FP instructs CA members: "protect marriage"

[_asbestosman]

, there may well be some members who think gay marriage is the most correct thing to do in God's eyes.

For the record, I'm not one of them. I think gay marriage is wrong, but I think marriage should not be the concern of government.

[_asbestosman]

Boy, can you imagine how quickly the current prophet will be getting revelation on how the "test" that God has been giving the gay members is now over and how they are now welcome in the temple?

Nope.

I'd have easier time imagining a USA that would elect an atheist or a Muslim president. I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

[_moksha]

I have been wondering what the Church's plans were in this endeavor. I hope they do not go so far as to endanger their tax exempt status accorded to religious and charitable organizations. At the same time, I hope all the religious and charitable organizations are well scrutinized to make sure they are not skirting the bounds of this restriction.

[Guest]

I don't think tax-exempt organizations should be involved in political advocacy. The CoJCoLDS is far from alone on this front, though. The common reply is that this is different because it is a moral issue. Well, all political issues involve moral considerations. That's a justification for involvement in any political issue.

So Church members cannot be encouraged to practice free speech and exercise their rights on issues like these?

Why should a Church be silent? Why cannot they express their views on issues they consider critical to society? Why do the secularist seek to silence religions?

I don't think a Church needs to be silent. I think they have every right, should they choose to exercise it, to advocate on the side of any political issue they wish. I fully support their free speech rights. However, I do not think they should retain their tax-exempt status if they involve themselves in direct advocacy on the behalf of certain laws or individuals. This gets into some esoteric stuff, but the justification for tax-exempt status for any organization (something I'm inclined to be skeptical of) makes them quasi-extensions of the government. As such, they shouldn't advocate for a law or candidate for the same reasons the DEA or EPA shouldn't. I think the problem fundamentally boils down to nonprofit status and the questionable attempts of the courts to preserve the traditional untaxed status of Churches, but within that context I don't think it is unreasonable for there to be speech restrictions. As I said before, I see this problem with lots of nonprofits, not all of which are religious.

[_EAllusion]

This letter is unnecessary.

The letter would be part of a more formal organization and mobilization of LDS resources and votes than might otherwise happen. Sure, if LDS vote, they're likely to vote against gay marriage, but this can influence voter turnout and efforts to persuade non-LDS. That can be crucial in what appears to be heading for a close vote.

[_bcspace]

However, I do not think they should retain their tax-exempt status if they involve themselves in direct advocacy on the behalf of certain laws or individuals. This gets into some esoteric stuff, but the justification for tax-exempt status for any organization (something I'm inclined to be skeptical of) makes them quasi-extensions of the government. As such, they shouldn't advocate for a law or candidate for the same reasons the DEA or EPA shouldn't. I think the problem fundamentally boils down to nonprofit status and the questionable attempts of the courts to preserve the traditional untaxed status of Churches, but within that context I don't think it is unreasonable for their to be speech restrictions.

I don't think a Church can loose such status over an issue and any legislation resulting therefrom. Regarding candidates, there are many churches in far greater danger than the LDS Church such as some "black" churches support of Democrat candidates or some evangelical churches support of Huckabee imho.

[_Moniker]

I don't think a Church can loose such status over an issue and any legislation resulting therefrom. Regarding candidates, there are many churches in far greater danger than the LDS Church such as some "black" churches support of Democrat candidates or some evangelical churches support of Huckabee imho.

...and the LDS Church support of Romney?

[_EAllusion]

I don't think a Church can loose such status over an issue and any legislation resulting therefrom.

There's some ambiguity in the rules, which usually works to the advantage of the nonprofit. You can easily support issues as an obvious wink about what needs to be done. *wink* *wink* I'm just talking about my preference.

Regarding candidates, there are many churches in far greater danger than the LDS Church such as some "black" churches support of Democrat candidates or some evangelical churches support of Huckabee imho.

Sure. Churches get away with this stuff all the time.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Impossible. The church doesn't get involved in political issues.

[_Trevor]

So then why doesn't the church attempt to get legislation passed to force single pregnant women to give up their children for adoption? Also, why doesn't the church make it illegal for couples to be together for a long time without children, or illegal to remain celebate?

Bingo. These were my thoughts exactly, asbestosman.