Get the Facts about the LDS church and Prop 8

THE FACTS:

1. Mormons make up only 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 750,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 36 million.

2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then out of a total of 5,661,583 yes votes, LDS voters made up 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.3% of the total Proposition 8 vote (11,050,301).

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign (only spending legal, non-monetary, in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58, to cover the travel expenses of leaders, website creation and management, YouTube videos, and negligent publicity - a letter and a satellite broadcast). Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $36 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Proposition 8. San Diego County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Orange County voted in favor of Proposition 8. San Luis Obispo County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Sacramento County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Fresno County voted in favor of Proposition 8. And the list goes on and on: Merced, San Bernardino, Riverside, Mariposa, Tulare, Imperial, etc.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Though the Church urged its members to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment," not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Source: Facebook Group "Get the Facts about the LDS Church and Proposition 8"

An LDS Guide to MESOAMERICA

Join travelers Daniel Johnson, Jared Cooper, and Derek Gasser as they explore Mesoamerica and compare archaeological records to the Book of Mormon accounts. Discover which sites are easily accessible and which are not, as well as how to get there and what to look for. At each site, the authors explain how archaeology may tie the site to events in the Book of Mormon. From Guatemala to Mexico to Honduras, explore the Mayan cities tucked away in the jungles and mountains of Mesoamerica. Discover the true history of these ancient cultures according to recent archaeological findings, and see what exciting and little-known similarities to the Book of Mormon accounts can be found upon close inspection. Extensively researched and filled with detailed color photographs, An LDS Guide to Mesoamerica contains the latest mainstream archaeological opinions. For the first time, this information has been brought together and organized on a site-by-site basis so that whether you are at home or out in the jungles of Mesoamerica, you will find yourself on a successful, inspirational, and unforgettable journey.

Jared Cooper, Derek Gasser, and Daniel Johnson (my personal friends!)
For more information, visit their blog: http://ldsguide.blogspot.com

Elder Maxwell on Politics

"Part of the contempt of the world comes because the worldly do not understand the things of the Spirit and regard such as foolishness and stupidity. . . The adversary has done well in persuading many people that those who are religious are naive, ineffectual, or insincere. . .

Religious values and experience are bound to shape one's views concerning the issues of the day, a reality for which there need be no apology. Others may freely choose not to attach weight to those views, but to dismiss them out of hand is hardly the characteristic that ought to prevail in a true democracy.

President Joseph F. Smith warned that the gospel causes disturbances, for "we get in the way of purely human affairs and disturb the current of life in many ways and in many places. People who are comfortably located and well provided for do not like to be disturbed... We have our particular mission to perform; and that we may perform it in consonance with divine purposes, we are running counter to the ways of man. We are made unpopular. The contempt of the world is on us, and we are the unloved child among the peoples of the earth." (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 118-19.)

Elder Maxwell continued, "But those who have gospel hope are willing to endure their often misunderstood as well as misrepresented role in the world and, at the same time, to let their hope work within them. Hope is both a developmental virtue and a virtue to be developed. Therefore, we should not be surprised if it involves some pain, especially in the difficult circumstances noted above."

I don't know about you, but I for one was surprised at the pain it involves! :) Before I decided to be vocal about my support of Prop 8, I turned to the scriptures and happened to open directly to this:

2 Nephi 2 "thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain. . . And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed. . . Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh. . . " (And the rest of the chapter is very applicable, as well).

I have lost friends and offended many people who simply do not understand where I'm coming from and do not want to understand. But because I indeed have beheld his glory in my youth, I have a responsibility to share the knowledge of Him and His gospel, whether the world recognizes that or not.

Treasures in heaven!

YES ON 8-- NACHO LIBRE STYLE

Elton John on Prop 8

November 12, 2008

By By Donna Freydkin

USA TODAY

NEW YORK — Sir Elton John, accompanied by his longtime partner David Furnish, had some choice words about California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that passed on Nov. 4.

