Connect with us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Proof that the Mormon church broke IRS rules?
January 15th, 2009When you’ve got seven minutes to spare, this is a much-watch video about the Mormon church’s financial role in helping to pass Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage in California. In response to an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the church has maintained that it spent only a few thousand dollars on the Yes on 8 campaign. However, this report from the American News Project appears to uncover convincing evidence that the amount was much larger than that. The Internal Revenue Service forbids churches from “substantially” lobbying for political legislation, and some say the federal government should strip the church of its tax-exempt status in response to its involvement with Prop 8.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
One piece of information missing from this analysis, is the army of self-sustaining willing volunteers at the mormon church’s disposal.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
John, don’t you know we’re not supposed to talk about this? We might upset some of our friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
As one of the ‘friends’ in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I’m more amused than anything else. The church did not donate to the Yes on 8 campaign; the members did. That’s the difference. The yard signs? Bought by members. The people in the commercials? Not actors. Not even paid. The strength of the church rests in the strength of its members. Furthermore, given the fact that each member donates 10% of their income to the church in the form of tithing, and that there are around 13 million members worldwide, the chance that ANY contribution made by the church even to the point of funding 100% of the campaign would not amount to a ’significant’ portion of it’s income.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
That army mentioned by Warren is accurate. The rest of the world doesn’t understand the amount of commitment most LDS have to their religion. When our prophet speaks, we act. All those “expensive” videos, call centers, etc. were funded by individual donations. We are familiar with sacrifice. We donate millions, in money and time, to many good causes, including disaster relief, education, medical care, etc.
One seldom reads in the media, that the No on 8 campaign spent more than the Yes on 8. If it had not passed, I doubt the LDS Church would have received any attention over this.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Another point: This video is unfair and misleading. It raises insinuations and implies accusations, then proceeds to say it has NO proof of anything. I may be wrong, but isn’t that more on the level of tabloid journalism, rather than unbiased journalism. I see no integrity in it at all.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
The video is suspect. It seems like you recorded your own portions of “the satellite broadcast.” Also, you didn’t demonstrate any evidence that the church actually did donate more. You just insinuated that monies must have been used to pay people to call, for signs to be built etc . . . It’s possible that all of that was done free of monetary charge. Do you have any actual evidence that people were paid for those events?
Also, you conveniently left out several clauses in the code which state all the liberties granted to a tax exempt entity for political involvement. There are freedoms which permit some political involvement. Lastly, the federal government doesn’t let anyone see their books either. It’s not as if the churches alone are able to maintain privacy of transactions.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Warren,
I don’t think you need about “upsetting” we Latter-day Saints. As far as donations, it is true that most of the Church’s resources were on a strictly volunteer basis. I had numerous acquaintances in Utah who happily gave of their time to make calls. Much of the equipment, I believe, was previously owned by the Church. Furthermore, what if a cameraman, for example, said he was not comfortable working on such a project? If he were fired for that, then yes, it could be deemed a donation in human resources. In fact, if the Church used any kind of “professional” pressure on anyone to work on the project, then those would have been human resources.
However, we simply don’t have enough information about the nuts-and-bolts of Church governance. And I think it is asking far too much that they reveal it to us. In comparison to the number of donations given by individuals, the Church’s donations in resources (again, because much of it was previously owned) were quite small indeed. It owns a satellite, has its own data center. They practically are an ISP unto themselves. So provided they didn’t pay their employees to work on this, then they’re in the clear.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
It is all the Mormons fault. Had they not gotten involved in California, we would have won by a landslide.
It is all because of the Mormons. They are the ones to blame.
We did an excellent job of communicating our message effectively. The only reason we lost is because of the Mormons.
We should spend all of our energy and efforts telling everyone that we lost gay marriage because of the Mormons.
We should not try to refine our message to make people understand more why legal recognition of gay relationships is the right thing to do. Instead we should just keep blaming the Mormons, oh and Rick Warren too.
