Can Mormons Live in the Real World?

While I have been rather well informed about Mormon history and theology I never actually read the interview questions used by the church when they issue "temple recommends."

One thing people have to understand about the Mormon sect is precisely how the old fart that run the cult keep people under their control. In Mormon theology the rituals that are performed in the Temple are absolutely necessary in order for Mormons to evolve into gods. Yes, Mormons are not Christians in the classical sense of the word. They don't believe in one god, just one god for this planet. They believe in a multiplicity of gods and believe that the secret rituals, originally ripped off by the con man Smith from the Free Masons, will help the obedient Mormon become a god as well. By the way, contrary to the assumption that many have, the church did not abandon polygamy entirely. They still teach polygamy in the afterlife and will still "seal" Mormon men to multiple "spiritual" wives today.

I find the Mormon sect fascinating because it is one of the most well documented sects in history and the documentation proves it is one gigantic fraud. Joseph Smith was clearly a con man and philanderer. He invented plural marriage only after his wife caught him with other women, including young girls. Many people don't know that Smith's wife and children actually left the LDS cult and helped form a another version of Mormonism, one without polygamy. But the mainstream LDS church believes polygamy will be restored and that the new gods must have multiple wives in the afterlife.

For the Mormon believer the only way to become a god is through the temple rituals, which is where they get their magic underwear—really, I'm not making it up. They are called "endowment" garments, even though they don't do a particularly good job of actually showing off their endowments, if you know what I mean. One of the temple recommend questions is: "Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?" A "no" answer is the wrong answer. Mormons are supposed to wear their magic underwear all the time.

Individuals who help Mormons escape the fundamentalist compounds have said that getting them to shower or bath was difficult as they refused to remove the magic underwear. To get them to change into clean underwear required them to keep part of the dirty garment while putting on part of the clean garment. Some would only bath one part of the body at a time, keeping the garments over the rest of the body.

This is the sort of wacky stuff that L. Ron Hubbard would later use to bilk fools out of their cash with his Scientology scam. Both cults are rather similar the way they control and bilk people.

A Mormon who can't get into the temple is thus condemned to an inferior status in the afterlife. He won't be a god at all. The local Mormon church issues temple recommends. Without these passes from the local church a Mormon is effectively denied godhood. I know it sounds like nonsense but these people are big on nonsense, which is one reason they are prime targets for con men in dodgy investment schemes and the like.

The temple recommend is not a lifetime pass. The church regularly reviews members to decide whether they can have the pass renewed. To get a pass one must, for instance, give a tenth of all one's income to the Mormon cult itself. Consider it another dodgy investment scheme that Mormons are notorious for. For just one tenth of your earthly wealth you too can become a god equal to Jehovah! That's a pretty good return on your money. They may as well offer money back guarantees. If you die and don't become a god the church will return your money. All you have to do is put in a claim. Wow! I'll promise naive people godhood for just 5% of their earthly income. Let the bidding commence!

Not only must the Mormon give their wealth to the church but their total loyalty. They are required to confirm that the president of the church is "the only person on earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." See, the ancient fart that gets elected president of the church is god's representative on earth, so when the church issues orders Mormons are supposed to obey. When the cult leaders ran a secret campaign to fund the anti-gay proposition in California they used the authority of the church to "urge" members to send millions of dollars to California to finance the bigots. Of course they got caught, lied about what they were doing, and then got caught lying. Lying for the Lord is not an unknown practice among the "saints." Mormons are encourage to actively conceal many of their doctrines from "gentiles" until the gentile in question is hooked. Then the doctrines of the church are slowly revealed to them. Hiding the facts about Mormonism have been a long tradition. Smith lied publicly about the multiple wives he took and the church has been lying since then.

One of the more interesting scandals in the cult was the Salamander letter. A lot of evidence exists to show that Smith was a con man on multiple fronts. And it was believed that he dabbled in folk magic. A Mormon con man, Mark Hofmann, who ran a financial investment scam, was under pressure by Mormon investors to pay them the money he owed them. He didn't have it. But he knew enough Mormon history to forge fake documents that would embarrass the church if they made it into the media.

The Mormon hierarchy would then use wealth Mormon businessmen as fronts to buy the documents at very high prices. The documents would be "donated" to the church and then hidden away in the president's vault, hopefully to never see the light of day. Yes, the documents were fakes, but the church thought they were genuine when they had them purchased. Hoffman's financial woes were not solved by the infusions of cash from the church. And, to take the heat off, he started killing some of those people clamoring for money. Mormons in Salt Lake City were panicked by the killings, fearing that a Mormon breakaway sect was executing them as heretics—or that a version of the "Avenging Angels" had returned to kill Mormons not living up to the faith, as had been done in the past.

One of the bombs used by Hofmann exploded prematurely and the FBI originally thought he was another victim. But where the bomb was tipped them off that he was the bomber. Investigations showed his financial troubles, his investment scheme, and his "rare documents" business. Investigators wanted the documents the Mormon leadership was hiding away. At first they denied having any such documents but when the FBI wouldn't accept lying for the Lord, the church came clean and handed over the documents, which they still believed to be genuine. The FBI lab proved them forgeries. Suddenly the church was thrilled and publicized the documents as frauds. They never addressed the issue of how they hide them away, when they believed them genuine. And, if they were genuine, they conclusive proved that Joseph Smith, their prophet, was a lying scoundrel. Surely they had doubts about their faith but kept the scam going anyway.

Another question in the temple recommend process is: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

This is broader than the kind of questioning that got Joseph McCarthy in trouble. I have to wonder if a practicing libertarian could answer no to this question. Libertarians believe in marriage equality, Mormonism doesn't. They may get multiple spirit wives but gay people can't have just one partner. Libertarians believe in freedom, Mormons do not. Libertarians believe in equality before the law, Mormons do not.

Mormons were stripped of their temple recommends because they supported the Equal Rights Amendment and equality of rights for women.

On the other hand, what honest Mormon can answer that last question without saying "yes" to it? They line up in support of the Theopublican Party, which, as hard as it tries at imposing theocracy in America still falls short of Mormon doctrines. Virtually any civic organization or group they could possibly support will not cling to the silly doctrines of Joe Smith and the subsequent con men who followed in his footsteps. Is this question essentially meaningless? Or is it so broad as to be selectively used against virtually anyone, when the politics of the situation demands it?

One advantage of a "violation" that is so broadly written is that it gives immense powers to the church leadership to deny "temple recommends" and thus godhood, to the saints.

Photo: Brigham Young, Mormon Prophet, and some of his wives.

Families: united by love but divided by hate.

In discussing the terrible tragedy of two teens driven to suicide by anti-gay bigotry—which I advise you read if you haven't done so)—I said to the bigots: "But they could be your children." Of course, we know many examples when they have been their children. Certainly Bobby Griffith was tormented by his own mother and family and church until he killed himself. Mary Griffith realized what she had done, but it was too late to save Bobby. Since then she has campaigned to end the prejudice.


This is what must terrify the anti-gay bigot in ways that can't torment the racist. A Klan leader is not going to discover that the white son he has known his entire life is going to announce he's really black. But no anti-gay bigot with children can have that confidence throughout their entire life. There is always a time when they simply don't know. And many remain clueless their entire lives. But many of them do find themselves facing down their own children and hating them for being gay.


