Behind The Church’s $1 Million Prop 1 Donation

The $1,000,000 message to the members of the Church Why the donation went to Idaho and not Nevada Why this is a first for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Why this draws a line for the Church The Church hasn't moved Right. The Left has moved away. No, this doesn't affect the tax status of the Church

 Raw Transcript:

So, the church makes a $1 million donation to an organization, a political organization that is fighting Prop One in Idaho. This is the one on abortion.
So, they're fighting abortion. This is a new president for the church. They have never done anything at this level before. I'm going to cover that. So,
it's obviously very, very important to them. We're going to cover a Salt Lake Tribune article, a Desireette News, and then a left-leaning article that covers
this as well. that of course is pushing back on this donation from the church.
Is this really a a a a break in the separation of church and state as many argue? Uh is this uh something that church should lose its tax status on?
We're we're going to cover all those things. This episode is brought to you by Warriors of Tankum. This is the men's retreat that we're holding in Zion
Chapter 2: Men's retreat promotion
National Park. We just had one in August. It was sold out. Standing ovation. It's an incredible experience.
This is down in Zion National Park on January 21st to 24th. You can go to warriorsoft.net to find out more. There is nothing like
it out there. This is not therapy. This is not a self-help uh retreat. This is truth and bold focused on gospel-
centered masculinity. Fantastic presenters. And it's going to be in a a fantastic, wonderful location. Beautiful
area down there in southern Utah. To find out more, go to warriorsofoftankham.net. warriorsofank.net.
Get some more information and if you choose, register. Would love to see you there. Here we go.
[music]
Chapter 3: Details of the PAC donation
All right. [music] So, this donation was made actually a few days ago, but the Salt Lake Tribune just came out with an article on this yesterday. I want to
cover their angle on this uh donation and I want to go over some specifics to kind of lay the groundwork on what has
happened here because it is new. It is it is something that has not been done at this level before by the church. So,
is this because there is a change in the presidency? Uh, a new prophet, a new president of the church? Uh, I don't
know. But, but let's talk about this a little bit. All right. The church cut a $1 million check to the This is what it's called, the two extreme for Idaho pack. This is a political pack, right?
By far the largest single contribution that the church has ever made. The committee campaigns as stop prop one too
extreme for Idaho and is chaired by a Katherine Hefner. This is an interfaith pack that a coalition that includes
Blaine Consadi of the Idaho Family Policy Center, the Catholic Dio Dasis of Boise. Uh this is uh they've given about
$300,000 to this effort so far. Uh the LDS representative there is Tom Luna.
He's a former Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction and a former chairman of the Idaho Republican Party. The
church came out with a statement on this donation. It says, "While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
remains neutral toward political candidates, it actively addresses ballot initiatives it believes carry significant moral
consequences." So, we should keep that in mind. Significant moral consequences.
The statement said, "Accordingly, the church has joined a coalition of likeminded organizations and individuals
in Idaho to dedicate resources toward defeating Proposition One." Okay. So, the moral consequences is a a
significant moral consequences, I think, is a significant statement. They're not going to go out and do this for everything even though there are other
political issues or uh uh ballot issues, initiatives, uh propositions, law, etc.
Chapter 4: Strategic political involvement
They're not going to go out and and fight against this either by organization, by inind contributions, or
by cash. Most of the things they're not going to go out and do, right? The church has a stance on many different
things. fewer, by the way, than most Christian denominations would have. But they don't go out and fight every time
that this comes up. In fact, if you go to Nevada, they do put out Nevada is also has uh I think it's question six, I
want to say uh in Nevada that they're voting on, but there has not been a donation made to fight this. It had there has been a letter that has been
put out for the bishops and state presidents and and they're supposed to be reading that in one or I think two
consecutive Sundays at sacrament meeting. So there is some involvement for influence there. Now I think one
thing the church looks at is they've got more influence in Idaho than they probably do in Nevada. And so it's worth it to put the funds that way because
they've probably got a better return on investment so to speak in Idaho than they probably do in Nevada. But they are involved in both of those places.
