The Church has lobbyists?

Growing up, I remember every election cycle, the bishop would read a letter from the FP encouraging people to vote and stating that the Church has no political affiliation and doesn’t tell members how to vote. I always thought it was really cool and made me proud of the Church.

Very disappointing to learn years later of the massively coordinated effort by the Church to affect politics, specifically around gay marriage. And the history goes long before Prop 8. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising- I actually don’t mind the Church taking political positions where they feel it’s necessary. I guess it was the double speak that got to me, and how it was all so incredibly organized, yet seemed so secretive. To the point that the Church got fined for illegal political practices for the Prop 8 thing. (That fine was relatively minor; I don’t want to make it sound worse than it was)

So, not the end of the world, but disappointing nonetheless. Anybody else had similar experiences growing up?

I know my father has decried vocally the “insanity” of criminalizing people who are trying to use methods that they have found effective for controlling their pain.

I am sure the issue is very complex. I do not mind the church having lobbyists to defend and protect their interests. I do resent the idea of the church having dominant influence in the Utah legislature. For example, I am not sure how this issue necessarily affects the church’s interests. It certainly seems that the church might feel that they know what is for the best for everyone. Let people vote their conscience and be done with it.

Then I read this, I am not sure how much of it is true, but I was surprised for several reasons. Does the church comment on all states medical marijuana bills or just Utah’s? Is the First Presidency really that concerned with Utah politics? Why does the Church have lobbyists in the Utah State legislature, do they have lobbyists in other state and Federal governments that pressure member politicians to vote in a certain way? I do not live in the Western US so maybe this is not news to anyone else. It was just surprising to me.

It doesn’t surprise me that Church leaders won’t hesitate to meddle in politics and aren’t going to apologize for it whenever they think they are trying to defend what they see as the moral high ground. Gordon B. Hinckley already openly admitted that they do this in the following comments from the talk “”Why We Do Some of the Things We Do” and we have repeatedly seen their political influence in examples like Proposition 8 and the Utah alcohol and gambling laws.

I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society.…There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God…Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.

So apparently they also see the legalization of marijuana even if only for prescribed medical use as a moral issue. As far as I can tell they haven’t really explained why they think it is so important to oppose other than a rather vague comment regarding, “concern about the unintended consequences.” What unintended consequences? Assuming some of these supposed negative consequences even exist in the first place how do we know that they are significant enough to justify this hard-line position compared to some of the undeniable existing side-effects of many prescription drugs that are already legal, tobacco, alcohol, gun ownership, etc.?

In fact, some of the people in favor of this bill support it precisely because they think marijuana has proven to be more effective and/or less harmful in treating certain medical conditions than existing prescription drugs many of which contain opiates. My guess is that the Church leaders that made this decision never seriously weighed the advantages and disadvantages of this bill to begin with and simply made a reactionary snap judgment mostly because they associate marijuana with various stoners, liberal hippie tree-hugger types, and other undesirables (from their perspective) along with largely imaginary slippery-slope scenarios and then based on that they basically get to dictate what they think is best not only for active LDS members but around 40% of the Utah population that is not Mormon as well as all the inactive members including many that already drink and/or smoke, etc.

I have friends who worked as undercover Narcotic Agents. One in particular would disappear for long periods of time, come back looking pretty haggard, and then all of the sudden was shaved, clean, and looking great. I asked him: “How are we doing on the war on drugs?” He smiled: “We are getting our a$$ kicked!”

I then asked him further about whether he felt the war on drugs was real, and his response shocked me. “Its a big smoke and mirrors game–the biggest dealer is the US Government.” Get a book called “Dark Alliance” by Gary Webb if you think I am wrong.

If I want pot, I could have it in about 60 min. If I wanted good stuff, I could find where and get it very fast. And,…here we have people who have legitimate medical needs (and YES!!!!! the substance has some VERY recognized and valid medicinal value) and we criminalize it for them….all the while having it be almost as easy to get as alcohol.

I will never understand this.

Didn’t the church at one time have a campaign against condoms as well?

And, for the record,..I have never been high, never drunk, and never smoked or used marijuana in my life. I drank coffee once, and know I am going to hell for sure because of that. Good thing I’ve never drunk a power-drink with massive more caffeine in it…. Oh wait…I did that once as well. Well,…no worries…as long as your caffeine is cold, you can drink as much as you want.

I am not aware of a campaign against condoms.

If we are going to ask those types of questions in a rhetorical tone, we need to try to provide sources.

😳