Temple Tax

[Tacenda]

Anglican Churches are often left open to the public in UK. Anyone can attend on any given day.

There is an entrance fee, expression of loyalty to an American leader and qualification requirement for entering the temple. It is by no means open to any member of the public on any given day.

The point of a place of public worship is that anyone can enter with no requirement or without prejudice.

If the 100% discount only applies to places of public worship I think it's a bit weasely of the church lawyers to try to get out of doing so. I wonder how much those lawyers and court fees all cost.

(bold mine)

 

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.  And need to add this to the recent summons for Thomas S. Monson.  I wonder if the church will try to get out of Pres. Monson appearing in court.  Though in my heart of hearts, see that he isn't in a state of mind for such an ordeal.  He is getting older and I can tell he's not doing as well as he once was.  This might do physical or mental harm to him.  But that is for a different thread. ETA:  Daniel2 beat me to it.  But I thought it was the 12th Article of Faith.      

[thesometimesaint]

Anglican Churches are often left open to the public in UK. Anyone can attend on any given day.

There is an entrance fee, expression of loyalty to an American leader and qualification requirement for entering the temple. It is by no means open to any member of the public on any given day.

The point of a place of public worship is that anyone can enter with no requirement or without prejudice.

If the 100% discount only applies to places of public worship I think it's a bit weasely of the church lawyers to try to get out of doing so. I wonder how much those lawyers and court fees all cost.

 

I am allowed to be in the high offices of the Anglican church any time I want? I could be wrong, but I don't believe I would be.

 

There is no entrance fee to any LDS Temple, further the third prophet of the Church was born English. He was not an American citizen until 1849.

 

So I should be able to enter the high offices of any Protestant church any time I want or I can force them to pay a tax if I can't?

 

I wonder how much all those religious wars fought by Catholics and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants fought for over a thousand years cost?

[thesometimesaint]

If all other private organizations and houses of worship pay taxes on non-public buildings in Britain, it seems the rather non-American aspects of 10th Article of Faith may apply here...

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

I think you stretch that one too far. There is nothing in our Articles of Faith that forces us to like all laws enacted, and nothing in them precludes us from trying to change any law. IE; Were the Saints required to willingly submit to Governor Boggs extermination order?

[Bikeemikey]

While we are more and more a world wide church. We are profoundly American in our outlook. For the ECHR to rule against the Church affronts our deep sense that precludes governments from dictating beliefs without an overriding secular motive. IE; Fire codes.

Lame!!

You are profoundly American in your outlook! The rest of the worlds non-American Mormons are not.

Get your American conservative propaganda out of my religion please!

[Bikeemikey]

Anglican Churches are often left open to the public in UK. Anyone can attend on any given day.

There is an entrance fee, expression of loyalty to an American leader and qualification requirement for entering the temple. It is by no means open to any member of the public on any given day.

The point of a place of public worship is that anyone can enter with no requirement or without prejudice.

If the 100% discount only applies to places of public worship I think it's a bit weasely of the church lawyers to try to get out of doing so. I wonder how much those lawyers and court fees all cost.

Hopefully not intentionally planned to wind up the politically conservative mormon base back in the USA...

[cinepro]

I am allowed to be in the high offices of the Anglican church any time I want? I could be wrong, but I don't believe I would be.

 

What do you mean by "high offices"? Is it a place where the Anglican Church conducts worship services and the public may attend?  If not, then it would also not be tax exempt.  It really isn't too hard to understand unless you don't want to understand it.

 

BCC has a good write up here:

 

Taxing the Temple

 

The Preston temple complex houses not only the temple, but “a stake center, missionary training center, family history center, distribution center, patron housing facility, and temple missionary accommodations.”

The British government asserted that the Church owed property tax on all of these buildings except the stake center. Why would the stake center be exempt and not the rest of the buildings? Under the Local Government Finance Act of 1988, property tax applies at three potential rates. Most property is, presumably, subject to the ordinary property tax. Property used for charitable purposes is taxable at a much lower rate (20% of the ordinary rate). And property used “for the conduct of public religious worship” is exempt from property tax.

There was no dispute that that stake center was used for public religious worship. The rest of the buildings, the government held, were not.

The courts actually spent some time dealing with the non-temple buildings, ultimately holding that, though owned by the Church, they weren’t used for worship and, as such, were subject to the lower property tax rate.

 

The article notes that "Any Mormon building that permitted public worship was [tax] exempt, while private churches of other denominations–including of the Church of England!–were subject to the reduced rates of taxation."

