Openly-Gay Presidential Candidate Launches Anti-Mormon Website

[california boy]

I wasn't being disingenuous, and I don't deny any of these things. However, I was making the clarification that the corporation (i.e. the legal identity) of the church did not make the biggest donations, either in money, time, or in-kind donations. The corporation was actually fairly removed in those things. I make this clarification because some people don't understand the difference, and how it relates to tax laws and the electorate participating in the elections.

A large amount of the money came from individual donations from Mormons. Not much money at all came from the corporation.

Not much time was donated by employees of the corporation, but lots of time was donated by individual members.

The corporation asked for participation, and the members responded.

Actually, the LDS prophet did not make any edict. The First Presidency did send this letter. It is clearly not an edict, but an invitation for involvement.

But yes, the leaders of other churches did invite their followers to participate.

I'm not ashamed. I just like to add the context.

Zeta, I am not quite sure what you are trying to point out. Are you saying that the leadership of the church had little to do with directing the members to give their time and money to pass prop 8? Are you aware of the training sessions that were broadcast via the church satalite system from SLC to ward buildings instructing members on how to approach people about prop 8 and general authorities were flown out to California to help with passing prop 8. (If you are not aware, their plane tickets were part of the IRS findings that levied fines against the church for underreporting the in kind donation made by church headquarters.)

We all agree that church headquarters did not make a large financial donation to prop 8. But I think it is pretty clear that Salt Lake was pretty active in directing its members on how to organize and what they expected them to do. Do you disagree with that position?

[california boy]

Or rather, put those roles in context.

I agree with Storm Rider that this is one of the reasons we are focused on. It is easy to take that name out of context, and it is easy to pick on the Mormons.

Bigotry. Fear. Misunderstanding. Disagreement with their moral values. Lots of things.

Zeta, could you explain a little more on why you feel the church is held in such low esteem both with other churches and the population in general? Are you talking about perceived bigotry of Mormons? Fear of exactly what? And how do Mormon moral values differ from say Catholic or EV and other churches mentioned to make them a target? If you feel this is the reason why Mormons are picked on, I would like to try and understand better your explanation.

[Stargazer]

Had a look at it. Found that the comments are all moderated, yet the moderator does allow comments that defend the church. That shows some degree of intellectual honesty, at least. I made some responses to some of the topics.

I guess that's all I have to say about it.

[frankenstein]

Then why bring it up when all it seems like is you making a false witness.

Seriously that is your response? I explained why bring. Stormrider purports to know "the only" reason, as though there is only one singular reason. The LDS church actions in regard to Prop 8 and whether those actions violate the United States Federal tax code is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ. Why bring up the tax code, because it is a issue which was brought long ago.

edited for United States Federal tax code clarification

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

The Tax Code bars church involvment in partisan political contests. IOW Don't use the church pulpit to campaign for a particular person, or party. It says nothing about morals or the dictionary definition of words.

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta, I am not quite sure what you are trying to point out. Are you saying that the leadership of the church had little to do with directing the members to give their time and money to pass prop 8?

No. Not at all.

Are you aware of the training sessions that were broadcast via the church satalite system from SLC to ward buildings instructing members on how to approach people about prop 8 and general authorities were flown out to California to help with passing prop 8. (If you are not aware, their plane tickets were part of the IRS findings that levied fines against the church for underreporting the in kind donation made by church headquarters.)

I am quite aware of all of these things. I'm also aware of the context of the fine, and how small it was, as were the in-kind donations that the fines were assessed on.

We all agree that church headquarters did not make a large financial donation to prop 8. But I think it is pretty clear that Salt Lake was pretty active in directing its members on how to organize and what they expected them to do. Do you disagree with that position?

No. That is precisely what I was saying.

Now let me ask you a question. Does the question of whether church headquarters made a large financial donation to prop 8 bear on a possible tax code violation? Does frankenstein seem to have missed this fact?

