Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

[_Jason Bourne]

That seems pretty amazing. While there are a lot of LDS in CA they are still a small group. I would have though more would come from conservative EVs. . . Again this is amazing to me. I expected LDS to give a lot on this but thought others would out pace them.

Simple. There's no need to dig into their own wallets since they know the Mormons will pick up the tab anyway.

Ya think. Or is this just one of your cynical responses.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well, I think that's questionable.

Of course. No surprise there. Proof please?

The LDS Church is obviously a very influential, authoritarian organization. If it asks the membership to do something, you can pretty much guarantee that that thing is going to get done, or at least that the membership is going to put forth a strong, shoulder-to-the-wheel concerted effort.

Asking, encouraging and preaching are not giving. Besides, I did not give to this and know nobody personally who did.

To say "The Mormon Church did not give the money," in my view, is sort of like saying, "The mafia had nothing to do with the murder."

To say what you just said is foolish. The Church has the right to encourage its members and oh by the way I said they did not give the money not that they did not influence members to give the money.

Sure: it may have been an individual person who committed the crime, but can we really absolve the powerful organization behind the individual's act?

No more powerful than the pro gay and lesbian groups advocating their positions.

[_rcrocket]

Probably a "wake up call" to precisely what she said: that one religion can exert "that kind of financial influence". The LDS Church has done a pretty good job of projecting a benign, squeaky-clean image. That, coupled with Mormon secrecy, has often allowed this sort of thing to fly under the radar. Thus, it's completely understandable that folks like Ms. Kendell would be alarmed.

So, what do you advocate? Use of government power to do what?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Check out this idiot from Folsom CA:

...they withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

This is truly sad -- giving up one's entire savings for the sole purpose of furthering discrimination.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I admire them. Even the more so that they are mocked here.

I won't mock them. They're probably nice people. This is just an incredibly bad decision. Would you put that much money toward this campaign? If this family came to you before they did this, and asked you for your advice, would you encourage them to put $50,000 toward this campaign, or would you try to dissuade them from doing it? I wonder if they consulted with their Bishop or Prop 8 coordinator before doing this.

[_TAK]

This whole money / contributions thing strikes me a a lot of ego stroking Mormon males trying to look pious to fellow members.

[_Jason Bourne]

I won't mock them. They're probably nice people. This is just an incredibly bad decision. Would you put that much money toward this campaign? If this family came to you before they did this, and asked you for your advice, would you encourage them to put $50,000 toward this campaign, or would you try to dissuade them from doing it? I wonder if they consulted with their Bishop or Prop 8 coordinator before doing this.

I respect their decision. I do not know how much of their assets this is. But if I were there bishop if it was a large part of their assets I would council them to perhaps be a bit more prudent.

[_rcrocket]

I still want a response to my question from Scratch, or maybe Rollo.

The "wake up call" and the revelation of the Church's involvement to raise money from its members is rather revealing, I would agree. I also agree with Scratch's comment (as I paraphrase) that it is disingenuous to say that the Church isn't behind the encouragement (or pressure) put upon members.

But, I ask, so what? You find it shocking, revealing, troublesome. What is the remedy?

This question remains unanswered.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I still want a response to my question from Scratch, or maybe Rollo.

The "wake up call" and the revelation of the Church's involvement to raise money from its members is rather revealing, I would agree. I also agree with Scratch's comment (as I paraphrase) that it is disingenuous to say that the Church isn't behind the encouragement (or pressure) put upon members.

But, I ask, so what? You find it shocking, revealing, troublesome. What is the remedy?

This question remains unanswered.

Here's my $.02: take away the Church's tax exempt status. It's one thing for a church to inform its members of the church's position on a particular issue (I have no problem with that), but it is quite another to rally the masses to a particular political action (including soliciting money, volunteers and using church facilities and resources in that battle).

[_rcrocket]

If that is the best you can do it would be contrary to tax law. A church may lose its tax exempt status if the majority (more than 50%) of its assets and efforts (I'm paraphrasing) are dedicated to political lobbying. The IRS looks to the Church as a whole, not a particular congregation.

So, you would have to have a change in tax law.

It is interesting that that is the only "remedy" offered here. Scratch is afraid to answer because his arguments are purely sophistry -- take always the opposite position and "raise questions". Questions are not evidence.