[cinepro]

I think you stretch that one too far. There is nothing in our Articles of Faith that forces us to like all laws enacted, and nothing in them precludes us from trying to change any law. IE; Were the Saints required to willingly submit to Governor Boggs extermination order?

 

No one said we have to "like" the laws.  The 12th Article of Faith only "forces" us to obey them.

 

And the Extermination Order pre-dated the Articles of Faith, so it doesn't apply   .

[Calm]

Is there a link to the argument the Church made?

Personally my reaction when I heard of it years ago was "that makes sense". As long as it is consistently applied in a country and does not prevent the building of such restricted areas or put it out of the price range of too many faiths, it seems acceptable to me. It will be the British Saints who will live with the consequences of perhaps a few fewer temples or smaller ones so if they are in general okay with it i don't see Americans having much say in the matter.

If we can be willing to abide by Israel's request (not even law, I believe) not to proselytise, we can be content with giving more to the State that provides the land and services that allows the temple to exist and be safe.

And given the government's Gift Aid program, it would be interesting to see if the end result is more or less income for the Church.

[Calm]

(bold mine)

 

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.  And need to add this to the recent summons for Thomas S. Monson.  I wonder if the church will try to get out of Pres. Monson appearing in court. 

Tacenda, it is not required by UK law for Pres. Monson to show up in person. He can send representatives instead.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, it is not required by UK law for Pres. Monson to show up in person. He can send representatives instead.

That's good.

[Thinking]

I am allowed to be in the high offices of the Anglican church any time I want? I could be wrong, but I don't believe I would be.

 

Surely you're not making the argument that the offices should be open to the public?

 

There is no entrance fee to any LDS Temple, further the third prophet of the Church was born English. He was not an American citizen until 1849.

 

Let's see. You show a recommend to enter. The recommend is obtained from the bishop. One of the requirements is to pay a full tithing. That sounds like an entrance fee to me.

 

So I should be able to enter the high offices of any Protestant church any time I want or I can force them to pay a tax if I can't?

 

What do you think you're going to find in these offices?

[sheilauk]

Anglican Churches are often left open to the public in UK. Anyone can attend on any given day.

 

 

"We" being the American LDS I presume. That's no surprise given you're American!

The British saints are profoundly British in their outlook and willing to respect the laws of the UK. I agree with Alan, this is such a non-issue that you Americans should get over it.

The Temple clearly isn't a place of public worship by UK definition and the church shouldn't have wasted all those legal fees trying to argue it is.

 

In my experience, many Anglican and other churches are in fact, these days, mostly locked up to avoid theft and vandalism.  Whilst, of course, anyone can attend their services and can attend when they can find volunteers to open the Church or they have some other event going on, where I live you would find it hard to attend whenever you liked.

 

Yes, British Saints have a British outlook but the Church is influenced by its American roots. 

 

 

 

Most Brits will have no issue with this ruling because, culturally, we completely understand the intent of "place of public worship" in the definition as it's part of our heritage.

 

I don't think that I quite agree with the Court's definition of public worship so perhaps that should be modified to most or many

 

If all other private organizations and houses of worship pay taxes on non-public buildings in Britain, it seems the rather non-American aspects of 10th Article of Faith may apply here...

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

We may believe in being subject to obeying the law - doesn't mean that we can't try to change it if we disagree.  That is, after all, a right of every citizen and organisation in a State isn't it?

 

 

 

There is an entrance fee, expression of loyalty to an American leader and qualification requirement for entering the temple. It is by no means open to any member of the public on any given day. The point of a place of public worship is that anyone can enter with no requirement or without prejudice.

 

There is no entrance fee to any LDS Temple, further the third prophet of the Church was born English. He was not an American citizen until 1849.

 

 

 

 

Let's see. You show a recommend to enter. The recommend is obtained from the bishop. One of the requirements is to pay a full tithing. That sounds like an entrance fee to me.

 

 

I pay my tithing to the Church.  I may or may not ask for and obtain a recommend.  These two phrases are not synomous.  That is - I can pay tithing and still not get a recommend and my obtaining a recommend does not depend solely on payment of tithing, though it is one part of it.  When I actually go to the Temple, I don't pay any more.

 

When I visit one of the many magnificant cathedrals in this country, or one of the many lovely little churches, I am asked for a contribution - often voluntary, but in all our cathedrals, if you want to have a look around, you will pay an entrance fee, to contribute to its upkeep.  I can gain entrance to a cathedral without the fee, if I attend a service.  But at that Service a plate will be passed around and I will be asked to make a contribution to the upkeep of the Church.  When I regularly attended another church, I made a donation every week - tithing is no different to me.  When I visit a Cathedral or church, I give a donation - sounds like a entrance fee to me.  Tithing is voluntary, Temple attendance is voluntary.  If I don't want to pay the Cathedral's entrance fee, I don't get to see the building, unless I make the effort of sitting through a service.  Please explain the differences to me.

 

And what is a public place of worship?  Just how do the British understand this?  That they can go where they like without making any contribution because their ancestors put it up?  I don't go to a football match without paying a fee, and a football ground in Britain is a public place of worship for many people!  And, because I am a member of the Church, suddenly I'm not a member of the public?  When I sit in a service in the Temple, am I not engaged in a public act of worship?  There are a lot of people around me who I don't know and they seem like they would be members of the public unless membership of a Church removes that designation?  If I'm in a service and the only people there are members of that church, no strangers present, is that no longer a public place of worship because only members are there?  To be a public place of worship, does it have to be open to non members?  That is the question and though the UK courts have said yes, I am still inclined to disagree with my learned friends because I am a member of the public.  However, that said, it has been tested in Court and the only thing now is to abide by our Articles of Faith and comply.

[Alan]

In my experience, many Anglican and other churches are in fact, these days, mostly locked up to avoid theft and vandalism.  Whilst, of course, anyone can attend their services and can attend when they can find volunteers to open the Church or they have some other event going on, where I live you would find it hard to attend whenever you liked.

 

Yes, British Saints have a British outlook but the Church is influenced by its American roots. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that I quite agree with the Court's definition of public worship so perhaps that should be modified to most or many

 

 

We may believe in being subject to obeying the law - doesn't mean that we can't try to change it if we disagree.  That is, after all, a right of every citizen and organisation in a State isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I pay my tithing to the Church.  I may or may not ask for and obtain a recommend.  These two phrases are not synomous.  That is - I can pay tithing and still not get a recommend and my obtaining a recommend does not depend solely on payment of tithing, though it is one part of it.  When I actually go to the Temple, I don't pay any more.

 

When I visit one of the many magnificant cathedrals in this country, or one of the many lovely little churches, I am asked for a contribution - often voluntary, but in all our cathedrals, if you want to have a look around, you will pay an entrance fee, to contribute to its upkeep.  I can gain entrance to a cathedral without the fee, if I attend a service.  But at that Service a plate will be passed around and I will be asked to make a contribution to the upkeep of the Church.  When I regularly attended another church, I made a donation every week - tithing is no different to me.  When I visit a Cathedral or church, I give a donation - sounds like a entrance fee to me.  Tithing is voluntary, Temple attendance is voluntary.  If I don't want to pay the Cathedral's entrance fee, I don't get to see the building, unless I make the effort of sitting through a service.  Please explain the differences to me.

 

And what is a public place of worship?  Just how do the British understand this?  That they can go where they like without making any contribution because their ancestors put it up?  I don't go to a football match without paying a fee, and a football ground in Britain is a public place of worship for many people!  And, because I am a member of the Church, suddenly I'm not a member of the public?  When I sit in a service in the Temple, am I not engaged in a public act of worship?  There are a lot of people around me who I don't know and they seem like they would be members of the public unless membership of a Church removes that designation?  If I'm in a service and the only people there are members of that church, no strangers present, is that no longer a public place of worship because only members are there?  To be a public place of worship, does it have to be open to non members?  That is the question and though the UK courts have said yes, I am still inclined to disagree with my learned friends because I am a member of the public.  However, that said, it has been tested in Court and the only thing now is to abide by our Articles of Faith and comply.

 

A place of public worship in the UK is just what it says. A place where any member of the public, irrespective of church membership or standing, can enter and participate in a worship service, without meeting any pre-qualifying conditions.

It is that simple.

I can enter the Anglican Church or the Methodist Church in my village for the purpose of public worship. I don't have to meet any conditions to do this, nor do I have to be a member of those churches. I may choose to donate when the collection plate comes round, but I don't have to, and if I don't I won't get thrown out or face any restrictions next time I visit.

 

The temple does not qualify as a public place of worship in the UK. Doesn't even come close.

[Thinking]

I pay my tithing to the Church.  I may or may not ask for and obtain a recommend.  These two phrases are not synomous.  That is - I can pay tithing and still not get a recommend and my obtaining a recommend does not depend solely on payment of tithing, though it is one part of it.  When I actually go to the Temple, I don't pay any more.

