The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) launched a new webpage about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) and California Proposition 8. The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the LDS Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, accusations of bigotry, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process. This page documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. Your comments on the webpage are welcome.
Footer
“Church members were not told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8.”
Come on…if you are asked to “do all you can,” that obviously includes voting for the proposition (at least for those eligible to vote). Why not just admit it? This kind of splitting hairs just makes you look like you have something to hide.
Wondering:
This is just more Church code talk, ie “Spiritual Wifery” vs. “The Divine Order of Marriage”. In this case the difference between being “asked” and being “told” is that to be “asked” really just means to be “told” in a nice way. Command is implicit in any request or call to action made by the authorities of The Church as by virtue of their callings they are assumed to speak the will of God. That is of course, unless God is just asking for a favor, or just trying to see “what’s up”. Notice how many people will respond to this “asking” for support, they pit the issue down to “do I sustain the Prophet or not?”, this without any direct threats against difference of opinion. So, just like the arguments of former years “we reject polygamy etc., but Celestial Marriage is another matter”, the notion that members were not “told” how to vote is merely a technicality.
There is nothing to hide. I know several individuals who are members of the Church in good standing who either did vote against Prop 8 or would have if they lived in California. Apparently the “code talk” was lost on those folks.
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.
-Allen
I know members personally who refused to help with any effort to promote prop 8, stating outright that they were against it and that was their reason for not helping. Nothing has happened to them.
The church leaders know that there are members within the church who come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.
Besides that, the church has no way of knowing how members voted and they aren’t asking, so how could there be consequences for how they voted?
I have no doubt that there were various perceptions based on two things: the amount of local encouragement being brought to bear as well as the person’s own decision making processes.
As and active LDS in California who heard the letter read in a ward in SoCal, I can tell you that I understand “encouraged” to mean just that but that I still was the one to personally study it out and vote my conscience, as always.
I did not feel like I was being told how I *had* to vote. I have no doubt that some members heard that and instantly decided to support Prop 8 but…it was still their decision.
No one asked me how I voted. No one pressured me to participate in Prop 8 activities. I have no doubt that there were many in our ward that didn’t vote Yes on Prop 8. No one has been disciplined or disfellowshipped in any way. This is what happened in my ward. I fully understand that things may have happened differently in other wards but you cannot truthfully make the blanket statements, wondering and Cowboy.
I also remember that before EVERY election, we are read a letter to study the candidates and issues and vote our consciences (or something to that effect). I take that at its word – sincerely and seriously.
Allen, the question I raised isn’t whether people voted for it, it is whether they were “told” to vote for it. I know individuals in good standing who do not do their home teaching…would you claim that the church does not tell members to go home teaching?
wondering says: “the question I raised isn’t whether people voted for it, it is whether they were “told” to vote for it.”
I was NEVER “told” how I must vote on Prop 8.
This is a total red herring.
Wondering,
It depends on who you are talking about. I don’t think the original letter from the First Presidency “told” anyone how to vote; it only asked members to lend support.
Now, that being said, it would not surprise me if some (note I said “some”) local leaders “told” their congregations that they should vote a certain way. If some local leaders did this (and I have no evidence that any did it), then they were probably overstepping bounds carefully worded into the original letter.
I also don’t think that it is an apt comparison between home teaching and the original letter. Every teaching, every lesson, every urging I have ever heard (or given) concerning home teaching has been relative to caring for others and performing our priesthood duty. There is no element of priesthood duty stated or implied relative to how someone votes on an particular issue.
-Allen
I think the issue people have here is the tremendous influence the church leadership has on individual members of the Church. Some might claim that it is because this influence is somehow forced upon them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are viewed as men chosen of God to direct the affairs of His Church on the earth. They vote and sustain them as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators twice every year. They read their counsel and seek their guidance. They view them as “keepers to the keys” of Heaven. Is anyone surprised if, when they ask for support, that it is given in great numbers?
What is more telling, in this environment, is that there were many who chose to vote differently, or to abstain. No action was taken against them. Their voting conscience was not held against them. This seems to fly in the face of the criticism that people were “told” what to do. Had he wanted to, he could have used stronger language, but President Monson did not. He gave direction and left it to the members to follow it. I understand the strong feelings on both sides of the issue, and I applaud the way the church has handled this. It was a principled stand on an unpopular issue. It is in precisely these circumstances that leadership is needed, and it came through. The nay-sayers should not get upset because the Church membership followed their leaders. I would be dismayed if they did not.
John L.
Ouch. That website chronicles the lies, hatred, and absurdity from the No on 8 faction, as well as from anti’s who are just along for the ride, with jarring clarity. I have no doubt that the facts presented will be dismissed with a wave of the hand by critics of the church in droves, but they will be doing so wholly without regard for logic or reason, and history will remember them that way.
I must say, as an active member in good standing who was once not only against the proposition, but even a little disturbed by the church issuing directives on it, my eyes were opened widely once I learned what was really going on. There can be no doubt that our leaders are inspired when they direct us to stand for something.
It’s a surreal feeling knowing that we have taken Samuel the Lamanite’s position high on the wall, while the slings and arrows of the world sail harmlessly past.
I was NEVER “told” how I must vote on Prop 8.
Again, just a technicality. Wonderings example regarding hometeaching illustrated this perfectly. Just because the Church didn’t bust into members homes and execute their families and all living relatives on both sides, for failing to support Prop. 8 does not mean that they were not “telling” people how to vote and what to do. The question here would be, does God ever give inconsequential advice? If so, then perhaps you have a point. I think most people would disagree, and suggest that he speaks as a command figure, therefore failure to comply with his “requests” is a sin. If you believe that God speaks through his Prophet, and did regarding the measures taken by the Church in support of Prop 8, then the command quality of the request was implicit. This notwithstanding the Church’s refusal to enforce discipline on those who refuse.
Is it not a Priesthood duty to sustain the Prophet in the affirmative?
