The Nehor Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: I think they kinda already do that. Really, which candidates have they endorsed recently? 1 hour ago, Walden said: Please, as if the church doesn't already rule Utah and Idaho; I have driven through Utah and Idaho on many occasions, and from what I have seen, the church can have them (though Utah does need to ensure that free access to all ski locales remain unencumbered for us heathens in their new theocratic state) I don't think they do. And it makes sense they are undesireable. The Mormons only took them because no one else wanted them.
Jeanne Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 No presidential endorsement yet..they are waiting for Romney to take his pick. But the mormon legislature has great enfluence..nothing you can do about it as the people are voted in..by mormons. But I must say it is refreshing not to see a bunch running around with pamphlets and telling everyone how to vote.
The Nehor Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: No presidential endorsement yet..they are waiting for Romney to take his pick. But the mormon legislature has great enfluence..nothing you can do about it as the people are voted in..by mormons. But I must say it is refreshing not to see a bunch running around with pamphlets and telling everyone how to vote. The LDS church actually sticks to its partisan neutrality very well compared to many other churches. True, LDS tend to lean to the political right but God sent me down to confuse the issue.
Jeanne Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: The LDS church actually sticks to its partisan neutrality very well compared to many other churches. True, LDS tend to lean to the political right but God sent me down to confuse the issue. You're doing a good job!!
Daniel2 Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) have read that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't legally registered as a church--they are registered as a Corporation. That is why, from what I understand, the legally official title of the entity commonly known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is actually something like "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Much of my info comes from this blog post: How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ I don't know how much of this blog post is accurate, but it seems applicable to the scope of this thread. Honest question: I'm genuinely curious what is the difference between the LDS Faith being registered as "a church" vs. being registered as "a corporation," when it comes to things like taxation? Are there legal requirements for an organization to be classified as "a church"? Same question to be classified as "a corporation"? Are there benefits or privileges associated with being classified as one vs. being classified as the other? Especially when it comes to taxes or other civic requirements? Edited February 27, 2016 by Daniel2
carbon dioxide Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 9:58 PM, The Nehor said: On 2/25/2016 at 3:16 PM, cinepro said: I, for one, firmly believe that the Church (and all churches and non-profits) should pay the same tax rate as regular for-profit corporations. Well, can we start by dealing with the churches that directly endorse candidates first and then work our way down to those that just speak out of issues. The biggest offenders in this are undoubtedly the small black churches that could possibly be destroyed by taxation. CHARGE! If you tax a non-profit the same as a profit, why even have non-profits? 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 8:29 PM, Rajah Manchou said: 100% agree. So much more could be done if not bound by the restrictions in place for nonprofit organizations. Imagine if all churches paid taxes on their tithes and offerings and business investments. That amount alone would probably be enough to clothe the naked, feed the poor and educate the ignorant. You know, the stuff that congregations should be doing instead of the government. No, the government would waste it on a bunch of crap whether it be foreign wars, foreign aid, growing the federal government more to control our lives more. Taking care of the poor is down on the list of the government agenda. They give just enough to keep the poor from rebellion but they want to have a dependent class of people that will always be poor so they can control them.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: have read that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't legally registered as a church--they are registered as a Corporation. That is why, from what I understand, the legally official title of the entity commonly known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is actually something like "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Much of my info comes from this blog post: How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ I don't know how much of this blog post is accurate, but it seems applicable to the scope of this thread. Honest question: I'm genuinely curious what is the difference between the LDS Faith being registered as "a church" vs. being registered as "a corporation," when it comes to things like taxation? Are there legal requirements for an organization to be classified as "a church"? Same question to be classified as "a corporation"? Are there benefits or privileges associated with being classified as one vs. being classified as the other? Especially when it comes to taxes or other civic requirements? In the United States the LDS Church is (I believe) an unincorporated religious association. It was incorporated in Utah but the Federal government dissolved that during the squabble over polygamy. It has a charter which is claimed to be on line. I am not sure if it is authentic but it appears so covering succession (normal LDS succession) but allows for the President of the Twelve to assign control to someone else in the quorum which would allow for a different member of the Twelve to become the owner so they could designate someone else. The Church also has a number of corporations that control the church's property, copyrights, and business interests. These handle church meetings, interactions, and the like. Some are