 

While it's true that you may pay tithing and still not qualify for entrance into the temple, not paying a full tithe will disqualify you from entrance. You're correct that obtaining a recommend does not depend solely on payment of tithing. However, not paying any more at the temple doesn't change the fact the money is involved in the qualification process to determine who can enter. If I buy a monthly bus pass, I can enter and ride the bus anytime during that month and not have to pay any more money at the time I actually enter the bus. Does this mean that I didn't have to pay a fee to ride the bus?

[thesometimesaint]

A place of public worship in the UK is just what it says. A place where any member of the public, irrespective of church membership or standing, can enter and participate in a worship service, without meeting any pre-qualifying conditions.

It is that simple.

I can enter the Anglican Church or the Methodist Church in my village for the purpose of public worship. I don't have to meet any conditions to do this, nor do I have to be a member of those churches. I may choose to donate when the collection plate comes round, but I don't have to, and if I don't I won't get thrown out or face any restrictions next time I visit.

 

The temple does not qualify as a public place of worship in the UK. Doesn't even come close.

 

So you are saying that I can enter the high offices of the Anglican or Methodist churches any time I want?

[Thinking]

So you are saying that I can enter the high offices of the Anglican or Methodist churches any time I want?

 

Why are you so fixed on going into a private office?

[thesometimesaint]

While it's true that you may pay tithing and still not qualify for entrance into the temple, not paying a full tithe will disqualify you from entrance. You're correct that obtaining a recommend does not depend solely on payment of tithing. However, not paying any more at the temple doesn't change the fact the money is involved in the qualification process to determine who can enter. If I buy a monthly bus pass, I can enter and ride the bus anytime during that month and not have to pay any more money at the time I actually enter the bus. Does this mean that I didn't have to pay a fee to ride the bus?

There is no requirement to pay tithing to enter the Temple. Whether I pay $1,000,000 or $0 the requirement is that I pay on my increase. I personally know several members whom have no increase and are faithful attenders of the Temple.

[thesometimesaint]

Why are you so fixed on going into a private office?

 

I'm not. I personally don't care what those religions require. What I am objecting is the gross hypocrisy of a government requiring it on one religion(Mine) and not requiring it of other religions.

[Thinking]

I'm not. I personally don't care what those religions require. What I am objecting is the gross hypocrisy of a government requiring it on one religion(Mine) and not requiring it of other religions.

 

There is a difference between the worship hall and the private office of the pastor.

[thesometimesaint]

There is a difference between the worship hall and the private office of the pastor.

 

Why?

[toon]

So you are saying that I can enter the high offices of the Anglican or Methodist churches any time I want?

 

Assuming that you're talking about offices that are in what otherwise is considered a place of public worship, my guess is that the determintion on whether the building is exempt as a place of public worship likely depends on its primary purpose.  (If your talking about a separate office building, you'd first have to show that it's tax exempt.)

 

Britain allowed that the stake center at the site be exempt from taxes, even though the stake president's and the various bishops' offices located in the building are not open to the public.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm not. I personally don't care what those religions require. What I am objecting is the gross hypocrisy of a government requiring it on one religion(Mine) and not requiring it of other religions.

Then I suggest you take that legitimate objection elsewhere because this is not an example of what you are objecting to.

In the UK administrative offices of churches are subject to the discounted 20% tax rate (just as offices of other non-religious nonprofit would be). Why? Because an office is not a house of worship open to the public.

[cinepro]

I'm not. I personally don't care what those religions require. What I am objecting is the gross hypocrisy of a government requiring it on one religion(Mine) and not requiring it of other religions.

 

Have we established that the "offices" of the Anglican Church are not subject to property tax?  It seems to me, based on the summary of the law in the BCC column, that they would be.  So let's not accuse the British government of "gross hypocrisy" until we know that they are, in fact, acting hypocritically.

[Abulafia]

I am a keen visitor to ancient churches and cathedrals bere in the UK. Of the many I have visited, almost all have been left open for visitors. On the few occasions where this has not been the case, a note has been left on the notice board in the porch giving the number of the warden who has the key. A website will also give details of access.

Cathedrals often ask for a voluntary contribution, which are voluntary. You are under no obligation to pay. Museums operate under the same fashion, the Ashmolean in Oxford for instance.

I have no idea why the church bothered pursuing this. The law is quite clear.

[thesometimesaint]

Then I suggest you take that legitimate objection elsewhere because this is not an example of what you are objecting to.

In the UK administrative offices of churches are subject to the discounted 20% tax rate (just as offices of other non-religious nonprofit would be). Why? Because an office is not a house of worship open to the public.

 

There is no functional difference. You are carving out an exemption because of a religion rather than treating them all equally.