As often happens in politics two powerful political families are united when their children marry. Both families are very conservative, both are Mormons and of course, they are Republicans. Matthew Salmon was Republican state senator in Arizona, he ran for governor and he was a U.S. Congressman. Jeff Flake in the Congressman from Mesa, another conservative Republican and like Salmon, another Mormon. The Flake and Salmon families have been a foundation for the Right-wing Republicans in Arizona. And now they are united by romance—though neither of them are particularly thrilled by it.

Matt Salmon is named after his father, the former congressman. At 14-years-of-age he told his mother he was gay, which didn't stop his family from campaigning against gay people. His partner is Kent Flake, the second counsin of Congressman Flake.

Matt followed the teachings of the Mormon sect and went through therapy to change. It failed, as might be expected.

Kent is from Snowflake, Arizona. Snowflake was a small town founded on orders of Brigham Young, the alleged Mormon prophet. Young sent William Flake to found the town and Apostle Erastus Snow was put in charge of colonization. These polygamists were the founders of the town and when Mormons to name it after Flake others wanted to honor Snow. The name Snowflake was how they honored both simultaneously.

Of course each young man knew of the others family. Matt befriend Kent on Facebook and soon they started dating. At this point Kent told his family he was gay. But under pressure he broke up with Matt and tried to go through church therapy to cure himself of being gay. Matt and Kent had an argument about Kent's attempt to change and faced with a final decision Kent decided to stay with Matt and to resign from the Mormon cult. Matt was sitting in church one Sunday in the summer of 2008 when the minister, following orders from the church heirarchy, was urging everyone in the Arizona congregation to send money to defeat marriage equality in California—that is donate to Proposition 8. The minister told the congregation that all homosexuals are promiscuious and their relationships are selfish. That was when he decided to quite Mormonism completely, and today compares it to some of the outlandish teachings from the cult of Scientology.

Flake is getting the worst of it. He rarely sees his family anymore, hasn't had a real conversation with his father nad has been told that his father doesn't want Matt around his family or his grandkids. Kent's sister told has publicly said that she called them "fags" and "pedophiles" but insists they still love him, they just don't want "to see him in a gay couple." The same is true in Salmon's family. He was told that his family still loves him but that Kent is not welcome in their home. Matt's own siblings dropped him as a Facebook friend in protest over his being gay.

One cousin, Krista Gohus, still is friends. She recently left the Mormon sect as well and considers herself a libertarian, not a Republican. She told the Phoenix New Times: "Matt and his boyfriend, Kent, have been to my home many times, and my 10-year-old son knows Matt and Kent are a couple. I'm teaching my children that being gay is just like being left-handed or being born with curly hair. It's not right or wrong, it's just the way you were born."

Photos: Matt (L), Kent (R).

America's Best Christian on the Mormons

Some amusing satired by Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian.

In related news, but not humor, is the story of an evangelical church in Denver. Having given much deserved grief to the fundamentalists for their bigotry I should mention this attempt to change. Highlands Church, is an evangelical church run by Mark Tidd. Tidd said he watched Christians he knew who were gay trying to change and repeatedly failing. He concluded that if this sort of attempted change were really the will og God then the process ought "to be life-giving." Instead he says that "people were not flourishing. The results were broken spirits, despair and depression." (Sounds right to me.)

After giving this much thought Tidd told his congregation that the church would be welcoming to gay people. Tidd said: "If you had told me 10 years ago I would be standing here... speaking out in favor of gay marriage and ordination. I would have told you, you were crazy." Tidd had a congregation of 350. Around half his congregation walked-out. (Now, that's the fundamentalism I have come to know and loathe.)

How deep is their hate.

My experience, as a former Christian, is that no one can hate another person so thoroughly and nastily as a committed Christian. I am not saying that every Christian is that way, just that I'd be hard pressed to find anyone as hateful in the United States, who doesn't considered himself or herself to be a strong Christian. I am fairly confident that any survey asking people to rate their level of religiousity would show that as they became more fervent in their faith they also became more intolerant and bigoted.

Consider the actions of Catholics of late, by which I mean committed Catholics. Most American Catholics are not "committed" and are pretty decent people. The more in-tune with the church they are the less pleasant they are. We saw the Catholic sect pouring millions into Maine to take away marriage rights for gay couples there. Almost all the funds, to destroy marriage equality in Maine, came from outside the state and much of it was clearly handed over by the Catholic Church. I don't mean members of the church, but the church itself. Personally I think they should lose their tax exemption if they are going to pour millions into political campaigns. Other political bodies don't have the tax exemption that they have and they consume vast amounts of government resources.

Two recent incidents show the depth of hatred that strong Catholics are capable of feeling toward gay people.

Let us start with the Republican Governor of Rhode Island, Don Carcieri, a rather rabid Catholic. The state legislature passed a law to allow the surviving partner of a gay person the right to plan their partner's funeral. That is the entire piece of legislation—letting a gay person plan the funeral for the person he/she loved, who has died. Carcieri vetoed that legislation. His view is that gay people in relationships should NOT have the right to plan their partner's funeral.

Carcieri said that allowing this is part of a "disturbing trend" and that the voters of the state should have the right to make the decision. Understand what he is saying: if a same-sex couple have been together for decades, and one partner dies, the other partner is to be excluded by law from being able to plan the funeral simply because Catholic Carcieri thinks God hates homosexuals.

The law was passed when a gay man was unable to legally claim the body of his deceased partner. The body remained in state custody for weeks instead. These people hate gays so much that they won't let a gay man or woman plan their partner's funeral. The governor's veto will probably be overridden by the state legislature, thankfully. Exactly why should the right to plan a funeral for one's partner be determined by majority vote?

And for those conservatives pretending to be libertarians, who say this matter can be "privately" decided by contract, that simply was not the case. When Mark Goldberg tried to claim the body of his partner of 17 years so he could be cremated, according to his wishes, he was denied that right. "Gold said he tried to show the police and state medical examiner's office 'our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate' from Connecticut, but 'no one was willing to see these documents." He was only allowed to handle the arrangements after several weeks and then after the state placed an ad in the paper seeking "next of kin" of the deceased, It took over a month's worth of bureaucratic fighting before he allowed to have the funeral for his partner. Imagine being forced to fight for a month just to have a funeral for your partner.

It is a fraud when these people say that they only want to "reserve" marriage to straight couples and do not wish to deny gay couples other rights. They wish to deny all rights to gays for the same reason the Nazis wanted to deny all rights to Jews. (Hating Jews was another thing the Catholic Church did so extremely well for centuries.)

Historically the Catholic Church has no right to preach about morality, having justified repressive regimes like Franco and Hitler, and having engaged in such monstrous practices as the Inquisition and the execution of heretics, "witches," and dissenters. Denied the power to actually kill people in recent decades the church instead has worked hard to help cover up for the bevy of child rapists that fill their priesthood. Of course, to divert attention from their own utterly corrupt and immoral view of the world they have focused on such "moral" issues as forbidden condoms to stop the spread of AIDS, and legislatively bashing gays.

