Buckeye Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: I hear what you are saying, i just disagree that it's obvious that such would mean the church wouldn't endorse candidates even in other countries where it could be legal. These are the reasons that the 12 and 70 delegate. No way. I would be amazed if the 12 and 70's delegated discretion to local authorities to take an official church position on a candidate. 1
Buckeye Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Hawaii didn't get nearly as much attention as California. I had never even heard of it until long after the fact. If you were in the Women's Sessions in October 1995 you heard about. It's the PotF. 1
bluebell Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, Buckeye said: If that's true the church would have stopped at Hawaii. Hawaii was the first battle - mid 90s, same time the PotF came out. Do you really doubt that the "world" was not aware of the church's views on SSM after the church issued a "Proclamation to the World" on the family? I'm just passing on what i have heard. I know that it would create some real serious issues for those who believe that SSM is fine with God as well as give a pat on the back to those who believe He's not, so i'm not surprised that some accept it as likely while others believe it's absurd.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even if the amendment were repealed, I very much doubt the Church would start endorsing candidates. I'm confident there is enough wisdom among the Brethren not to do that. What I'm wondering, though, is if a repeal of the amendment might eviscerate the efforts of people like Karger who, incorrectly or not, claim the Church is illegally involving itself in politics and who are dead-set on depriving the Church of its tax-exempt status. The cost of the repeal would be that other churches, charities or non-profit organizations might turn into political action committees. I'm not sure I couldn't live with that, though, if it meant protecting the Church against people like Karger. I doubt that Karger has a leg to stand on, and see no purpose served by the govt getting into bed with Churches -- thus violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. 1
bluebell Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, Buckeye said: No way. I would be amazed if the 12 and 70's delegated discretion to local authorities to take an official church position on a candidate. They would't need to delegate the decision to still be able to delegate much of the time consuming work that you listed before.
The Nehor Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 59 minutes ago, bluebell said: Is the church allowed to endorse political candidates or influence politics in other countries? If so, have they ever done so? That's probably the best way to know how the church might act if it was ever allowed in the US. Although there may be exceptions the church tends to stay apolitical. Taking sides increases the chance that missionary work could be ended by an opposition candidate or party. 1
Buckeye Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm just passing on what i have heard. I know that it would create some real serious issues for those who believe that SSM is fine with God as well as give a pat on the back to those who believe He's not, so i'm not surprised that some accept it as likely while others believe it's absurd. Another data point: Despite not taking a position on SSM votes in many US States following California (e.g., Minnesota and Washington), the Church has recently spoken out on the issue in Mexico and asked Mexican saints to fight against SSM: http://www.sltrib.com/home/3957702-155/leaders-urge-mexicos-mormons-to-fight. So apparently the effort in California wasn't done just to signal to the world. Rather, the church has acted, and will continue to do so, wherever it believes it has influence. That's why the church in 2016 is willing to make a stand in Mexico (where it has some cache), but not in Ireland (2015) or Italy (2016) where the church has no influence. It boils down to real politic.
Buckeye Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: They would't need to delegate the decision to still be able to delegate much of the time consuming work that you listed before. The time consuming work is all within the 12 and 70. It takes a lot of time to study candidates, decide on one, and decide that it makes sense to take a position on that candidate. That all would be done by the 12 and 70, which would cost them time from the main missions of the church. Sure, actually reading the statement can be delegated to local authorities, but that's not where the real time cost is found.
