Did the LDS Church advocate for adoption of legislation

[frankenstein]

If you can not respond on point to either "legislation" or "educating" please do not respond.

I do not advocate the revocation of the LDS Church tax exemption.

If you can not engage in dialogue or discussion please do not respond.

If you feel the need to claim I have an agenda, please keep reading to the sentence below, I have made my agenda clear.

Agenda: To have dialogue and discussion as to whether the Church advocated for the adoption of legislation or was the Church only providing educational information

Purpose: To help LDS members in particular, and the general public, understand the involvement of the LDS Church with the passage of Prop 8.

From the IRS here:

Lobby for legislation:

Legislation includes action ... by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment [Prop 8], or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation ... if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Educating on Legislation:

[O]rganizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

LDS Church Newsroom

We [presumably the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12] ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.

The LDS Church also provided persons, and training during the prop 8 campgain.

*disclaimer, I do not view the LDS Church activities in the Prop 8 issue as "substantial", thus I do not view the LDS Church action in the prop 8 issue as violating the code. It is my opinion however, the LDS Church as a an Organization and a 501c3 tax exempt religious organization "advocated for the adoption of legislation".

[thesometimesaint]

Yes the Church provided support for the passage of Prop 8. The only material contribution was the unofficial in-kind type.

[frankenstein]

Yes the Church provided support for the passage of Prop 8. The only material contribution was the unofficial in-kind type.

so you agree that the LDS Church advocated for adoption of Prop 8, a constitutional amendment?

[selek]

If you can not respond on point to either "legislation" or "educating" please do not respond.

I do not advocate the revocation of the LDS Church tax exemption.

If you can not engage in dialogue or discussion please do not respond.

If you feel the need to claim I have an agenda, please keep reading to the sentence below, I have made my agenda clear.

Agenda: To have dialogue and discussion as to whether the Church advocated for the adoption of legislation or was the Church only providing educational information

Purpose: To help LDS members in particular, and the general public, understand the involvement of the LDS Church with the passage of Prop 8.

From the IRS here:

Lobby for legislation:

Legislation includes action ... by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment [Prop 8], or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation ... if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Educating on Legislation:

[O]rganizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

LDS Church Newsroom

We [presumably the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12] ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.

*disclaimer, I do not view the LDS Church activities in the Prop 8 issue as "substantial", thus I do not view the LDS Church action in the prop 8 issue as violating the code. It is my opinion however, the LDS Church as a an Organization and a 501c3 tax exempt religious organization "advocated for the adoption of legislation".

Yep. You don't think the Church's contribution to Prop 8 was significant, but a Prop 8 quote is the only evidence you cite condemning the Church.

Two things:

First, neither the IRS nor any other legitimate non-partisan regulatory organization believes the Church's participation in Prop 8 (or other political activities) is or was wrong.

The Church both advocated and educated- and yet the only people who winge about this are the ones who failed to convince the people of California to support their argument.

Those charged with upholding the law don't have a beef with the Church- only the sore-loser partisans.

That conclusion that the Church has behaved inappropriately is YOUR holy grail, and these threads exist solely to advance that dogma.

The ONLY legitimate, legal, and non-partisan complaint against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was that the Church failed to report some contributions in a "timely" manner- a matter of some not-inconsiderable dispute.

Why then, do you keep drumming up this straw horse?

Given your incessant beating of this long-discredited drum- it can only be because your agenda is more than you are willing to admit.

Second, let's short-circuit all the cutesy "beating around the bush" arguments.

Neither the IRS nor any other branch of government has a quarrel with the Church regarding its "political activities" - who then are you to exceed your stewardship and authority and dictate to the Church a position that the government- those responsible for enforcing the law- do not hold?

It's interesting to note that you have consistently failed to condemn other "tax-exempt" organizations who engage in precisely the same behavior as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- or worse.

And yet those organizations to whom you "give a pass" all seem to agree with you.

Political rabble-rousing and blatant hypocrisy notwithstanding, it seems your beef with the Church is that they won't shut up when you want them to, rather than any real standing or precedence that the Church's behavior is wrong.

You are using this forum to advance a political agenda that has nothing to do with Mormon theology or belief- and doing so in the most opportunistic fashion possible.

Selek: We feel like we have done everything we could to discourage posts with this tone and personal commentary. We can't allow it and have to say goodbye.

The Moderation Team

[Jason]

This is a...badly written poll.

What is "Did the LDS Church adopting Legislation on Prop 8"

supposed to mean?

Did you mean something like "advocate" or "lobby for"?

