FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » I'd just like to observe... (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I'd just like to observe...
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
...that I'm deeply disappointed in the First Presidency today.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
*nod*
*sigh*

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Why?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
It sort of feels like cheating - that the presidency has apparently decided that it has failed in its efforts to teach the principles which they would expect to compel people to act politically in ways that supports their political goals, so now they'll just tell them how to vote, using authority rather than persuasion as their instrument.

It seems to go against the sentiment of Joseph Smith: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves".

I also am disappointed that any group with power would attempt to control what people outside that group may do when there is no demonstrable benefit to exercising such control. This is particularly disappointing given the history of
the LDS church and the persecution they once received for their peculiar marriage customs.

None of this speaks to the right of the church to advocate in the way they are doing. It's just a matter of personal disappointment.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I still can't tell what it is their doing you two don't like. What is "it" in "It sort of feels like cheating"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I still can't tell what it is their doing you two don't like. What is "it" in "It sort of feels like cheating"?

Oh, sorry. They read a letter during services this morning at all of their California churches which supported the initiative to outlaw gay marriage.

PDF: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08028_00.pdf

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post. [Wink]
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wendybird
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for Wendybird   Email Wendybird         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see anything in that letter that states anything different than what has previously been stated. The Church was a supporter back in 2000 when the vote was first taken on this issue along the same lines as this most recent letter. No where does it state that every member in order to remain in good standing must vote for this initiative. The letter reaffirms the Church's long held stand on this issue and encourages members to do what they can to support it. If you don't feel you can support it you don't have to do anything.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not just a reaffirmation, it's a call to action.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Obviously, Tom, they don't subscribe to the same brand of Mormonism that you do.

[Roll Eyes]

quote:
the presidency has apparently decided that it has failed in its efforts to teach the principles which they would expect to compel people to act politically in ways that supports their political goals, so now they'll just tell them how to vote, using authority rather than persuasion as their instrument.
Among members of the Church, the persuasion occurs practically every week as we discuss with one another the doctrines of the Restored gospel.

This isn't political to members of the Church-- it's a moral problem that because of our beliefs we feel to have an inherent right to speak upon.

quote:
It seems to go against the sentiment of Joseph Smith: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves".
The first two paragraphs teach the principle.

I doubt there will be any official action to discover who voted in what way.

Given that the principle has been taught, and there will be no enforcement taken, this objection doesn't stand.

quote:
I also am disappointed that any group with power would attempt to control what people outside that group may do when there is no demonstrable benefit to exercising such control.
Demonstrable to whom? The eternal consequences (within Mormon theology) of persistent homosexual behavior are deep.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This isn't political to members of the Church-- it's a moral problem that because of our beliefs we feel to have an inherent right to speak upon.
In what way does that make it not political?

That said, I can't say I feel particularly disappointed. They are conservative religious people, what do you expect? The way to fix this isn't to go around registering disappointment and disapproval, it's to teach the religious people the actual truth and let them draw the consequences. And, as a temporary measure, to withdraw their tax-exempt status. (Not just the Mormons, all churches.) If people want to pay someone to preach at them every Sunday, that's their privilege, but I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
I don't think you actually are.

Non-taxed entities do not necessarily receive taxes for their support.

Can you explain what you mean?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If people want to pay someone to preach at them every Sunday, that's their privilege, but I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
Then why should I forced to subsidize midnight basketball, youth polo, housing for the homeless, physics post graduate education, or any of the hundreds of things that are tax exempt?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, obviously, if the government has decided that this year it wants X dollars for pre-emptively invading other countries with, and it raises those X dollars by taxing organisations A, B, and C, and C is tax-exempt, then A and B are going to end up paying more. Or in other words, if churches were taxed, then the overall tax rate could be lowered.

This problem got to be really serious in England before Henry VIII chopped the monasteries down to size. People would leave their land to a monastery to support someone to pray for their soul, and it got so that a third of the land in England was tax-exempt. Which, obviously, meant increasing the taxes on the other two-thirds by 50% to make up the shortfall, holding government expenditure constant.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Demonstrable to whom? The eternal consequences (within Mormon theology) of persistent homosexual behavior are deep.

