Obedience To Leaders

[LeSellers]

Go read the tax laws.

Tax law has nearly nothing to do with this question. Even were the Church to lose her tax-exempt status, she would still lead the charge against immorality in law.

The question I addressed, in regard to USmerican tax law, was that she has not broken any limit, however arbitrary, so has nothing to fear on this point.

My further, and more important point, however, was that partisan politics are disallowed, not by the IRdS, but by the Church herself. Other forms of expression on political matters are not forbidden internally. I, for one, give not the first flyin' fig about what the IRdS says we can discuss.

Lehi

Edited March 21, 2012 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

zerinus, it is painfully obvious you do not have enough knowledge on this subject. It is also painfully obvious you are not familar with US FEDERAL Tax law.

A true Saint (to borrow a phrase from Pahoran) would not argue that LDS Officially was not involved with the passage of Prop 8. A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS Church OFFICIALLY contributed to the passage of prop 8.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS Church was fined for failing to file on time the required forms concerning its involvement.

Please educate yourself on the full facts before you start to make claims.

Zerinus, Jeff K et all,.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS CHURCH has a LIMITED RIGHT to be involved with political/legislative issues.

A true Saint would acknowledge this limitation as US Law.

A true Saint would honor and sustain the law.

A true Saint would acknowledge that the The LDS CHURCH willingly accepted this limitation on its rights when the LDS Church accepted tax exempt status.

A true Saint would acknowledge that Prop 8 was a ballot measure is treated as a "legislative" matter by the IRS; thus, a true Saint would acknowledge that the LDS Church was limited in its right to be involved.

A true Saint would acknowledge that there is no "moral issue" exception to the limitation on rights, thus a true Saint would acknowledge that the LDS Church remained limited on how involved it could be in the passage of prop 8.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The IRS has not determined whether or not the LDS violate tax laws with its involvement in prop 8. Thus a true Saint can only honest say "we do not know" if the LDS violated the law or not.

A true Saint would say "What we do know for a FACT is that the LDS Church was and is limited in its rights concerning political/legislative matters, which include ballot measures. And we also equally know for a FACT that there is not a "moral issue" exception to the LDS Church limited rights."

A true saint? You are attempting to tell us what a "true saint" would do? Sorry, you don't qualify as a judge in Israel, so we will reject your somewhat skewed view of what true saints are.

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would tell you that the church through its prophets is NOT limited in what he can comment on. The prophets and apostles have spoken on that. You apprently disagree, but which is closer to a "true saint"? Prophets and apostles or you? I think we both know the answer. Perhaps to you "true saint" means artificial member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The law, limits only the endorsement of candidates, it does not limit the church from speaking out and encouraging members to take a moral stance. You apparently seem to think the law can and should limit the church from speaking on moral issues. A true saint wouldn't have a problem with that. The question is, do you?

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints honors righteous laws and does not actively support unrighteous laws. Where the church can influence for the betterment of society, it is obligated to do so.

Finally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never, ever, ever accepted a limitation as to what it can or cannot speak on where the morality of the people or society is concerned.

Like so many people of a certain type, you seem to confuse speaking on morality with politics. And for those people, politics will always replace morality. They will of course call themselves "true saints" when in fact their artificiality puts them at odds with the church, the prophets and apostles, and the common knowledge of membership. They believe a scrap of paper mentioning their status gives them the right to call themselves true saints, when in fact they are artificial. Politics is artificial, there is no morality in it. It goes whither the masses want it to go. And their adherents the political class will eventually see the church as a stumbling block to their movement of the masses. Politics has no place for morality.

You will forgive me, but in my youth I remember people placing plastic flowers in glass cases upon graves. I knew they weren't flowers, even as they seemed to have the characteristics, fake blooms, fake leaves, but there was no growth and no root. I reject such a stance, and people should not attempt to make the church an artificial shell for their own political belief system. Or in the least chain the church so it may not speak out and influence society down a more moral path.

