More Holland -- this time at Harvard fibbing about Prop. 8

[_harmony]

However, it doesn't excuse Holland skirting some important issues.

All too often nowadays, the church skirts more issues than it addresses.

And me, being the cynic I am, ... well... I don't believe there was no money directly from the church to support the LDS position in California. And until they open the books, they aren't going to be able to prove there was none.

[_Yahoo Bot]

There was no money contributed to the campaign by the Church.

Complaints were filed by Prop 8 opponents on this subject. California's election commission investigated. As I recall, it found that the church should have disclosed certain donations in kind, which I think were airline tickets for church authorities who flew to California to meet with coalition representatives. The church was fined something less than $6,000.

Vives, Ruben (2010-06-09). "Mormon Church to be fined by state political commission over Proposition 8". Los Angeles Times.

I was involved in Prop 8 as both directing the operations at a local level, having participation in a multistake level, and having some discussions at the Salt Lake level. It is well known that general authorities and area authorities urged priesthood leaders to urge members of the church to get involved with time and money. I attended one satellite broadcast on the subject; apostles spoke. Elder Whitney Clayton was in charge. The message was to spend time and money on the effort.

Up to the point I was asked to contribute money, I had been a Prop 8 opponent.

Canvassing in California was organized along stake levels by the coalition, although because the coalition didn't understand stake organization there was a lot of duplication. I directed canvassing and election night operations at the local level, which included door-to-door operations, placement of signs and telephone calls to get supporters to the polls.

The coalition, at least as I saw at the local level, including lots of Catholics and some Muslims, who participating in fundraising, calls and canvassing. I also observed from our stake's interfaith group that Evangelical pastors were urging cooperation with coalition with time and money, almost identical to the General Authorities' call to priesthood leaders, but after one of these pulpit-pounding experiences with the local Baptists, we noted that there was no follow-up, and the only effort the EVs made was to pound the pulpit. I didn't see how the Catholics and Muslims handled the effort, but they participated physically unlike the EVs.

It was also told to me, but I didn't witness it firsthand, that a Southern California association of black pastors strategized about the way to address Prop 8, and for many weeks on Sundays prior to election pumped their congregations the dual Prop 8 and Barack Obama get out the vote messages. From what I saw from some of the transcripts, the things said in these churches about gays were quite strident.

[_Yoda]

Interesting stuff, Bob!

Do you think that Elder Holland was being disingenuous in not mentioning the canvassing that was blatantly encouraged by Church leaders?

[_maklelan]

1. Elder Holland seems to incorrectly conflate the right of free speech (that all persons AND organizations (like churches) have) with the right to vote (that only PERSONS have). The Church institution does NOT have a right to "exercise a vote" or "cast a ballot." He seems to differentiate between "we" (i.e., the Church) and individual members (i.e., members, particularly in CA, who got involved).

I am a supporter of same-sex marriage, and I disagree rather flatly with the church on this, but I have some concerns with the way this is being presented in this thread. Before reading your comments, I read Holland's first sentence as a reference to the collective members of the church. I understood him to shift focus to the church as an institution when he said, "Institutionally . . ." It seems to me that he makes perfectly clear his distinction between "we" as members and "we" as an institution.

2. He claims at least twice that the Church institution had NOTHING to do with the Prop. 8 campaign.

I think this is a mischaracterization. I don't believe he ever says the institution had "NOTHING to do" with Prop. 8. His first comment was that there was not a dime that was actually donated by the church, which is technically true, even if they did pay for airline tickets for individuals to travel and speak about the issue. His second comment was that there was no money and "no formalization institutionally." The latter comment is rathe unclear, and I think it could be interpreted a couple different ways. Irrespective, the claim was never made that the church had "NOTHING to do" with Prop. 8.

We all know this is a lie. Based on official Church documents that leaked out, we know that GA's, all the way to the top, were involved in organizing the members in CA and elsewhere (particularly wealthy ones) to contribute big money and a lot of time to the cause of passing Prop. 8. These GA's, and the local authorities below them, exerted enormous influence in getting LDS members involved. To suggest that LDS participation was nothing more than some grassroots miracle wrought by a few local members, is disingenuous at best and lying at worst.

But that's not what he claimed. I think he was tiptoeing around explaining exactly what the church's informal involvement was, but I never saw the claim that they simply stepped back and let the members do what they wanted. Several allusions to their participation were made.

3. His reference to neither the Church nor members "blocking the ballot box" or "slashing the tires" is a pure strawman.

How so? He wasn't saying "this is an accusation that we deny," he's saying, "we didn't do inappropriate things like X, Y, or Z."

He throws out such a ridiculous example, but ignores reports that some members who opposed Prop. 8 were singled out by local leaders in an effort to chill their taking a position contrary to that of the Church. I've heard some were told to return their temple recommends.

I disagree with that kind of local meddling, but it was certainly not my experience or the experience of anyone I know in California at the time, nor do I see any indication such meddling was required or condoned by leadership.

I found Elder Holland's comments on Prop. 8 very dishonest. If the Church chooses to take such an active role in a political campaign, then it should at least own up to it. Very disappointing.

I have to say that while I'm disappointed in the church's involvement in this issue, I'm also disappointed in your rather flagrant misrepresentation of Holland's comments. I think he's covering the church's butt, and I don't particularly care for the way he does it, but at least be honest about what he's saying.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

As I recall, it found that the church should have disclosed certain donations in kind, which I think were airline tickets for church authorities who flew to California to meet with coalition representatives. The church was fined something less than $6,000.

Since the Church obviously paid for the airline tickets, etc., with dough, Elder Holland's statement is disingenuous at best.

