posted
No, and they don't pretend to be. They say they are neutral on candidates, which is a legal mandate, but they openly endorce specific legislation or classes of legislation. Some people, reasonably I think, extrapolate a preferred candidate based on how their positions line up with church positions, but the church hasn't ever suggested that people do this.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the official statement from the church.
quote:The following letter was issued by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on September 11, 2008, to be read to Church congregations throughout the United States:
Political Participation, Voting, and the Political Neutrality of the Church
As citizens we have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects our communities and nation today and in the future.
Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.
Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.
The Church affirms its neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates. The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas S. Monson Henry B. Eyring Dieter F. Uchtdorf The First Presidency
A statement similar to this one is read to every congregation in the US before each general election. I think the last sentence affirm the Church's constitutional right to comment on political and social issues is new, at least I don't remember it from previous years.
Although the church occasionally endorses or opposes specific political initiatives, those occasions are extremely rare. I can think of 3 in my life time: gay marriage, the equal right amendment and the MX missile. (The church opposed all of them). In the 1930s (way before my time), the Church officially opposed the repeal of prohibition.
Even when the Church has taken an official political stance, those positions have never to my knowledge been binding on the members of the church. One can be a member in good standing and hold a temple recommend regardless of ones political stance on any of these issues. In fact, the state of Utah (which at the time was > 90% LDS), voted to ratify the constitutional amendment repealing prohibition despite the Church's official opposition to the constitutional amendment.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think the last sentence affirm the Church's constitutional right to comment on political and social issues is new, at least I don't remember it from previous years.
Do organizations actually have a constitutional right to political and social speech? I can't recall anything in the constitution regarding this.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People within organizations have a constitutional right to political and social speech. I think it's difficult to make an argument that the individuals that make up an organization can individually support a political position but that none of them can express the organization's collective opinion on a political position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is the freedom of assembly, and there is the argument, which has been found persuasive, that if you forbid people organizing themselves to say something, then it is the equivalent of forbidding the people within the organization to say something.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if corporations are people (sigh) you'd probably have a hard case to suggest that churches are not.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The right to free speech is not contingent upon paying taxes.
Right, but idividuals and organizations are able to voluntarily abridge their own rights. By applying for tax-exempt status, a Church is agreeing that they will not exercise a certain portion of their first-amendment right to free speach and that if they choose to exercise that right at a future date then they will lose that status.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Utah voted for George W. Bush on a higher percentage than any other state.
Will the Church issue a clarification statement about the results of their 'suggestions' and the real life data that soon followed.
I live in Texas. You won't find too many people who support Bush, they usually say 'He did good his first term, then I don't know what happened to that guy.'
...but a Church comes from an official place of Wisdom and 'The Word'. So when they openly endorse a candidate, or weight the sins like, "Abortion is greater than Poverty" or "Gay marriage is a bigger issue than Economics and workers rights.", then it is VERY easy to see a Church's fallibility.
If a Church's Wisdom doesn't work and the ONLY proof in their superiority is in the afterlife.....well......seriously?
I still think the BIGGEST problem with modern American religion is its great effort to grow and convert humans, rather than have people BE more Christ like, or good people of people.
THESIS STATEMENT: If (A) says (B) is the one Jesus would choose and 90% of the fruit from the tree of (B) is shit, then (A) should lose some face.
But What do I know? The Catholic Church is still going strong as an 'Only True Beacon' of God's word, even after they forced 300,000 people into bags and bludgened them to death, or more recently, their trend of holymen buggering boys.
Jesus can be PERFECT because he is ONE.
An Earthly Church CANNOT be perfect because they are many.
quote:THESIS STATEMENT: If (A) says (B) is the one Jesus would choose and 90% of the fruit from the tree of (B) is shit, then (A) should lose some face.
No idea why you started a thread with this title. The Church does not endorse candidates.
Change the title to something more appropriate. You are railing against nothing here - what you becry does not exist. The Church does not control its members. You want to rail against Republicans, that's a different fight.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not understand how the political neutrality can be in effect and have so many people vote the same way. Also, I would like an explanation as too the fruit of the tree they helped plant.
"Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."