Cowboy,
That sure was a fine collection of cognitive leaps in that statement; I’m impressed.
Does the prophet want me to do my home teaching? No doubt. Should I do my home teaching? No doubt. Is it a sin if I don’t do my home teaching? Debatable. Does any of the debating make me more apt to do my home teaching? Possibly; it depends on my choices.
And that is the point. It all depends on my choices. Including what I choose to vote for.
Go back and re-read what jea wrote. She clearly stated that she heard one thing in the letter but others may have heard something else. You obviously read something else into it–a command to do something and a charge of sinning if you don’t. Just because you read that interpretation into it doesn’t mean that is the only way to read what was written.
-Allen
Cowboy said: “Is it not a Priesthood duty to sustain the Prophet in the affirmative?”
I’m not sure it is. Even a cursory glance at history will demonstrate, from the earliest days of the Church, that the prophet has not always been sustained in the affirmative.
Everyone gets to make their own choices in life.
-Allen
jea: “I was NEVER “told” how I must vote on Prop 8.
Cowboy: “Again, just a technicality.”
——
My gosh, how so? I was the one sitting in the pew when the letter was read and in the chairs when stuff was discussed afterwards.
I’m the authority on what I heard and what it meant to me. We were “encourage to support.” I heard that to mean that those who were supportive of Prop 8 were encouraged to DO something – to be active.
We are so *apolitical* in Church that what I heard was, if you stand for this then we encourage you to not only stand, but go and DO – talk to your friends, enlist support, make phone calls, wave signs, hang door signs, and then make. Foot soldiers are always needed in political elections of any type.
This is what I heard. Make your support ACTIVE and not passive.
Again, we were not told how to vote in any way (commanded, told, etc.). To say otherwise after being told how a Californian LDS perceived it is disingenuous and dishonest. I will repeat that we are told a couple weeks before EVERY election to study it out and vote our conscience.
That many/most believing and active LDS in California voted yes on 8 should come as no surprise —- so did most other regularly attending church goers of all faiths.
The Brethren have also encouraged the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Chastity, including modesty of dress. They have also encouraged members to pay a full tithe and a generous fast offering. Do we then as members determine what level of Modesty or chastity we feel is best? What about tithing and fast offerings? Failure to pay a full tithe affects ones worthiness status in the Church. Interestingly enough, fast offerings due not affect membership in the same way, yet can anyone deny that we have commanded to pay according to our circumstances. A similar comparison can be drawn with Prop 8 support. Each individual member was left to determine what level of support they would offer based on their circumstances. Yet can anyone deny that they were told to support. Notice that in any of the communications the Church sent out that the level of support was left to the discretion of the individual members, it was also framed in the positive. Nothing in their communication suggested that they understand some members for various reasons may disagree with the Church’s position on this initiative, that is acceptable but here’s the Church’s official stand.
Jea –
I am not intending to suggest what you heard or interpreted. You may do what you like, I am saying that the Church is not in the business of giving advice and then running full throttle campaigns. They give commandments, orders, etc. Some deviations from these orders by the membership are met with severe consequences, some with minor consequences, and some with no consequence at all, the nature of the request still remains a command.
“I will repeat that we are told a couple weeks before EVERY election to study it out and vote our conscious”
This is a moot point, and a piece legal CYA. This becomes a legally defensable document, and a matter of policy Church leaders adhere to. The Church could not support a party or candidate and retain it’s tax emption, this document is a precedent the Church can refer to when that matter is challenged.
No, cowboy, I take that advice sincerely and seriously.
In this election, my initial (w/o deliberation) reaction was to vote no on 8. I listened to the *counsel* and studied this one out in more detail than I usually do because I heard the importance the Brethren placed on the issue by publicly “encouraging” us.
So, I investigated more, I read more, I debated in my mind more, I weighed different principles more….more than I usually do in an election. And after all that careful deliberation, I made a decision how vote — my decision, my vote. No one at church knows how I voted. No one asked.
And I noticed you ignored the rest of my post about a reasonable understanding of “encouraging support” meant — actions rather than passivity *if* you supported Prop 8.
Cowboy said: “Each individual member was left to determine what level of support they would offer based on their circumstances. Yet can anyone deny that they were told to support.”
No argument here, Cowboy. Nobody at FAIR has ever said that Church members weren’t told to support Prop 8. The distinction comes in whether they were told to vote for Prop 8.
You obviously see “support Prop 8” and “vote No on Prop 8” as mutually exclusive. No doubt many people do. But, I don’t doubt that there are others who don’t see them as mutually exclusive.
Again, voting is left up to the individual, with no Church-imposed consequences for a No vote. You see “code words” in the Church communications; I don’t. Since you and I interpret the communications differently, why should your interpretation be accepted as more valid than mine?
-Allen
Allen:
I agree with your call to historical precedent, though in the few cases I can think of, the Prophet was still sustained in his “error” up until his death, can you suggest any examples that would be comparable, where the Prophet and/or Brethren took a stand on an issue where desent was acceptable?
Cowboy,
Depends on what you mean by “comparable” and what you mean by “dissent.” To my mind, dissent happens all the time on all sorts of issues–people just choose to not do certain things.
If you mean “vocal dissent,” it actually happened in several stark cases in the Prop 8 campaign, and to my knowledge there has been no repercussions. For example, Nadine Hansen and Carol Lynn Pearson both came out vocally against Prop 8, and neither has been censored. (There was another vocal LDS author whom I read; I can’t remember the name off-hand, however.)
-Allen
Allen:
I will concede your final point as well, there can be a distinction – but not a large one. I think the Church would experience some political difficulty if they had specifically told members what to vote, so they need to walk a fine line here. Support is different than vote, but you also seem to recognize that the two (voting/support) do go largely hand in hand.
Since you and I interpret the communications differently, why should your interpretation be accepted as more valid than mine?