These funds says Luna will be used for messaging on social media, radio, TV,
and streaming. This coalition, this political pack so far has raised about $4 million as of today. the pack that is
Chapter 5: Financial and social impact
going against the church on this, so to speak, against their stance, that's trying to get Prop One passed. Of course, here's the name of it. Of
course, this is like Planned Parenthood, right? It's it's Idahoans United for Women and Families, except that what they want is to limit the families, right, through abortion.
But they have raised $5.6 million, right? Nearly $5.7 million. So that in the money they are way ahead of the game
even with the contribution of the church and the Catholic dascese currently. In fact the Idahoans united
for women and families has 3.3 million cash on hand and too extreme for Idaho has 2.5. So in the money game the Prop
One people that are trying to get this passed are ahead of the game.
Interestingly, Michael Bloomberg, you know, the guy that ran for New York governor a while back, he is one of the largest donors for yes, for passing
Proposition One. And then you've got the inside Idaho political turmoil for members of the church, the Democrats
that are Latter-day Saints. And this is becoming a really big issue in the church, I believe. And part of what the church does here is make a statement to
its own members. It's not just policy and law in a in the state of Idaho. it is. Look, this is where the the position
of the church is at. For example, the Democratic state senator Sonia Galves uh who is a Latter-day Saint that her
colleagues are pretty dismayed. Quote, right? She is concerned uh about this.
And and come on, I mean, if you're a Democrat and you're a Latter-day Saint, are you voting for more for pro-choice?
Of course, if you go online, you see that there are a number of people that are unfortunately pushing against the
support that the church has given and giving several different reasons why they shouldn't be doing it in Nevada. On question six,
it might also be looks like it might not have as much, you know, I don't know that donating a bunch of money is going to make a difference because it looks like this is going to pass.
The church opposes Nevada's question six, but a recent Tribune review of opposing pack filings found no church
contributions as of Monday, just a couple days ago, and the measure is overwhelmingly expected to pass. Voters
approved it with 64.4% in 2024.
It needs now a second yes on November 3rd. Now, going back to previous donations from the church on different
Chapter 6: Historical context of activism
issues kind of like this, where do we find this? Back in 1998 when we were dealing with state measures in Alaska
and Hawaii, $500,000 was given by the church in Alaska and $600,000 in Hawaii.
So, that is where the church had been up to that point. That's the most amount of money that it had had given out for single initiatives. A letter was sent out in 2000 in California for Prop 22.
Uh in 2000 Nevada question number two, there was possibly some involvement there, but nothing directly. In 2008,
only inind donations of $189,9358 that included travel for officials and
organization, staff time, etc. was given for the mass uh organization that the
church gave at that time for Prop 8 in California. This is of course four years
before we get same-sex marriage in the United States. And the church made a difference in that, a big difference.
Lot of phone calls going out by members of the church, not just in California.
But the $1 million here is by far the largest donation, direct donation that the church has ever given on a ballot
initiative like this. Now, let's cover a couple of these different articles and what is being said here about this donation. In the
Chapter 7: Separation of church and state
Salt Lake Tribune here, October 13th, yesterday, less than a month after voicing opposition, it says to Idaho's Proposition 1. This is the letter that
went out from the area presidency, certainly supported by the first presidency of the church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has cut a $1 million check to the political action committee trying to
sink it. By far the largest contribution to the group too extreme for Idaho PAC and by far the largest contribution the church has ever made on anything like
this. And again, part of the statement, while the church remains neutral toward political candidates, it actively
addresses ballot initiatives, it believes carry significant moral consequences. So, you hear a lot in the
comments section going through X and Facebook and different online, Reddit, etc., you get a this comment about
Chapter 8: Public and political reaction
separation of church and state, which is one thing. We have to have a separation of church and state. People obviously are ignorant of what that means in
separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with a church contributing anything to a political ballot initiative. Nothing whatsoever.