Another example comes from Catholic Bishop Janusz Kaleta who has something to do with tourism for a city in Kazakhstan. The Bishop was asked about groups of gay tourists and their visits to the city and to the local churches. After saying it was important to encourage people from "all" walks of life to visit he explicitly indicated that gay people should not be included in any tours. He said, "such demonstrations are just not ethical." The person who was speaking to the Bishop, Juergen Steinmetz, assumed the Bishop misunderstood. He claified that these tourists were not conducting "demostrations" they were simple visitors to the city who wanted to see the sights. The Bishop replied that just being gay itself is a "provocation" to the church and an insult to the Vatican.

The Bishop said: "I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is an abuse of our building and an abuse of this place." Strange he is worried about "abuse" that exists merely from the presence of a gay person after the church has done so much to cover up real abuse of children by their own clergy.

This is how deeply the antigay hatred of the religionists goes. One Bishop of the church says that even gay people as tourists is offensive while an antigay Catholic, Republican Governor says that gay people shouldn't be allowed to plan their partner's burial without a public vote approving it.

No person's right should be subjected to majority approval. If Catholicism needed the approval of the majority to open a church, in the American South, it would never have opened a church. The rights of black people should be subjected to the votes of white majorities. The rights of Mormons should not be subjected to the vote of a Christian majority. Majorities simply ought not have the power to approve whether minorities are allowed equal rights before the law. The very idea that it should be this way is inherently authoritarian.

I find it particularly odd, or perhaps telling, that the two sects most vitriolic in their hatred of gays, the Mormons and the Catholics, have their own sexual secrets that they want so much to hide. The first was founded by anti-monogamy activists who had dozens of wives and the second group has actively worked to hide child rapists from the consequence of their actions. I suggest they are so vitriolic because they have such pasts, not in spite of them.

Video shows Mormon thugs roughing up couple for a kiss.

It is not well known that the Mormon sect employs large young men as their muscle, especially around their so-called temples. These men are hired to roughhouse anyone that may protest the church or attempt to pass our literature that doesn’t meet their standards.

In most the country the temples are surrounded by sidewalks and streets open to the public. This has always vexed the Mormon church. It makes it easier for people to do inconvenient things like speak against the sect, carry picket signs, hand out literature, or apparently, kiss.

The way the sect handled this in Salt Lake City was to use their massive political power in the state to turn the public street in front of the temple into Mormon church property. Since the street, used by pedestrians, not cars, continues from public property to public property most people never realize that the Mormon cult managed to get the politicians to give them domain over the small stretch of land outside the temple gates. The Mormon majority on the city council vote for the land transfer, while the two non-Mormons on the council opposed it.

People walk along the street, as they would any downtown street, never realizing that they leave public property, enter private property, and then re-enter public property, all in a matter of seconds. But it gives the Mormon cult something they desire, the ability to snuff out dissent, or anything else for that matter.

Matt Aune, and his partner Derek Jones, didn’t realize what was going on. They were walking down the street, side by side, holding hands. As they were walking Aune, still at the side of Jones, gave him a hug and kiss on the cheek. Seconds later they were surrounded for four burly thugs in suits who were yelling at them. Aune pulled Jones protectively to his side. The four men surround the couple and become more and more agitated. Suddenly they move, one of them grabs Jones and flung him to the ground. The other three grab Aune and begin trying to wrestle him to the ground. (Three on one, Mormon fairness.)

The Mormon hired guns handcuff the men and call police, for the crime of a kiss and a hug. Of course, they couldn’t make that the official charge. So they contended the men were guilty of trespassing, even though this street was public for decades and is still wide open for pedestrians and not posted as private. Had there been no kiss there would have been no trespassing charge. When police were called they were told the men had kissed and hugged. That was what the security guards said then. According to the police report the church thugs said that they never engaged in roughness with the two men — something this video calls into question.

After the incident got publicity the church revised their story and painted a scene reminiscent of the most debauched orgies of ancient Rome. Now they claimed there was “groping,” “passionate kissing” and “profane and lewd language.” We know how honest the Mormons are when it comes to gay people. The church contends that they didn’t treat the male couple any differently than any other couple. Yet I know of no incident where any other couple was every wrestled to the ground by burly security thugs for the crime of a kiss and a hug.

While the church has video cameras on the public, better to spot those criminal kissers or felonious huggers, no video footage of the alleged crime actually exists. The church did release film of the men being surrounded by the church-hired thugs. But, for some reason, it can’t supply footage showing that the men were groping each other in public. How convenient.

Public prosecutors had asked for all footage of the incident and when the church only turned over the arrest tape, and had nothing to to back up their accusations, charges were dropped against the men.

Mormon Polygamy: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Earlier this evening I met Flora Jessop. Jessop is the author of The Church of Lies about the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Those are one of the polygamous sects that exist along the Utah-Arizona border. She was born into this polygamous sect and escaped when she was a teenager. Since then she has dedicated herself to fighting this cult and trying to help others, like her, escape from it. If you remember the raids in Texas on a Mormon sect compound recently, her cousin Merril runs that branch of the church. But in this sect it is hard not to have lots of cousins. She had 27 siblings in her family, three mothers and one father.

I went and read a few sites on Flora and what became apparent was the FLDS sect has spent a lot of time trying to smear her. There are sites all over the place purporting to tell the truth about her. I read some of them and noticed how they seemed to neglect to mention a conflict of interest. These “loving relatives” who had to expose the “lies” of Jessup were all still faithful members of the cult in question. So nothing they said is surprising. This is how cults work.

There were a few things that Jessup said which I found interesting. It is also clear that there are some areas where we differ significantly. She has bought into the entire agenda of the “abuse industry.” In her case I can understand it, but that doesn’t mean she is right on everything. There certainly were comments she made where red warning flags were flying in my head. But I won’t go into those disagreements here. Instead I prefer to concentrate on two areas that I found significant.

Flora discussed the problems that she faced in rescuing young girls from the polygamous communities. And it was clear that much of the time the opposition was coming from allegedly non-polygamous Mormons associated with the Salt Lake Church. Over the last couple of decades Flora has dealt with around 1,000 people involved with the polygamous sects. This means she has spoken with many women who got out of the sects after being married off to one of the old men in the community. (I say “old men” because the church intentionally runs the young men out so they are not competition to the old men who run the sect. It is no coincidence that Flora today has contact with 6 brothers who are out of the sect but all her sisters are still there.)

The differences, doctrinally, between the FLDS and the mainstream Mormons is not large. The fundamentalists still practice polygamy today. Mainstream Mormons have not abandoned their belief in polygamy but have suspended its practice officially. They still teach that the highest echelons of the kingdom are reserved exclusively for polygamists. And the mainstream Mormons will still “seal” numerous women to a man as his wives in the next life.

While Jessop acknowledges that many Mormons have helped her with her efforts, she also says that mainstream LDS members have been her biggest opponents as well. She says that many women, trying to leave the polygamous sects, have gone to LDS churches for help. Jessop says that in every case she knows about, the local Mormon bishop has told the women to return to the polygamous community and obey their husband. Mormons also believe that the practice of polygamy will be restored at some time in the future.

Even when the LDS sect gave up the practice, it did so in a very round about way. The then church president claimed that God gave him a revelation of what would happen if the practice weren’t abandoned. But this revelation was not so much a change in doctrine as a tactical decision by the Almighty. For decades, the church leadership continued to allow polygamy and practiced it. It is said that the first church president to have only one wife was President George Smith in 1945. And the polygamists who make up the FLDS church were only excommunicated in 1935—almost four decades after the church claims it gave up the practice.