I was involved in Prop 8 as both directing the operations at a local level, having participation in a multistake level, and having some discussions at the Salt Lake level. It is well known that general authorities and area authorities urged priesthood leaders to urge members of the church to get involved with time and money. I attended one satellite broadcast on the subject; apostles spoke. Elder Whitney Clayton was in charge. The message was to spend time and money on the effort.

This confirms to me that Elder Holland's claim that there was "no formalization institutionally" was a lie.

Canvassing in California was organized along stake levels by the coalition, although because the coalition didn't understand stake organization there was a lot of duplication. I directed canvassing and election night operations at the local level, which included door-to-door operations, placement of signs and telephone calls to get supporters to the polls.

Further confirmation that Elder Holland lied.

The coalition, at least as I saw at the local level, including lots of Catholics and some Muslims, who participating in fundraising, calls and canvassing. I also observed from our stake's interfaith group that Evangelical pastors were urging cooperation with coalition with time and money, almost identical to the General Authorities' call to priesthood leaders, but after one of these pulpit-pounding experiences with the local Baptists, we noted that there was no follow-up, and the only effort the EVs made was to pound the pulpit. I didn't see how the Catholics and Muslims handled the effort, but they participated physically unlike the EVs.

It was also told to me, but I didn't witness it firsthand, that a Southern California association of black pastors strategized about the way to address Prop 8, and for many weeks on Sundays prior to election pumped their congregations the dual Prop 8 and Barack Obama get out the vote messages. From what I saw from some of the transcripts, the things said in these churches about gays were quite strident.

Hopefully, unlike Elder Holland, they owned up to what they did.

[_Yoda]

But that's not what he claimed. I think he was tiptoeing around explaining exactly what the church's informal involvement was, but I never saw the claim that they simply stepped back and let the members do what they wanted. Several allusions to their participation were made.

Well, if "tiptoeing" is what it was, then I was disappointed with the "tiptoeing". I read the letter addressed to my stepfather. We also have Bob's own assessment of what the involvement with Church leaders entailed. It sounds like more than an informal involvement.

[_maklelan]

Well, if "tiptoeing" is what it was, then I was disappointed with the "tiptoeing". I read the letter addressed to my stepfather. We also have Bob's own assessment of what the involvement with Church leaders entailed. It sounds like more than an informal involvement.

It's not how I would have liked to have seen it described either, but there's a difference between semantic nuances and the kind of depravity and deception the OP describes. I would characterize the OP as far more misrepresentative than Holland's comments.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I am a supporter of same-sex marriage, and I disagree rather flatly with the church on this, but I have some concerns with the way this is being presented in this thread. Before reading your comments, I read Holland's first sentence as a reference to the collective members of the church. I understood him to shift focus to the church as an institution when he said, "Institutionally . . ." It seems to me that he makes perfectly clear his distinction between "we" as members and "we" as an institution.

Listen to the question to Elder Holland. It refers to the CHURCH's influence in passing Prop. 8. Thus, when Holland's first sentence uses "we" I understood him to mean the Church. He then claims the "institution" did not contribute money, and then talks (in the third person) of individual members, particularly in CA, and the time and money spent and the consequences suffered. For these reasons, I interpreted Holland's use of "we" at the beginning to mean the Church.

I think this is a mischaracterization. I don't believe he ever says the institution had "NOTHING to do" with Prop. 8. His first comment was that there was not a dime that was actually donated by the church, which is technically true, even if they did pay for airline tickets for individuals to travel and speak about the issue. His second comment was that there was no money and "no formalization institutionally." The latter comment is rathe unclear, and I think it could be interpreted a couple different ways. Irrespective, the claim was never made that the church had "NOTHING to do" with Prop. 8.

When Holland referred to "no formalization institutionally," he lied, in light of the significant involvement of the Brethren and other leaders in organizing and seeking the resources to pass Prop. 8. Even if he were just trying to downplay the Brethren's great involvement, this would still be a lie, in my opinion.

But that's not what he claimed. I think he was tiptoeing around explaining exactly what the church's informal involvement was, but I never saw the claim that they simply stepped back and let the members do what they wanted. Several allusions to their participation were made.

Holland made no reference to the great involvement by the Brethren and other leaders in organizing and pushing the Prop. 8 campaign. Instead, he seemed to lay it on the steps of local LDS members, when we all know that is false. I am amazed that the Brethren are too cowardly to expressly (and proudly) admit their involvement in Prop. H8.

I disagree with that kind of local meddling, but it was certainly not my experience or the experience of anyone I know in California at the time, nor do I see any indication such meddling was required or condoned by leadership.

But was such "meddling" ever condemned or corrected?

I have to say that while I'm disappointed in the church's involvement in this issue, I'm also disappointed in your rather flagrant misrepresentation of Holland's comments. I think he's covering the church's butt, and I don't particularly care for the way he does it, but at least be honest about what he's saying.

To me, "covering the church's butt" is just another way of saying that Holland lied. So, in the end, it looks like we agree.

[_Carton]

I am a supporter of same-sex marriage, and I disagree rather flatly with the church on this ...

There is no question that you are heading down the road of apostasy. Not only do you agree with the documentary hypothesis, but now you are a supporter of same-sex marriage.

Tell me, maklelan, are you in favor of gays being sealed in LDS temples for time and all eternity?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Further confirmation that Elder Holland lied.

Only, I suppose, if you equate the coalition with the church. But it wasn't. There is no way the EVs would have ever supported the campaign if the coalition was Mormon-driven.

When the coalition organized the canvassing campaign along stake lines, it wasn't the church doing it. The canvassing material I worked on spanned three stakes, so it appeared to me the coalition had little clue how the church operated and simply drew a circle around various church buildings (ours, the Catholics and EVs) to figure out how to distribute the lists.