Guest Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 Don't know why it shouldn't, many Churches already do, including so-ministries and none are punished. Having said that, I do not want our Church to do so. I do not think it is the role of the Church to do so, nor pressure others into voting their picks. But, the reality is this has been happening for a very long time, in historically Black Churhes, in small and mega-Churches, small Churches in the South. It also happens in other Churches elsewhere, I am just more familiar with those in the South, since I am from the South. A lot of no-mo's, never-mo's, and those who are (or feel) disaffected members, already claim that the Church runs the Gov't in Utah. I have read a number of articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, as of late where's this is alleged. I know that the Church does not tell people who to vote for, and know these articles are a lie...but when has then been news that articles and op-ed's are required to tell the truth?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: I'm speaking about impact on the LDS church. If the amendment were repealed, I doubt the church would do much (if any) lobbying or endorsing - at least on issues that it doesn't already do so. Thus, the "gain" to the church from repeal is rather minimal. On the other hand, there is some risk of loss of tithing if itemized deductions are capped. In theory there shouldn't be a reduction, but in practice there would be. I'm wondering if a gain to the Church from the repeal of the Johnson amendment would be to blunt to some degree the effectiveness of people like Karger who are going after the Church in an effort to deprive it of its tax exempt status. Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 39 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Although there may be exceptions the church tends to stay apolitical. Taking sides increases the chance that missionary work could be ended by an opposition candidate or party. I agree. I think that this (and the impact on members) would be why the church most likely would stay politically neutral even if it didn't have to by law.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 43 minutes ago, Buckeye said: If you were in the Women's Sessions in October 1995 you heard about. It's the PotF. I'm well aware of the Proclamation on the Family. I didn't hear until years after the fact that it had any connection to the Hawaii issue. In fact, I not convinced the Hawaii thing had all that much to do with it. I think it's speculation that it did. President Boyd K. Packer's recollection was that the proclamation came after a UN conference on families made scarcely any reference to marriage. There was going to be a follow-up conference in Utah, and the Brethren discussed and felt it advisable to draft a document to make the Church's position on families clear in advance of this conference. President Packer's recollection did not make any reference to Hawaii politics.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I doubt that Karger has a leg to stand on, and see no purpose served by the govt getting into bed with Churches -- thus violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Allowing them to endorse or oppose candidates for election is hardly "getting into bed with churches."
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 24 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: Don't know why it shouldn't, many Churches already do, including so-ministries and none are punished. Having said that, I do not want our Church to do so. I do not think it is the role of the Church to do so, nor pressure others into voting their picks. But, the reality is this has been happening for a very long time, in historically Black Churhes, in small and mega-Churches, small Churches in the South. It also happens in other Churches elsewhere, I am just more familiar with those in the South, since I am from the South. A lot of no-mo's, never-mo's, and those who are (or feel) disaffected members, already claim that the Church runs the Gov't in Utah. I have read a number of articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, as of late where's this is alleged. I know that the Church does not tell people who to vote for, and know these articles are a lie...but when has then been news that articles and op-ed's are required to tell the truth? Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, it's not as if some churches aren't already endorsing or opposing candidates and getting away with it despite the existence of the Johnson Amendment.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I certainly don't know them personally. But I think they would have stepped in and warned people away from Trump, if they could have done so officially. Of course the church would never punish anyone for supporting any political candidate. You don't have to know them personally to understand that opposing any political candidate for office, Trump included, would be altogether unlike the leadership of the Church. They've never done that sort of thing while I've been alive. To my knowledge, they haven't done it since the days of Nauvoo. And it's not self-evident they oppose Trump anyway.
bsjkki Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) I found this article a very balanced reading of the issue. If Trump manages to 'destroy' the amendment, I don't think the church will suddenly begin picking candidates. It is in church's best interest to stay as politically neutral as possible and lend their influence to issues they find compelling. Does anyone really think the IRS should have the right to monitor what a pastor says from his own pulpit in his own church in order to strip them of their tax exempt status? In 1992 in Branch Ministries vs Rosetti, Branch Ministries lost their tax exempt status for paying for bill boards advertising against Bill Clinton. The whole thing is intertwined with the issue of money as free speech which has been debated most recently in the controversial decision in Citizens United. "The Johnson Amendment unacceptably entangles church and state insofar as the Internal Revenue Code now requires the IRS to monitor and evaluate discussions within congregations to ascertain if those discussions constitute political campaigning including “issue advocacy.” Had Section 501(c)(3)’s ban on campaigning been aggressively enforced in the past, American life would have been diminished. Such causes as abolitionism and civil rights were deeply anchored in America’s churches. In particular instances, the “issue advocacy” of churches could have been construed as political campaigning, forbidden by the Johnson Amendment. . Consider in this context an iconic moment in American history: Martin Luther King, Sr.’s switch of his support in the 1960 presidential election from Richard M. Nixon to John F. Kennedy. Rev. King announced that he now supported Kennedy (despite Kennedy’s Catholicism) because of Kennedy’s telephone call to Mrs. Coretta Scott King. In that call, Kennedy had expressed concern for the safety of Martin Luther King, Jr., recently arrested by the Atlanta police and being held in a Georgia state prison. Under the IRS’s current interpretation of Section 501(c)(3), this endorsement, had it been made from the pulpit or been construed as an official church statement, could have cost Rev. King’s church its tax-exempt status. It entangles church and state unacceptably for the IRS to monitor and police internal communications within churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious congregations. The opponents of current law correctly argue that the federal tax collector should not be entangled with churches in this way. However, these critics press their case too far when they call for complete repeal of the Johnson Amendment. Without some restraints, nonprofit institutions (including churches and other religious congregations) could become conduits for funneling income tax deductible resources into political campaigns. If there were no Johnson Amendment, a church (or a school or a hospital) might agree to receive a tax-deductible contribution from a political donor and then pass those funds to the campaign the donor supports. The proponents of Section 501(c)(3) in its current form correctly raise the prospect of such tax-deductible resource diversion in the absence of some variant of the Johnson Amendment." http://blog.oup.com/2016/10/church-politics-johnson-amendment-repealed/ Edited February 2, 2017 by bsjkki
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sky said: To answer your first question, sure. But I think our Muslim refugee brothers and sisters are in a much more dire situation at the moment. They need our attention. I've seen no credible evidence that law-abiding Muslims have anything to fear under the Trump Administration. As for "at the moment," if you're referring to the so-called "travel ban," it is a pause while measures can be put into place for stricter screening of refugees to ensure that admission is granted only to those who intend to abide by the law and have no designs to bring harm to the United States or any of her citizenry. I'm all for preventing future terrorist attacks. If the situation truly turns out to be "dire" for would-be refugees, I'll stand with you. I don't see it yet. Quote And just because a source is pro-LGBT does not mean it lacks merit. But, I will post another source for you anyway. I don't think it's premature to talk about it. (I sure hate to see conservative religious groups and LGBT groups come to a head like this under Trump. Makes me sick.) https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/02/trump_says_he_ll_destroy_johnson_amendment.html?client=safari This is just more on the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment. It has nothing to do with LGBT groups. I already said I haven't staked out a position on the proposed repeal. i didn't say it's premature to talk about the repeal. That's why I brought it up here for discussion. What i said was premature was hand-wringing over a leaked document that contradicts the expressed position of White House. Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
rongo Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 2 hours ago, emeliza said: Personally I have felt we need to get away from the tax exempt status for awhile as it is often abused by organizations. Not saying it is by the LDS church, but it is by a ton. Either that or stronger vetting of what being tax exempt means. What, exactly, would be the effect on the Church (the Church's finances) if the Church no longer had tax exempt status? Anyone know? I have no idea how to even begin to speculate or estimate how much the Church would have to pay in taxes that it isn't already (in its taxable income). Are we talking the Church paying $1 billion + a year, or what? What would this look like? I want to know just how concerned with this prospect I should be . . .
Calm Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've seen no credible evidence that law-abiding Muslims have anything to fear under the Trump Administration. As for "at the moment," if you're referring to the so-called "travel ban," it is a pause while measures can be put into place for stricter screening of refugees to ensure that admission is granted only to those who intend to abide by the law and have no designs to bring harm to the United States or any of her citizenry. So you believe that all those law abiding Muslims who were detained and returned to wherever they came from or prevented from getting on the plane in the first place even though they had already been vetted and approved will be simply restored to approved status and allowed in first thing when the ban is lifted (assuming no ties to terrorism are found)? Do you believe the government should waive any requirement that was fulfilled at this time, but might fall through by the time the ban is lifted so that those who followed the law aren't penalized for doing so? A promised job might have needed to be filled and so couldn't be held, housing same thing, or a sponsoring family unable to continue. Edited February 2, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 54 minutes ago, rongo said: What, exactly, would be the effect on the Church (the Church's finances) if the Church no longer had tax exempt status? Anyone know? I have no idea how to even begin to speculate or estimate how much the Church would have to pay in taxes that it isn't already (in its taxable income). Are we talking the Church paying $1 billion + a year, or what? What would this look like? I want to know just how concerned with this prospect I should be . . . Tithing and fast offerings donations would be taxed; tithing might not drop, but fast offering probably would. Perhaps the Church would set up their humanitarian project under a different umbrella so as to keep tax exempt status for those donations.