And vice versa. That’s why forums like this are nice, they provide a place each of us to exchange, even debate, ideas and express our points of view. Don’t misunderstand my positions to mean that I see myself as ultra superior, or more intelligent. I just don’t mind debate, and wouldn’t take any of this personal, nor would I intend anyone to take it that way from me.
Cowboy: “I think the Church would experience some political difficulty if they had specifically told members what to vote”
I believe the tax exempt status jeopardy has to do with political *parties* or *candidates*.
I think churches are free to encourage, tell, support any elective *issues* that they want.
So, even if they *had* said “We command you to vote yes on 8” [which they clearly did not do], I believe it would not have jeopardized their tax exempt stats.
See question 3 here:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/11/answers/
Is there a tax attorney in the house?
Cowboy: “Since you and I interpret the communications differently, why should your interpretation be accepted as more valid than mine?”
Umm, because they were speaking to *me* as an individual LDS in California? So my interpretation certainly holds authority for me.
Out of curiosity: Are you an active LDS in California that was “in the pews” from June-Nov 4 2008?
Cowboy: “Since you and I interpret the communications differently, why should your interpretation be accepted as more valid than mine?”
I answered that to Allen just moments ago, the test is whether we can persuade one another with our arguments. Neither of us appear to be winning, but hopefully we get each get something from the exchange anyway.
Out of curiosity: Are you an active LDS in California that was “in the pews” from June-Nov 4 2008?
No, I am a member in Utah who has paid close attention to the issue. Does that disqualify me, my opinions, of any sort on any grounds? While this may have been a California ballot issue, it is nevertheless one with National implications, which is why a great deal of the Nation has taken interet. Given the Church’s involvement, it is also an issue that members across the globe have taken interest in, and this is all as it should be.
No, it doesn’t disqualify you from having an opinion at all.
But, you did not experience what happened in California so you can’t really say what we heard June-Nov and how it impacted us.
So, I am telling you: I was not told or commanded how to vote and I did not interpret *any* of the actions from June-Nov that way.
While overall this is a good collection of information, I think that there are a number of problematic claims.
As already noted, “Church members were not told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8.” is insufficiently convincing. What you can do is explain that no one was forced to vote yes, but it is clear that members were asked to vote yes.
This statement is also insufficiently clear: “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) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.” The important difference is that the CA court said that marriage was a “right.” The domestic partnerships were not “rights” in this same way of being constitutionally protected, but rather subject to legislative alteration. This distincition is important for understanding the No on 8 position.
I also think that a section on the official Yes on 8 letter threatening businesses who had contributed to the No on 8 campaign with bad press unless they donated to Yes on 8 is warranted.
“The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.” While I have no doubt this is true, you do need evidence for such an assertion.
Inasmuch as this page attempts to be “fair,” it should be noted that it is generally considered insulting to speak of homosexual “marriage” in quotes.
It should be noted somewhere that black churches and black individuals were harrassed, contrary to the assertions in this article. Additionally, the LDS and Saddleback church was not the only church subject to protests. There were demonstration at Catholic churches in LA.
The article should also note that LDS congregations in other states were initially asked to phone bank for the Yes on 8, but that later this was discontinued.
TT, your comments are helpful. Thanks.
About this:
“The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.” While I have no doubt this is true, you do need evidence for such an assertion.”
I have a call into LDS Humanitarian Services to see if they can give me data for donations for say, 2007. We’ll see what they can tell us.
BTW, I think it’s really up to the folks asserting this fact to provide the evidence for it. I don’t think they have.
“But, you did not experience what happened in California so you can’t really say what we heard June-Nov and how it impacted us.
So, I am telling you: I was not told or commanded how to vote and I did not interpret *any* of the actions from June-Nov that way.”
Jea:
I think we will have to leave the issue here, your question was obviously framed to invalidate my comments. That is why I loaded my response with the rhetorical question to pre-empt your obvious follow up. I have stated twice before that I recognize that I do not know what your personal experiences with the issue were, how could I? I was responding to the statements that the Church “encouraged”
support. You have accused me of not reading your comments thoroughly and it would appear that you have done the same regarding my comments. I recognize that the Church did not employ command language, my very first comment here says:
“In this case the difference between being “asked” and being “told” is that to be “asked” really just means to be “told” in a nice way. Command is implicit in any request or call to action made by the authorities of The Church as by virtue of their callings they are assumed to speak the will of God”.
I don’t mean to sound presumtuous by quoting myself, but this comment shows that I already agree that members were “asked”. I just argue that that is really just a nice way of “telling” members what to do in a Church context. Your disagreement is already noted.
I think there’s a difference between having a letter read in Sacrament meeting on one Sunday and what happened in our Northern California area: Having multiple talks, firesides, training meetings, sign-up sheets, in-home visits by bishops and stake presidents suggesting donation amounts, recurring reminders about filling out donation forms, canceling important ward/stake activities so members are free to volunteer for the proposition, conference calls about donating, encouraging all RS members to make sure everyone in their families is registered and (as necessary) has absentee ballots to use, and having bishops close Sacrament Meeting the Sunday prior to the election with a special prayer that voters will act righteously and support the proposition.
So, while reading one letter (or even a couple of letters) in SM or RS/PH could be seen/interpreted as low-key encouragement to get involved, the real pressure came from the repetition of the call for involvement.
It would be nice to see the wiki include ALL of the things Mormons were asked to do to support the proposition, starting with the list included in this comment and continuing with the very specific counsel given at the October 9th fireside which suggested the numbers of volunteers needed, the hours suggested, the activities suggested, and the get-out-the-vote, final 100-hours of events, including precinct monitoring.
Well, cowboy, I’ll let you have the last word by repeating yourself as well. 😉 (I reject your “asked/told” theory.)
Calif Mormon – I acknowledge the ‘encouragement’ was more than a letter being read one time.
