thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: The church employs lobbyist at the state capital. I would say that is a little more than just an opinion. Do US church members give up their First Amendment rights? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 15 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: but the position of the church is seen as the right path by most LDS, correct? So in your view, the Church should shut up in case someone might agree with them? 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 On 2/13/2016 at 10:08 AM, Kenngo1969 said: Please, go away! Out, out, damned box!
smac97 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) On 2/6/2016 at 2:44 PM, TheSkepticChristian said: Alcohol is physically addictive, but marijuana is NOT physically addictive, it is psychologically addictive, big difference. Are you sure? WebMD: Heavy Pot Use Can Cause Physical Dependence Quote Heavy marijuana users who stop cold turkey experience a host of withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, anxiety, and depression, but most symptoms begin to lessen after 10 days or so, a study from Harvard Medical School suggests. ... Recent animal studies and studies evaluating the use of cannabis in humans under laboratory conditions support the notion that marijuana withdrawal syndrome exists. "A few years ago, it was widely believed that marijuana does not cause any kind of physical dependence, but now that has pretty much been debunked," Aron Lichtman, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, tells WebMD. "Studies like this one and the ones we have done show that physical dependence does exist." Lichtman and colleagues from Virginia Commonwealth have conducted numerous animal studies on the effects of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Wikipedia Entry on "Cannabis Dependence": "Although physical addiction has not been proven, an estimated 9% of those who use cannabis develop dependence." International Business Times: Marijuana Is Addictive, Causes Withdrawal: Study Quote The long-held belief that using marijuana isn’t physically addictive has proved false, according to research that found quitting marijuana can cause withdrawal symptoms. The study, which ABC News reported was released Wednesday by the Australian journal PLOS ONE, found that the withdrawal symptoms can be severe enough to interfere with life functioning. People who tried to quit pot reported feeling moody, tense, anxious and nervous. It was also common for respondents to cite a loss of appetite, difficulty sitting still and insomnia. Heavy users were most susceptible to finding difficulty quitting and struggling with worsened withdrawal symptoms. They were also more likely to relapse while trying to abstain. Scientists asked regular users to stop using cannabis for two weeks, and many said their ability to work and personal relationships suffered, according to the Daily Mail. The study polled 49 men and women who used marijuana more than five times weekly, and researchers collected urine samples from them to make sure the study’s results were accurate. The symptoms generally were at their highest at four days without marijuana and lasted for two weeks, but cravings for the drug lasted longer. “It’s very similar to what people experience with tobacco,” Alan J. Budney, the co-author of the study, told ABC. “It makes you irritable. It makes you restless. It makes it hard to sleep.” Thanks, -Smac Edited February 16, 2016 by smac97 2
ksfisher Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 On 2/15/2016 at 8:24 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: In states where recreational use is legal like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, do employers still drug test for marijuana and prevent you from employment if you test positive? If your occupation falls under federal guidelines, such as a truck driver, then a positive for marijuana would be a failed drug screen even in Colorado. 1
ksfisher Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is true that our church is not telling us how to vote, but it has a lot of power in the minds of most LDS. That is why two Senators changed their views. The position of the church is always seen as the right decision. If tomorrow the church announces that Women are going to be ordained to the priesthood, most LDS will gladly accept that. When our church says something, the debate is over. I'm really not sure what you want the church to do. It mostly seems like you want the prophet to smile and wave and keep quiet. Perhaps an occasional admonition (gently phrased so as not to offend) to be nice and get your home teaching done.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Are you sure? Interesting, I will take a second look at the evidence. I am open minded. 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: So in your view, the Church should shut up in case someone might agree with them? The church shouldn't try to influence a legislative decision.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Interesting, I will take a second look at the evidence. I am open minded. The church shouldn't try to influence a legislative decision. Why not? Don't legislative decisions potentially impact the wellbeing of the members of the Church?
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 14 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Why not? Don't legislative decisions potentially impact the wellbeing of the members of the Church? with that same logic, why not also a theocracy? You want a theocracy?
Russell C McGregor Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 26 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: with that same logic, why not also a theocracy? You want a theocracy? So, in your view, the only alternative to a theocracy is that all churches are silenced in the public square? And I think to myself... Oh, what a binary world! 1
smac97 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Interesting, I will take a second look at the evidence. I am open minded. The church shouldn't try to influence a legislative decision. Why should the Church not try to influence a legislative decision? Why is it not entitled to exercise the same rights as are give to other organizations? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is true that our church is not telling us how to vote, but it has a lot of power in the minds of most LDS. That is why two Senators changed their views. The position of the church is always seen as the right decision. If tomorrow the church announces that Women are going to be ordained to the priesthood, most LDS will gladly accept that. When our church says something, the debate is over. I do not think this is a correct statement of the Church's position on political issues, or on its influence over political leaders who belong to the Church. Here is the Church's position: Quote The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established. The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes. Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader. That last bullet point rather undercuts your implication that LDS politicos are beholden to the Church's position. They aren't. Quote The Church does: Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections. Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters. Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church. Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church. In the United States, where nearly half of the world’s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church’s neutrality in partisan political matters. That last bullet point preserves the Church's right to speak on certain issues. I think it's beyond reasonable dispute that the Church, in the main, does not weigh in on legislative matters except where this last bullet point applies. This last quote is the real kicker: Quote Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent. So the formal position of the LDS Church on legislative/political issues is that LDS politicians are at liberty to agree to disagree with the Church's "publicly stated ... position" on any particular legislative/political issue. QED. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 16, 2016 by smac97 2
Teancum Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: Why should the Church not try to influence a legislative decision? Why is it not entitled to exercise the same rights as are give to other organizations? Thanks, -Smac The Church in the USA at least is a IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization is it not? Because of that fact it enjoys certain tax free privileges other entities do not enjoy correct? And those who donate to the LDS Church also enjoy certain tax benefits do they not? Further because the LDS Church is a IRC Section 501(c)(3) and it is a Church it is exempt from filing an annual Form 990 that ALL OTHER 501(c)(3) organizations must file. So for all this special treatement the LDS Church recieves what does the law say? Well let's take a quick looks: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations Quote Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In 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. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. So It would seem the operative is whether or not the LDS Church lobbying efforts and other activities such as Prop 8, etc rise to the level of a substantial part of its activities. Generally Tax Exempt organizations under thsi section of tax law are to stay out of supporting candidates and attempting to influence legislation.
smac97 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 20 minutes ago, Teancum said: The Church in the USA at least is a IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization is it not? Because of that fact it enjoys certain tax free privileges other entities do not enjoy correct? And those who donate to the LDS Church also enjoy certain tax benefits do they not? Further because the LDS Church is a IRC Section 501(c)(3) and it is a Church it is exempt from filing an annual Form 990 that ALL OTHER 501(c)(3) organizations must file. So for all this special treatement the LDS Church recieves what does the law say? Well let's take a quick looks: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations So It would seem the operative is whether or not the LDS Church lobbying efforts and other activities such as Prop 8, etc rise to the level of a substantial part of its activities. Generally Tax Exempt organizations under thsi section of tax law are to stay out of supporting candidates and attempting to influence legislation. I was not addressing the extent of lobbying authorized by law for charitable organizations like the LDS Church. TheSkepticChristian made a categorical statement that the LDS Church "shouldn't try to influence a legislative decision." The law allows for charitable organizations to use some influence. It is not totally prohibited from influencing legislation, right? So whence the categorical declaration from TheSkepticChristian? That is the point of my inquiry. Your last sentence above isn't really applicable here. The Church does not support candidates. There is no dispute about that. And the Church only rarely speaks on or attempts to "influence" legislative issues. Given the Church's ministry efforts (tens of thousands of local congregations in thousands of buildings), missionary program (75K+ missionaries spread throughout the world, educational programs (Church schools, seminaries and institutes), humanitarian efforts, and so on, I do not think there is a reasonable case to be made that the Church's statement about two pieces of legislation pending in one state legislature in 2016 amounts to "lobbying efforts and other activities" that constitute "a substantial part of its activities." So the legal provisions you are referencing here are not relevant to my inquiry to TheSkepticChristian. If he thinks they are, I'd like to hear from him and see what his reasoning is, 'cuz I ain't seein it. Thanks, -Smac Thanks, -Smac
Teancum Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I was not addressing the extent of lobbying authorized by law for charitable organizations like the LDS Church. TheSkepticChristian made a categorical statement that the LDS Church "shouldn't try to influence a legislative decision." The law allows for charitable organizations to use some influence. It is not totally prohibited from influencing legislation, right? So whence the categorical declaration from TheSkepticChristian? That is the point of my inquiry. Your last sentence above isn't really applicable here. The Church does not support candidates. There is no dispute about that. And the Church only rarely speaks on or attempts to "influence" legislative issues. Given the Church's ministry efforts (tens of thousands of local congregations in thousands of buildings), missionary program (75K+ missionaries spread throughout the world, educational programs (Church schools, seminaries and institutes), humanitarian efforts, and so on, I do not think there is a reasonable case to be made that the Church's statement about two pieces of legislation pending in one state legislature in 2016 amounts to "lobbying efforts and other activities" that constitute "a substantial part of its activities." So the legal provisions you are referencing here are not relevant to my inquiry to TheSkepticChristian. If he thinks they are, I'd like to hear from him and see what his reasoning is, 'cuz I ain't seein it. Thanks, -Smac Thanks, -Smac I think you are likely correct. I would be curious to do some review as to what the tax courts have held to be "substantial" as far as the activity of a 501(c)(3). But my guess is the LDS church's activity in legislative influence would not rise to that level. 1
smac97 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: I think you are likely correct. I would be curious to do some review as to what the tax courts have held to be "substantial" as far as the activity of a 501(c)(3). But my guess is the LDS church's activity in legislative influence would not rise to that level. I think there are many examples of charitable organizations that run afoul of the "substantial part" limitation. But my sense is that the IRS does not seem to go after them very often. In any event, the LDS Church is not, I think, in any appreciable risk. Thanks, -Smac
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church. Exactly, 'that it believes" 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That last bullet point preserves the Church's right to speak on certain issues. I think it's beyond reasonable dispute that the Church, in the main, does not weigh in on legislative matters except where this last bullet point applies. Again the church should stay out because our laws should be based on secular thinking, not religious thinking. You want laws based on religious thinking? Make them in your house, not in our country! Our country belongs to all of us, and like it or not the constitution is a secular document. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent. So why does our church even bother in the first place? So how come the church does not have a position on most moral issues that affect the weak? Again, you underestimate the power the our church has on the minds of LDS. If tomorrow the church announces that Syrian refugees should come to the USA, most LDS will gladly accept that! Edited February 16, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: So, in your view, the only alternative to a theocracy is that all churches are silenced in the public square?
Russell C McGregor Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 18 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: [Silly picture snipped.] So that is your idea of a reasoned response, is it? I see.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: So that is your idea of a reasoned response, is it? No response is necessary if you read and understand what I am saying Edited February 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Russell C McGregor Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: No response is necessary if you read and understand what I am saying You said that my logic leads to a theocracy. A conclusion that is only possible if you fail to read and understand what I am saying. 1
Recommended Posts