Zeta, could you explain a little more on why you feel the church is held in such low esteem both with other churches and the population in general? Are you talking about perceived bigotry of Mormons? Fear of exactly what? And how do Mormon moral values differ from say Catholic or EV and other churches mentioned to make them a target? If you feel this is the reason why Mormons are picked on, I would like to try and understand better your explanation.

I think that topic is for another thread.

[Zeta-Flux]

Seriously that is your response? I explained why bring. Stormrider purports to know "the only" reason, as though there is only one singular reason. The LDS church actions in regard to Prop 8 and whether those actions violate the tax code is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ. Why bring up the tax code, because it is a issue which was brought long ago.

Actually, that is incorrect. The anti-Prop. 8 groups used all legal recourse available to attempt to show such a violation. The legal authorities found no violation of the tax code, nor of the churches tax exempt status.

The worst thing was a fine of a few thousand dollars for an inadvertent late filing or in-kind donations, which the church was happy to pay.

[california boy]

No. Not at all.

I am quite aware of all of these things. I'm also aware of the context of the fine, and how small it was, as were the in-kind donations that the fines were assessed on.

No. That is precisely what I was saying.

Now let me ask you a question. Does the question of whether church headquarters made a large financial donation to prop 8 bear on a possible tax code violation? Does frankenstein seem to have missed this fact?

I think that topic is for another thread.

I obviously am not an expert on tax code. But my guess would be that the church can make a significant contribution to a proposition as opposed to a parties or specific candidates. The reason why I think that is ok is because the church did make a small contribution and the Knights of Columbus make contributions. I don't think either church would have done that if it was against the law. I think the reason why the church did not make a significant contribution directly is because they didn't want to appear to be "leading the charge" a strategy that largely failed anyway in my opinion. And perhaps they did not want to use sacred funds for political ventures.

I guess the reason why I ask the low esteem question is because I personally don't think the church is singled out from other churches in their moral views hence is not a reason why this proposition would be called the Mormon proposition. While members seem to think the church is just an an easy target, I personally feel it is a scape goat reason used by members to downplay the church members actual role in passing prop 8. I guess I feel it would be much more honest if members were forthright in saying, yes the church played a significant role in providing money and time to pass prop 8 instead of playing the easy target card. It seems disingenuous to me. If the church is indeed the easy target, then it is because of the ACTIONS of the church that has made them such. It seems similar to when a black person plays the race card when there is little justification for it.

[frankenstein]

Actually, that is incorrect. The anti-Prop. 8 groups used all legal recourse available to attempt to show such a violation. The legal authorities found no violation of the tax code, nor of the churches tax exempt status.

The worst thing was a fine of a few thousand dollars for an inadvertent late filing or in-kind donations, which the church was happy to pay.

If I was referring the State Tax laws you would be correct. However, If there was a fine a wrong must have been committed however slight (for God will beat us with a few stripes and all is well).

However, I was referring to federal tax laws (my mistake for not making that clear). And that the IRS has not or did not do an investigation - legislative activities by a 501c3 is a violation of federal law; the LDS Church officially promoting prop 8 was "legislative activity" according to federal tax laws/rules/policies. That the IRS did not or has not investigated the church involvement is a none issue. The IRS receives many complaints a year and selectively investigates some of the complaints

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

The Tax Code bars church involvment in partisan political contests. IOW Don't use the church pulpit to campaign for a particular person, or party. It says nothing about morals or the dictionary definition of words.

The US Federal Tax codes bars 501c3 organizations from engaging in "legislative activities" and from partisan politics.

From the IRS

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.

Legislation includes ... any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, 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 it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

-----

The LDS Church both advocated for a specific legislation/constitutional amendment AND adovcated for the adoption and rejection of legislation.

There is no "moral issue" exemption for the lobbying prohibition. The Church involves itself in "moral issue" but the Church does so to the possible revocation of Federal tax exempt status.

So, I am only pointing out that 501c3 are prohibited from too much lobbying, what "too much" means has not been settled by the IRS or the Courts.

And before anyone even brings it up.......I AM NOT INTERESTED in any commentary concerning Citizens United (which was not about 501c3 tax exempt organizations).