I did not take the other activities (some of those you mentioned occurred in my ward but not all – it really is variable by several local factors)as “pressure” or “asking” or being “told” what to do though – I took them as the operationalization of the support that was being encouraged. As I mentioned, I was leaning against Prop 8 when those things were occurring and [i]not once[/i] did I think that I was being asked/told to vote Yes and that I had to do these activities. In fact I didn’t do them and I got absolutely no feedback for it. I was not asked for money either. We were told how we could donate if we wanted to.
I saw these actions and activities simply for what they were: The Church supported Prop 8 on several grounds and encouraged the ones that agreed to DO something to support it (not sit on the sidelines). It was pretty easy to understand. Local leadership facilitated those actions happening.
I can see how some would perceive this has “pressure” or being “told” what to do, but that doesn’t make it so.
Calif Mormon, the problem with saying what was asked is that it was all a local event. Everyone’s experiences are dependent on the people who put everything together on the local level. Aside from the rah rah stuff and letters read in church, the phone tree people in our ward only called and informed when an event was occurring. I was not asked if I would be there. In other wards, an individual decided to put assignments on the board in GD and not close the class until it was filled. I said no to everything for three months. Not one word was said to me. Now if detractors are trying to say that this incurred guilt (thus generating the pressure) that is another matter that is not relevant to what the local staffers were actually doing. As to a commandment..anyone who doesn’t understand the hard line between a commmandment and a request is completely unfamiliar with LDS culture. I can see where that may be problematic on the wiki….there will be people who do not understand the distinction.
Fair enough, we disagree then.
“As to a commandment..anyone who doesn’t understand the hard line between a commmandment and a request is completely unfamiliar with LDS culture.”
Huh? I have been a member my whole life, but I don’t think this is a clear distinction. When the “request” comes directly from the first presidency, that amounts to a “commandment,” as far as I can tell. From listening to testimonies and comments in church, I know that many other members feel the same way. So I don’t think the “hard line” is as clear to others as it is to you.
But if you can find any authoritative statements from church leaders explaining this distinction, I’d love to read them.
But if you can find any authoritative statements from church leaders explaining this distinction, I’d love to read them.
Well, not *exactly* to that point but are in similar vein:
(1)
“Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings….efore it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, 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 First Presidency seem to be acknowledging that members [obviously] had a choice in their votes.
(2)
“Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. The Christ taught kindness, patience, and charity.”
“The Origin of Man” by the First Presidency.
Improvement Era 13:75-81. Nov. 1909.
http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/trustees1992.html
(3) Guess when this one was written (snippets from the same source)?
There are three reasons why you should vote now and every time: (1) Every vote counts. (2) Every election is important. (3) The Lord has reminded you of your responsibility for “the good and safety of society.”
….
3. Attend your mass meetings, if your state has them. Find out when and where, and attend! Your choice is limited at the polls by the decisions made by others unless you get involved at the grass-roots level.
4. Know the issues. Discover what is being discussed. See if there are other issues that ought to be included. Don’t consider just one point of view. Learn, consider, pray for guidance. Casting a vote is far more serious than many people realize.
….
7. Become active in politics. Do volunteer work at party headquarters. Contribute financially to a party and/or deserving candidates. Ask to be assigned to the team of a suitable candidate. Think of ways to get out the vote and work with your local level party leaders.
8. Finally, help destroy the myth that “politics are dirty.” The fact is: politics are essential. The Lord has stressed that we ought to be concerned and involved in promoting good government. You simply have to realize that the political process is the way to attain that objective.
Remember you’ve got to do more than talk about politics. You’ve got to vote and act intelligently.”
(4) Snippets from another source, time frame about the same. Substitute the word “issue” for candidate/politician and note the last sentence:
As you go through a campaign, run down this checklist several times, asking, searching, and studying.
Reason or Emotion. Every voter maintains that his vote is decided upon reason; in actuality, studies show that emotion sways most voting decisions. Fight to drain your decision of emotion. If you feel strongly about an issue, ask yourself why. If you can’t repeat back substantive reasons for your stance based on facts, you may be motivated by undue emotion.
With each advertisement you see on television or hear on the radio, mentally eliminate the supporting music and sound effects. The music track of an ad contributes nothing of substance. It is used as a reinforcer and as an appeal to emotion. Ask yourself: What does this ad tell me if I eliminate music?
The other main appeal to emotion is fear. With the many problems our nations face, there is need for concern. But it must be intelligent concern. Ask yourself: Does this ad portray legitimate and reasonable concern for our problems, or does it exaggerate? Am I being approached as a thinking citizen or as a frightened animal?
Knowledge or Folklore. How did I find out what I know? This question is especially useful at the beginning of a campaign when our memories of past elections and our latent loyalties are being awakened. Separate your understanding into two groups: Those facts that you can verify from credible sources (knowledge), and those you can’t (folklore). Remember which is which so you won’t use folklore in your voting decision and so you can help correct distorted ideas held by friends.
Don’t accept any slogan on face value. Politics is ever-changing. What may have been a good description of a party or a politician a few years ago may not represent reality at all today. Watch out for nutshell history, that glib phrase that pretends to adequately encompass a complex topic. Do such slogans as “End the war” or “Win the war” contribute to serious decision making? Do slogans such as “It’s time for a change” or “A man for our time” actually add to our understanding? Rephrase the slogan: Is it time for a change, and is he the man for our time? And then, why or why not? Scrutinize every slogan. The more clever the phrase, the greater our responsibility to verify its accuracy.
Read about current events constantly. Draw from several newspapers and news magazines. Read what a variety of analysts and commentators have to say. Weigh their sense of values and priorities and compare them with your own. Study the history of your country, the political parties, the candidates. Almost every librarian can direct you to useful material, including incumbent candidates’ voting records. Read one or two pieces of legislation that the candidate voted on and ask yourself how you would have voted had you held his position. Read, study, search.