While the alleged revision of the polygamy doctrine came in 1889 we find that Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather took his fifth wife in 1895. The LDS church had polygamous outposts in Mexico where Romney’s father, Gov. George Romney was born. The Romney family only returned to the US in 1912. Until 1904 the church did nothing to discourage polygamy. Only then did they start to excommunicate some members. But it wasn’t until the 1930s that they really got serious about the matter.

Certainly the Reed Smoot hearings in Congress had numerous top Mormon officials admitting that they still practiced polygamy: including President Joseph F. Smith and Apostle Francis Lyman, Apostle George Teasdale, Apostle John Taylor, and Apostle M. Cowley. Apostle Brigham Young Jr., continued to perform polygamous marriages after the alleged abandonment of the practice. And one LDS professor says that Apostle John Henry Smith told him: “Don’t you know that the Manifesto [abandoning polygamy] is only a trick to beat the devil at his own game.”

It does not surprise me that Mormons today still hanker for the polygamous practices of old. The alleged revelation that Smith announced, claimed to be good for all times. And key Mormon doctrines regarding becoming gods relied upon it. Brigham Young told the church members:

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who entering polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” [Journal of Discourse, Vol 11, p. 269.]

Young said:

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire.... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it.

One of the things I mentioned to Jessop was how I was convinced that Mormon polygamy, for the most part, could not survive without the active help of government. Officially none of the multiple wives are legally married—they are single mothers eligible for all sorts of financial aid from the county, state and federal governments. When you consider that the median age in polygamous Mormon communities is around 12 or 13, you will understand precisely how many millions of dollars politicians are willing to give the sect “for the sake of the children.” Jessop agreed and said: "You can't support three kids these days by yourself, let alone 28." She confirmed that millions in taxpayer funds were flowing in to polygamous communities keeping them alive.

Jessop says that these communities have individuals whose job is to write up grant proposals and submit them to various levels of government. So housing rehabilitation grants, highway grants, educational grants, development grants, etc., pour into these communities. With virtually no separation of church and state in these communities, the church uses the millions showered on the local governments, for its own purposes. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said that the polygamists “proved themselves the master of grant applications.”

Millions of dollars per year flow into the polygamous sects in the form of welfare, benefits and government grants. For instance, the Colorado City airport, used mainly by the church’s prophet (when he wasn’t in prison) was built with $2.8 million in federal pork.

The moronic authoritarians at Homeland Security gave Colorado City the third largest grant for the state of Arizona, a total of $350,000. If you check out a map and look where Colorado City is you will see that it not ever going to be a target for terrorism and is of zero strategic value to the country. Al Herron, of the Prescott Daily Courier, reported in 2003 that “most of the medical insurance of residents of Colorado City” was provided by the state, costing “about $8 million a year.” As of 2003, half the residents were receiving food stamps worth another $3 million per year for those on the Arizona side of the border alone. In 2002 he said 200 residents were getting “child care assistance” worth $600,000.

Herron says that the state of Utah looked at just one polygamous family from 1989 to 1999 and found that during that period they received $647,000 in benefits. They estimated the total benefits giving to this one family to have exceeded $1 million in all years.

Herron found that the federal government had recently given the community $2 million to pave streets, improve the fire department and upgrade the water system. And tens of millions have come in for the FLDS controlled “public” school system.

More recent data indicates that the taxpayer subsidies for polygamists continue. On January 4, 2009, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Carolyn Jessop, who left her husband Merril, said the sect practiced a doctrine they call “bleeding the beast” which “included applying for ‘every possible type of government assistance that is available.’” Author Stephen Singular, who wrote about the sect, is quoted as saying that Colorado City residents received “eight times the welfare assistance of comparably sized towns in the area.” Some of the benefits outlined were:

• 126 children in two polygamous communities who qualified for “KidsCare”.
• 3,416 who received some form of Medicaid
• In Hildale, another polygamous community, 131 were receiving benefits for newborns and other children’s health benefits covered 324 more children.
• Forty-four percent of Colorado City residents received food stamps, worth $1.5 million between 2006 and 2007.
• The average monthly benefit in Hildale was $829, the average benefit for the rest of the county was $250.

When asked, the sect members say they are taught to be self-sufficient. In fact, one FLDS radio station has preached that message. The host who made these claims was himself a recipient of government benefits and the station was funded with government grants.

Government officials, however, play semantics when it comes to taxpayer funding of polygamy. They will tell the public that there is no “fraud” involved because all the cases “qualify” for the aid. If polygamy increases poverty, and I believe it does, and if polygamy is a voluntary decision made the polygamist, then why should the taxpayers be funding this sect? I have little doubts the people qualify for the benefits they receive—the question is whether they should. Without government assistance, I believe these polygamous communities would collapse under their own dysfunctional lifestyles.

Photos: 1) Merril Jessop, Flora's cousin, with his worshipful wives. 2) FLDS "prophet" Warren Jeffs with his 12-year-old wife, one perhaps 70 wives.

Booze in the Mormon theocracy of Utah

Reason TV interviews a bartender in Utah about the absurd neo-prohibitionist legislation which the Mormons have inflicted on the state. I went to one "bar" in Utah years ago, in Salt Lake City, and had to sign up as a "member" to be allowed in -- even though I was only ordering soft drinks.

What many people don't know is the Mormon cult calls the state legislators to a private meeting once a year. They like to pretend this is not unusual. In fact the Mormon sect is the only church that does this. While individual legislators may meet with various religious leaders no church summons the state legislator to appear before them -- except the Mormons. And because the Utah legislator is dominated by this cult they obey. One columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune describes what happens:

After consulting the oracles, the Senate president and House speaker reported back: LDS Church leaders might be willing to do away with private club memberships if lawmakers come up with a system for scanning driver licenses.
Utahns are so used to it, we don't even blink anymore. It was a routine news story, rather than an unconstitutional outrage.
"There's not much separation of church and state going on there," says Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It is a clear violation of American democratic principles. The implication is that one church will have more influence than any other group in the state."
More than an implication, it's reality. The ring kissing has settled into policy over generations -- from 1851, when Mormon prophet Brigham Young was inaugurated governor of the Utah Territory, to today, when more than 80 percent of lawmakers are faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Meetings at North Temple are a shortcut -- for governors hoping to end-run opposition to their plans to liberalize liquor laws, lawmakers trying to build public support for controversial legislation or gay-rights groups hoping to gather up crumbs in the wake of Prop 8. Any smart reporter first asks, "Have you checked with THE CHURCH?"
It's realpolitik.
"The overwhelming majority of legislators are LDS," says Will Carlson, public policy manager for Equality Utah. "If the LDS Church made a statement of opposition, the [Common Ground] bills would have no chance."

A church spokesman, Scott Trotter, "says the annual luncheon allows LDS leaders to 'remind' legislators of the church's political neutrality." Oh, right, much like the LDS cult was neutrel with Proposition 8 and then lied trying to cover up their extensive role in pushing that legislation. If one is neturel there is no need to remind people of it. But Mormon rhetoric and Mormon reality are often not the same thing.