tax-exempt and some are not. A church can be incorporated or not. Either can be tax-exempt. Tax-exempt status for a religious association or corporation has to meet standards of being "not for profit" and not having a substantial part (you would have to chat to a lawyer to remember what that means) of their activities being directed towards political ends. There are standards for what a church or other non-profit must be but nothing required to be a "church" as such. To be a corporation you have to be incorporated. In the United States that means incorporated in a state within the United States. I am not sure what state the Church corporations are incorporated in. I know the favored state for many (if not most) corporations in the United States is Delaware. By my understanding (someone please correct me if you know better) for all practical purposes legally our interactions with the Church are governed within the corporations within the corporations of the church. This is a good thing legally. An unincorporated entity can be dangerous. For example with no entity governing it the Church could not be sued or sue. Instead if something went wrong either civilly or criminally within the church someone could sue individual members. If there were debts members could be individually liable. If someone vandalized church property and was caught it would be difficult to sue for redress. People throw around the word "corporation" as a slur but most churches of any size are incorporated and it is generally good practice from what I hear to do so to protect the church and the members of that church. The Catholics have corporations in the United States. The Southern Baptists have corporate entities. It's normal and not anything to be ashamed of. Now, if the church starts acting primarily as a business entity I would be concerned but I have not seen that happen on a large-scale. We have individual screwballs who can't seem to think in anything but economic terms. Again, everything I said is dubious. I am not a lawyer and if anyone else knows better please correct me. 1
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: If you tax a non-profit the same as a profit, why even have non-profits? I can think of some reasons depending on how you run the company but yeah, there would be far fewer of them. Not all non-profits are squeaky clean. The requirement is you have to do something for the public good (churches qualify, I worked for a credit counseling non-profit when I was just out of High School) and cannot have shareholders. Basically the money has to go back into the entity. In churches that means no one has shares in the church and that money has to go to pay staff, upkeep, and the like. You can form a non-profit and pay yourself an outrageous salary and still be non-profit. Salaries in non-profit organizations can actually be quite high as profits go back into the company. 1
cinepro Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: If you tax a non-profit the same as a profit, why even have non-profits? Setting aside the fact that I suspect you missed my point, people don't start, run and support non-profits just for the tax benefits. You're essentially asking "If you tax a Church the same as a for-profit corporation, why even have Churches?" If you can't answer that, then taxation isn't our biggest issue. (And if someone has started, run and/or supported a non-profit only for the tax-benefits, then yes, that non-profit probably shouldn't exist.) Edited February 27, 2016 by cinepro
rodheadlee Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 11:06 AM, cinepro said: No, the 08' recession was totally different. Because real estate never goes down, so no one could see it coming. That is simply not true. My wife was a mortgage underwriter and I was a construction Foreman at the time, we both saw it coming and cashed in our 401k before the crash.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 26/02/2016 at 10:04 AM, Jeanne said: No presidential endorsement yet..they are waiting for Romney to take his pick. But the mormon legislature has great enfluence..nothing you can do about it as the people are voted in..by mormons. But I must say it is refreshing not to see a bunch running around with pamphlets and telling everyone how to vote. Umm, Jeanne? 2011 called. They want their conspiracy theory back. 2
PeterPear Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 So silly. The Supreme Court has upheld the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. Law Review: http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/sourcefiles/an-examination-of-religious-tax-exemption-policy-under-section-501c3-internal-revenue-code.pdf And if it has unrelated business income: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Unrelated-Business-Income-Tax
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 2, 2016 Author Posted March 2, 2016 On 2/29/2016 at 6:25 PM, PeterPear said: So silly. The Supreme Court has upheld the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. and gay marriage too.
thesometimesaint Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: and gay marriage too. There is that downside. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) The petition linked to in the OP is idiotic. But change.org is not altogether a joke. A few years ago where I live, the school district superintendent came under public fire for a heavy-handed management style. The school board circled the wagons around him. One of the residents in the district started a change.org petition calling for an independent management analysis. That didn't happen, but the petition starter ran for election to the school board and won. Within a few years, all but two of the seven board members had been replaced (one guy didn't seek re-election). Early on, before the housecleaning was finished, the superintendent resigned to take a job with an education think tank, but it was abrupt enough that I think he had started looking for another job when His lack of public support was clear. How much influence did the change.org petition have in all this? Hard to say, but at the least it brought public attention to the conflict, and I think it helped get the guy elected. Edited March 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts