Should the Mormon LDS Church lose its tax exempt status?

[Prosperity]

Why do you say that? (honest question, no strings attached, lol)

it's history the founders seem like cult leaders, and it has the general highly insulated/closed off feel about it you know?

[zoony]

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cults.htm

For the record, the folks that run the Utah Lighthouse Ministry are former Mormons that have done extensive research into the LDS church and completely blown them out of the water as a viable religion IMHO.

I've read a lot about Mormons- and my dad having been the only Catholic raised in the entire state of Utah in the 1950s- I've heard all the stories, and rarely with a positive slant .

But it seems like it always comes back to a question of faith. Joseph Smith says Moroni delivered the golden tablets- either you believe him or you don't.

The reason I'd say its not a cult is because I don't believe it's a detriment to the members.

Regardless of your feelings on mormonism or the LDS church (I'm not a big fan), Mormons are pretty amazing people. Some of the best people out there- hardest working, family oriented, etc. It's not uncommon for mormons to have their utility bills and rent paid years in advance. And most of them make the Amish look like lazy bums, in terms of their work ethic.

[Special K]

Gotta love how a thread about the tax exampt status of the LDS church turns into posters talking about how it's a cult.

By the exact lettering of the law, as I understand it, they did not break any laws related to campaign funding. They did not send money to a specific individual, but a specific cause, and as far as I know, that's not enough to revoke their tax exempt status. So no, they should not lose their tax exempt status in the case of Prop 8 IMO, but I'm not a lawyer or anyone who is truly knowledgeable about specific wording of laws. Predicto is much more qualified with this type of stuff, maybe he can shed a little light on this for us...

As far as Mormonism being a cult, I do not believe that mainstream Mormonism should be considered a cult. Fringe branches of Mormonism with polygamy, etc. is a different matter. However, ALL Mormons I personally know are probably some of the hardest working, family-oriented, upstanding people I know. And they have the cleanest darn cities ANYWHERE.

[zoony]

As far as Mormonism being a cult, I do not believe that mainstream Mormonism should be considered a cult. Fringe branches of Mormonism with polygamy, etc. is a different matter. However, ALL Mormons I personally know are probably some of the hardest working, family-oriented, upstanding people I know. And they have the cleanest darn cities ANYWHERE.

great minds

[mistertim]

I dunno. IMO, blacks voting 2 to 1 in favor of "separate but equal" has it beat by a long shot.

Gotta agree with this one. That is pretty bad.

[The Sisko]

I've read a lot about Mormons- and my dad having been the only Catholic raised in the entire state of Utah in the 1950s- I've heard all the stories, and rarely with a positive slant .

But it seems like it always comes back to a question of faith. Joseph Smith says Moroni delivered the golden tablets- either you believe him or you don't.

The reason I'd say its not a cult is because I don't believe it's a detriment to the members.

Regardless of your feelings on mormonism or the LDS church (I'm not a big fan), Mormons are pretty amazing people. Some of the best people out there- hardest working, family oriented, etc. It's not uncommon for mormons to have their utility bills and rent paid years in advance. And most of them make the Amish look like lazy bums, in terms of their work ethic.

I don't disagree with you on the merits of Mormons as people. The few I've known have been genuinely good folks. However, that only makes their adherence to Mormonism an even bigger mystery to me. In my mind once your prophet and his teachings are proven beyond any doubt to be false, it kind of makes the rest of it a moot point. Faith in the unseen I can understand. Faith in something proven false is just crazy in my book.

Of course Keeastman is right. We did hijack the thread and it doesn't appear that the LDS did anything wrong in supporting an issue as opposed to a specific candidate.

[The Sisko]

I dunno. IMO, blacks voting 2 to 1 in favor of "separate but equal" has it beat by a long shot.

Nice try but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Corcaigh was highlighting the irony of folks who adhere to a religion that sanctions bigamy supporting legislation to restore "traditional" marriage. I'd imagine that the Blacks who voted for this had strong, conservative religious and/or social values against homosexuality. I think that's a very different issue than the case of the Mormons supporting it. With regard to the latter it's very much a case of people living in glass houses tossing bricks around.