Secondly, the tax status of the church and remaining as a nonprofit is completely safe from any issues because
it is uh it is not toward a candidate or toward a political party. That's the only issue you have to worry about. You
don't have to go out and worry about moral issues or initiatives or specific uh political issues that a church deems
as being a moral issue where they want to gather support and be part of a coalition or drive the coalition if
necessary. They can put as much money behind that as they want. They can organize and do whatever they want. The people that are arguing about this
separation of church and state or the tax status of the church, number one, have no idea what they're talking about, and number two, they're just simply
don't want the church's involvement because they're fighting against what the church fights for. It's pretty simple.
The article quotes a Sam Martin, a political communication professor at Boise State University's Frank Church
Institute, saying that the investment by the church is a meaningful one because it can make a difference in November. He says that quote, "Anyone who is going to
pay attention is starting to focus right now." So, the money is coming in at a good time for the opponents of the
measure. And this is what I'm sure the church is thinking. They've got a shot at fighting this. I don't know that they feel they have a shot at winning
anything in Nevada. Which brings us back to the question of, well, why are they sending out a letter in Nevada?
Chapter 9: Refining the church's message
Right? Again, why are they sending out a letter if they if if if there's not they're not going to match it with money? Most likely because they don't think that they can help win this.
because it's a message to the members of the church on where the church stands on this.
I think that's pretty obvious. The Tribune of course goes out and fights the Democratic senator again here uh
Chapter 10: Differing member perspectives
Senator Galliviz who says that my LDS friends that are doctors, physicians assistants and medical providers see the hope of fixing the statute language
related to the health of the mother slipping farther away. So, one thing to understand here is about the current law in Idaho. It is one of the most strict.
I believe that it's Texas and Oklahoma, I think, are the other two that are very similar to this. And and it is strict.
It is stricter than what the church wants to uh run with and their position.
The problem is is that the opposite of this or the passing of Proposition One takes it well beyond what the church uh
the church's position is and and would change completely abortion in Idaho. So that's the problem. It's not that the
church is like we believe exactly in what this is currently in Idaho. It's this would change things significantly
to to being more toward where things were with Roie Wade.
And there are three different issues right with a church where they offer exceptions on abortion. It is uh if it is for the saving the mother's life
right if her life is in jeopardy then that is allowed. Secondly it is if there is incest rape that is involved and
third it's if the child is not going to the doctors are saying that the child is unlikely to live or hardly have any life
uh uh expectancy uh if if the child is born. So, you know, if it it's likely going to be born, still born or it's
going to be it's going to last, you know, a few minutes or a few hours or whatever it is is where they allow that.
Uh that is where the where the Idaho law currently
is only if it is going to affect the health of and and of of the mother. The Tribune does bring up our friend Mattie
Packer, an influencer, LDS influencer, who praises the church's donation. She says, quote, "How serious it believes the moral implications of abortion truly
are and how strongly it opposes it." Uh, again, I think that that is correct. I think that the implication here, it
goes, the ripple effect goes well beyond trying to change law or or policy or
whatever in in Idaho. it is. This is the church's stance and the members need to know it and the world needs to know it.
This is where the church stands on these things.
And then they go to the opposite side of the aisle with this with uh a woman here, Christine Anderson, also a Latter-day Saint who supports Prop One.
This is kind of silly. It's She says of her four children, three were born via in vitro fertilization.
the fact a fact that influenced her thinking on the issue. She says, quote, I benefited from the church's handbook
handbook's nuance stance on embryos and abortion. It's a bit agonizing to realize those words were just PR for my
church. No, it's a pretty simple stance that that's what their stance is. It's not PR, which instead, she says, acts
like a right-wing culture warrior bent on defeating families who have complicated, heartbreaking stories.
[snorts] Whatever. I I think the I think that the church's position is pretty simple.
It's pretty straightforward and uh and I think it's right. I I fully support it. This is somebody who
disagrees with that. Fine. Disagree with it.