[frankenstein]

thanks jason I fixed it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

selek, your post is not on topic. I would kindly ask you address the topic.

Did the LDS Church lobby or advocate for the adoption of Prop 8, a constitutional amendment.

OR

Did the Church involvement with Prop 8 only constitute providing education information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

its a simple clear thread, all agendas and purpose have been made know.

The First Presidency letter, it seems more than clear that the LDS Church advocated for the passage of Prop 8, said advocating would fit with the definition of lobbying according the IRS.

[selek]

thanks jason I fixed it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

selek, your post is not on topic. I would kindly ask you address the topic.

My post is perfectly on-topic, you just wish to censor views that contradict your nice little pool of poison.

Did the LDS Church lobby or advocate for the adoption of Prop 8, a constitutional amendment.

OR

Did the Church involvement with Prop 8 only constitute providing education information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Asked and answered. The Church's involvement was both advocacy and education- neither of which constitute a sin.

Now answer my question: Why do you continue to beat this dead horse when you have no evidence- and no legitimate accusation- that the Church's political activities are in contravention of the law?

We understand your obsession with demonizing the Church for holding political views with which you disagree.....but why should we play along with your attempt to criminalize legitimate political dissent?

its a simple clear thread, all agendas and purpose have been made know.

True- I merely exposed the unspoken one- your burning desire to criminalize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the heinous crime of disagreeing with you and refusing to be muzzled by would-be tyrants.

The First Presidency letter, it seems more than clear that the LDS Church advocated for the passage of Prop 8, said advocating would fit with the definition of lobbying according the IRS.

And yet the IRS doesn't agree with your jaundiced reading of the law.

So...if those actually charged and commissioned to uphold the law don't think the Church is in violation....why then should we listen to YOU and entertain your witch hunt?

[Nofear]

Let's just change the poll to read, "Do you believe that the Church's political activities with respect to Prop. 8 were in contravention of the law?"

Is there another question that is relevant?

[frankenstein]

Let's just change the poll to read, "Do you believe that the Church's political activities with respect to Prop. 8 were in contravention of the law?"

I do not believe the LDS Church political activities of advocating for that passage of legislation contravened the law.

Contravening the is not the issue this thread seeks to address.

[Nofear]

I do not believe the LDS Church political activities of advocating for that passage of legislation contravened the. But that is not the issue this thread seeks to address.

Well, we know your vote to the poll.

What do you say is the manifestation of the Church's advocacy? Is it different than that which the Church publicly declared it to be?

[frankenstein]

The Church's involvement was both advocacy and education- neither of which constitute a sin.

Thank you for you answer. Its a good thing I was not talking about sin or breaking the law.

Now answer my question: Why do you continue to beat this dead horse when you have no evidence- and no legitimate accusation- that the Church's political activities are in contravention of the law?

CFR that I have claimed/suggested/stated/implied ''that the Church's political activities are in contravention of the law?" I am not ignoring your question, but I can not answer an accusation, when I do not believe I have stated anything that you accuse me of, hence the CFR.

And yet the IRS doesn't agree with your jaundiced reading of the law.

CFR, that the IRS does not agree that "advocate[ing] the adoption or rejection of legislation" i.e. the First Presidency letter calling on members to help pass prop. 8, is not within the definition of lobby as the term lobby pertains to 501c3 legislative activities. here is something to consider

A 501c3 MAY, IS PERMITTED, CAN ENGAGE IN, IS NOT PROHIBITED, from attempting to influence legislation.

A 501c3 is PROHIBITED from SUBSTANTIAL involvement in influencing legislation.

this means, something CAN BE WITHIN the definition of lobby, and not be a violation of the Tax Code.

My only claim is that on a bare face reading, which is available to the public on irs.gov, the LDS Church activities (1st Presidency letter, in-kind contribution, resources provided by the LDS Church officially) fits within the definition of lobby or influencing legislation, which definition is provided by the IRS

What is allowed and what is prohibited is very important distinction to make.

So when someone says "The LDS Church violated its tax exempt status" A correct response is "The LDS Church did engage in influencing legislation, but LDS Church involvement did not violate the tax code".

[Nofear]

My only claim is that on a bare face reading, which is available to the public...

So, what do you believe is behind the make-up? It is, after all, your purpose for the thread: "To help LDS members in particular, and the general public, understand the involvement of the LDS Church with the passage of Prop 8." What's behind the curtain that we are seeing?

[TAO]

Frank, yes, the Church lobbied, but as the first sentence points out (and the bold at the bottom of your post)

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501©(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501©(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

I don't think their statement constitutes too much lobbying activity.

