Mormon church officials have now disclosed $190,000 in contributions to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign… this is up from $30K reported earlier in the week.

The church had previously denied any financial support for the campaign beyond a $2000 expense for a visiting Elder of the church.

The report, filed with the secretary of state’s office, listed a variety of California travel expenses for high-ranking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and included $20,575 for use of facilities and equipment at the church’s Salt Lake City headquarters and a $96,849 charge for “compensated staff time” for church employees who worked on matters pertaining to Prop. 8.

“This is exactly what we were talking about when we filed the suit,” said Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. “They spent money on the campaign and were supposed to report it.”

Church officials have yet to comment.

More on the recent disclosure.

While I’ve never been a huge fan of the Human Rights Campaign, they’ve laid all their cards out on the table for this op-ed by its president Joe Solomnese, and I applaud them for it. Excerpts below:

It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation. And the Obama campaign’s response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we’re also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade.

…inviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too.

We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, “We’re opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don’t worry”?

…What the Obama team needs to understand is that for many LGBT Americans, this November was bittersweet. We were thrilled with Obama’s victory and, in fact, many of us worked the phones, pounded the pavement and wrote checks to make that happen. But the next day, we learned that Proposition 8 passed in California, and our hearts sank. It was the biggest loss our community has faced in decades.

One of the biggest reasons for that hurtful outcome was the Rev. Rick Warren, who publicly endorsed Proposition 8 in late October. He told his parishioners and reporters alike that “any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships.” But civil marriage rights for same-sex couples had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

More recently, he even compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. He may cloak himself in media-friendly happy talk that plays well on television, but he stands steadfastly against any measure of equality for LGBT Americans.

…So, are we angry about Rick Warren? You bet we are. And including a gay marching band in the inaugural festivities doesn’t heal this wound. It only serves to make us question the promises that Barack Obama made in his historic quest to be president. We pray we weren’t misled.

The piece runs tomorrow in the Washington Post and is available in online here.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) announced today that they would investigate allegations that the LDS Church did not fully disclose non-monetary contributions to the Prop 8 Campaign.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate called for the investigation last week, writing a letter to the FPPC detailing many of the allegations, including:

• Church organized phone banks from Utah and Idaho
• Sending direct mail to voters
• Transported people to California over several weekends
• Used the LDS Press Office to send out multiple News Releases to promote their activities to nonmembers
• Walked precincts
• Ran a speakers bureau
• Distributed thousands of lawn signs and other campaign material
• Organized a “surge to election day”
• Church leaders travel to California
• Set up of very elaborate web sites
• Produced at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts all in support of Prop 8
• Conducted at least 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 Western states

These allegations are on top of the $22 million raised by Mormons in support of Prop 8, and according to Karger are in violation of the Political Reform Act.

While the LDS Church has not yet commented on the announcement, they have previously stated that they “fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act” and that “any investigation would confirm the church’s full compliance with applicable law.”

Roman Porter, executive director of FPPC said today that an investigation doesn’t necessarily mean there was any wrongdoing, and asked everyone to “reserve judgement.”

For more information…

• Karger’s letter to the FPPC
• Probe into LDS Church’s Prop 8 donations
• Why Catholic involvement in Prop 8 needs to be scrutinized as well

Cassandra Handley, author of VF.com’s “A Mormon View” blog, feels the Mormon church has been unfairly criticized since the passage or Prop 8. Vanity Fair published a conversation between Handley and Sue Carswell, representing the L.G.B.T. community, and moderated by Michael Hogan, V.F.’s executive online editor.

Here are few of the more interesting exchanges:

Hogan: But if it’s just about semantics, why is the Mormon church trying to change the constitution of the state of California?

Handley: We have something that we call the Proclamation of the Family that basically states our position on the importance of the family. We value family as being the most crucial institution in the world. And the first statement of that proclamation, which I don’t have memorized, is something along the lines of, We believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it says something along the lines of, We value procreation so much, and the way that procreation can take place is between a man and a woman.

Carswell: I’m sure there are members of your church who can’t have babies and go through fertility treatments, adoption. The same way that gay couples can and do in their own marriages.

I can’t understand why you would come to my wedding when you say what you just said. I’m not getting a civil union. I’m having a wedding. What’s the difference between the two that I’m not getting here? You would come to my civil union? Of course you would, according to what you’re saying. But you’d also come to my marriage, yet you’re saying that you’re against marriage.

Handley: The thing is, though, if this proposition had not passed, religious groups could have been forced to conduct same-sex weddings. And if they refused, they could have been open to legal action.

Hogan: That’s not really a rationale for changing the constitution of the state to say that same sex-couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married anywhere and that a bunch of people who’ve already been married now have to lose their marriage licenses. That’s an argument to say, You shouldn’t force us to conduct same sex marriages, which is a much more modest goal.

and…

Hogan: Let’s talk about definitions of marriage and how they have changed in the L.D.S. church over time, and the fact that there was a time when polygamy was recognized in the L.D.S. church.

Handley: There was a time.

Hogan: And when did that end?

Handley: In order for Utah to become a state, it obviously had to give it up. And this happened in the late 1800s. [Utah became a state in 1896.]

Before that, though, when the church was founded, there was gross prosecution. People were killed. They were tarred and feathered. Our first prophet [Joseph Smith] was martyred. So the first members fled from place to place. They faced hatred and resentment, much of it having to do with the practice of polygamy.

Hogan: This is what’s strange to me. Here’s a church with a history of being persecuted, having to find a place where it could practice its beliefs on its own, and eventually thriving in that place, in Utah. How did they get to the point where now they’re saying, “We want to dictate the laws of California to reflect our religious beliefs”? They didn’t want the law of other religions to affect them back in the day.

Handley: They wanted the L.D.S. voters in California to take the proposition into consideration.

The entire post can be viewed here.