Can they be presistently homosexual for most of their lives, and then have a deathbed conversion? I mean, haven't all fallen short?

In fact, by that standard, the eternal consequences of being a non-[insert religion here] would also be damnation. Should churches petition to make attendance of other churches illegal? Only in the best interests of other people's afterlife, of course.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
If people want to pay someone to preach at them every Sunday, that's their privilege, but I don't see why I should be forced to subsidise the activity.
Then why should I forced to subsidize midnight basketball, youth polo, housing for the homeless, physics post graduate education, or any of the hundreds of things that are tax exempt?
Because the majority in this here moderately democratic nation have the power to force you to do so, or leave. Which is why I work to convince people that tax-exempt status for churches is bad, rather than, say, refusing to pay my taxes.

Or, as Lisa would say, why indeed? I do note that I pay taxes on my stipend.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Because the majority in this here moderately democratic nation have the power to force you to do so, or leave. Which is why I work to convince people that tax-exempt status for churches is bad, rather than, say, refusing to pay my taxes.
I just want to be clear - are you objecting for any reason other than you find religion objectionable? In other words, are you making a statement about religion or about tax policy?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Obviously, Tom, they don't subscribe to the same brand of Mormonism that you do.
Regardless of their religion, I would have liked to see them act with dignity, decorum, and respect for the individuals within their congregation. Whatever the First Presidency's opinion of the legality of a specific sin, I can't help finding this particular strategy both clumsy and profoundly tacky. It stinks of all sorts of desperation, along the lines of those Catholic bishops who start denying Communion to leftist politicians every time election years roll around. Ergo my disappointment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Regardless of their religion, I would have liked to see them act with dignity, decorum, and respect for the individuals within their congregation. Whatever the First Presidency's opinion of the legality of a specific sin, I can't help finding this particular strategy both clumsy and profoundly tacky. It stinks of all sorts of desperation, along the lines of those Catholic bishops who start denying Communion to leftist politicians every time election years roll around. Ergo my disappointment.
It seems a strange reason to be disappointed in an entity whose foundational beliefs you don't share. I've never understood why non-Catholics comment on Catholic beliefs about Communion, and I don't know why you even believe you're in a position to judge whether this letter is tacky, given the necessarily incomplete understanding of why they believe this necessary.

Obviously, I disagree with the contents of the letter. I can see posting a critique of their argument. But a thread to express your disappointment in an entity for taking a stand you already know they hold seems pretty pointless.

Edit: and I don't see where this lacks decorum, dignity, or respect.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It seems a strange reason to be disappointed in an entity whose foundational beliefs you don't share. I've never understood why non-Catholics comment on Catholic beliefs about Communion...
Because the use of faith as a political bludgeon -- and let's face it: any cynic sees the whole Communion thing as exactly that sort of mechanism -- is remarkably tasteless, for a number of reasons. People have fewer safeguards up when it comes to their religions; that's why some businesses still find it convenient to paste a little fish or a cross or whatever into their advertisements.

It's not that I'm disappointed that the leadership of the LDS church has come out and said "Hey, you know we still think homosexual behavior is a major frowny-face thing, right?" Rather, I think it's a shame that they think so little of their membership that they have concluded their followers can't be trusted to vote according to their conscience on a specific piece of legislation based purely upon their high-level objections to the morality of a largely unrelated sexual behavior.

From where I'm standing, it looks like a slap in the face to every Mormon who might contemplate the decriminalization of religious sins. And it makes me grateful that, for all I hear some people asserting otherwise, there is no organization out there reminding me to ignore my personal convictions when voting for fear of running afoul of, say, the memory of Charles Darwin or somebody.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I am making a statement about religion: It should not be tax-free. Additionally, there are any number of other things that could reasonably lose their current tax-exempt status, but I feel less strongly about them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
happymann
Member
Member # 9559

 - posted      Profile for happymann   Email happymann         Edit/Delete Post 
If you believe in Mormonism, then it boils down to, is Thomas S. Monson the Prophet of the Lord with the authority to speak for the Lord on this Earth? If you believe such (I am not speaking to everyone else) then isn't it the Lord you're arguing against when you disagree with this statement?
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I look forward to the Lord telling us which tax initiatives to support. That would arguably be more helpful, actually.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I remember starting a thread about a similar letter the first presidency submitted some time ago. I confess I do not understand why first presidency feels they should act in this manner. But they have, and I do not believe they made this decision lightly. I also understand that God's ways are not man's ways, whether you think that is a good or bad thing I leave to the individual to decide. I've made my choice.

