thesometimesaint Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 why me:I agree that GA's as well as any other member of the Church can/do have their own political ideas. What I objected to, and still do, is making personal politics a criterion for faithfulness to the Church. That is where ETB crossed the line for me.
Walden Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 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.Your assumption regarding the "critics" problem with LDS political involvement is incorrect. Critics do not want the LDS church, or any church for that matter, to get "involved in moral politics." I am sure that they appreciate the support of some of the more liberal religions (UU and episcopalian come to mind), but most critics understand that support from a conservative church on principles of morality is something that will not happen.Instead, the critics would prefer that the church's (all of them) just stay out of it. Teach your morals, teach your rules, teach your doctrine, but remain mute when it comes to matters of the ballot box.If I was a member of a conservative religious group, one that needed constant reminding on how to vote on issues such as gay marriage, gambling, marijuana legalization, etc., I would be wondering what it is exactly that members are getting from the countless hours of lessons on morality and such, when they need to be continuously reminded how to vote when it comes to moral ballot issues.Are the lessons not getting through? I would think that if given the countless hours a typical mormon spends listening to lessons on morality, choosing the right, etc, and given the strong moral foundation that most LDS receive during their lifetime in the church, that there should be no need to remind people how to vote during election time.
thesometimesaint Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:Actually most members of the Church are converts, so don't have that lifetime long reminders of moral lessons.
Walden Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:Actually most members of the Church are converts, so don't have that lifetime long reminders of moral lessons.Then it appears that they need to beef up the lessons for converts when it comes to teaching the church's views and stances on morality.
thesometimesaint Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:That's fine with me, but then you can't insist that voters can't vote their morals.
CV75 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 If I was a member of a conservative religious group, one that needed constant reminding on how to vote on issues such as gay marriage, gambling, marijuana legalization, etc., I would be wondering what it is exactly that members are getting from the countless hours of lessons on morality and such, when they need to be continuously reminded how to vote when it comes to moral ballot issues.I see encouraging and mobilizing its members to get out and vote on a particular moral issue, and even to vote a certain way on a moral issue, as fulfilling a proper role or its members and for society at large. It is a kind of object lesson, and practical application, for all the preaching and teaching that goes on. It is on par with the LDS Church encouraging its members to be good citizens by exercising their right to vote at election time.The LDS Church continuously reminds its members on any number of non-religious, practical life skills and activities that have a moral component to them: home evening, home storage, debt, education, work, community service, family relations, you name it.
Walden Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:That's fine with me, but then you can't insist that voters can't vote their morals.It sounds like we are arguing the same point, as that is exactly my argument.I am not arguing against people voting their morals, I am arguing that the LDS church should allow them to vote their morals, instead of telling them how to vote at election time.If the LDS church was so confident that members would "vote their morals," then why the need to announce how to vote from the pulpit? Teach the congregation the proper morals, and teach them properly, and there should be no confusion on how to vote.
Walden Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 I see encouraging and mobilizing its members to get out and vote on a particular moral issue, and even to vote a certain way on a moral issue, as fulfilling a proper role or its members and for society at large. It is a kind of object lesson, and practical application, for all the preaching and teaching that goes on. It is on par with the LDS Church encouraging its members to be good citizens by exercising their right to vote at election time.The LDS Church continuously reminds its members on any number of non-religious, practical life skills and activities that have a moral component to them: home evening, home storage, debt, education, work, community service, family relations, you name it.I have no problem with the church teaching their members to be good citizens by participating in voting. What critics take issue with is the church telling members how to vote. Admittedly, the church does teach some constructive, valuable lessons with regard to your examples of home storage and emergency preparedness, family home evening, etc., but all of the activities you mentioned are apolitical, as the church should be.
CV75 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 I have no problem with the church teaching their members to be good citizens by participating in voting. What critics take issue with is the church telling members how to vote. Admittedly, the church does teach some constructive, valuable lessons with regard to your examples of home storage and emergency preparedness, family home evening, etc., but all of the activities you mentioned are apolitical, as the church should be.Why would someone think that it is improper for a church to instruct members to vote a certain way as an expression of the morality it and its members stand for?
thesometimesaint Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:I've never been told whom to vote for in any election in any Church meeting. Further I would deeply resent being told how to do so. If anyone doesn't know how the Church feels about moral issues is either very new to the Church or not paying attention. Without turning this into a Prop 8 discussion((I don't want to go there) the Church did not tell its members how to vote. It did remind its members of the morality of marriage. It did encourage members to vote their own conscience.
Walden Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Why would someone think that it is improper for a church to instruct members to vote a certain way as an expression of the morality it and its members stand for?Quite possibly because of the IRS standard for tax-exempt status {501(3)© status}, which states that tax-exempt organizations , "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."I'm sure that some apologist will come on here and argue the nuances and vagaries of influencing legislation "as a substantial part of its activities," but the church walks a very muddled line when it claims tax exemption yet instructs members how to vote.And sometimesaint, I too have no interest in going around and around about the Prop 8 discussion and the church's role in that political forum, but anyone sitting in sacrament meeting who didn't understand the church's declaration on the Prop 8 issue, and that declaration's intent regarding member voting decisions, "is either very new to the Church or not paying attention."
