thatjimguy Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Anyone else seen this yet?[media=] It is disturbing to me because it tries to give the implication that the church is neutral, but mentions for a moment to say it does have "sway in matters of moral aspects that can effect society". The problem is that statement, although small in length is rather broad in scope. "Moral aspects" could mean anything if spun right.My problem really isn't as much the church gets involved, but I know this video tries to imply that it doesn't. It feels misleading to me.I know I have heard before of politics in church meetings and such before, anyone care to share? Edited September 3, 2012 by thatjimguy
altersteve Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 It means the Church is not involved in partisan politics. It does not tell its members who to vote for or which party they should belong to.
thesometimesaint Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 The church does not get into partisan politics.
urroner Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 Should the Church get involved in issues that it believes are moral issues? Apparently, according to those who are on the other side of the moral issue from the Church, it's not a moral issue, it's a political issue, therefore the Church should never tell its members how to vote for any issue, moral or not.Give me a break! 2
thatjimguy Posted September 3, 2012 Author Posted September 3, 2012 LbutHRPBofDCP, as I mentioned my point is not that is does get involved, one would have to be pretty ignorant to think that any church would not get involved, my point is that this video tries to whitewash how much politics it would get involved in. It certainly seems according to this pro-mormon blog that it has in the past. Although I am glad the current track is not to get involved as much now, I wouldn't be surprised if that would ever change.http://www.allaboutmormons.com/misconceptions_mormons_politics.php
Thinking Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 Should the Church get involved in issues that it believes are moral issues? Apparently, according to those who are on the other side of the moral issue from the Church, it's not a moral issue, it's a political issue, therefore the Church should never tell its members how to vote for any issue, moral or not.Give me a break!If it wants to maintain its tax exempt status, it has to follow certain rules.http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements---Section-501%28c%29%283%29-OrganizationsIn addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
urroner Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 If it wants to maintain its tax exempt status, it has to follow certain rules.Living in the Southern Bible Belt, l see plenty of churches around here that get plenty involved in partisan politics, preachers telling their congregation whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, especially the black churches, and they don't seem to be worried in the slightest at having their tax statuses removed.
DavidB Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 Living in the Southern Bible Belt, l see plenty of churches around here that get plenty involved in partisan politics, preachers telling their congregation whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, especially the black churches, and they don't seem to be worried in the slightest at having their tax statuses removed.They are not worried because they are not reported. For the record though, telling congregations how to vote on ballots measures and so forth draws an organization nigh to violating tax rules/laws.I think it is a weak excuse to claim "moral cause" in an attempt to deflect border line unlawful political actions. If a matter involves voting then it is a political issue for which religions risk their tax exemption by getting involved with. I can't beleive the its never went after churches regarding the ERA, I know of missionaries who sole.responsibility it was to campaign against the ERA.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 Anyone else seen this yet?[media=] It is disturbing to me because it tries to give the implication that the church is neutral, but mentions for a moment to say it does have "sway in matters of moral aspects that can effect society". The problem is that statement, although small in length is rather broad in scope. "Moral aspects" could mean anything if spun right.My problem really isn't as much the church gets involved, but I know this video tries to imply that it doesn't. It feels misleading to me.I know I have heard before of politics in church meetings and such before, anyone care to share?I don't see it.
DavidB Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 It is disturbing to me because it tries to give the implication that the church is neutral, but mentions for a moment to say it does have "sway in matters of moral aspects that can effect society". The problem is that statement, although small in length is rather broad in scope. "Moral aspects" could mean anything if spun right.My problem really isn't as much the church gets involved, but I know this video tries to imply that it doesn't. It feels misleading to me.I know I have heard before of politics in church meetings and such before, anyone care to share?In the 90's Church meetings in California were used to rally members against a ballot measure on marijuana. In the early 2000's Church meetings in Texas at the direction of Area 70 were used to rally members to write their respective State Rep. to vote in favor of a bill defining marriage as "one man, one woman". Not sure about Church meetings and Prop 8 in California, but IIRC the First Presidency Letter on Prop 8 called for members to support the measure.
ANACO Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 In the 90's Church meetings in California were used to rally members against a ballot measure on marijuana. In the early 2000's Church meetings in Texas at the direction of Area 70 were used to rally members to write their respective State Rep. to vote in favor of a bill defining marriage as "one man, one woman". Not sure about Church meetings and Prop 8 in California, but IIRC the First Presidency Letter on Prop 8 called for members to support the measure.These were not partisan issues. They were moral issues. The Church has always encouraged its members to uphold moral issues at the ballot.http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/be-an-active-participant-not-a-silent-observer?lang=eng&query=speak+moral+issuesThe LDS Church is an International Church. To imply that it favors one political party over another from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, is ridiculous.
ANACO Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 They are not worried because they are not reported. For the record though, telling congregations how to vote on ballots measures and so forth draws an organization nigh to violating tax rules/laws.I think it is a weak excuse to claim "moral cause" in an attempt to deflect border line unlawful political actions. If a matter involves voting then it is a political issue for which religions risk their tax exemption by getting involved with. I can't beleive the its never went after churches regarding the ERA, I know of missionaries who sole.responsibility it was to campaign against the ERA.The ERA was a moral issue.