Another spokesman for the sect responded to the column, and, as typical of church spokesmen, he misstated the concerns, addressed other issues, and avoided the crux of the issue. He said "churches have always had a legitimate voice in the public square." No one disputes that, but no other church, cult or sect summons legislators to appear before them. It is one thing when churches speak their mind, or what passes as a "mind" in their circles, but it is quite another thing when the legislative body is brought to them to sit at their feet and listen.

The church spokesman says: "The church's views are offered for consideration, not as a mandate." But with 80% of the legislature being members of the sect, and with the sect's heavy emphasis on obedience to church leadership, the former is often seen as the latter by church members in the state house. The Mormon leadership knows this.

Despite their protestations that they were merely a small voice in the campaign to strip gay people of some rights, recent events proved that the church leadership lied to the public about that and that they were far more involved than they admitted. Other than with their own sect members the Mormon leadership is unlikely to convince people that their public statements necessarily correspond with the facts. Based on their proven tendency to lie, skepticism about the truthfullness of Church statements, is probably wise.

A response that says a lot.

One of the most astounding features of the Proposition 8 battle in California was the way that the religious moralists running the campaign routinely lied and twisted facts. I don't simply mean that they interpreted things different. I mean that they consciously and openly lied. You might remember how they lied about students from a charter school going to greet a teacher who had married her same-sex partner. The students were taken by their parents but you wouldn't know that from the press statements from the Yes on 8 campaign. They spread the story, which the Right-wing picked up, that the kids were forced to go by the evil school. That was just a blatant, bald-faced lie. And since the Yes on 8 campaign used an original news story as their source, and since that story included the facts, that the Yes on 8 campaign then changed the facts shows that they intentionally decided to lie to the public. Even when the kids parents said it was lie and asked Yes on 8 to stop using their children in television commercials the Prop 8 campaign maliciously ignored those requests and continued the campaign of lies.

Now we discover, as reported yesterday, that the Mormon Church has filed new "amended" reports on the money spent to help pass Proposition 8. In the past they whined that they had done very little for Prop 8 and were being targeted for protests merely out of bigotry. It turns out that they under reported their donations by at least 99% -- that is they only reported a tiny sliver of what they actually contributed and had hidden the rest.

I thought it would be interesting to see how the Yes on 8 campaign responded to the Mormon admission that their previous returns were false. Now the liars behind the Prop 8 campaign have issued a statement. Jeff Flint, who help forge the deceptive Prop 8 campaign, dismisses the news about Mormon deception: "I don't think anybody beyond rabid opponents of Proposition 8 will consider it newsworthy to find out that leaders of the Mormon church spent time on the campaign."

Actually the question was never whether Mormons spent time on the campaign. That was known and never denied. Mr. Flint is being deceptive again. The question was about how much money the Mormon cult directly poured into the campaign. They claimed it was a paltry $2,078 and others said that was a lie. Now the Mormons admit that what they reported was only 1% of the truth and that they had hidden at least 99% of their spending. So the issue was Mormon money going from the church to the Prop 8 campaign not Mormon time spent.

If a Mormon bishop, or someone else who holds an office in the church far in excess of anything Jesus ever accomplished in his lifetime, spends 10 hours pushing a bigoted agenda that is his business. If the Mormon Church pays him a salary to spend those 10 hours then it is a campaign contribution that is supposed to be reported. When I donated to the No on 8 campaign I was specifically told that any donation over a certain amount had to be reported and I was required to list my name and address.

Nor was the question actually about whether the Mormons gave money to Yes on 8 campaign work. That the church was doing that was widely known which is why there were protests outside the Temples where the Mormons conduct their "secret" rituals meant to turn their members in gods themselves. What was at question was whether or not the Mormon leadership had been lying to the public when they pretended to have spent only $2,078 on the Yes on 8 campaign.

Now there is no dispute. The Mormons admit they lied through the "amended" report which apparently discovered 99 times more spending then they previously reported. In fact, I believe that is still only a fraction of what they really spent and that a large amount of spending is still being hidden. For instance this Mormon run website told Mormons to print campaign literature for use in their area. And urged church members to fund the printing if the amount was too substantial for the person doing the printing. What they didn't tell Mormons was that any in-kind donation, such a printing literature, over $50 had to be reported. It is possible that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of unreported spending was being encourage by the Mormon wing of the Prop 8 campaign.

Mr. Flint had to know that the Mormon sect was directly spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to push his campaign. And then they spent millions more indirectly through their membership obeying the "prophets" to donate to the hate campaign.

What was always the issue was whether the Mormons lied about their involvement, not the amount of time they spent on it as Mr. Flint pretends. At this point there is no question that the Mormons lied. But that is par for the course and I don't expect Flint to condemn lying --- after all it worked for him and his campaign.

Mormon Church admits they lied about funding Prop 8.

It’s official, the Mormon Church lied. When I say it is official I am going straight to the source itself. The Mormon Church has now basically admitted that they publicly lied about their role in pushing Proposition 8 to remove marriage rights from gay couples in California.

The role of the Mormon sect in this anti equality crusade was heavily reported on at the time. The Mormon leadership feigned shock and said they were being victimized and discriminated against because it was just a bunch of lies. They claimed that they spent only $2,078 in support of Proposition 8. And obedient Mormons posted that claim on web sites and in letters to newspapers all across the country. The litany from Mormon apologists was that Prop 8 campaigns (pro and con) spent millions while the Mormon Church spent a paltry $2,078. Based on that, to single them out as a major factor just showed prejudice and bigotry. Mormons love to play the victim card.

The problem was that there was plenty of evidence that the $2,078 figure was a lie. It was clear that the Mormon Church had spent much, much more than that and was illegally hiding those donations. It was proven that the church had operated telephone banks to get Prop 8 volunteers recruited from Mormon ranks. It was also known that a satellite link up was used to broadcast a top level Mormon speaking to hundreds of Mormons churches, urging their members to volunteer for Prop 8 and to contribute money. All these “in kind” donations were left off the reports of what the Mormon Church had spent in the campaign.

Some Prop 8 opponents filed complaints with California that the Mormon Church had been deceptive about the level of funding they gave to the measure. And, with enough evidence to back them up, the state was investigating the matter. Facing this investigation, which was going to show the church had lied, the Mormon leadership decided to file a new, updated report which admitted they had filed misleading financial reports before. They are now saying that they previously neglected to report 99% of their actual spending. When you neglect to report 99% of what you spent in a campaign, you are not being forgetful. To neglect 99% of your contributions requires premeditated, intentional action on your part. While one might accidentally forget to mention an expense here or there, it stretches credibility for anyone to think that 99% of spending was left off the reports due to an error.

The new report filed by the Mormons admits to spending around $190,000. Even when the complaint against their deceptive reporting was originally filed, the Church insisted that they had reported everything that was required. But the new, amended report now admits that their previous denial was false. They say that the church spent $96,849 alone on church staff members who, while paid by the Mormon Church, were working for Prop 8. Dozens of air tickets were purchased for top officials from the Mormon sect to fly to California to rally the local Mormons behind the measure

I strongly suspect that this is still a fraction of the total that was actually spent by the Mormon Church. As a Church they have long history of secrecy and playing fast and loose with the truth especially when it comes to their public statements. And there are areas of spending which I have reported on this site which I doubt are included in the amended figures which the Church reluctantly filed.