The politicians of today are just as bad as drug addicts, sodomites, and thieves.
WHERE is a political candidate that will act with integrity, and is wise, good and honest?
WHERE is this man or woman?
Principles of the Gospel are found in both parties. They are balanced on the 'Christian' issues and both parties support anti-"Christian" positions.
So....
There is no candidate to vote for and no party to support.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles." - Orson Scott Card
Switch the Paragraph up.
"You might want to remember the way the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints threw away their integrity by supporting George W. Bush despite his well known pattern of economic exploitation of the poor and the working class? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles." - madlibs
IS the Church really politically neutral?
IF NO, why can't they explain the fruits from the tree they planted.
The Political Neutrality paper was passed out in My Religion in America class to all the students. I didn't post this to kick are bees, I posted it because I'd like to know.
I'd like answers to my questions.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:IF NO, why can't they explain the fruits from the tree they planted.
Different people interpret the fruits differently (which is why I think that standard is not substantially useful). Another possibility is that things would have been *worse* with a different candidate. There are people in this forum who still believe that.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
"You might want to remember the way the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints threw away their integrity by supporting George W. Bush despite his well known pattern of economic exploitation of the poor and the working class? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles."
OSC supporting Bush is the same thing as every member of the LDS church supporting Bush?
Hmmm. Harry Reid may disagree with that.
But, anyway, the church officially supports the laws of the land, no matter who the current leaders are.
President Hinkley met with Bush, but he also met with Clinton.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know lots of LDS democrats. Once you are a Democrat and you learn the secret handshake, then you discover there are a lot more LDS dems the stereotype inicats.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, there are more members of the LDS church outside the U.S. than within it these days. It's a world-wide church.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
UF: Unfortunately the church does not control what parties adopt as their platform. Currently most Mormons in the US find more in common with the Republican party than they do with the Democratic party. I assure you it's the platforms more than the party that people are supporting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: re: "more in common" - honestly, I think abortion and gay marriage are the two issues most Mormons use to rule out support for the Democratic party in national elections. Which is too bad, since Republicans haven't and won't for the foreseeable future do anything about Roe v. Wade, and the gay marriage issue is pretty much being worked out at the state level. I think they are pretty useful wedge issues to the party but that doesn't translate into useful results for people that make them their primary criteria in voting.
I've also noticed that a lot of people have trouble noticing that they mostly support a party because of one or two issues, and honestly assessing the party's other planks independent of those issues. (there's a tendency to stick with one's team across the board.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: BB: re: "more in common" - honestly, I think abortion and gay marriage are the two issues most Mormons use to rule out support for the Democratic party in national elections. Which is too bad, since Republicans haven't and won't for the foreseeable future do anything about Roe v. Wade, and the gay marriage issue is pretty much being worked out at the state level. I think they are pretty useful wedge issues to the party but that doesn't translate into useful results for people that make them their primary criteria in voting.
I've also noticed that a lot of people have trouble noticing that they mostly support a party because of one or two issues, and honestly assessing the party's other planks independent of those issues. (there's a tendency to stick with one's team across the board.)
I think you will find this problem not to be germane to Mormonism. I have more than one friend who will vote Democrat because of one or two issues.
But I think a cursory look of Mormon history will demonstrate that we've actually fluctuated between parties several times. I won't be surprised if in a few years or decades Republicans won't be getting the Mormon vote so easily.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons tick off both sides of the abortion debate. It's believed by LDS that if competent medical counsel determines the mother's health to be in danger or the pregnancy was the result of the mother being violated, then she should have the option.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, UF...The state of Idaho voted 98% for Bush in the 2004 election (Idaho is 25% LDS as opposed to roughly 50% in Utah). The voting trends are more an indicator of regional desires than religious ones. Gun rights are a major topic in the Inter-mountain West, for instance.
Furthermore, there's a great deal of animosity regarding the left's treatment of religions in general. In particular the sentiment that religions should pay taxes or shut up. My typical response to that is, Would you prefer the government take over the disaster relief efforts and the highly effective welfare program that the LDS church provides? The church's welfare system has been responsible for getting countless people into gainful employment while providing for their families when they couldn't. The church is often the first organized group on site in a disaster outside of the Red Cross (Sometimes the church gets there before them, too).