Also, I found this too... which could be useful in certain cases: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html

...churches are not subject to excise taxes on excessive lobbying.

So yes, some lobbying, but not enough to lose tax-exempt status =).

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

Yep.

[Mordecai]

It's absurd that people have a problem with the Church endorsing prop. 8. So what if we did? Are we not American citizens? I think we are, and I think we have as much right to support this issue as anyone.

[blackstrap]

Does the "Church" in an official capacity lobby any government officials to make,keep,or change a law ? I know it has often met with government officials in countries to get permission to do activities like missionary work and that may have required a change in the current law of the land. Is that different from asking its membership to individually support and "lobby" for a particular law?

[frankenstein]

It's absurd that people have a problem with the Church endorsing prop. 8. So what if we did? Are we not American citizens? I think we are, and I think we have as much right to support this issue as anyone.

unlike a citizen who can support legislation without limitation, the LDS Church, in accepting tax exempt status, also accepted limitations on the political activities the Church could engage in.

The absurdity I would say is that people do not take the time to look at all the facts, a simple search on the IRS website would end the issue of revoking the tax exempt status of the LDS Church.

Blackstrap, what the church does in other countries is for other countries the regulate, the Church in the United has agreed to conditions for tax exempt status, so the Church officially advocating for or against legislation is different than the Church approaching foreign governments.

[Jaybear]

It's absurd that people have a problem with the Church endorsing prop. 8. So what if we did? Are we not American citizens? I think we are, and I think we have as much right to support this issue as anyone.

Ah, the royal "we" again. You are not the LDS Church.

Frank is correct. The problem that many people have when churches get involved in politics is the fact that donations to Churches, unlike donations to social or fraternal organizations are tax exempt.

In the case of Prop 8, however, the LDS church did not, in any significant sense, use tax exempt donations to fund the battle, instead it encouraged its members to make taxable donations to the cause. There is no issue here. Just sour grapes.

If people had a "problem" with the LDS Church, its because they had a problem the "cause" the LDS Church advocated. The LDS Church can't support divisive and discriminatory legislation, then step back and say, hey nothing personal, its just politics.

[Jason]

Divisive yes, but Prop 8 was discriminatory only in the same sense a dictionary entry is discriminatory when it defines what a word means.

[Daniel2]

It's absurd that people have a problem with the Church endorsing prop. 8. So what if we did? Are we not American citizens? I think we are, and I think we have as much right to support this issue as anyone.

Although some supporters of civil marriage equality have taken issue with it, many of us don't deny that the LDS Church obviously has and had a legal right to endorse legislation it supports...

For many of us, the disagreement comes in as whether or not it was:

a) moral for Latter-day Saints (and Christians, and African-Americans, and everyone else who supported the Proposition) to take the position they did on this particular issue, and

b) Constitutional for any such Proposition to remove the civil rights of a minority group through a popular vote.

Obviously, Latter-day Saints who supported Prop 8's passage feel it was both moral and constitutional for them to do so.

Those of us who didn't support Prop 8 would probably say the reverse is true.

Darin

[BCSpace]

The LDS Church can't support divisive and discriminatory legislation, then step back and say, hey nothing personal, its just politics.

The nice thing about that is of course they didn't. Unless of course you're going to own up and admit that the homosexual agenda and opposition to Prop 8 in particular is also divisive and discriminatory.

[Jaybear]

The nice thing about that is of course they didn't.

If you honestly and sincerely believe that we really have no chance of ever communicating effectively.

Unless of course you're going to own up and admit that the homosexual agenda and opposition to Prop 8 in particular is also divisive and discriminatory.

Divisive? Absolutely. There is a significant segment of society that considers homosexuality to be an abomination to God. Look what happened in Iowa to the Judges that were voted off the court for protecting the constitution rights of homosexuals. People on your side can get quite worked up about the issue. Don't get it why its that important, but it is.

Discriminatory? Don't know what you mean.

[blackstrap]

I still need an answer to my original question. Does/did the church officially approach officials/legislators in a lobbying capacity in the US to support/change/remove the law? Like it did in the polygamy issue?

[Jason]

I still need an answer to my original question. Does/did the church officially approach officials/legislators in a lobbying capacity in the US to support/change/remove the law? Like it did in the polygamy issue?

In this instance no it did not.

[Jason]

b) Constitutional for any such Proposition to remove the civil rights of a minority group through a popular vote.

Or you could spin it the other way - was it Constitutional for a minority group to use political pressure to attempt to redifine marriage for all of us?