I also suspect that the reason they filed this report was that any investigation into their activities would easily prove these expenditures by the church. I have little doubt that Church officials are hoping that this admission will end any investigation and leave uncovered a even greater level of spending by the sect.

Even if this were all the contributions from the official church, it is still misleading. What is critical to remember is what they did with the $190,000 that they now admit spending. What the Mormon leadership did was use this money to raise significantly more money from the Mormon faithful. Church leaders spent these funds sending messages to other Mormons to fund Proposition 8. Estimates have Mormons contributing $20 million in total to this campaign.

So the money spent was used to finance a fund-raising effort that ultimately provided the lion’s share of the revenue used in the anti equality campaign. The New York Times accurately reported that Mormon support “tipped the scales” for Prop 8. Considering how close the vote was in the state, it is safe to say that without the $20 million in Mormon funding that Prop 8 would have failed.

So, even if the $190,000 is the full amount the Church spent, it directly lead to the raising of millions of dollars. The $190,000 spent by Mormon leaders surreptitiously was pivotal because it lead to millions more in campaign funds, which were enough to turn a losing percentage into a narrow victory.

It is no surprise that the media is now reporting that Mormon officials were “unavailable” to comment on this admission by the Church. The fact is that the Mormon leadership lied about their role in Proposition 8. They lied about the money they spent and they knew they were lying. Only the impending investigation of their lies forced them come clean and admit they had reported only around 1% of the true figure. And I still alleged that there is a lot more hidden spending that can be uncovered. If the California state government goes ahead with their investigation, I expect some new “amended” reports to suddenly be filed by the Church. And even then I wouldn’t bet that those would cover it all.

So what sort of credibility does this church have? They lied about the money they spent on the campaign. When they were called out on the lies they made accusations against those who caught them, and continued to lie Only when faced with an investigation that they couldn’t control, did they suddenly discover that they a hell of a lot more then they previously admitted.

Mormons say no to equal rights, again.

Because of the prominent role played by the Mormon Church is stripping California’s same-sex couples of their marriages the issue of same-sex relationships has heated up in Utah, home for the cult. The Salt Lake Tribune has polled the public on the matter of recognizing the equal rights of gay people and what it found shows a profound difference between Utahans in general and Mormons.

Without exceptions the Mormons are far less tolerant and far more likely to demand that gays be treated as second class citizens.

A plurality of non-Mormons in Utah support a measure to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. In the general public this breaks down to 48% in favor and 43% opposed. But when it comes to Mormons only 12% will even allow gay couples a civil union, let alone marriage equality.

A majority of non-Mormons say that gay couples should be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, only 30% oppose equality in this matter. Among Mormons 67% want gays at the back of the adoption bus -- actually they think they should be kicked off the bus.

So what about issues like allowing visitation rights in the hospital for gay couples? Half of the Mormons surveyed said that the same-sex partner of someone in hospital should not be allowed to visit. This is astounding. But when asked about issues like the right to inherit from their partner, or visit them in hospital, half the Mormons would deny even those rights to gay couples. Only about a quarter of the non-Mormons felt the same way.

One Mormon told the pollsters expressed the views of many Mormons: “I don’t believe they should have any rights at all,” said Maureen Johnson of South Jordan, Utah. Indeed, stripping people of their rights, in order to conform with the wacky theology of Mormonism does seem to be high on the Mormon agenda. Of course, even the Mormons have progressed. At one time in history they slit the throats of sinners now they just treat them like dirt. More amazingly the Mormons then whine when people protest this treatment.

Mormons lied...

The Mormon Church, the muscles behind the antigay Proposition 8 in California, lied. Anyone reading this blog knew that already. The Church claimed they had only given $2000 to Prop 8 but they hid a large amount of the money they spent without reporting it, as required. This video shows them admitting how they were going to set up expensive internet campaigns and calling centers to contact voters. None of those expenses were reported by the Yes on 8 campaign or the Mormon Church.

As for tax exemption for the church, I say abolish it. While I'm in favor of abolishing all taxes as quickly as possible until then these religious groups shouldn't be exempt. The people they were attacking with Prop 8 had to defend their rights with income they had AFTER taxes. The Mormon Church had no such obstacle. They enjoyed a privilege denied to the people they were attacking. If the Church wishes to remain tax exempt then church leaders have no business running political campaigns.

That the Mormon sect uses its tax exemption to run political campaigns ought to worry everyone.

Other shoe drops: tear up those marriage certificates

You might remember the television ad from the anti Prop 8 campaign that got the Religious Right and their fellow travellers rather upset. They shouted with horror that the commercial showed two Mormon missionaries visiting the home of a lesbian couple and searching through it until they could find the couples marriage certificate in order to rip it up.


Various members of the fringe Right were in a dither. They argued that the commercial amounted to hate speech -- unlike the sermoms that are preached in their churches targeting specific groups of people regularly. (By the way, just because something is hate speech doesn’t mean it ought to be illegal. I’m a first amendment absolutist.) Apparently pointing out, in a rather humorous way, precisely what the Mormon sect was doing is not hate -- it’s journalism. That is what the Mormon cult was up to with this campaign.

So how unfair was the ad? After all, some argued Prop 8 merely stripped gay couples of the their right to marry. It didn’t require that anyone march into people’s homes and destroy their marriage certificates.

The Sacramento Bee reports on the most recent legal brief filed by the Yes on 8 campaign in the California Supreme Court. In practical terms it demands that the Court order the marriage certificates of gay couples to be ripped up.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

Isn’t that, in practical terms, precisely what the commercial so humorously depicted? Didn’t the Prop 8 campaign know that, all along, they were intending to try to nullify the marriages of other people? Weren’t they intentionally hiding their intentions from the voters?

Fundamentalists and cults like the Mormons are masters at deception. They hide their ambitions or beliefs from the public. The fundies hide their ambitions, the Mormons hide their bizarre beliefs, though in Prop 8 the Mormons also hide their ambitions.

I remember a seminar given by Rev. Richard Angwin, a fundamentalist Baptist who once roamed the country teaching born-again Neanderthals how to politically campaign against the rights of gay people. In one of his lectures he warned fundamentalists to hide their full agenda. He told them not to reveal all the moral laws they wished the state to put into place otherwise they would turn off voters.

For months the Yes on 8 hate-mongers were silent on what they would do the thousands of happily married couples. Now the other shoe drops. But anyone with an ounce of brains already knew that this what they intended to do.

I wish to address one further issue here. I have had some libertarians argue that opposition to equal marriage rights is not inherently bigoted. I disagree.

Opposition to a state institution of marriage is not bigoted but if such an institution exists, and they advocate a measure which strips one precise, identifiable group of people, from that institution then it is bigoted. It is especially bigoted if they themselves are, or have been married. One can oppose state education without being a bigot. One can’t argue that state schools should exclude Jews or blacks or even Mormons, without being a bigot. Opposition to state schooling is not bigoted, opposition to state schooling for one group of people is.

The Rick Warrens, the Mormon sect members, and the Catholic Bishops are antigay bigots. This is not debatable. Any campaign that targets one group of individuals, in order to strip them of rights, which are enjoyed by the rest of population, is unavoidably bigoted.

Some of the bigots, who think they are clever, argue that they want gays to have the same marriage rights as everyone else: that is the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Imagine the howls of the Jonah Goldbergs of the Right if a campaign stripped Jews of the right to worship their god? Surely campaigners in that measure could argue they want Jews to have the equal right to worship the Jesus of their choice.