I almost forgot about Rick.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Attention, all intelligent, thought-ful people. If you read the comments in this post so far, you will see a striking difference. The thoughtful, non-emotional and fact bearing (or fact requesting) comments seem to be neutral to positive toward the church. The emotional comments, or the ones that seem to inflame one’s emotions, tend to be more negative toward the church. This really sums it up quite nicely. In the absence of facts, the LGBT movement has reduced itself to ridiculous, inflamatory, pointless comments that have no basis in truth. This proves to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that the LGBT community amounts to a group of sore losers. I used to be divided on the subject of Gay Rights. Now since they have done such a fantastic job of showing their true colors, I have now come down decidedly on this issue. I don’t think I need to explain it further. The facts speak for themselves – as they usually do.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Just out of curiosity, who tipped off the Mormons about this post on Instant Tea?
And just a note to Peter Smith: There are only 2 posts here (not counting mine) that did not come from someone defending the LDS Church, and neither of them seemed overly emotional. And all the “facts” in the other posts are actually “opinions” from members of that church.
I think you and your church have the right to believe whatever you want about gays. What you don’t have the right to do is to turn your religious beliefs into civil law. That’s what this is all about.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Dang man the Mormon can really get things done. Great job for all the work they did to help the prop 8 pass.
Hats off to all the Mormons that helped out and successfully passed despite being outspent by the other side.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I think Tammye stated it perfectly. Regardless if the church violated any law is secondary to the fact that this country was founded on the notion that State would be separate from Church. Sure, if you look around at various government institutions or even our own currency, you will see religious propoganda. However, the laws should remain neutral in all matters regarding religion or any other factor which discriminates against a minority. The emotional, ridiculous, inflamatory, pointless comments Peter talks about come from a very disgruntled group of people who are trying to live their lives the very best they can. They work, they pay taxes, they love and they only want what every heterosexual couple enjoys in this country. If you haven’t already, please see the movie MILK. It might explain why such an emotional chord is being struck within the LGBT community. “We” have been fighting for over 30 years just to be seen as equals and not as freaks, abominations or as people who have chosen to live in SIN. Imagine how you would react in this situation. For more information, please visit http://www.jointheimpact.com for a better understanding of how the LGBT community at large is approaching the current situation. Through education, communication and cooperation we are trying to reach out and dispel any fears or misconceptions the public as a whole may have about us. While there are always a few radicals in the bunch, try to see the big picture. I am trying not to see the LDS in a negative light but I certainly haven’t heard any member of their clergy or upper ranks come out and refute claims of their involvement. Again, remember, it’s CIVIL RIGHTS not LDS RIGHTS or BAPTIST RIGHTS or CATHOLIC RIGHTS or even GAY RIGHTS – it is simply, as a citizen of the United States of America, AMERICAN RIGHTS.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Bill and Tamye,
While we were technically turning our beliefs into civil law your side was doing the same when they set up the situation that initiated Prop 8. Because the claim that marriage is an institution who’s core component, the presence of each gender, is fluid is JUST a belief of yours. There’s nothing to support that your belief should have ever been made law. The dynamics emergent from the core component that was restored to marriage through prop 8 have real and lasting impacts on the whole of society, impacts that will resonate not merely in the upcoming generation but through all generations to follow. Why we should alter the core component (not merely the definition–this isn’t a mere evolution of marriage it’s an usurping of it–it’s an attempt to disconnect marriage from it’s very core component, like trying to pluck DNA out of a cell and act as though nothing’s changed) be loosely discarded because a portion of our society either can’t, or will not, distinguish the reality, will not differentiate between, the raw dynamics that come from, are directly emergent from, the gender(s) found in couples?
This cry of ‘equal rights!’ is disingenuous. It’s not about equal rights, it’s about equivocating the sexes, it’s about ignoring the realities that natural selection has been meting out on human biology and culture since the dawn of our species on this pale blue dot. Claiming that something is, or should be, equal is greatly different from it actually having such an inherency.