Sleeper Cell Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 They are not worried because they are not reported. For the record though, telling congregations how to vote on ballots measures and so forth draws an organization nigh to violating tax rules/laws.I think it is a weak excuse to claim "moral cause" in an attempt to deflect border line unlawful political actions. If a matter involves voting then it is a political issue for which religions risk their tax exemption by getting involved with. I can't beleive the its never went after churches regarding the ERA, I know of missionaries who sole.responsibility it was to campaign against the ERA.Perhaps. the IRS didn’t go after the LDS church regarding the ERA because it thought that the church was acting legally. IIRC, both sides claimed that the ERA was a moral issue.When it comes to “border line” political actions, shouldn’t we err on the side of free speech and free exercise of religion? BTW, as a practical matter, the LDS church would be far less impacted by such an absolute ban on its free speech than most other churches. The president of the LDS Church could simply announce that after much prayer and fasting, he feels personally inspired to vote for the following candidates (and vote in the following ways on each of the ballot measures) and strongly urges everyone else to do the same. After all, as long as he doesn’t use church stationary or his official church title, wouldn’t he have the same free speech rights as anybody else?On the other hand, such an absolute ban would tend to work to the disadvantage of those churches whose doctrine deemphasizes the importance of its central denominational leadership.
DavidB Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) These were not partisan issues. They were moral issues. The Church has always encouraged its members to uphold moral issues at the ballot.http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/be-an-active-participant-not-a-silent-observer?lang=eng&query=speak+moral+issuesThe LDS Church is an International Church. To imply that it favors one political party over another from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, is ridiculous.Can you show a "moral issue" exception to the United States tax law concerning tax exemption and political and/or legislative activities?Churches are prohibited, or rather risk loss of tax exempt status via partisan political matter OR legislative matters; there is no exemption to these activities. Edited September 4, 2012 by DavidB
Cobalt-70 Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 The ERA was a moral issue.It is if you believe that granting equal rights to women is an abomination to God. 1
altersteve Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) It is if you believe that granting equal rights to women is an abomination to God.It was a bit more complex than that, Cobalt. It wasn't granting equal rights to women that the Church was concerned about (see here). Edited September 3, 2012 by altersteve
Cobalt-70 Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 Living in the Southern Bible Belt, l see plenty of churches around here that get plenty involved in partisan politics, preachers telling their congregation whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, especially the black churches, and they don't seem to be worried in the slightest at having their tax statuses removed.In the LDS Church, the leaders don't really need to become overtly involved in partisan politics. All that church leaders need to do is subtly wink in the direction of the Republican Party, and we will obey. I've seen it happen. Many Mormons actually believe that the Prophet wants them to vote Republican, but he can't actually say that because of legal restrictions.
urroner Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 In the LDS Church, the leaders don't really need to become overtly involved in partisan politics. All that church leaders need to do is subtly wink in the direction of the Republican Party, and we will obey. I've seen it happen. Many Mormons actually believe that the Prophet wants them to vote Republican, but he can't actually say that because of legal restrictions.And?????Are you saying the Church is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't?I don't know about now, but back in the day, about 30 years ago, there were some staunch Democrats in the General Authorities. Also, the members of the Church from South America and Europe tend to be fairly liberal and socialistic. Same in Ausland.
wenglund Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 In the LDS Church, the leaders don't really need to become overtly involved in partisan politics. All that church leaders need to do is subtly wink in the direction of the Republican Party, and we will obey. I've seen it happen. Many Mormons actually believe that the Prophet wants them to vote Republican, but he can't actually say that because of legal restrictions.I love conspiracy theories. The lamer the better. And, this one is to be cherished. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 In the LDS Church, the leaders don't really need to become overtly involved in partisan politics. All that church leaders need to do is subtly wink in the direction of the Republican Party, and we will obey. I've seen it happen. Many Mormons actually believe that the Prophet wants them to vote Republican, but he can't actually say that because of legal restrictions.Could you present a couple of examples of the General Authorities winking in the direction of the Republican Party?The Revs Jackson and Sharpton tell folks how to vote all the time. Don't they have legal restrictions?
why me Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) I think that the critics have a problem. On the one hand they want the church to get involved in moral politics. For example, they wish that the lds church would come out in support of same sex marriage. But they do not want the lds church to get involved in politics if these politics are considered traditionalist or conservative. The critics then go on to say that the church should not get involved in moral politics. The church is in a catch 22 in this regard. However, it has been mentioned that the church does get involved in moral issues that can affect the greater society. We also need to remember that the church is a world wide church and so, it would make no sense getting involved in partisan politics in America. But moral issues cross borders and can be understood by all. Edited September 4, 2012 by why me
Kenngo1969 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Living in the Southern Bible Belt, l see plenty of churches around here that get plenty involved in partisan politics, preachers telling their congregation whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, especially the black churches, and they don't seem to be worried in the slightest at having their tax statuses removed.That's interesting, innit?
Mansquatch Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 If it wants to maintain its tax exempt status, it has to follow certain rules.http://www.irs.gov/C...)-OrganizationsSo much for the first amendment.
thesometimesaint Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Bernard Gui:Following service as agriculture secretary from 1953 to 1961, Ezra Taft Benson became closely identified with the John Birch Society, and his fiery speeches brought criticism from within and without the church. He once told a reporter he could not see how a person could be both a liberal and a good Mormon, and he called the civil-rights movement "a communist program for revolution in America."
why me Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Bernard Gui:Following service as agriculture secretary from 1953 to 1961, Ezra Taft Benson became closely identified with the John Birch Society, and his fiery speeches brought criticism from within and without the church. He once told a reporter he could not see how a person could be both a liberal and a good Mormon, and he called the civil-rights movement "a communist program for revolution in America."I think that the controversy was due to the confusion between Benson the private citizen and Benson the church leader. Will Romney have the same problem as a church member? Of course, he was a local church leader but not a General Authority. But still, if he is elected president the confusion may be a problem.But the Benson controversy was basically due to the lack of understanding that church leaders can have their own opinions about politics.
Recommended Posts