CV75 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Quite possibly because of the IRS standard for tax-exempt status {501(3)© status}, which states that tax-exempt organizations , "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."I'm sure that some apologist will come on here and argue the nuances and vagaries of influencing legislation "as a substantial part of its activities," but the church walks a very muddled line when it claims tax exemption yet instructs members how to vote.This was the first thing that came to my mind, but in the US, the IRS takes a pretty clear stance on restricting political and lobbying activities (http://www.irs.gov/C...t-Organizations and http://www.irs.gov/C...rofits/Lobbying).To me, there is a big difference between instructing how to vote and educating how to vote, but even instruction is not prohibited by the IRS (except in the case of individual candidates, and in the relation to the OP, I don't see that the LDS Church engages in this). Edited September 4, 2012 by CV75
thesometimesaint Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:The church commits no funds to support any political issue. So the issue is moot.
DavidB Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Walden:The church commits no funds to support any political issue. So the issue is moot.That is incorrect, there is no requirement that a tax exempt org commit funds. Telling members to vote for a particular State Constitutional ballot measure is enough to raise concern that a tax exempt org has violated its tax exempt status.
CV75 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) That is incorrect, there is no requirement that a tax exempt org commit funds. Telling members to vote for a particular State Constitutional ballot measure is enough to raise concern that a tax exempt org has violated its tax exempt status.According to the links above (and related links therein), raising that concern would be unwarranted. In addition, these things are so closely monitored. Edited September 4, 2012 by CV75
DavidB Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 According to the links above (and related links therein), raising that concern would be unwarranted. In addition, these things are so closely monitored.Not unwarranted, what is the set standard for "substantial", there isn't a set standard.As for being closely monitored, not really. The IRS relies on citizens to report tax violations, the IRS only investigates a small number of those orgs which are reported...this small number is about availability of resources of the IRS to perform the investigation.
blackstrap Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 I wonder how the Church would respond to a ballot measure to disband the IRS ?
CV75 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Not unwarranted, what is the set standard for "substantial", there isn't a set standard.As for being closely monitored, not really. The IRS relies on citizens to report tax violations, the IRS only investigates a small number of those orgs which are reported...this small number is about availability of resources of the IRS to perform the investigation.If that's the case, then it really isn't very important in the overall scheme of things.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 The Church must be involved in moral issues...or cease to be the Church of Christ.
DavidB Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 If that's the case, then it really isn't very important in the overall scheme of things.Are you suggesting that violations which are not investigated or punished are of no consequence?
Walden Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 The Church must be involved in moral issues...or cease to be the Church of Christ.Again, the church's involvement in moral issues is not the argument. It's the church's involvement in ballot measures that is the concern.The church is free to teach any type of morality that it chooses, and is expected to be involved in teaching their version of morality. However, when they give instructions on how one should vote with regard to state-sponsored ballot initiatives, the church has overstepped it tax-exempt boundaries.In the end, I just find it highly humorous, personally. That a church as proud of it's high moral character as the LDS church is, would have to remind it's members, from the pulpit, how to vote on a "moral" issue such as same-sex marriage, is just laughable to me.
CV75 Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Are you suggesting that violations which are not investigated or punished are of no consequence?No; I'm not sure which violatons have proven to be or would be of greater or lesser consequence.I am suggesting that violations in general don't seem to be of such practical importance to the IRS or to the American people as to warrant a more robust monitoring system (a set standard for "substantial"; close monitoring by the IRS and/or citizens; investigating a significant number of reports; giivng more resources to the IRS to perform the investigation, etc.). The issue apparently isn't a big deal. In cases where it did become a big deal, I'm confident that those of greater consequence have been documented.
Sleeper Cell Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Your assumption regarding the "critics" problem with LDS political involvement is incorrect. Critics do not want the LDS church, or any church for that matter, to get "involved in moral politics." I am sure that they appreciate the support of some of the more liberal religions (UU and episcopalian come to mind), but most critics understand that support from a conservative church on principles of morality is something that will not happen.Instead, the critics would prefer that the church's (all of them) just stay out of it. Teach your morals, teach your rules, teach your doctrine, but remain mute when it comes to matters of the ballot box.So much for the civil rights movement.
Sleeper Cell Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Quite possibly because of the IRS standard for tax-exempt status {501(3)© status}, which states that tax-exempt organizations , "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."I'm sure that some apologist will come on here and argue the nuances and vagaries of influencing legislation "as a substantial part of its activities," but the church walks a very muddled line when it claims tax exemption yet instructs members how to vote.And sometimesaint, I too have no interest in going around and around about the Prop 8 discussion and the church's role in that political forum, but anyone sitting in sacrament meeting who didn't understand the church's declaration on the Prop 8 issue, and that declaration's intent regarding member voting decisions, "is either very new to the Church or not paying attention."If the standard creates a very muddled line, isn’t that the fault of the IRS, and not the fault of the churches? One doesn’t have to be an apologist to understand that the IRS standard you cited permits churches to attempt to influence legislation to some extent. The “nuances and vagaries” which you treat so dismissively are central to determining whether or not the church has acted legally. BTW, claiming that the line between compliance and non-compliance is “muddled” and involves “nuances and vagaries” does not strike me as an effective opening statement for the prosecution -- especially since the prosecution has the burden of proof.
why me Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 Your assumption regarding the "critics" problem with LDS political involvement is incorrect. Critics do not want the LDS church, or any church for that matter, to get "involved in moral politics."There has been much criticism of the church's stance with prop 8 in california. And it wasn't because they got involved with moral politics but because they were on the 'wrong' side. Such has been the criticism on more socially liberal mormon boards. So, i don't think that I am wrong about this. Some exmormons who are critical of the lds moral stances politically usually wish that the lds church was more like the Unitarian Universalists on moral issues.
Recommended Posts