, I drew a lot of incredibly stupid, rawly-prejudiced and hysterically anti-gay cartoons”) to atheist and true friend and ally to LGBTs, stopping along the way to paint a picture of his most dysfunctional childhood, and taking us through his painfully awkward wedding night (he’s straight) and honeymoon — which was disturbed by family members (including old Ezra) knocking on the newlyweds’ cabin door while they were trying to fulfill their charge to populate the earth with more Mormons.
This is an extremely long read, but fascinating, entertaining, heartbreaking, and uplifting all at the same time, and most enlightening for those of us who can’t quite grasp why the Mormons are so hellbent on singling out and persecuting gay men and lesbians — and what we might do about it.
Tweet This Post! 