Would you really prefer that said church be responsible for instead paying the government to fund the horribly ineffective welfare system of the US or, heaven forbid, FEMA?
The idea that religious groups should have to *pay* for the right to free speech is so badly against the very reasons for the foundation of this country that I can't believe people think it would be wise.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that religious groups should have to *pay* for the right to free speech is so badly against the very reasons for the foundation of this country that I can't believe people think it would be wise.
They don't have to pay for the right to free speech, they have to stop getting taking a discount if they wish to fully exercise it. There is a difference there.
That's not to say that I'm endorsing the current situation, just that I disagree with the way you are framing it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...you'd basically like for the *right* to free speech to not be a *right* for religions? By definition, a *right* is something that should be given to all people *without* preconditions. Or would you like to redefine what a right is?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Furthermore, there's a great deal of animosity regarding the left's treatment of religions in general.
I have a GREAT deal of animosity toward the Right's treatment of Religion.
A) For almost a DECADE they have insinuated that only Republicans believe in God.
B) God is an American god.
C) Abortion, Gay Marriage and Stem Cell research are the most important issues in Christianity.
D) They have supported satanic economics.
E) Republicans are soooo infinite in wisdom and gods grace that THEY can weigh sin, "Homosexuals? Horrible. Divorce? It's Ok. Greed? Doesn't exist if you aquire wealth for god, and you tithe."
F) Getting infront of a Pulpit and national Audience and telling everyone you are a Christian is the ticket to heaven. It's grace not works baby! Convert! Convert! Convert!
G) 80% of all Mega Churches, which gross an average of 4.6 million dollars every year in PROFIT after paying their people and bills are Evangelical Conservative churches. Once again. Works? no. CONVERSION!
H) They believe their Wisdom is equal to God. So they can judge who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.
And, No.
I do not think that OSC is the 'average' Mormon.
To be honest, I don't know of ANYONE to the right of OSC, at least he stopped his "I AM A DEMOCRAT" mcguffin.
I want to say, once again, 100% of the Mormons I have met in real life are good people. Kind, cool, nice, thoughtful. They speak very well for the Church and they are absolutely 'Christians'.
If a Mormon says "Don't have sex until marriage." I respect it because it seems like a majority of them practice this sacrament.
When the Catholic Church, or Evangelicals, or Baptists say it, it doesn't carry any weight, considering most of the people I know of from these religions aren't anywhere CLOSE to staying away from pre-marital sex.
Though they are all 100% for telling their childern, 'Don't have sex until marriage."
I think the Mormons have the Family and Community structure to help people avoid pre-marital sex, the other religions do not. They are more of a Life on Monday through Saturday and God on Sunday bunch.
Abortion? It is horrible. But the ONLY solution I hear from the Churches is "Illegalize it".
Kick fuggin' ass, Illegalize Cancer too while your at it.
...but hey, we're not looking for solutions, we're scoring heaven points baby!
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't I just say I wasn't advocating for any position? What I'd "like" isn't the topic here.
And rights are not unconditional. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, an individual can voluntarily abridge their own rights, which is typical in many contracts. (Non disclosure agreements, etc.) In this case religions are agreeing to abridge their freedom of speach in exchange for a tax exempt status. There are a number of other conditions which are arguably abridgements of rights in that deal as well.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The idea that religious groups should have to *pay* for the right to free speech is so badly against the very reasons for the foundation of this country that I can't believe people think it would be wise.
Last time I checked there wasn't a free speech tax.
Here's an excerpt from U.S policy on tax exemption, link :
quote:(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Why should the church be free to spend untaxed money on promoting a political campaign?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: So...you'd basically like for the *right* to free speech to not be a *right* for religions? By definition, a *right* is something that should be given to all people *without* preconditions.
The church voluntarily gives up part of its free speech rights in exchange for tax-exempt status.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fine with any and all Churches 'ENDORSING' candidates.
They pretty much do it any way.
But they'd BETTER BE SMARTER THAN I AM.
And they better understand the DIFFERENCE between Church and State!