Issues: Legitimate or Contrived. For each vote you intend to cast, write down what you believe to be the top five problems facing that officeholder. If you’re voting for a U.S. congressman, for example, write down the top five problems facing his district. Next consult the published public opinion polls to see how your perceptions compare with those of your neighbors. Now as you go into a campaign, write down the top problems each candidate appears to be emphasizing. How do the lists compare? Which candidate most closely emphasizes the problems that concern you and your neighbors? What solutions does each offer? How well thought out are the proposed solutions? How do they compare with what you personally would do to solve each problem?
Some issues lend themselves to dramatization more readily than others. Crime issues, for example, are much easier to emphasize than a complicated economic situation. But the economic issue may be more important in a certain district than the crime issue. Check to be sure the candidates are addressing the issues on the basis of actual importance and not on the basis of ease of emphasis. Especially watch for fear appeals here.
Image or Mirage. Our vote is not decided entirely upon issues. A candidate’s characteristics should also be examined. Again get out your pad of paper and write down the five top traits you believe an officeholder should possess: for example, honesty, ability, experience, patience, determination. Now, as you read about and listen to the candidates, which traits does each have and who comes closest to your ideal list? If you get stuck trying to decide, ask yourself: Which candidate do I trust the most? And then: Why do I trust him more than the others?
Strength or Weakness. As each campaign tries to project a certain image for its candidate, ask yourself not only what they are saying, but more important why they are saying it. A campaign manager may fear his candidate is getting too old, so before the opposition points this out to the voters, he may decide to emphasize wisdom, seniority, and experience. These points are indeed strengths, but they are also being used to cover up a weakness. In a recent election a candidate was shown on television in a variety of robust, fast-paced activities. To the average voter he appeared physically active and capable of holding the office. The more astute observer noted, however, that the candidate’s voice was rarely heard in the ads. A few well-placed questions revealed that this was the campaign’s technique for de-emphasizing a throat and voice malady. A legitimate technique? Yes. Nothing says a campaign has to purposely point up weaknesses, which is all the more reason for a voter to look behind the scenes. Ask yourself: Why are they doing and saying what they are?
Promise or Guarantee. “As worthless as a campaign promise.” Unfortunately, this little ditty is becoming embedded in our cultures. And why? Because too many candidates promise more than they can actually deliver. So when you hear campaign promises, ask yourself: What power does the office have? Do his campaign pledges fall reasonably within his jurisdiction and abilities? A mayor of a small city, for example, simply is not going to have much influence on his country’s foreign policy and shouldn’t be promising along those lines.
Distinguish between promises of effort and guarantees of end results. A legislator can promise to introduce legislation and work for its passage, but he isn’t in a position to guarantee it becoming law if the executive says he’ll veto it. Similarly, an executive-type officeholder can promise to ask for authority to institute certain programs, but he can’t promise they’ll become fact if his legislature resists. Weigh and analyze promises of effort, but shy away from guarantees.
Standing or Posturing. Why is a certain candidate running for a particular office? On the basis of his past work, who stands to benefit? How sincere do you believe he is in the reasons he cites for his candidacy? Is he standing for office as a concerned, able citizen, or is he posturing for ego gratification?
Account or Attack. There is a legitimate place for sincere questioning of an incumbent’s actions. We rightly demand an accounting from our representatives. We also have the right to debate with them, hold a differing viewpoint, and bring others to our persuasion. In the intense heat of a campaign, however, care must be taken that questioning does not become a personal attack. If the personal characteristics must be brought into doubt, examples of where these deficiencies have hindered the incumbent in representing his constituents are much better than frontal attacks on the person himself. A campaign with a legitimate complaint will bring out these examples and let the voters decide; a campaign desiring victory through destruction of the opposition will not. Ask yourself: Is the charge a legitimate call for accounting or a personal attack? If personal deficiencies are claimed, would they in actuality hinder the execution of duties, or are they immaterial to the office sought? Also remember that it is more natural for a challenger to be aggressive and the incumbent to be defensive.
Action or Reaction. Be independent in your decision. Base it upon what you have found out, what you believe to be important, what you perceive in the candidates. Don’t support a candidate just because your parents might—and don’t support him just because they might not. Be your own person. But, at the same time, don’t be afraid to gather information from others. A good exercise is to choose three or four people in your community whose opinions you respect most and talk to them. Ask them why they are voting for the candidates of their choice. Use the information they provide—you may or may not arrive at the same conclusions they did. Ask yourself: Am I acting on the information I have gathered or reacting because of parents or peer group?
Candidate A or Candidate B. You have now arrived at your decision. Take whatever time you need to mull over the information you have gathered and then make a tentative choice in each race. Now search out acquaintances who have made the opposite decision. Talk with them, ask them why they are voting for their candidates, and volunteer the reasons you are voting for yours. You will find out how well you have thought through your decision. By all means don’t be afraid to change if someone advances compelling information you haven’t considered. Debate and discuss, but remember that little is gained from arguments. And then, when you are finally content with your selections, enter into the excitement of representative government: work and campaign for the candidates of your choice.
(5)
Despite these difficulties, latter-day prophets have indicated that neither the knowledge of future political collapse nor a full schedule of Church activities absolves the Latter-day Saint from the duty, at the proper time and place, of going beyond regular voting to more active levels of participation in the process of democratic government. For example, the instruction book on bicentennial observance sent to all American wards states, “Celebrating the 200th anniversary of America’s birth involves much more than a passive admiration for this country, it involves active rededication to the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” The instructions admonish members to “help solve your own community problems and preserve your own freedoms that will allow the gospel to spread throughout the world.” (One Hundred and One Ideas; An Idea for Any Occasion—Including the Bicentennial, p. 2.)
The Saints must be concerned with the maintenance of personal freedom, which the Lord has indicated is essential to individual salvation and exaltation.
….