In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

John and Furnish, and their two cocker spaniels Marilyn and Arthur, were in town for Monday's annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

The bottom line: LGBTs want society to accept their relationships as being the exact same thing as heterosexual marriages. Well they are NOT the same, so they are called something different. Rightly so. And no amount of guilt trips or harassment from the "politically correct" is going to change that.

How Can I Be

Trayce L. Hansen Ph.D. | Wednesday, 22 October 2008
tags :

Permissive laws, permissive behaviour

The research shows that legalising same-sex marriage will increase prevalence of homosexuality, says a psychologist

An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage—which is being considered by voters in several US states—is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

Instead of genetic factors, these Scandinavian studies concluded that unique environmental factors play the largest role in the development of homosexual behavior. The question as to which specific environmental factors contribute to homosexuality was not answered by these studies although some conclusions are offered by Danish and American research data to be discussed later in this article.

But first, it should be noted that although the Swedish and Finnish twin studies are among the best to date, they still have wide margins of error. In fact, the margins of error are so wide it remains entirely possible that genetic factors play no role in the development of homosexuality. That remains to be determined, but what has been resolved is that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental.

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

Interestingly, this Danish research finds that urban birthplace and separation from the same-sex parent both were associated with same-sex marriage for men as well as women. (The latter finding supports psychological theories that have long asserted homosexuality is related to childhood problems—real or perceived—with the same-sex parent). In summary, this study finds that environmental factors that contribute to the development of homosexuality can be social and/or familial.

Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma. The specific elements that create this marked difference are unclear, but the researchers don't believe it's simply due to higher reporting of non-heterosexuality by more educated individuals. They believe one explanation is the fact that with more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle. For an example of how that might develop, see Dennis Prager's article entitled, "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual."

Based on the findings of this American research study, environments that sanction and/or promote homosexuality induce more individuals to engage in homosexual behavior.

Conclusion

All of the aforementioned research studies from four different countries, each utilizing large, countrywide samples, reveal that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate—sometimes greatly—with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality—whether an urban center or a university campus—the more homosexuality there will be in that setting.

Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual—socially, politically, and legally—they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Dr Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice in California.

References
Butler, A.C. (2005). Gender differences in same-sex sexual partnering, 1988-2002. Social Forces, 84, 421-449.

Frisch, M. & Hviid, A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 533-547.

Langstrom, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstrom, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.

Lauman, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Prager, D. (2005). "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual." Available on the web at: http://dennisprager.townhall.com.

Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N.K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77, 102-105.

Yes on Prop 8

My thoughts exactly:

MY PROP 8 VIDEO

Please Note: This is NOT a statement about how I think families with single parents, infertility, or adoption are second rate-- they are not inferior in any way whatsoever. I do not think that, and the LDS church does not think that. This IS a statement about how I think the DEFINITION of MARRIAGE should be between a man and woman and that the family is ordained of God as well as the powers of procreation within marriage. Almost every word is taken from the "Proclamation to the World on the Family", which conveys that whenever possible, children should be raised by a mother and father. But of course there are other circumstances that arise in life. I am NOT saying people in those circumstances are lesser. I am expressing how I believe marriage should be defined with regards to Prop 8. This is not meant to offend. Just my simple testimony. If you're offended--lighten up-- and take it for what it is, one woman's self expression.

Elder Maxwell Prop 8

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, "Meeting the Challenges of Today" BYU Devotional, October 10, 1978. He gave this 30 years ago and he nailed our day.

"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters -- in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.'

"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

"Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as un-trendy and unenlightened....Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some Skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, summer is nigh. Thus, warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat." (Elder Neal A. Maxwell, "Meeting the Challenges of Today" BYU Devotional, October 10, 1978.)

Part 2 of Previous Video

JACK HIBBS-- Pastor for Prop 8

JACK HIBBS-- Pastor for Prop 8