The sex pairing that we explicitly endorse and promote and place as the pinnacle of human relationships matters. It matters because the sexes ARE different and those differences DO impact society in grave ways. To destroy marriage by equating it with something that defies one of it’s core principles is to set society back and pull down on our collective heads the ‘wrath,’ if you will, of natural selection’s selections.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Mormons willingly participated in this campaign. The funny thing is, I feel this whole movement against the Mormons is to make sure the next time this bill comes to a place where citizens vote on it, it can be labled as a crazy Mormon thing, instead of what it really is–a moral law that the majority wanted.
God fearing people all over the country gathered for support of the passage of this bill. It has now been proven with the numbers that the black community were a driving force behind its passage. Why is the gay community not going after them? Why is the gay community not going after the Catholic church leaders who begged the Mormon church to participate? What about Rick Warren and his contribution? If he is not attacked for his contribution, who is to say multiple church leaders gave from their own pockets and not from the churches. Is this against any law in this country?
My hope is that, the gay community will let this rest so we can enjoy the last few years of a moral country in peace.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
For goodness sakes. If gay marriage were allowed, there would not be any more gays on earth than there are already. There are still plenty of heterosexuals to uphold the “pinnacle of human relationships”. You don’t have to deny rights to those of us who don’t live up to YOUR standards. Have a little compassion for you fellow human beings. Or wield your power to outlaw divorce if your convictions are so perfect and just.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Give me a break people… Mormons are not nearly a majority in California and 52% of the people in California voted and voiced their opinions. If Mormons have such a powerful vote, then why didn’t Mitt Romney get elected?
January 16th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Tammye – Nobody tipped off the Mormons, well, that is unless you consider Google somebody.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
To Hive Radical:
Let me put this simply. I disagree with your basic hypothesis about what marriage is. I think you are wrong.
First of all, let me make it clear that what the LGBT community is fighting for are the same rights given to heterosexual married couples in civil marriage. It has nothing to do with marriage as a sacred institution as defined by any religion. Marriage confers a set of specific legal rights and responsibilities recognized by the government — state and federal — and we believe that we should have the right to marry the person of our choice and be given total access to all those rights and responsibilities.
Holy matrimony as defined by your religious beliefs — or anyone else’s beliefs — is a separate matter. I do not care if your church or any other church recognizes my marriage as holy matrimony. What matters to me is that the civil government of this country recognizes it as legal marriage.
(By the way, even though neither the state nor the federal government legally recognize my marriage, my wife and I were married in a church, and that church does consider us joined in holy matrimony. See, that’s all part of that freedom of religion thing that the Constitution guarantees.)
But also, you should acknowledge that “traditional marriage” or “holy matrimony” as you see it is not some monolithic, unchangeable thing that has been around for hundreds of years in the same form. And you should acknowledge that what today is seen as “traditional marriage” is certainly not the same institution that “God ordained” in the Bible. It has changed an unbelievable amount.
For instance, in the Bible, men could have many wives. Women were property. Children could be sold into slavery if the father wanted. Thankfully, that is no longer true. And any person who tried to do those things now would be considered criminal, not to be someone following the word of God.
All that aside though, let me say once again: We are demanding civil marriage. Your religion, and even our own religion, has nothing to do with it.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am
HiveRadical:
Because of separation of church and state, we as a community are not seeking religious approval of our unions. Therefore, you as a religious person should not feel threatened nor indifferent to who we choose to love. If all the benefits and rights associated on the goverment level to marriage were about religion, then atheists would not be married. Likewise, if it were about religion, then I assume only one religion could qualify since the three major ones have very different doctrines. So please, keep your marriage or holy matrimony. We don’t want that. I just want to be able to enjoy the fringe benefits offered through the government. You can keep your religion, you know, the one that preaches intolerance, hatred and is out for only themselves.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I’d like to revisit the central them of this article because some of this discussion is getting a bit far afield — that the L.D.S. (Mormon Church) did not disclose all of its funding of the Proposition 8 effort. I don’t see any NEW evidence in this article. The video clips and other information of church leaders instructing California Mormons can be found at the Newsroom site of the Church’s main web site which is specifically available to media as well as ordinary people:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8
Excerpts from the video are also available there:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/California_Broadcast_8Oct08.flv&type=FLV
Much has been said of the “call centers” in Utah set up to influence California Mormons. I have heard nothing from the church about this after election day. I do remember seeing an email or story in the news from BEFORE election day where the church said essentially, thank you for volunteering but we aren’t going to do it after all. We aren’t going to have any efforts take place outside of California. I’ve not seen any California voters who said they received calls from Mormons in a call center and I know of no relatives or friends of mine who participated in call centers. So, I don’t think any call center expenses were disclosed by the LDS Church because, ultimately, I don’t think it happened.