For some Latter-day Saints, participation in the political life of the community, the state, or the nation is a full-time vocation. For most of us, civic affairs are a more occasional concern. The temptation is strong to allow civic participation to become so totally overshadowed by day-to-day concerns that we never get beyond the “faithful voter” level of activity. In such circumstances, it might be wise to remind ourselves that no constitution or set of protective laws is self-executing. Guarantees of political freedom maintain their force only if citizens are willing to exercise that freedom in their own behalf. If men and women of character fail to participate in the political decisions that shape their lives, others with more selfish motives will inevitably rush in to fill the void.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=6a81fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Admin – you can delete that big long post above. Probably TMI 🙂
Probably most binding is this – note the first two bullets in the second section:
The Church does not:
* Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
* Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
* Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
* Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
* Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
* Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
* Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
* Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality
I meant delete example #4 (and this one too).
Jea:
Nice approach, overwhelm with info.
All of that could be summed up with, the Church encourages it’s members to participate in the political process, but for tax reasons cannot play much of a role in the selection of leaders.
You still seem to be beating the, “no one got excommunicated” horse, therefore the Church was just inviting like minded individuals to participate. If you were to play devils advocate for a moment you would see why your argument just doesn’t work. Suppose the Church did want to take action against those who did not support Prop 8 – how would they do that? How would they know who supported the cause and who didn’t? When asked whether discipline would be given for those who did not support the initiative the Church responded by saying, no. When further pushed, “what about those who publicly oppose the efforts”, the response was “we will let the local Priesthood authorities deal with that”.
So, while the membership was allowed to determine their own level of activity in support of the initiative without reprucussion, discipline for public opposition was not entirely off of the table. It would only take moments to search the web for all of the willing supporters of Prop 8 within the membership of the Church, who describe it as a matter of sustaining the Brethren.
A commandment: chastity
A request: Don’t date until you are 16
A commandment: No drinking, smoking, etc.
A request: use no other harmful substances
A commandment: Keep the Sabbath day holy
A request: Do not do your shopping on Sunday
A commandment: Be subject to government
A request: vote
Now there are some things that we can argue about endlessly, such as what the WOW consists of…however, we do not dispute the WOW is a commandment. I really can’t see why the difference is hard to understand.
Juliann –
First lets clarify terms. When I speak of command language, I am not specifically referring to the Commandments per se. Being “told” what to do implies that the “teller” expects obedience – regardless of whether they are willing to punish insubordination, or not. Being “asked” sends the message that “asker” desires compliance, but does not expect it.
Given the above defintion, I would be willing to wager that by and large most of the general membership would disagree with your classifications of: Dating at 16, harmful substances(?), and shopping on Sunday – as merely “requests”. I think you might get a pass on voting in general, but in my entire life of active membership in the Church I have never heard anyone, including Church authorities, suggest that we had any acceptable budge room in following or disregarding these “requests” at their discretion. Depending on the nature of the circumstances, most of those “requests” would generally not be punished, but does anyone doubt what the Church EXPECTS in these regards.
Cowboy claims:
Why do people keep saying stuff like this when it is manifestly false? Parties and candidates had absolutely nothing to do with Prop 8.
Tax-exempt organizations are forbidden to endorse CANDIDATES. They are not forbidden to encourage people to vote about ISSUES.
You cannot say: Vote against Mary Jones she supports abortion.
You can say: Vote against legalization of abortion.
There were no candidates involved here. The Church could have had people get up every Sunday and do nothing but chant “Vote Yes on Prop 8,” for the three hour block, and there would have been no tax implications.
Why the “No on 8” crowd and others can’t get this, I just don’t understand. They not like it. But, them’s the facts:
If they can’t get this right, I should trust the rest? 🙂
Quoth the Cowboy:
It’s quite simple:
* break law of chastity – no temple recommend
* date before 16 – temple recommend
* drink alcohol – no temple recommend
* drink harmful subst to excess (e.g., caffeine) – temple recommend
* refuse to pay income taxes – no temple recommend
* refuse to vote – temple recommend
“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
Greg
Hi Greg (First Comment):
Welcome to the discussion. You seem eager to jump right into the game, but you need to slow way down. Catch your breath and I’ll bring you back to speed.
The document that Jea was speaking about was the one we hear each election season (the ones where we choose CANDIDATES) about how the Church does not endorse specific candidates or political parties, but encourages members to vote for representatives we feel will move the Country forward in a positive way. She was attempting to use this document as proof that the Church does not tell it’s members how to vote, as a defense to the claim that the Church did tell members how to vote on Prop 8. Thankfully you helped me prove my point that the Church would jeopardize it’s tax exemption by being construed as a campaign entity for a CANDIDATE. My point was that the document is just a legal precedent which gives the Church a defensable position if it were ever challenged for it’s political involvement. Is the advice good? Sure it is, but you can be sure the document is motivated by legal concerns, and the advice is incidental to that. Conversely it is not a good defense for, the Church does not tell people how to vote since the document is based on a CYA motive.
Other than limited purpose temple recomends, 16 year olds are not even part of the equation, so it doesn’t follow. Even still, my first comment stands here – enter a dozen Mia Maids classes across the globe and the concensus will be in my favor. We don’t date until we are sixteen years old. FYI, you may not know this but disciplinary action for youth is fairly rare, and almost always mild. I have never heard of a sixteen year old being excommunicated. I sure it has happened but, again it must be rare.
If caffeine is the “harmful substance” then I’ll give that one as well. I put a question mark next to it because it was very open ended. Abusing prescription drugs would be a different issue. I am sure we could think of other less benign “substances” somewhere between caffeine and alcohol on the spectrum.
I already conceded on voting.
TT posted:
“It should be noted somewhere that black churches and black individuals were harrassed, contrary to the assertions in this article. Additionally, the LDS and Saddleback church was not the only church subject to protests. There were demonstration at Catholic churches in LA.”
Regarding this request, there is a mention in the wiki of blacks being harrassed during the initial protests:
“Los Angeles. Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were “accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, ‘You better watch your back.'”