The Right is very worried about PCish legislation that regulates what people eat and strips them of their freedom of choice. They would reject a claim by health Nazis that such laws merely enforce the equal right to eat healthy food. A law that forbids eating fatty foods, or which restricts which god one may worship, can be couched in the same terms that the anti marriage campaigners use.

If the law gave everyone the right to attend the Baptist church of their choice the Mormons would be furious and argue that their rights were being violated. They would be correct. To then turn around and argue that gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex, like everyone else, is just as ludicrous.

If a law were passed stripping Mormons of their right to believe in billions of Gods and gold plates, and baptism for the dead, they would be livid. They would not accept that their rights are equal if it meant only the equal right to worship the Christian god. Yet, they turn around and use precisely that kind of law, and that kind of logic, to strip another minority of their rights. No libertarian ought to give that sort effort any kind of support. You may oppose state marriage in general, but to oppose it for one group of people is not libertarian. And if you oppose it in general, but only campaign to strip one group of people of that right, and you are not a bigot, then you are doing a rather good imitation of one. Personally I’m not convinced it is an imitation, I suggest such libertarians are merely embracing their inner bigot. I am not saying they have no right to be bigots, they do, but they ought to be honest enough to admit it. And they ought to recognize that the law should not embrace their personal prejudices but grant equal rights and protection to all citizens.

PS: I am curious. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons were together for decades. Shortly before the death of Phyllis Lyons, the couple married. Can we really declare legally invalid, the legal marraige of a woman, after she has died? I guess with this weird baptism for the dead Mormon thing, they feel they can rip up marriage certficates for dead people as well.

A Perfect Storm: Mormonism's PR disaster

One of our readers, who is a writer for Daily Kos, posted a link to his article regarding Mormonism. Among the material he offered was this gem of a report on how Mormonism is being hurt by their involvement in the Prop 8 campaign.



Watch it.

I have found it disturbing that some conservative gays are urging that demonstrations near Mormon temples end. This is the natural conservative tendency to give religion a pass on criticism no matter what it does or says. And there is no rational reason to exempt religion and religious institutions from rational criticism or protest. In the case of the Mormons there are positive reasons to get involved.

The Mormon church, as I have pointed out, is obsessed with public relations as part of their campaign to convert the world to polytheistic theories of Joseph Smith. The Mormon leadership intentionally planned this campaign in a way which was supposed to distance the church itself from the campaign and give them plausible deniability as to their involvement. It didn't work. There fingerprints were all over the campaign and anyone who followed the money found it kept going back to Mormon pockets.

Of course, protests will not change the abomination that took place in California on election day. But only a fool thinks the question was settled in that election. It is true the California Supreme Court may still be able to overturn this vote as improperly done -- and I think there is a strong case for that. But it is also possible that this will come up future votes as well. If the Court rules that a simple majority can strip people of rights then a simple majority can restore them also. And it is only a matter of time until that happens -- all the demographics are in favor of gay marriage. Old farts who opposed the measure are dying every die.

In addition more and more people have been changing their minds about the matter. The moral Armageddon that the Religious Right pushes with such hysterical fervor is almost entirely imaginary. Their dirty minds work overtime in predicting disasters that have no basis in reality. And with each year that goes by, with disaster striking, their credibility on the issue diminishes. I think they will have a hard time winning another vote on this issue. The smartest thing the gay community can do right now is file an initiative to overturn the ban and start collecting signatures at the rallies. Experts on petitioning I know say these protests are petitioners dream.

If this matter comes to another vote the Mormon leaders will have to decide how much they wish to risk in order to rally their obedient members into action. The more protests they face today the less likely they are to do this again in the near future. The reason that protests outside Mormon temples make sense now is a preventative measure -- to send a message to the Mormons that the real cost of their campaign isn't just the millions they send to hate campaigns but the negative publicity that they face as well. Protests today make it less likely that the Mormon cult will thrust itself into future anti gay campaigns.

PS: After I posted this I saw an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune which covers the same topic. This story covers the actions of Gregory and JaLynne Prince of Washington, DC, who are active in trying recruit people to Mormonism. They report that their daughter lost friends upset over Mormon involvement in the Prop 8 campaign and that their son, who is a Mormon missionary "has had a disproportionate number of potential converts cancel appointments." The Princes teach a class on Mormonism at Wesley Theological Seminary and report that students in their classes were dismayed by the Mormon Church's involvement. Mrs. Prince says she isn't taking sides on the issue but says "the way this [their antigay campaign] was done has hurt our people and the church's image."

Particularly odd is that this article quotes Gary Lawrence, a PR type, who worked for Prop 8 on their payroll and is an active Mormon. Lawrence says: "These protests will help us. It puts a spotlight on us." This article makes no mention of how Lawrence's own son now refuses to speak to his father and has resigned his membership in the cult over it's involvement in the Prop 8 campaign. Lawrence admits: "Those who know one Mormon have a worse opinion of us than those who don't know any Mormons." Mark Silk, professor of religion at Trinity College in Hartford says that the massive amounts of money the Mormons spent to push Prop 8 is also a negative for them. It said their funding "raises the specter not just of Mormon weirdness but also Mormon power as far as cash on the barrel."

The most bizarre aspect of this report is the quote from Scott Trotter, a spokesman for the sect. Trotter actually claimed: "All in all, 2008 has been a particularly good year for the church." His evidence for his assertion is that Mormons built some new temples, have 52,000 pesky missionaries going door to door and claim a record membership. Most of this higher membership is fraudulent. The American Religion Identification Survey found that in the U.S. Mormonism gained almost as many new members as it lost. But the church has a tendency to claim people as members who, if asked, would say they are no longer Mormons.

Dishonesty is often a part of Mormon PR tactics, they will claim membership figures 3 to 4 times greater than the number of people who actually identify as members of the church. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Mormons claim 850,000 members in Mexico while only 205,000 Mexicans claim to be Mormon. In New Zealand the church says it has 91,000 members but in the national census only 40,000 Kiws claim to be Mormon. The church says it has 177,000 members in the U.K. but local statistics show only 62,000 people see themselves as Mormons.

More Prop 8 fallout.

The anger over Prop 8, especially over the deceptive efforts by the Mormon Church in that campaign, continues. Protests today were held in well over 100 American cities and in at least 8 other nations as well. The Mormon sect still argues that they are being singled out unfairly, in spite of having their members provide the bulk of the funding.

The New York Times has an article: “Mormons tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage”. According to the article the Prop 8 proponents said they were ready to lose the initiative when, at the last minute, extra generous donations directed to the campaign by the Mormon Church changed their fortunes. And Michael Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the Mormon sect told the Times that while the Mormons have spoken out previously on some issues “we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

In response to a decree read to Mormon congregations tens of thousands of Mormons funded the campaign and traveled to California to donate their time. A strategist for one of the proponent groups “estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.”

I read a blog maintained by the a Prop 8 support group which gives instructions to regional coordinators and zip code coordinators for the campaign. The way it is written implies that virtually all the campaign workers were themselves Mormons operating out of the local churches.