I really wish I could make sense of this knot.

Tom: You can argue most anything. To be frank, a perfect understanding of homosexuality to me would be far more valuable than any tax initiative.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by happymann:
If you believe in Mormonism, then it boils down to, is Thomas S. Monson the Prophet of the Lord with the authority to speak for the Lord on this Earth? If you believe such (I am not speaking to everyone else) then isn't it the Lord you're arguing against when you disagree with this statement?

Was it the Lord you were arguing with if you didn't approve of past statements made by church leaders that, for instance, one should not marry someone not of their own race?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Originally posted by happymann:
If you believe in Mormonism, then it boils down to, is Thomas S. Monson the Prophet of the Lord with the authority to speak for the Lord on this Earth? If you believe such (I am not speaking to everyone else) then isn't it the Lord you're arguing against when you disagree with this statement?

Was it the Lord you were arguing with if you didn't approve of past statements made by church leaders that, for instance, one should not marry someone not of their own race?
Was that directive given to the church in the form of a command? From what I know, church literature has only said that members should try to marry within their own race but more importantly culture.

I have an aunt from Taiwan who was adopted by my grandparents as a baby. I am more Chinese than she is, and I seriously doubt any church official would ask her to find an Asian boy and settle down.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Was that directive given to the church in the form of a command?
The anti-miscegenation stuff was actually pretty darn harsh - as harsh as you can imagine really.

Brigham Young:
quote:
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Again, not a directive to the entire church, I'm very happy President Young had such strong opinions on myriad subjects.

I generally hate dissecting quotes, but that statement could easily mean, "Those of the chosen seed within the white race who mix with those who are of Cain within the black race shall be cut off from God."

Exactly identical to God's comments to a man in a garden on another occasion, "For on the day thou partaketh, thou shalt surely die."

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
In that quote he doesn't suggest that the seed of Cain is merely a subset of "the African race". I'm not going to further counter-dissect, but that quote is only one of many that address a strong antipathy amongst early church leaders to miscegenation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
In that quote he doesn't suggest that the seed of Cain is merely a subset of "the African race". I'm not going to further counter-dissect, but that quote is only one of many that address a strong antipathy amongst early church leaders to miscegenation.

A shame since I think my latter argument was the better one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A shame since I think my latter argument was the better one.
Which argument? That it wasn't a formal statement addressed to the membership of the church? Isn't the First Presidency Letter a relatively modern phenomenon?

I'm not sure how far you want to go in defending the position of past church leaders on this point. The current leadership has already acknowledged these statements as being incorrect and have essentially said, of those who made them, that they didn't really know what they were talking about.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
No I was talking about the bit dealing with "death."

There are plenty of precedents where even in the Old Testament prophets directed their people to not intermarry with other races for fear they would be lead away into their heathen practices.

The "letter to the church" isn't that modern. Joseph Smith wrote many letters to the twelve with directives for the church, often these letters showed up in church newspapers. As early as 1890 we observe the Manifesto, being addressed to the church entire.

I'm not defending the opinion that interracial marriages are all bad, I just don't believe any prophet claimed to have an edict from God declaring them so in this dispensation. But I do understand where their might be a grain of truth to the idea historically speaking.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I just don't believe any prophet claimed to have an edict from God declaring them so in this dispensation.
As you know the prophets and apostles were a lot more loose-lipped in the old days. At the time, it was reasonable to assume that they spoke for God. It's only much more recently that some effort has been made to distinguish between official doctrine and the prophet speaking officially for God and the church as opposed to sharing his personal opinion.

Now we have the First Presidency Letters which, still, are a bit vague as to their authority. Are they saying that God want's this initiative to pass or that the Presidency does? Is there a distinction?