However, a search for protests at Black churches has so far turned up nothing. If someone has a reference, please post it. A reference to the invasion of a Church in Lansing, Michagan has also been added to the wiki. Regarding protests at Catholic church in SoCal, if someone can identify them, please let us know.
President Hinckley said:
“As to a commandment..anyone who doesn’t understand the hard line between a commmandment and a request is completely unfamiliar with LDS culture.”
Well, let’s look at this division on a less controversial issue. In the summer of 2005, Gordon Hinckley “invited” (his word) LDS members to read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover by the end of that year. In the ensuing months, this was referred to by other general authorities as a “challenge.” At the time, I was a member of the Nauvoo First Ward, Nauvoo Illinois Stake, and the manager of an LDS bookstore. It was my experience that many LDS members quickly began to refer to Hinckley’s invitation as a “commandment.” This showed up in the promotional materials of Deseret Book and other LDS publishers, who were eager to sell Book of Mormon recordings and other related products, but we can dismiss those as low-brow salesmanship. In my ward, however, the invitation became a “commandment,” which was seen as a concrete indication of whether an individual LDS member would “follow the prophet.” At the end of the year, my bishop directed home teachers to provide him with a specific report from each and every member in the ward (yes, even small children), on whether or not they had read the Book of Mormon during the specified timeframe.
Now, I was stake executive secretary at the time, so I know this bishop wasn’t acting on direction from the stake. He went to these extremes on his own, to be sure. Nonetheless, his behavior illustrates, in my mind, how many LDS take every suggestion from the LDS president as a divine commandment.
That said, even if we accept Jea’s rather innovative suggestion that Mr. Monson’s letter merely suggested that those who “already supported” Proposition 8 “take action,” simple honesty requires that we acknowledge the effect of such a “suggestion” in the mind of many faithful LDS members. I’m delighted to hear that Jea’s local leaders fully respected individual agency, giving no pressure whatsoever to donate or otherwise support Proposition 8. Unfortunately, I am aware of several other individuals who experienced a very different set of leadership actions.
I would point out that no statement came out from LDS general authorities to indicate that other views on Proposition 8 were acceptable, until Andrew Callahan was threatened with excommunication for his very visible opposition to the LDS church’s political involvement on Proposition 8. Andrew went public, and as with a few other publicized disciplinary council threats, Andrew’s council was “postponed” until some time after the election. In the interim, LDS leaders responded to public criticism by stating that LDS members could have other views without fear of retribution. Even then, however, some LDS members had their temple recommends revoked, were released from callings, or were otherwise penalized or threatened for visibly opposing Proposition 8. After the election, Elder Clayton told the Deseret News that some may be subject to local disciplinary actions for their opposition to the initiative.
At the very least, I am quite certain that my old Nauvoo bishop would look disapprovingly on any LDS members who dared to oppose Proposition 8. In his mind, these members have “failed to follow the prophet” and cannot be trusted as faithful LDS members.
I think it’s disingenuous for FAIR to pretend that Monson’s letter directing support of Proposition 8 was a mere “suggestion,” which LDS members were free to disregard without negative consequences. Such an argument comes down to blatant spin at best, and blatant dishonesty in the eyes of most reasonable people.
Well said Nick.
Well, Fair has heard from the local LGBT representative Nick Literski.
It’s good to know is so good at mind reading what his Bishop would have done.
Have you talked to that Bishop much since you resigned your membership and renounced your covenants, Nick?
Nick,
Nice comment; I enjoyed it. I’m particularly interested in your statement that “some LDS members had their temple recommends revoked, were released from callings, or were otherwise penalized or threatened for visibly opposing Proposition 8.”
We have tried to document everything on the FAIR Prop 8 page. If you could provide some documentation to back up the statements, I would be interested in making sure they make it to the wiki page.
Also, could you please provide the Deseret News reference where you state “Elder Clayton told the Deseret News that some may be subject to local disciplinary actions for their opposition to the initiative.” I was able to find this one:
If this is the quote you are referring to, I guess I didn’t read it with the same ominous overtone that I sensed in your reference. (Forgive me if I was reading something into what you wrote that wasn’t really there.)
Anyway, if you could be kind enough to provide documentation on the retributions you reference, I would be appreciative.
-Allen
Oh, and by the way…
I agree with you, Nick, that some people no doubt took the First Presidency’s letter as a commandment. That still doesn’t really make it a commandment, though, does it? It does make it an interesting case study in individual choice. Jan provided one side; you provided another.
I think that FAIR will stick by the “it wasn’t a commandment” stance, however, since there is nothing in the original letter that even addressed voting and nothing that even raised the request to “commandment” status. Individuals may have chosen to do that, but the verbiage of the letter does not necessarily support that as the only reading of the letter.
Calling that stance spin or the original letter “code speak” seems—at least to this observer—examples of rhetorical posturing.
-Allen
Quoth the Cowboy:
Limited use recommends are recommends. And, I can promise you that just dating before 16 will not keep you from getting one. But, fornicating will.
I live in a town that is about 85% LDS, and I’m also a physician, so I get to hear what’s going on (good, bad, and ugly). While there is no question that people know that the Church advocates not dating until 16, there are still plenty of 16-year-olds who do it, and don’t get forbidden to take the sacrament or anything like unto it.
I do know it, yes, thanks. There is, however, a wide variety of disciplinary choices available to bishop–teens need not be excommunicated to be disciplined. In matters such as informal probation, it may be far more common than you might think.
And, I think one would be hard pressed to find one disciplined in any sense for pre-16 dating with no other moral transgression. Do you know of exceptions?
Ah, I apologize for misunderstanding to which doc you were referring. My basic question still stands, though–why do the “No on Prop 8” people keep complaining about the Church’s tax exempt status? It is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand under current US law. Sounds like FUD to me.
(I ask the question generally, not to you specifically.)
Quoth the Allen:
It has been my experience that it is virtually impossible to write any non-trivial text that SOMEONE will not misconstrue or misinterpret, or give greater (or lesser) weight than that intended by a Church leader.