Artificial members of the church are like the plastic flowers, there is no real beauty in what they do, they do not enhance the world around them. They have no moral roots and will accept the morality of their politics over the words of the prophets and apostles on moral issues.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[frankenstein]

A true saint? You are attempting to tell us what a "true saint" would do? Sorry, you don't qualify as a judge in Israel, so we will reject your somewhat skewed view of what true saints are.

Jeff, do you know me? No you do not. You do not know what callings in the LDS Church I have held, thus you do not know whether I "qualify as a judge in Israel" or not.

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would tell you that the church through its prophets is NOT limited in what he can comment on. The prophets and apostles have spoken on that. You apprently disagree, but which is closer to a "true saint"? Prophets and apostles or you? I think we both know the answer. Perhaps to you "true saint" means artificial member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is a good thing I never said the "The Prophet is limited on what he can comment on", nice smoke and mirrors Jeff, but please do attempt to remain focused. I have commented on the LDS Church Official political/legislative activities. Not the words of the Prophet. Stay focused please.

The law, limits only the endorsement of candidates, it does not limit the church from speaking out and encouraging members to take a moral stance. You apparently seem to think the law can and should limit the church from speaking on moral issues. A true saint wouldn't have a problem with that. The question is, do you?

CFR that "The law, limits only the endorsement of candidates". You obviously have not taken the time to familiarize yourself with the tax law. For starters please see post 175 herein, follow the link, try to learn something then comeback and edit your incorrect/false claim.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

There is NO LIMIT on what ANY church can comment on, beyond partician politics. We don't tell members whom to vote for. The Church contributes nothing to political parties/candidates nor does it allow itself to be used for by any partician political parties.

What you are saying is that if ANY church has any issue that can possibly have any impact on how people live their lives it must give up its tax status. That my friend is by definition a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

[LeSellers]

Jeff, ... you do not know whether I "qualify as a judge in Israel" or not.

I'm not Jeff, so cannot speak for him, but I am more than a bit certain that you do not qualify as my "judge in Israel", and probably not his, either.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

I'm not Jeff, so cannot speak for him, but I am more than a bit certain that you do not qualify as my "judge in Israel", and probably not his, either.

Lehi

My point exactly.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein:

There is NO LIMIT on what ANY church can comment on, beyond partician politics. We don't tell members whom to vote for. The Church contributes nothing to political parties/candidates nor does it allow itself to be used for by any partician political parties.

What you are saying is that if ANY church has any issue that can possibly have any impact on how people live their lives it must give up its tax status. That my friend is by definition a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Read post 175 herein, then take what you learn and apply it to your comment.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Irrelevent to the discussion.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein:

Irrelevent to the discussion.

I understand, I proved you are wrong and now you want to stop talking about the issue you commented on. That is fine, can you now acknowledge that the LDS Church is limited in its political/lobbying activities, and that the LDS Church advocating the passage of prop 8 was "lobbying"?

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

Jeff still waiting on you to honor the CFR from post 178.

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

Jeff still waiting on you to honor the CFR from post 178.

Already answered by others.

[Jeff K.]

I also wonder why some members who want to shut the church up, to stop the church from influencing society? If one is at odds with Christ, Moses, Peter or modern prophets who hold the keys, what makes those critics believe they are doing the work of God?

[frankenstein]

Already answered by others.

Good grief Jeff, lehi is posting his personal opinion, and TSS is just as wrong as you are.

Please honor the CFR using the tax laws of the United States. You can honor the CFR or demonstrate your unwillingness to make truthful or otherwise accurate statements.

It is very telling about your character that you will deny the truth when it is place in front of you. You have sunk further to a new low.

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[zerinus]

Inasmuch as the phrase "democratic process" means the same thing as "political process" you are saying that:

"Using the political process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics."

Good luck with that.