In effect you're saying Blacks should support equality in literally everything to not be considered hypocrites. Therefore in your world, a Black person who supports separate men's and women's bathrooms for example would be a hypocrite.

[zoony]

In my mind once your prophet and his teachings are proven beyond any doubt to be false, it kind of makes the rest of it a moot point.

Smith was a controversial figure, no doubt. But I don't think anything has been 'proven' false. Much was written against him during his life, his time as a soothsayer, his fascination with the occult, his secret plural marriages, and his arrest and even death were very well documented. But, as any Mormon would point out, these were the writings of the Gentiles.

I'm pretty sure that Christians accused Jews of denying the ressurection b/c they were told to by the powers that be. Probably a similar deal.

One thing IS clear about Joseph Smith though- he was a genius. He orated the entire book of Mormon start to finish in a very short time. He convinced thousands upon thousands to lay down everything they had and follow him. People came as far as England, got to the States, and walked to Utah. (yes, walked).

So while we can all point and laugh that they believe that native indians are one of the original 12 tribes of Israel and everything else in the book of Mormon that flies in the face of just about any kind of rational thought- I don't think we can say that it was "proven" false. It all comes down to faith in the end.

[Zguy28]

So while we can all point and laugh that they believe that native indians are one of the original 12 tribes of Israel and everything else in the book of Mormon that flies in the face of just about any kind of rational thought- I don't think we can say that it was "proven" false. It all comes down to faith in the end.

I don't know. One of the foundations of their faith is that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

DNA evidence has proved that false.

[zoony]

I don't know. One of the foundations of their faith is that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

DNA evidence has proved that false.

And what do the Mormons say to this?

[Veretax]

I think some of you need to review these laws you are citing, because I thought they only thing they were prohibited from doing was endorsing particular candidates.

[Zguy28]

And what do the Mormons say to this?

"Some evangelical critics have latched onto the claims of dissident and ex-Mormon scholars that modern DNA evidence "disproves" Book of Mormon historicity in their effort to discredit the LDS faith. DNA and dating arguments do not present an exclusive challenge to LDS teachings, although critics would like to paint them as such."

[zoony]

"Some evangelical critics have latched onto the claims of dissident and ex-Mormon scholars that modern DNA evidence "disproves" Book of Mormon historicity in their effort to discredit the LDS faith. DNA and dating arguments do not present an exclusive challenge to LDS teachings, although critics would like to paint them as such."

that sounds similar to responses made by conservative Christians/Jews who believe that the earth is 5000 years old. Modern science of course 'disproves' this. But the answer they give is very similar to the above.

[Larry]

I don't know. One of the foundations of their faith is that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

DNA evidence has proved that false.

I seem to recall that science has pretty much disproven that the Universe was created in six days. Does that mean that Christianity is a cult?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I seem to recall that science has pretty much disproven that the Universe was created in six days. Does that mean that Christianity is a cult?

[Prosperity]

I've read a lot about Mormons- and my dad having been the only Catholic raised in the entire state of Utah in the 1950s- I've heard all the stories, and rarely with a positive slant .

But it seems like it always comes back to a question of faith. Joseph Smith says Moroni delivered the golden tablets- either you believe him or you don't.

The reason I'd say its not a cult is because I don't believe it's a detriment to the members.

Regardless of your feelings on mormonism or the LDS church (I'm not a big fan), Mormons are pretty amazing people. Some of the best people out there- hardest working, family oriented, etc. It's not uncommon for mormons to have their utility bills and rent paid years in advance. And most of them make the Amish look like lazy bums, in terms of their work ethic.

ehh I won't disagree that the vast majority of mormons are good citizens, very hard working... but still all the negatives I hear about the LDS church as an organization, the past history of the founders, and the rapid conversion rate makes it seem cultish. Though I grant that mormons aren't harmed by it, well except that their kids are really weird.

[Zguy28]

that sounds similar to responses made by conservative Christians/Jews who believe that the earth is 5000 years old. Modern science of course 'disproves' this. But the answer they give is very similar to the above.

I seem to recall that science has pretty much disproven that the Universe was created in six days. Does that mean that Christianity is a cult?

Fortunately for myself (and many fellow Baptists I know) we believe the earth is billions of years old like the rest of ya'll.

[Kilmer17]

I have a great book on Cults. The first one they talk about is the Cult known as Christianity.

IE- One persons cult, is another persons.........

[The Sisko]

Smith was a controversial figure, no doubt. But I don't think anything has been 'proven' false. Much was written against him during his life, his time as a soothsayer, his fascination with the occult, his secret plural marriages, and his arrest and even death were very well documented. But, as any Mormon would point out, these were the writings of the Gentiles.

I'm pretty sure that Christians accused Jews of denying the ressurection b/c they were told to by the powers that be. Probably a similar deal.

One thing IS clear about Joseph Smith though- he was a genius. He orated the entire book of Mormon start to finish in a very short time. He convinced thousands upon thousands to lay down everything they had and follow him. People came as far as England, got to the States, and walked to Utah. (yes, walked).

So while we can all point and laugh that they believe that native indians are one of the original 12 tribes of Israel and everything else in the book of Mormon that flies in the face of just about any kind of rational thought- I don't think we can say that it was "proven" false. It all comes down to faith in the end.

First, if I'm not mistaken the Mormon's didn't start migrating to Utah until after Joseph Smith was killed. I'm pretty sure that was wholly a Brigham Young affair.

As for Smith's "prophecies" being proven false. First there's the issue of him mistranslating the Book of Abraham.

For many years Joseph Smith's collection of papyri was lost, but on Nov. 27, 1967, the Mormon-owned Deseret News announced that the "collection of pa[p]yrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art."

The importance of this find cannot be overemphasized, for now Joseph Smith's ability as a translator of ancient Egyptian writing can be put to an absolute test. When the papyri were located many members of the church felt that Joseph Smith's work would be vindicated. As it turned out, however, within six months from the time the Metropolitan Museum gave the papyri to the church, the Book of Abraham had been proven untrue!

All of the first two rows of characters on the papyrus fragment can he found in the manuscript of the Book of Abraham that is published in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. On the cover of this tract is a photograph of the original fragment of papyrus from which Joseph Smith was supposed to have translated the Book of Abraham. A careful examination of the original manuscripts in the handwriting of Joseph Smith's scribes reveals that Smith used less than four lines from this papyrus to make forty-nine verses in the book of Abraham. These forty-nine verses are composed of more than 2,000 English words!

Klaus Baer, an Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, concluded concerning the "Sensen" fragment: "Joseph Smith thought that this papyrus contained the Book of Abraham." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, p. 111) Although the noted Mormon apologist Dr. Hugh Nibley later proposed some fantastic theories in an attempt to divorce the Egyptian papyri from the Book of Abraham, at a meeting held at the University of Utah on May 20, 1968, he frankly spoke of "the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham." This was the little 'Sensen' scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham."

When Egyptologists translated this piece of papyrus, they found that it contained absolutely nothing concerning Abraham. Instead, it turned out to be a pagan funerary text known as the "Book of Breathings," a work which actually evolved from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Book of Breathings did not come into existence until the later stages of Egyptian history - just a few centuries before the time of Christ. Like the Book of the Dead, it was buried with those who died in ancient Egypt. It is filled with magic and pagan gods. It was obviously written by a very superstitious people, and is quite different from the religion taught in the Bible.

The fact that the papyrus Joseph Smith used as the basis for his Book of Abraham is in reality the Book of Breathings cannot be disputed because the name "Book of Breathings" appears clearly on the fourth line of the fragment. In 1968 two Egyptologists from the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, Professors John A. Wilson and Klaus Baer, identified the papyrus as the "Book of Breathings." A translation by Klaus Baer was printed in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 119-20. Professor Richard A Parker, Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University also translated the papyrus. Professor Hugh Nibley stated that "Parker is the best man in America for this particular period and style of writing." Professor Parker's translation reads as follows:

Then there's the problem of the Kinderhook plates. Smith accepted them as authentic and claimed to have translated them as well. Unfortunately for him, it was a ruse devised to trap him in his own lies.

While the Kinderhook plates have often been put forth as evidence for Joseph Smith's claims concerning the Book of Mormon, there is another side to the story. Evidence now shows that the Kinderhook plates were actually modern forgeries created specifically for the purpose of entrapping Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith accepted these plates as authentic and even claimed that he had translated a portion of them. The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary. The information in Clayton's journal was deemed so important that it was put in the first person and used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates which is printed in the History of the Church vol. 5, p. 372. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith:

"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook,...