Quoth the Greg:
Ooops. Meant “under 16-year-olds,” of course…..
Calling that stance spin or the original letter “code speak” seems—at least to this observer—examples of rhetorical posturing.
Admittedly, the “Code” speak reference was a bit rhetorical. The point that I was trying to make there was that the Church is not in the business of giving advice. They give counsel with the expectation that the membership will follow. That is what I mean by command language, they make no allusion that opposing their stances are acceptable, even if they will not punish members for it.
Greg:
There is nothing specifically within the handbook of instructions that suggests appropriate discipline for youth under sixteen who date, so you are correct. Bishops in many cases will still take action, generally mild and rarely disputed by their higher Priesthood authorities. The point about discipline for the youth being light was that in many cases the youth get a pass for not always conforming with the Church guidelines. Still, read the material printed for the youth, attend a class, quiz an average member, in any of these endeavors you will not find anything which suggests that youth have any discretionary latitude to be at variance with the strict dating standards outlined by the Brethren.
My basic question still stands, though–why do the “No on Prop 8″ people keep complaining about the Church’s tax exempt status? It is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand under current US law. Sounds like FUD to me.
(I ask the question generally, not to you specifically.)
Though you do not label me specifically, I feel I should at least set the record straight. I agree with you, the efforts to challenge the Church’s tax exempt status is irrelevant, and appears like an irrational lashing at the most easily identifiable target.
But…we all have discretionary latitude about what we do about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Brethren advise us. “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” You won’t get excommunicated for dating before 16, though leaders devoutly wish and hope you don’t do that. They likewise devoutly wish and hope that you’ll follow their advice on Prop 8–but, you aren’t going to get disciplined for voting against it.
I quite liked their wording “do all you can.” For some people, that would be donation of time and money. For others, they might feel unable to support it, but might refrain from actively campaigning against it. And so forth.
On the other hand, I can well see how some behavior might potentially get you into trouble. If you’re going around telling other people they shouldn’t listen to the “no dating before age 16” issue, you might have problems. But, that strikes at the issue of leadership and the prophetic office, not the issue of pre-16 dating per se.
George Q. Cannon put it well, I think:
Thus, what might potentially get you into trouble is not having a different opinion, and not voting your conscience. But, if you try to “enforce them upon the people” (of the Church, I presume) “to produce division and strife” and painting authorities “in a wrong light,” that could cause an issue.
It can be all to easy (I’ve seen it during Prop 8, to be frank–and I’ve seen people who I know disagree also conduct themselves admirably) to move from disagreeing with a stance taken by the leaders of the Church, to arguing loudly that they don’t have a right to give advice to those of their faith, to accusing them of homophobia or various other ills.
And, the issue has then become not one of disagreement over an issue, but in a conclusion drawn about the broader nature of revelation, apostolic guidance, etc.
Allen, that is the correct statement from Clayton that I had in mind. As for the other issues, please e-mail me privately, and I’ll be happy to provide you with some examples. Give me a few days to do so, as I’m recovering from recent surgery and that info is on my desktop computer (I’m using a laptop in bed, as I can’t sit at my computer desk right now).
Greg:
So that I understand. With regards to Prop 8, the membership is freely permitted to disagree with the Brethren in their minds, even to vote against it, but they may not be politically active in supporting Anti-Prop 8 campaigns, yet you still feel that support is discretionary.
1) The Brethren have no coercive control over what the members think, so any attempt to try is ridiculous. Of course they would say you are free to “privately” disagree with the Brethren.
2) The Brethren have absolutely no means of knowing the secret ballot vote of each of it’s members, so again attempting to punish a member for it’s vote here is ridiculous. Secondly, despite what others have conjectured, I still think it could pose legal problems if a Church with approx 3 million members inside the US were to tell it’s members explicitly how to vote on an issue, and then threaten their membership as punishment for subordination.
What clearly makes this a command and not a suggestion is the common theme that even you allude to, that members may decide what level of support (notice the positive) they feel comfortable lending to the issue. Whenever possible, the Church and those who defend the position intentionally make no mention of whether or not the member has a right to publicly oppose the initiative. When the issue is pushed then we get statements to the effect of your George Q. Cannon quote, members who publicly oppose the Church or stances the Church has taken are subject to Church Discipline.
If you are not free to publicly advocate an opposing position, how can you say that support is discretionary. Perhaps a better way of drawing this is that the members were told to either support Prop 8 or stand out of the way.
I didn’t say that, and I don’t think Pres. Cannon’s statement need be taken in that light. I think the predominant problem is what one says or communicates about the leaders of the Church, and what effects one’s efforts have on the unity and strife/lack thereof in the Church, and the means which one uses to argue one’s position. (Notice Cannon’s description of “sophistry,” “special pleading,” and putting leaders in views in “the wrong light” (i.e., distorting or misrpresenting, as I would read it.)
(I add too that those supporting such actions should also take care that their support does not threaten the unity of the Church either. I can readily see over-zeal causing that problem too, as the Church’s statement makes clear.)
For instance, one might have very little patience with those who say, “I’m a Mormon, and I oppose Prop 8.” One is trying to leverage one’s Church membership in this way. One could still speak one’s mind without trying to portray the Church and its leaders in a bad light, as it were.
I readily admit that it can not be an easy line to walk, especially since such efforts tend (on both sides, sometimes) to tend to an obliteration of nuance, and sometimes shrill sloganeering. Thus “Yes on Prop 8” can deteriorate into “Western Civilization will crumble” and “No on Prop 8” into “You’re all bigots and homophobes” or “Calling homosexuality a sin is wrong.”
Neither is an accurate reflection of the sincere and valid positions which honest people of good will might well entertain. (Being from Canada, this is something that always strikes me about US politics–the inevitable tendency to polarization into two, and only two, stances: Manicheanism writ large on every issue, and it tends to be the most shrill expression on both sides.)