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To be frank, a perfect understanding of homosexuality to me would be far more valuable than any tax initiative.
And yet they have not presented their membership with a perfect understanding of homosexuality; presumably the Lord has not seen fit to provide them with one. Instead, we know only that the Lord apparently wants Mormons in California to work hard to defeat a specific ballot initiative that will affect a vanishingly small percentage of the people in the state. I can think of more than a handful of pressing issues -- like, say, whether global warming really is happening or not -- where the Lord's perspective would be considerably more useful to a far larger number of people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well, obviously, if the government has decided that this year it wants X dollars for pre-emptively invading other countries with, and it raises those X dollars by taxing organisations A, B, and C, and C is tax-exempt, then A and B are going to end up paying more. Or in other words, if churches were taxed, then the overall tax rate could be lowered.
This doesn't amount to a subsidy-- you're not actually paying for the preaching.

Assuming a finite supply of money, any time anyone earns any means there's a little less available for you.

quote:
Whatever the First Presidency's opinion of the legality of a specific sin, I can't help finding this particular strategy both clumsy and profoundly tacky. It stinks of all sorts of desperation, along the lines of those Catholic bishops who start denying Communion to leftist politicians every time election years roll around. Ergo my disappointment.
There's no mechanism set up within the Mormon church to delve into most members' political leanings. Even when a sin is known by local leadership-- say, adultery-- it largely falls to the individuals involved in the affair to stay within the boundaries that the leadership has ascribed.

So, for example-- say there's a guy who committed adultery. He confesses to the local leaders and his wife, and is told to refrain from taking the sacrament and wearing his temple clothing. There is no mechanism in place, beyond interviewing the dude and trusting his honesty, to really enforce these requests.

As far as I know, the Church is not saying that taking an active role in this will determine one's worthiness to attend the temple or take the sacrament, or whatever. As far as I know, there will be no additional question in the temple interview process, requesting one account for one's devotion to the constitutional amendment.

Obviously, I don't see the situations as analogous. I don't really know how Catholics manage to do what you've maintained they do; somehow I think that its not quite as simple as what you've laid out.

quote:
it looks like a slap in the face to every Mormon who might contemplate the decriminalization of religious sins.
It's possible that one of the intents of the letter is to reinforce the Church's position on homosexual marriage to the membership.

I don't see it as a problem, or a disappointment-- prophets aren't necessarily supposed to be nice. They're supposed to be good, and to teach God's word.

Within the context of Mormon doctrine, they are acting well within reason.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And yet they have not presented their membership with a perfect understanding of homosexuality; presumably the Lord has not seen fit to provide them with one. Instead, we know only that the Lord apparently wants Mormons in California to work hard to defeat a specific ballot initiative that will affect a vanishingly small percentage of the people in the state.
I think the idea capital going into the legalization of homosexual marriage is a bit more expansive than this.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I have twice written nice long posts and both got eaten. So, I'm giving up. Clearly the universe does not want me to post. [Wink]

Whenever I write a post that's longer than a few lines, I select-all and copy before hitting "Add Reply". That way, if it gets eaten, I can resend it without having to rewrite it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't really know how Catholics manage to do what you've maintained they do...
Well, the big issue around here is Catholic bishops denying communion to liberal politicians, who are presumably on record as supporting abortion and/or birth control measures. I'd imagine a Mormon politician in California who supported same-sex marriage would be equally as visible to church leadership.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To be frank, a perfect understanding of homosexuality to me would be far more valuable than any tax initiative.
And yet they have not presented their membership with a perfect understanding of homosexuality; presumably the Lord has not seen fit to provide them with one. Instead, we know only that the Lord apparently wants Mormons in California to work hard to defeat a specific ballot initiative that will affect a vanishingly small percentage of the people in the state. I can think of more than a handful of pressing issues -- like, say, whether global warming really is happening or not -- where the Lord's perspective would be considerably more useful to a far larger number of people.
I should think it's rather obvious that ballots dealing with gay marriage affect far more people than just the current population of homosexuals.

I also think that the issue of homosexuality in a democracy has proven to be much more difficult to contemplate than being a good steward over the environment, but YMMV.