From our history in the United States and especially the persecution and illegal behavior heaped on us by local, state and national governments historically, the members, but especially the Church, are EXTREMELY careful to always work in harmony with the law. I’m a multi-generational member born, raised and educated in Utah. You can argue this makes me biased, but I think you have to acknowledge I probably know how things work inside the church and out.
The clip about what the law requires/allows in religious entities supporting “candidates” probably isn’t relevant to Propositions or election “issues” in general.
I’m glad an official California entity is conducting an official investigation. I hope they work carefully and conscientiously so that their findings have integrity and we all can have confidence in its result.
This is a complex issue where those with detailed and extensive understanding of California and U.S. law will have to concentrate on details. I don’t think ordinary people will have the knowledge to come to a resolution individually.
In the meantime, I hope we can all try and understand each other better because what binds us together as citizens, friends, co-workers, and most importantly, family, is much stronger than what separates us.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Homosexuals wants to turn their freely-chosen behavior into a “civil right†and to commandeer the power of the state into forcing public acceptance of their behavior with their outrageous invention of “same-sex marriage.â€
To insinuate their cause into case law, they attempt to redefine themselves as a “suspect class†deserving of special protection. But homosexuals are no more a “suspect class” than are golfers or unicyclists. This is not a “class” of people who cannot change their behavior. Rather, it is a “club” of people who choose to act out their basest desires.
I do not say “club of those who are attracted to those of the same gender,” because there is insufficient evidence to know the causes of same-gender attraction. I accept the possibility that same-gender attraction might not be entirely either a conscious or an ethical choice. Nor am I maintaining that same-gender attraction can be easily “cured.” Alcoholism is also not easily cured. But are alcoholics a “suspect class†deserving of special protection? No, because they freely chose to take that first drink, and the next, and the next . . . . The homosexual also freely chose that first act, and the next, and the next . . . .
We are not animals. Homosexuals who act out their attraction to the same gender are no more a “suspect class” than are adulterers and fornicators who act out their attraction to the opposite gender. Are adulterers and fornicators also “suspect classes†deserving special protection from discrimination? Must we also contrive to redefine “marriage†to assuage their shame?
To enforce their oxymoronic “civil right,†homosexuals must silence those who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a particular target because it proclaims that all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral.
We believe that God has set bounds to human sexual activity and holds man accountable for disobedience to his laws. To Latter-day Saints, God’s gift to man of moral agency and man’s accountability to God for the exercise thereof are non-negotiable principles. Bullies may succeed in terminating the employment of individual Mormons who supported Proposition 8, but they cannot extinguish their moral agency.
A proper distinction must be drawn between those who experience same-gender attraction but who choose to remain celibate, and those who abandon themselves to acting out their urges. I sincerely respect those who abstain. These are decent, moral, even heroic human beings. In like manner I respect those who are attracted to the opposite gender who choose abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage. All who abide by this uniform standard of sexual conduct are granted the full blessings of my Church.
However, if society can be tricked into redefining the word “marriage,†suddenly homosexual activity is perfectly moral, opening the door to prosecution of people of faith for “hate speech.â€
There are also strong secular ethical arguments against sex outside of marriage. I cite just one such argument, the common-sense, widely-accepted ethical standard proposed by Immanuel Kant: “What if everyone did it?” If this supposition leads to a logical inconsistency, then the behavior is immoral, and all members of society are under a moral imperative to avoid that behavior.