[Zeta-Flux]

I obviously am not an expert on tax code. But my guess would be that the church can make a significant contribution to a proposition as opposed to a parties or specific candidates. The reason why I think that is ok is because the church did make a small contribution and the Knights of Columbus make contributions. I don't think either church would have done that if it was against the law. I think the reason why the church did not make a significant contribution directly is because they didn't want to appear to be "leading the charge" a strategy that largely failed anyway in my opinion. And perhaps they did not want to use sacred funds for political ventures.

Those could all be reasons. There is also a limit on how much a religious organization can donate (which the church didn't even come close to). I'll provide a link in my response to frankenstein.

I guess the reason why I ask the low esteem question is because I personally don't think the church is singled out from other churches in their moral views hence is not a reason why this proposition would be called the Mormon proposition. While members seem to think the church is just an an easy target, I personally feel it is a scape goat reason used by members to downplay the church members actual role in passing prop 8. I guess I feel it would be much more honest if members were forthright in saying, yes the church played a significant role in providing money and time to pass prop 8 instead of playing the easy target card. It seems disingenuous to me. If the church is indeed the easy target, then it is because of the ACTIONS of the church that has made them such. It seems similar to when a black person plays the race card when there is little justification for it.

More accurately, the church played a role, not in providing money, but in encouraging donations of both time and money. This is an important distinction. We don't deny this, and are proud of it. Our members, of their free choice, took the call to action seriously.

We don't deny our role. But that does not negate the fact that others were involved too, and that the proposition passed not because of Mormon participation, but because people were moved to vote by these efforts. I personally value clarity, and calling Prop. 8 the "Mormon proposition", in my opinion, can and does prevent clarity. That said, I think it is rational to call it such if you limit yourself as you have done in this thread.

[Zeta-Flux]

The relevant link to the tax code is found here. As you will notice, the IRS does allow for some lobbying. I will concede that our church did in fact take a stand on a constitutional amendment, and definitely attempted to influence that legislation. In other words, they lobbied. But the tax code allows this, and has two tests to measure whether this is too much: the "substantial part test" and the "expenditure test". The church did not run afoul of either of these tests.

[frankenstein]

The relevant link to the tax code is found here. As you will notice, the IRS does allow for some lobbying. I will concede that our church did in fact take a stand on a constitutional amendment, and definitely attempted to influence that legislation. In other words, they lobbied. But the tax code allows this, and has two tests to measure whether this is too much: the "substantial part test" and the "expenditure test". The church did not run afoul of either of these tests.

That is incorrect. Or as you often post "not an accurate statement" (not picking on you just point this issue for clarification; I believe I addressed in two previous post that the IRS nor Court have determined if a violation occured)

The IRS and Courts have not addressed whether the LDS violated the US Federal Tax Code, so whether the LDS did or did not violate the tax code is a matter of personal opinion.

It can be personal opinion, but to make the as matter of fact is incorrect. It is also incorrect to make the claim as a matter of fact that the LDS did violate the tax code.

The is no "settled" case law on what is "substantial" and I believe there is no settled case law on expenditure either.

[Zeta-Flux]

That is incorrect. Or as you often post "not an accurate statement" (not picking on you just point this issue for clarification; I believe I addressed in two previous post that the IRS nor Court have determined if a violation occured)

The IRS and Courts have not addressed whether the LDS violated the US Federal Tax Code, so whether the LDS did or did not violate the tax code is a matter of personal opinion.

It can be personal opinion, but to make the as matter of fact is incorrect. It is also incorrect to make the claim as a matter of fact that the LDS did violate the tax code.

The is no "settled" case law on what is "substantial" and I believe there is no settled case law on expenditure either.

Unfortunately for your argument, the website I linked gives numerical figures for the expenditure test. Are you really claiming that the church spent more than is allowed?

[frankenstein]

I am saying what I have stated. That neither the IRS or the Courts have issued an opinion on the LDS Church lobbying activities.

But as for the expenditure test, are you saying that you know that the LDS Church filed the appropriate form which allows a religious organization to use the expenditure test, which test, religions are prohibited from using UNLESS they file the appropriate form? Are you also saying that the IRS treats the LDS Church as a religious organization instead of as a church? A church can not use the expenditure test, but a religious organization can if the appropriate formais filed. Lets just stop with the tax discussion. I only brought up taxes to counter stormriders claim of "the only reason".

Though I find you reluctance to say "yes it is my opinion that the tax code was not violated" interesting when you are usually adimant that statements be as accurate and percise as possibly.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

The crucial portion of the Internal Revenue Code for the issue of churches and partisan politics is section 501©(3). Section 501 deals with exemption from tax on corporations; © provides a list of exempt organizations; (3) deals specifically with the issue of political campaigns. In 501©(3) a corporation is exempt from income tax if it "does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

The crucial portion of the Internal Revenue Code for the issue of churches and partisan politics is section 501©(3). Section 501 deals with exemption from tax on corporations; © provides a list of exempt organizations; (3) deals specifically with the issue of political campaigns. In 501©(3) a corporation is exempt from income tax if it "does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Tss both zeta and myself have posted directly from IRS.gov. 501c3 orgs can loose tax exempt status for "legislative activities" or partisan politics.

Please see zetas post above wherein zeta linked directly too the IRS website page concerning legislative activities or in other words lobbying. The lds church officially lobbied cor prop 8 that is proven; whether the lds church violated tax laws is a matter of personal opinion, as the IRS nor the courts have ruled on the The lds church involvement with prop. 8

[TAO]

frankenstein, if I remember correctly, in the California State Law code, religions are excluded from that phrase if it is 'not excessive'.

[Zeta-Flux]

frankenstein,

After reviewing that website, I see that I misspoke. The law is so vague it is difficult to know what they even mean. I should have been more circumspect and said things were my opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

That is where the link comes in.

Unless and until the IRS and/or the California State Franchize Tax Board makes a ruling adverse to the Churchs' tax status they are legally entitled to that status.

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

Unless and until the IRS and/or the California State Franchize Tax Board makes a ruling adverse to the Churchs' tax status they are legally entitled to that status.

I agree and that is what I tried to make clear

[Daimao]

Tss both zeta and myself have posted directly from IRS.gov. 501c3 orgs can loose tax exempt status for "legislative activities" or partisan politics.

I am not a lawyer, but I seem to remember reading that that particular provision in the law, that the church's involvement amounted to "legislative activities," was not an issue, since Proposition 8 was not a bill before the state assembly, but rather a public referendum. I'm not sure whether or not that actually has any bearing here; it's just something I remember seeing brought up at the time.

[frankenstein]

I am not a lawyer, but I seem to remember reading that that particular provision in the law, that the church's involvement amounted to "legislative activities," was not an issue, since Proposition 8 was not a bill before the state assembly, but rather a public referendum. I'm not sure whether or not that actually has any bearing here; it's just something I remember seeing brought up at the time.

Does not matter to state assembly for federal law

[Ron Beron]

Seriously that is your response? I explained why bring. Stormrider purports to know "the only" reason, as though there is only one singular reason. The LDS church actions in regard to Prop 8 and whether those actions violate the United States Federal tax code is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ. Why bring up the tax code, because it is a issue which was brought long ago.

edited for United States Federal tax code clarification

If we all agree there isn't any evidence for violations of the tax code then why insinuate there might have been. It is obvious the church was directed a concerted effort to pass prop. 8 as is there right, but didn't offer any direct financial expenditure according to findings conducted by both California and the U.S.

[frankenstein]

If we all agree there isn't any evidence for violations of the tax code then why insinuate there might have been. It is obvious the church was directed a concerted effort to pass prop. 8 as is there right, but didn't offer any direct financial expenditure according to findings conducted by both California and the U.S.

CFR that the United States Government conducted an investigation regarding the LDS Church finacial activities concerning prop 8. There is evidence enough for reasonable minds to differ as to whether the LDS Church violated federal laws.

Please please please try to understand that the tax discussion was ONLY brought up refute storm riders claim that people make issue of the church involvement with prop 8.