Chapter 11: Critique from By Common Consent
All right. And then I want to turn here to By Common Consent. If you're familiar with By Common Consent, it is a
theological and cultural blog uh that's been around for a long time. I have read this this blog many many times.
Uh very left-leaning, very progressive.
And they have an article here that was written uh a few days ago. This is by a Sam Brunson.
It's called on morality and significant moral consequences. So, back to that phrase that was given by the statement
offered by the church when they made the million-doll donation.
And let's see what he has to say about this. I don't agree with a lot of what he says here or or even the facts that he's claiming. Uh but he says about 3
weeks ago I wrote about a letter from the North American Central Area Presidency to members in Idaho
encouraging them explicitly to vote against Prop 1, which would have enacted the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy
Act. That's another thing I hear is that when people say, "Well, the church is a cult because it's having its members vote this way." What you're really
saying is is you're voting on the opposite side and you'll say anything that uh is against any kind of movement
against what your vote is, what you believe the issue is.
And it's like no, the church isn't making anybody do anything. This isn't, you know, a question on your temple recommend. This isn't matter of whether you can be a church, whether you can
take sacrament or not, whether you vote for this or not. It is urging the members to do so. It believes that this is the right stance and it's asking its
members to to to vote for this and this is the position of the church. Big deal, right? It says at the time it was open,
it was an open question whether the letter had been an institutional church initiative or whether the area presidency was going on a frolic of its own. I don't know why anybody would
think that something so massive like this that the area presidency is all just going to go out on their own and say this without this coming from above
or consulting with wi with uh a higher u officials, church officials on this is is I think kind of silly.
Uh, of course, that's been put to rest here. He says that the East Idaho news reports that the church recently made a million-doll contribution to the stop Prop One too extreme for Idaho campaign.
So Sam here is saying that essentially then the church has announced two things. So this is again interpretation.
I'm going to push back a little bit on this. She says that first it has announced that it supports the current draconian Idaho law which makes abortion
a felony requiring a 2 to fiveyear sentence for doctors who perform abortions and a loss of their medical license.
The law does have a couple of couple of small exceptions but given the nature of the punishment doctors are understandably hesitant to invoke those
exceptions. Look it is more strict than what the church's position is. That doesn't mean that the church supports the law as is. If this was simply going
in and going closer to what the church supports with exceptions for rape and incest and exceptions for uh um the the
baby not being able to live at birth, then sure, the church, I'm sure, would go along with it or they or they just would stay out of it completely. But
that's not what it is. So they're looking at this as okay this is moving us back toward where we were closer to
where we were with Roie Wade as compared to where this draconian current law in Idaho. I so I don't agree with that. I I don't agree with what he's saying here.
Then he says, "Second, it further illustrates that the church's top leaders mean when what the church's top
leaders mean when they say morality. As far as I can tell, morality means same-sex marriage and abortion." I think
it goes beyond that. But yes, I think that's right. I think that those are two levels uh rightly identified of where
the church thinks that you know again family issues building a family the the life and value
of a spirit and a body and and the sanctity of marriage and family yes of course that those are those are
definitely issues of morality significant issues of morality for the church but I think it goes beyond that as well and they've been involved with
other things besides these things. She he says that because look, the church can weigh in on legislation pretty much
to its heart's content. [snorts] In the US, there's no tax or other reason that they can't. Thank you, Sam. And it
doesn't have to limit itself to issues with significant moral consequences, right? It But the statement says that's when it does it.
It doesn't have to limit itself to that, but that's when it does it. But it invokes that language every time it speaks politically or makes political
contributions because that's when they believe it reaches a significant moral consequence. I don't think that's tough.
Chapter 12: Moral imagination and priorities
Uh he says and its political morality shows a posity, right? A limit of moral imagination. It chooses to label protecting a bad law as moral.