You are not understanding the difference between using the political process to achieve a moral purpose in society (such as passing good laws), and "becoming involved in politics". There really is a difference between the two. There is actually a distinction between the two in law. Let me illustrate by an example. Churches (and other charities) are exempt from taxation; but they also have an obligation not to become involved in politics. If they do, they can lose their tax exempt status. But what does it mean to become involved in politics? Does it mean that they cannot support a moral cause through the political process? For example, if a church joined a campaign to support better treatment for illegal immigrants in US law, would that amount to breaking the rule of "no involvement in politics"? The answer is no, because that is a moral issue not a political one. You are using the political process to achieve an ethical aim. Now let's suppose that the LDS Church issued a public statement indicating its support for the Romney campaign, and urged its members how to vote, or paid money to his campaign fund; would that amount to breaking "no involvement in politics" rule? The answer is yes, it would. There really is a difference between the two. Think hard about it, and you will agree.

But, in any event, who cares? Its a free country. If the LDS Church wants to get involved in politics, rather than merely using the "democratic process" to support a moral cause, then it has every right to do so.

Well, yes and no. They can become involved in politics as described above, and lose their tax-exempt status as a religious organization; or they can stick to what I have described above, and retain their tax-exempt status.

Edited March 21, 2012 by zerinus

[frankenstein]

You are not understanding the difference between using the political process to achieve a moral purpose in society (such as passing good laws), and "becoming involved in politics". There really is a difference between the two. There is actually a distinction between the two in law. Let me illustrate by an example. Churches (and other charities) are exempt from taxation; but they also have an obligation not to become involved in politics. If they do, they can lose their tax exempt status. But what does it mean to become involved in politics? Does it mean that they cannot support a moral cause through the political process? For example, if a church joined a campaign to support better treatment for illegal immigrants in US law, would that amount to breaking the rule of "no involvement in politics"? The answer is no, because that is a moral issue not a political one. You are using the political process to achieve an ethical aim. Now let's suppose that the LDS Church issued a public statement indicating its support for the Romney campaign, and urged its members how to vote, or paid money to his campaign fund; would that amount to breaking "no involvement in politics" rule? The answer is yes, it would. There really is a difference between the two. Think hard about it, and you will agree.

Well, yes and no. They can become involved in politics as described above, and lose their tax-exempt status as a religious organization; or they can stick to what I have described above, and retain their tax-exempt status.

Zerinus you too need to read the US tax law. You also need to read post 178.

May a section 501©(3) organization make a contribution to a ballot measure committee (committees supporting or opposing ballot initiatives or referenda)?

Yes, a section 501©(3) organization may make a contribution to a ballot measure committee (committees supporting or opposing ballot initiatives or referenda), but it must include such contributions in its lobbying calculations for purposes of determining whether a substantial part of its activities consist of attempting to influence legislation.

Lobbying

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 action by Congress, 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.

Q: Did the LDS Church advocate for the adoption of Prop 8?

A: The true Saint must answer YES.

Q: Did LDS Church engaged in "lobbying" as defined by the IRS i.e. advocated for the adoption of ballot measure prop 8?

A: The true Saint must answer Yes.

Zerinus, Do you have legal precedent to support your position that "moral issue" exempts the Church from the tax exempt requirements?

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jaybear]

You are not understanding the difference between using the political process to achieve a moral purpose in society (such as passing good laws), and "becoming involved in politics". There really is a difference between the two. There is actually a distinction between the two in law. Let me illustrate by an example. Churches (and other charities) are exempt from taxation; but they also have an obligation not to become involved in politics. If they do, they can lose their tax exempt status. But what does it mean to become involved in politics? Does it mean that they cannot support a moral cause through the political process? For example, if a church joined a campaign to support better treatment for illegal immigrants in US law, would that amount to breaking the rule of "no involvement in politics"? The answer is no, because that is a moral issue not a political one. You are using the political process to achieve an ethical aim. Now let's suppose that the LDS Church issued a public statement indicating its support for the Romney campaign, and urged its members how to vote, or paid money to his campaign fund; would that amount to breaking "no involvement in politics" rule? The answer is yes, it would. There really is a difference between the two. Think hard about it, and you will agree.

Well, yes and no. They can become involved in politics as described above, and lose their tax-exempt status as a religious organization; or they can stick to what I have described above, and retain their tax-exempt status.

I bolded your mistake.