And they'd better have a complete understanding of all the issues and problems facing the world, not just say stupid ass crap like "Gay marriage, Abortion and Stem Cell Research are the most important issues facing Christianity today."
Suicide has SKY ROCKETED in the last two years, the #4 cause of deaths in Americans. I was taught THIS is an unforgiveable sin. But some how, some way, some where, the Churches decided to do a full court press to save the unborn children.
The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin? ok.
Where is the SOCIAL justification to not allow gays to have unions? Can you give me any evidence that isn't BIBLICAL that would cause the Government to ban civil unions?
Why don't we BAN people who had pre-marital sex from getting married? Why don't we throw adulterers in jail? Why don't we ban people who got a divorce for any other reason than infidelity of their partner from getting married again?
Why don't we REGULATE and DEMONIZE greed?
Got a billion dollars? You're not going to Heaven. Says so in the Bible, foo!
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do you also think that a news outlet should be forced to "voluntarily" give up its rights (freedom to withhold sources, crime-scene visitation, etc) if it chooses to endorse or advertise for a political candidate in the same way? Cause that's only fair, I think.
edit: UF..."But they'd BETTER BE SMARTER THAN I AM."
You're really not making it difficult, given the level of intellect shown in your rants.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I GOT MY JESUS MAIL ORDER FROM THE TV FOR 3 easy payments of 19.99! And this really great potato peeler which cuts through tin cans like butter!
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So do you also think that a news outlet should be forced to "voluntarily" give up its rights (freedom to withhold sources, crime-scene visitation, etc) if it chooses to endorse or advertise for a political candidate in the same way? Cause that's only fair, I think.
How is that fair? The resictions on non-profits are related to how they use what is effectively a government subsidy. News organizations are for-profit enterprises which do not recieve any such subsidy.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
UF, Nothing you've said so far is your own idea. Someone else told it to you and you're ranting and raving and vomiting up rote propaganda. You assume that people who don't believe what you do are idiots. That in itself is greater proof of your own mental incapacity than anything else. The very fact that you have to *mention* your intelligence is further proof.
Matt, which is the reason that the law states that no religious group can provide a substantial portion of their money to political funding. The amount of money the LDS church spends on such, in comparison to that spent on well-fare efforts and disaster relief, is so minimal as to be a non-issue
Also, Matt, I state that example simply to demonstrate something. Who, exactly, has a right to say what a religion can and cannot preach if it wishes to retain its tax-exempt status? The mores of today are not guaranteed to be the same as today. If you start saying that a religious group cannot support a specific belief or ideal, you effectively assume that the government has the right to determine which rights should apply to who and at what times. That can most definitely lead to a pretty dangerous slippery slope. As precedence for one action builds, there are those who will push for further action.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who, exactly, has a right to say what a religion can and cannot preach if it wishes to retain its tax-exempt status?
Um, the federal government which administers the rules for operating as a non-profit organization.
It's not a religion thing. All non-profits must follow these rules.
I'm having a hard time writing out what's in my head at the moment, mostly cause of the sleep meds. Anyway. My point is that the government shouldn't have the right to have so much control over free speech as to remove tax exempt status for merely stating that they support a particular ideal or even for giving less than a percent of the money they have to that ideal's political support. To give that kind of power is to invite tyranny. Where does that stop, really?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: This may seema little weird because I was responding to a version of Boris' post that he edited out while I was typing.
It's not hard to research this stuff. There's no one breaking the rules and getting away with it. I don't believe that ACORN specifically endorses any candidate. They try to increase voter regitration and they do it in areas that tend to lean Democratic. PETA has not endorsed a political candidate as far as I know.
Moveon is a collection of a couple organizations - on that advocates general political issues and does not endorse candidates, and another which operates as a PAC under a different law. I'm not sure how that works, but I imagine the Church could probably do something similar if they wanted. There are several Catholic PACs.
There's nothing wrong with promoting a single political idea according to existing law. The LDS church is welcome to do that - look at how involved they are in the Prop 8 situation. All they cannot do is specifically endorce a candidate.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
At the point where the organization decides that it's a better deal just to pay the same taxes as everyone else. It's an entirely voluntary arrangement.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