Uh it doesn't say that. It doesn't mean that. At the same time, it chooses not to defend the rights of immigrants. And look, go in and talk about other props
that would maybe be about immigrants and maybe there is a place where they would deal with this, but I don't know that they feel it gets
that this is something that reaches the level of same-sex marriage or abortion.
It then he comes on and he says, which I think is disgusting, this whole uh live stream of the execution that's
happening. He says, "It has not joined with Catholic and evangelical leaders in condemning the administration's deeply evil plan to live stream an execution."
Now, first of all, it wouldn't surprise me if they did. It would not surprise me at all if they came out and and condemned it, right? They do that every
once in a while with things that are not under the umbrellas of same-sex marriage and abortion. However, again, this is not a ballot initiative.
This is not even a a a a some type of a a anything that's going to be voted upon where money or statements or uh um
different things are going to make a difference. It's not the same thing.
23 minutesThat doesn't mean that maybe they shouldn't. I I I I think it's a horrible thing that is happening with this administration in terms of a live stream
of the execution. I think it's preposterous and it doesn't say good things about us.
He follows up with this. I just want some clarity here. He says, "These are all moral issues. All issues the church could speak out on, could donate money
to. You're not going to donate money to the the the the lie of execution." And this is where he finalizes things. And
Chapter 13: Culture wars and the church
this is what is really, I think, very interesting and telling for us as a culture of Latter-day Saints right now in the West and in the United States especially.
[snorts]
He says, "But their vision being the leaders of the church of morality feels constrained like moral equates to the
rights favorite culture war topics." I want to repeat that. But their vision of morality feels constrained like moral
equates to the rights favorite culture war topics. So two things, two things here. First of all, the culture warrior thing is ridiculous.
Chapter 14: Final thoughts on church identity
Don't tell me that pushing for abortion isn't a cultural war, right? That that
is that is uh has been for the most part in the minority in many places. It's not as much anymore, but that is the
cultural warrior that is going out there and trying to push for abortion over the last many, many, many decades. That's
cult a cultural warrior. When people assign that to the right, it it doesn't make much sense to me at all. Your the
those that are trying to change culture the most are on the left. A war takes two sides. So that's the first thing I
want to say. The second thing is, yeah, unfortunately, I wish it wasn't this way, but the left
and the right have very different ideas on family, religion, and marriage.
The church hasn't changed because the right has started to all of a sudden support say uh uh traditional marriage
and family and and pro-life positions.
They have always held those positions before there was really a left and a right of to speak of in the United States.
It is the left that has changed their minds on this.
So to say, well, the church is just supporting it. No, because the left has moved so far away from supporting traditional family, whether it is gender
ideology and and transgenderism or or advocacy for LGBTQ issues. I'm not
talking about support and love and opportunity. I'm talking about an advocacy and an agenda that is put in place.
and abortion and same-sex marriage. All of these things are coming from the left.
26 minutesThey didn't even used to be on the left outside of not in the United States anyway. You might have had a lot of that coming in from Europe where a lot of
these ideologies were born coming in through feminism and critical theory and uh Marxism and angles and and all of
these things where they were very anti-family. they just weren't that prominent in the US.
And and it wasn't until the academy started to really adopt all of these positions that we ended up with radical
leftists that were taking on these issues of destroying the family.
So yes, I I it it it's no wonder that this has happened because the left has
become anti-family in so many of its it what it pushes today.
very very different from where it was even just you know 30 to 40 years ago certainly 50 to 60 years ago 70 years
ago that has changed quite a bit so the church not only is helping to influence
a law in Idaho where it actually gave money because it believes it has a chance to make a difference but it is
making a statement to its own members by sending out the letter in Idaho to sending out the letter in Nevada where
they are not coupling that with with a donation to say this is the church's position and this is what we believe is right.
I I think they believe that there is a larger and larger uh contingent of members [music] of the church in the
United States that are becoming pro-choice.
And I don't mean [music] agency, I mean pro-abortion.
And that's hard to that that's hard to uh reconcile with the plan of salvation.
Thanks for listening.