Sky Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've seen no credible evidence that law-abiding Muslims have anything to fear under the Trump Administration. As for "at the moment," if you're referring to the so-called "travel ban," it is a pause while measures can be put into place for stricter screening of refugees to ensure that admission is granted only to those who intend to abide by the law and have no designs to bring harm to the United States or any of her citizenry. I'm all for preventing future terrorist attacks. If the situation truly turns out to be "dire" for would-be refugees, I'll stand with you. I don't see it yet. This is just more on the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment. It has nothing to do with LGBT groups. I already said I haven't staked out a position on the proposed repeal. i didn't say it's premature to talk about the repeal. That's why I brought it up here for discussion. What i said was premature was hand-wringing over a leaked document that contradicts the expressed position of White House. It is evident that quite a few law-abiding Muslims feel they have something to fear from a Trump administration: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/gen-kelly-has-talked-about-human-rights-will-trump-listen/2016/12/30/ebabbcea-c928-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?client=safari http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-muslim-americans-plan-to-resist-the-trump-administration-a7536366.html Also, none of the 9/11 terrorists were from the 7 countries listed on Trump's travel ban. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/514361/?client=safari Detaining people at airports because of their nationality and religion is unnecessary and wrong. It even originally applied to people with Green Cards! Some are even saying this is unconstitutional. It was poorly thought out and executed. There are better ways to prevent terrorism. 2
bsjkki Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 26 minutes ago, Calm said: Tithing and fast offerings donations would be taxed; tithing might not drop, but fast offering probably would. Perhaps the Church would set up their humanitarian project under a different umbrella so as to keep tax exempt status for those donations. And the real question is if it is appropriate to give up your free speech rights for a tax break? "After the 1954 Johnson Amendment, churches faced a choice: speak freely on all issues addressed by Scripture and potentially risk their tax exemption, or remain silent and protect their tax-exempt status. Unfortunately, many churches have silenced their speech, even from the pulpit. Ironically, after 60-plus years of the IRS strictly interpreting the amendment, there is no reported situation where a church lost its tax-exempt status or was punished for sermons delivered from the pulpit. Nonetheless, the law remains unchanged and many churches remain silent due to the IRS’s interpretation of the amendment. " https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2016/10/31/the-legal-implications-of-the-johnson-amendment
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 37 minutes ago, Calm said: So you believe that all those law abiding Muslims who were detained and returned to wherever they came from or prevented from getting on the plane in the first place even though they had already been vetted and approved will be simply restored to approved status and allowed in first thing when the ban is lifted (assuming no ties to terrorism are found)? Do you believe the government should waive any requirement that was fulfilled at this time, but might fall through by the time the ban is lifted so that those who followed the law aren't penalized for doing so? A promised job might have needed to be filled and so couldn't be held, housing same thing, or a sponsoring family unable to continue. I'm not a spokesman for the Trump Administration, and I don't know the answers to those questions. But this site seems to cut through the reactionary rhetoric about the executive order, whether or not it's a "Muslim ban," and lays out a case for it.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: What, exactly, would be the effect on the Church (the Church's finances) if the Church no longer had tax exempt status? Anyone know? I have no idea how to even begin to speculate or estimate how much the Church would have to pay in taxes that it isn't already (in its taxable income). Are we talking the Church paying $1 billion + a year, or what? What would this look like? I want to know just how concerned with this prospect I should be . . . Much of what you pay in tithing would end up going into government coffers instead of for supporting the mission of the Church. Are you OK with that? I'm not.
rongo Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Much of what you pay in tithing would end up going into government coffers instead of for supporting the mission of the Church. Are you OK with that? I'm not. Friendly CFR. So tithing and fast offerings would be taxed as income? Can we confirm that? Or, would it be property that would be taxed? If donations to the church would be taxed, what would the tax rate be?
Recommended Posts