It is more accurate to say that the IRS imposes limits on the types of political activities that Churches may engage in. Specifically, Churches and other nonprofit organizations may not directly endorse or oppose political candidates

[zerinus]

The problem is, you haven't explained how preventing gay couples makes them more moral or anyone else for that matter. So what moral cause was the church activally involving itself in the political process over? It is a puzzle to me that somehow stopping anyone from marrying is a moral cause.

I think most people would disagree with you that activally pushing a proposition before the voters is not political. But hey, believe what you want. You certainly have not provided any support for your theory. I on the other hand have provided you with common definitions of what is political.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't consider adultery to be a moral issue, while others do. Bank robbers would probably not consider robbing banks to be a moral issue. I am sure some shop lifters wouldn't consider shop lifting to be a moral issue. But others do. As for what is political and what is not, see my previous post.

[Jeff K.]

Good grief Jeff, lehi is posting his personal opinion, and TSS is just as wrong as you are.

Please honor the CFR using the tax laws of the United States. You can honor the CFR or demonstrate your unwillingness to make truthful or otherwise accurate statements.

It is very telling about your character that you will deny the truth when it is place in front of you. You have sunk further to a new low.

I disagree with your assessment.

When we discuss character and church membership, I would think your discussion would be significantly more circumspect.

The church did quite well in its last action regarding the issue of defining marriage. I see no reason the church could not repeat the same act.

As to new lows, I must seem like a distant hawk in the sky compared to your opposition to moral families.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[zerinus]

I bolded your mistake.

It is more accurate to say that the IRS imposes limits on the types of political activities that Churches may engage in. Specifically, Churches and other nonprofit organizations may not directly endorse or oppose political candidates

There is actually a qualitative difference between the two. The question you need to ask yourself is, Why has the law permitted one type of political activity and not the other? What is the distinction between the two?

[Jeff K.]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't consider adultery to be a moral issue, while others do. Bank robbers would probably not consider robbing banks to be a moral issue. I am sure some shop lifters wouldn't consider shop lifting to be a moral issue. But others do. As for what is political and what is not, see my previous post.

What is amazing is how some members do not consider the gay lifestyle to be a moral issue or the changing of marriage to include the gay lifestyle to be moral. One wonders how skewed their position is in regards to righteousness.

[Pahoran]

zerinus, it is painfully obvious you do not have enough knowledge on this subject. It is also painfully obvious you are not familar with US FEDERAL Tax law.

A true Saint (to borrow a phrase from Pahoran) would not argue that LDS Church Officially was not involved with the passage of Prop 8.

Next time you get the urge to drag my name into a discussion where I am not participating, please try to restrain yourself.

Anyway, how do you know what a "true Saint" would do? Have you asked one?

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS Church OFFICIALLY contributed to the passage of prop 8.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS Church was fined for failing to file on time the required forms concerning its involvement; this fine being roughly $5500 US.

Yes, and immoralist hate propagandists have tried to parlay that into some kind of monstrous deception, when in fact it was nothing but a technical issue over a missed filing date.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The IRS has not determined whether or not the LDS violate tax laws with its involvement in prop 8. Thus a true Saint can only honest say "we do not know" if the LDS violated the law or not.

Actually an honest person would admit (however much pain it might cause them) that they have absolutely no basis on which to accuse the Church of violating the law at all.

A true Saint would say "What we do know for a FACT is that the LDS Church was and is limited in its rights concerning political/legislative matters, which include ballot measures such as Prop 8. And we also equally know for a FACT that there is not a "moral issue" exception to the LDS Church limited rights on political/legislative matters such as prop 8."

Not quite.

A true Saint would say something like "What we do know for a FACT is that the relationship between law and morality is a distant one at best. We also know that the Church has a positive duty to stand for the right, but only a negative duty to avoid breaking the law."

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

I have a funny feeling those who claim the LDS church primarily teaches obedience over agency stopped listening or attending past primary singing and sharing time.

Either that or their parents or local priesthood really screwed them over with a my way or the highway approach and they have no concept of counsels and priesthood keys.

That, or they failed to mature beyond fundamentalist thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Encouraging the Saints to support a cause is not lobbying from the pulpit. Good grief.

[Ares]

This topic is off in political/prop 8 lala land.