Kant provided this example: What if everyone borrowed without intent to repay? Answer: Eventually nobody would loan money and commerce would cease. Therefore borrowing without intent to repay is immoral.
Now I ask, “what if everyone practiced sex with the same gender?†Answer: the human race would come to an end. Therefore sexual activity with someone of the same gender is immoral.
Before you shout “homophobia!” (and no, I am not afraid of homosexuals) understand that I apply Kant’s standard equally to those who are attracted to the opposite gender. What if everyone had sex outside of marriage? Then all children born would be denied nurture from a father and a mother. Therefore all sex outside of marriage is also immoral.
In like manner it is also immoral to enter into marriage with intent never to reproduce, but at least such couples incur some “risk” of reproduction. Naturally, those who cannot reproduce are excused from Kant’s moral imperative to continue the human race.
By the same secular ethical standard, abortion on demand is clearly understood to be immoral. However, abortion in the case of rape or incest, or where the health of the mother is severely endangered, or where the pregnancy has little chance of producing a viable infant, is not necessarily immoral, because such pregnancies are not chosen – those who cannot choose are excused from Kant’s moral imperative. For this reason the cleverly labeled “Freedom of Choice†act is immoral.
We see, therefore, that those who demand that the time-honored definition of marriage be changed are not only seeking to ban religion from the public square: they are also seeking to ban all ethics from the public square. Only one “sin†will remain in their unholy writ: that of “homophobia.â€
Shame on that self-selected club of homosexuals who would force a redefinition of the word “marriage†for the purpose of acquiring, by theft, legal and social sanction of their immoral behavior!
If everyone did what the advocates of same-sex marriage are doing, society would disintegrate into anarchy.
Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr’gmail’com
January 16th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
MINDLESS RAGE AGAINST THE MORMONS CONTINUES, THEREBY FULFILLING JESUS’ PROMISE THAT ALL OF HIS TRUE FOLLOWERS WOULD BE PERSECUTED. MORMONS ARE USED TO IT THOUGH- IT’S IN THEIR BLOOD. THEY ARE A TOUGHER PEOPLE THAN MOST BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIPS THEY’VE GONE THROUGH.
THE MORE WE ARE UNFAIRLY SINGLED OUT LIKE THIS, THE MORE RESOLUTELY WE WILL HOLD TO OUR BELIEFS; YOU CAN BET ON IT!
January 17th, 2009 at 12:33 am
A homosexual “club”? Is that anything like living in a Compound ’cause we’re not into that kinky stuff?
January 17th, 2009 at 1:15 am
The ANP video is a classic example of yellow journalism. Instead of accurately informing viewers it engages in an effort to distort, twist, and leave out relevant information to present a sensationalized story when there is none.
The “new evidence”, “a piece of evidence that may expose a gaping hole in the Mormon financial accounting” is nothing new. The video of the satellite broadcast has been on the LDS website since a few days after the broadcast.
Why did the commentary not state that per IRS regulation church communications to their members on issues like Prop 8 do not pose any violation of tax exempt status?
The ANP video states that the Mormon Church is presenting “two contradicting stories”. One that the church only contributed a little over $2,000 to the campaign and the other that the church did not contribute money to the campaign. The written data showed is correct but the statement that these are contradicting stories is false. The pictures show a form where the church is filing a report that they contributed “IN- KIND” donation of $2,078.97. Please note that an IN-KIND donation is not a monetary donation. It then shows an excerpt from a church spokesman where it is stated that the church did not contribute MONEY to the campaign. There are no contradicting stories, only your misleading attempts to make a contradiction where none exists.
The ANP video states that the Church bankrolled 70% of Prop 8 funding which is a known falsehood because contributions were made by people directly to the Protect Marriage organization, not to the Mormon Church. There is no violation of tax exempt status for members of a church to contribute to a political cause. It is a constitutional right to do so. Why did the video not present that information?
Legal reporting of contributions (including in-kind) is not done at one time in one report. It is normal and required by law to make periodic filings and making amendments is all part of providing accurate information.