I can't write a good response to many of your words I just don't have much time this morning, I'll try to get to it later.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Well, obviously, if the government has decided that this year it wants X dollars for pre-emptively invading other countries with, and it raises those X dollars by taxing organisations A, B, and C, and C is tax-exempt, then A and B are going to end up paying more. Or in other words, if churches were taxed, then the overall tax rate could be lowered.
This doesn't amount to a subsidy-- you're not actually paying for the preaching.

Assuming a finite supply of money, any time anyone earns any means there's a little less available for you.

The supply of money is not finite, or more accurately, we are nowhere near its limits. And in fact I am paying for the preaching. If churches were taxed, its members would have to work a bit extra to support their preacher by donations, or else go without. That work which they are not doing is instead being shared out over the entire population, including me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd imagine a Mormon politician in California who supported same-sex marriage would be equally as visible to church leadership.
How about Harry Reid in Nevada, who apparently criticized the Church's public stance against SSM (in Massachussets), and who had no (as far as I know) disciplinary action taken against him?

quote:
And in fact I am paying for the preaching. If churches were taxed, its members would have to work a bit extra to support their preacher by donations, or else go without. That work which they are not doing is instead being shared out over the entire population, including me.
That's a bit of a stretch.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
It is basic economic theory.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
If the tax rate on foreign students was doubled, you would have to get a job or bring in outside money to make ends meet. That work or contributions of outside money is instead being shared across the entire population.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
I know I should do my own homework here, but what was the original justification for making religions tax exempt? Was it because of their historical association with charity work, or was it to support religious organizations for their own sake? Or is tax exemption applied broadly to non-profits and religions just fall under that umbrella?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
If the tax rate on foreign students was doubled, you would have to get a job or bring in outside money to make ends meet. That work or contributions of outside money is instead being shared across the entire population.

Which would lead instantly to the loss of a huge number of foreign graduate students, and within a few years to the loss of the US's pre-eminent position in the sciences. But apart from this pragmatic consideration: We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones. I am willing to pay the same taxes as everyone else; I object when other people get a free ride on taxes that I have to pay. I understand that the events of 1776 happened because some radical enthusiasts felt similarly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We can certainly discuss what the tax rate ought to be, but it is unjust for it to be zero for some activities and not for other, extremely similar ones.
Which extremely similar activities aren't eligible for the tax exemption that churches get?

Edit:Here's a list of types of nonprofits.

[ June 30, 2008, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm disappointed too, because the doctrine really is unequivocal on the morality of gay marriage (and gay sex). I would think the leaders would trust the church members to apply what they've been taught without being told to go into political action on a specific initiative.

But then, the doctrine on the legislation of morality is less clear, at least to me. Perhaps that's where they thought the members needed some clarification: it really is OK to have the government enforce your religious rules, as long as they are supporting the right beliefs. [Roll Eyes]

It's still deeply ironic, considering the church history of a little more than a century ago, that the church would support the government explicitly denying the right to marry to a small minority group. If anything the church should remember it might be better for the government to stay a little more disinterested when it comes to spiritual matters.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I really wish I could make sense of this knot.
I can't begin to tell you how good it feels to not have to resolve issues like this. I never knew how taxing mental gymnastics was on me physically and emotionally until I was able to let go and accept I didn't believe.

Of all the emotions I expected to feel when I left the church, relief was not one of them. Now I can read what the church is doing with mild amusement instead of deep disagreements where I have to twist the doctrine or my feelings to make it mesh.

It is true you don't know how heavy a burden is until you feel its' absence.

*note: I don't think my experience is unique to leaving the LDS church. I speak in more global terms of trying to live something you truly don't believe, whether it be a career you never wanted, a homosexual trying to make heterosexuality work, or belonging to a religion that felt less and less true as you age and start having kids.

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong, it is entirely possible to have faith without the gymnastics.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you accept the premise that even divinely inspired human beings sometimes get it wrong,
Unfortunately many people don't seem to accept that premise. (see: "arguing with the Lord" above) There's also the issue where the LDS church has certain contexts where the leaders cannot get it wrong. It's a doctrinal thing - the prophet speaking during General Conference is speaking for God. The First Presidency Letters I'm not so clear on. As official proclamations from the leaders of the church they seem to imply they are inerrant statements of doctrine, but I don't know if that's been made explicit or if it is left intentionally vague to allow for changing positions in the future.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2