"I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth."

After the plates were found, nine "citizens of Kinderhook" certified that R. Wiley took the "six brass-plates" from "a large mound, in this vicinity." Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1856, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine: "...I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found... I... made an honest affidavit to the same.... since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he... and R. Wiley engraved them themselves.... Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten." (The Book of Mormon?, by James D. Bales, pp. 95-96)

There's plenty more where that came from but I think that's enough to prove my point.

Now, you may consider Joseph Smith a genius. However, in my mind he was just another religious charlatan, no different than L. Ron Hubbard, Elijah Muhammed, the Bhagwan Rajneesh, Jim Jones or any number of others.

That perfectly sane, rational people continue(d) to follow their teachings AFTER their true colors came to light is a complete mystery to me. Heck, I may be a skeptic about religion in general. But the one thing I can give the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and so on is that their faiths haven't been completely blown out of the water the way the LDS has.

The really cool thing about the LDS is that when you're approached by their missionaries, all you have to do is point out the absolute proof that their faith is founded on a bunch of lies. After that, you never have to worry about those particular missionaries approaching you again.

[shk75]

as a 501 (3) © it is illegal to lobby. I worked for one and trust me you cannot lobby for positions like that.

[DRSmith]

if you were to do something to the LDS church you would end up having to do this to a lot of churched who had preachers making political statements from the pulpit

Do the Catholics lost their status of Pfleger?

[zoony]

First, if I'm not mistaken the Mormon's didn't start migrating to Utah until after Joseph Smith was killed. I'm pretty sure that was wholly a Brigham Young affair.

Yah- just for the record I was saying that Smith convinced them to come to Utah (thru the book of mormon). But yes, Smith was killed in Navoo iirc. I think somewhere in Missouri or something, can't remember. Young took them out west.

As to the rest of your post- interesting to read. And I agree on their missionairies. They're much more fun than JW's

[AsburySkinsFan]

as a 501 (3) © it is illegal to lobby. I worked for one and trust me you cannot lobby for positions like that.

If you are saying that the LDS is not allowed to lobby for Prop 8 like it did then that's simply wrong, you cannot campaign for a candidate, but you can take sides on issues. Here is a document from the Pew Forum on Religion and the Public Life that I got through our denominational web site, that validates that churches are allowed to support issues.

http://www.gcfa.org/PDFs/politicspulpit.pdf

5. What political activities are prohibited under the Internal Revenue Code?

Religious organizations, as well as all other organizations exempt from tax under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, are prohibited from participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office.

6. Must religious organizations restrict their discussion of issues during election campaign periods?

No. The political activity prohibition does not restrict issue discussions that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates. Religious organizations need not restrict or alter their discussion of issues during election campaign periods.

7. Are religious organizations permitted to engage in lobbying activities?Yes. The political activity prohibition does not apply to the lobbying activities of religious organizations, although the lobbying activities of all 501©(3) organizations are limited under the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically, if a religious organization engages in lobbying, its lobbying activities (as measured by time, effort, expenditures and other relevant factors) may not constitute more than an insubstantial part of the organization’s total activities during a particular year.10

8.Are religious organizations permitted to participate in referendums, constitutional amendments and similar ballot initiatives?

Yes. Referendums, constitutional amendments and similar ballot initiatives are classified as lobbying activities for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, they are subject to the insubstantial lobbying limitation, not the political activity prohibition.

[10fttall]

as a 501 (3) © it is illegal to lobby. I worked for one and trust me you cannot lobby for positions like that.

Um, I hate to tell you this, but that's entirely untrue. Somebody misled you. As long as a "substantial part" of the operation is not dedicated to lobbying, you are fine. The California effort does not even begin to approach a substantial portion of the church's activity in any aspect, and no amount of sour grapes can prove otherwise.

[footballhenry]

Can a Mod please check my account for me and see why I can't start anymore threads? I haven't broken any rules to my knowledge, please pm me when any of you are able to so I know my account is okay. Thanks in advance.