This memo is written by Gary Lawrence who is described as an “area grass roots coordinator” as well as “State LDS Grassroots Director.” It is important to remember that the district for the local Mormon church is called a Stake and that a collection of stakes is called a Ward. No other sect uses these terms.

Lawrence’s instructions starts out quoting “Elder Lance Wickman” a Mormon official calling Prop 8 “the Gettysburg of the culture war.” Lawrence discusses the distribution of campaign literature and urges volunteers to pay for them directly. He suggest that if anyone is overburdened financially on this that the regional coordinators should “please find someone in your ward or stake who could help out?”

By the way, this should be seen as an encouragement to break contribution laws. Donations in excess of $50 are to be reported. It is doubtful that a cost under $50 would be too big a burden for a volunteer. So the sums must be higher and this Mormon official is suggesting that these off-the-books payments be made directly. Not only does this violate the law but it also makes the financial contributions of Mormons to Prop 8, which are known to be massive, seem smaller than they really are. This indicates that whatever estimates for Mormon contributions to the campaign we’ve seen based on donation records are too low.

In another section Lawrence asked zip code supervisors to find schedulers who will “call people in the ward and ask them to participate.” He says that the reason to not pass out requests for volunteers “in Priesthood or Relief Society” (two Mormon church organizations) is because “people respond best when directly asked by someone they know”.

Lawrence also writes that Mormon “Elder John Dalton, the Area Authority responsible for all aspects of our LDS effort to assist the coalition, is asking stake presidents and bishops to announce our Walk Saturday program in Church this Sunday.” Lawrence says that church “Bishoprics are being asked to provide that information [on training meetings for Prop 8 volunteers] as part of their regular ward announcements.”

One result of Mr. Lawrence’s actions in this campaign is that his 28-year-old son, Matt, has resigned from the Mormon church. Matt said that the was hurt when his father said “opponents of Prop 8 are akin to Lucifer’s followers” and pleaded with his father, “don’t put me and Satan in the same sentence please.”

Not worthy of a separate blog entry but worth mentioning is the absolutely absurd remark made by a prominent Prop 8 official. He very clearly said that opponents of Prop 8 “have no right boycotting” supporters of the initiative. Frank Schubert, the man hired to run the dishonest Prop 8 campaign, whines that a boycott is trampling “on other people’s civil rights.” Schubert may not be a Mormon but he is moron.

Think for a moment what he is saying? A boycott is when people voluntarily refuse to purchase goods or services from a particular individual or business. How can anyone in a free society not have the right to refuse to purchase something? Is this Prop 8 official really saying that people don’t have the right to make voluntary purchases? I know the Prop 8 officials are very weak on the issue of rights but I didn’t think they were this absurd. Clearly I was wrong.

To show how confused and inconsistent Schubert is, he also whines that he is a smoker -- good, I like it when statists shorten their lives voluntarily -- and that his rights to smoke are being violated. But I notice some hypocrisy in his “rant”. Schubert says “attacking smokers is the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there”. Some people who just got stripped of their right to marry might disagree with Frank.

How about: “If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitution rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s all. Yes, even smokers.” But apparently “equal protection for all” doesn’t include gay couples. These people are shamelessly inconsistent.

And there was one other area where the Mormon-led campaign was intentionally dishonest, one of many I might add. The campaign said that they had no desire to strip gay couples of some rights. Even the Mormon church magnanimously announced that they were not opposed to gay people being allowed to visit their partners in hospital. But documents on how the Mormon Church had been planning to assault the rights of gays for over a decade show this is merely strategy and not the recognition of rights for gay people at all.

A Mormon document prepared in 1997 for Elder M. Russell Ballard mentions a “preliminary meeting at Church headquarters” to discuss strategy at how to prevent gay couples from receiving legal rights regarding their relationships. Ballard is told:

Elder Oaks was the first to recognize that in the political process that in order to win this battle, there may have to be certain legal rights recognized for unmarried people such as hospital visitation so opponents in the legislature will come away with something. This is proving to be the case.

Mormon “recognition” of the right of gay people to visit their partners in hospital has nothing to do with actual rights retained by individuals. It is clearly a strategy meant to placate “opponents in the legislature” so they will “come away with something” so that the Mormons can “win this battle”.

By the way this same document was the one recommending that the Mormons do their dirty work behind the scenes and putting Catholics at the forefront of the campaign instead. It said “the public image of the Catholic Church [is] higher than our Church. In other words, if we get into this, they are the ones with which to join.” By the way, considering the scandals that have raked the Catholic Church for years one must have a pretty low public image to be superseded by the Roman church.

Apparently even something as fundamentally decent as allowing people to visit their sick or dying partners in hospital, is not a right according to Mormons. It is only a necessary concession to prevent gays from obtaining other rights.

Prominent Mormon: Count me Out

Prominent Mormon Bill Marriott, a major shareholder in the Marriott chain of hotels has used his company blog to distance himself from his church's campaign to fund Proposition 8 to strip gay couples of the right to marry. Marriott says he is a Mormon and that some people might conclude "that our company supported the recent ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage in California." But he assures his readers: "This is simply untrue. Marriott International is a public company and is not controlled by any one individual or family. Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8."

Marriott says he is "very careful about separating my personal faith and beliefs from how we run our business" and says the company "was built on the basic principles of respect and inclusion". He wrote: "We embrace all people as our customers, associates, owners, and franchisees regardless of race, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation."

Marriott wrote: "We were among the first in our industry to offer domestic partner benefits, and we've earned a perfect 100% score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index for two years in a row. Many of our hotels have hosted LGBT community functions and events for years. "

A search of the database of contributers to the Prop 8 campaign show only four people named Marriott as contributors. Three gave to the Prop 8 campaign and one opposed it. The three supporters gave a total of $1,200 and none had links that were immediately associated in my mind with Bill Marriott or the company so he may well be telling the truth. My only question is that while he starts out speaking of his hotel and his family when it gets to the point where he states that no contributions were made he drops reference to his family and instead says that he personally didn't contribute. That might be poor wording. Or it might be very carefully considered wording. It might indicate that one of the contributors was, in fact, a family member just not Bill Marriott himself. However, I'm satisfied with Marriott's statement and don't see a reason why anyone should shun his hotels, at least not in relationship to Prop 8.

However, that said, I'm not sure this is going to placate a lot of gay travellers. The real story in the response to Prop 8 passing is that this one measure, like nothing else in history, has united and angered the gay community. Millions of gay people are enraged across the country and at the same time. If Prop 8 was meant to harm the rights of gay people, and it was, the net result, long term, may be the very opposite. Millions of gays who had previously been apolitical are pissed off and contributing and marching and this is not going to stop for some time.

If there is a slogan that captures it try this one: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." The Mormon Church and their deceptive campaign have prodded a sleeping bear and then they kept prodding it until it woke up very angry. That may well mean the bear will sometimes pick the wrong targets but it doesn't mean the bear is going back to sleep very quickly.

For me, as a libertarian, my concern is that the gay community will go overboard and ask for things which I don't believe anyone has the right to ask for. But I can't really blame them. Marriage rights were a legitimate request and ought not be denied. Conservatives who acted to deny gays their legitimate rights may not only lose that battle but end up seeing badly crafted laws on "hate speech" and private discrimination as well. That is, in order to win a small battle the conservatives may have lost the war and, in the end, lose what little they gained in the small battle as well.