The video then goes on to combine activities that the church made to communicate with it’s members about Prop 8 (no tax exempt status violation here) and activities of member working for Protect Marriage as items that the Church is suppose to be reporting as contributions. Why did the video not accurately present that these are not reportable by the church?
The voice over states that IRS tax codes prohibit churches from participating in any political campaign. That is a false statement. Read the tax code text showed. Churches are prohibited from participating in any political campaign ON BEHALF OF ANY CANDIDATE. That is a key point which the video voice over changed in order to paint the Mormon Church as violating the law when it is not.
The video did point out that churches are prohibited from engaging in substantial lobbying activity. The tax code does allow tax exempt churches to take positions on public policy issues and to lobby for them as long as they do not reach the “substantial” threshold. The video then presents people who state that the IRS has not defined what amounts to “substantial”. There has been case law defining “substantial”. The video should have cited what Barry Lynn, executive director of “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State” and an opponent of Prop 8 had to say. “They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption…While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives. … The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to violate their tax-exempt status.” (SFGate Nov 28, 2008).
January 17th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Tracy, Let me again reiterate what has already been said. First, marraige has already been redefined, and redefined many times over throughout the ages. It is even documented in the Bible. Being somewhat ignorant of the LDS church, I do not know what book you follow nor any tenants of your faith. While you say the following:
We see, therefore, that those who demand that the time-honored definition of marriage be changed are not only seeking to ban religion from the public square: they are also seeking to ban all ethics from the public square. Only one “sin†will remain in their unholy writ: that of “homophobia.â€
If you visit the website http://www.mormonsandpolygamy.org/ you will see where polygamy was practiced by the Mormons. Granted it was for a short time but nonetheless it was a form of marriage in which a definition was certainly attached. Now that definition has been changed. So in addition to the Biblical definition of marriage changing throughout time, we now have it changing within your own faith. So drop the argument of the “time-honored” definition. It doesn’t carry any weight. It’s just another ploy to carry on the hate and discrimination you preach. If there is a God, I am sure he would not create people like me just to live in torment and total anguish for nothing. Just like you had no say in being heterosexual, I had no choice in being homosexual. As far as carrying on the human race? I am sure there are enough teenage boys and girls out there who are taking care of that right now. Hell, maybe homosexuality is just a reaction to all the procreation already being freely practiced now.
You say it is “heroic” to deny your true self. You say that to act on your carnal desire with another consentual adult is immoral. That may work for you but not for all. Again, I reiterate the only thing “homosexuals” are demanding is to enjoy the same legal benefits irregardless of faith that you do. According to your own statements, in which you cite all sorts of immoral acts, I believe athiests and those who do not accept your God to fall into that catergory. But I don’t see these rights being denied to them. Also, by communal law, any heterosexual couple cohabitating for more than a specified length of time can be classified as legally married. So without a holy ceremony they are granted the same privileges as you. I don’t see how a union between two people can now all of a sudden include alcoholics, adulterers and I am sure you are just one breath away from including pedeophiles and people who have sex with animals. That is just a tactic to scare people and to me would be totally immoral.
You also mentioned the whole freedom of speech and religion bit. We use that one too. The great thing about it though? Is that you don’t get to deny me rights. You can condemn me, you can hate me, and you can even tell me so, but that doesn’t mean that I should be kept out of a hospital room when my partner is dying or that I can’t collect pension or SS benefits when my partner dies. Or that I can not have a tax break when “we” buy a house or the hundreds of other benefits legally granted through the RELIGION FREE GOVERNMENT we all live under. This country was founded because of RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. Hence the “freedom of religion.” So get over it. Hey look at this way, when you are in heaven and I am in hell, at least we won’t have to cross paths.
I can not tell you the many times I sat in church watching and listening to everyone around me acting and talking so holier than thou. When I know from experience the same thing they were condemning other people of, they were doing in the privacy of their own homes. Again, I don’t claim to know about your religion, but Christians are so sure about homosexuality being a grave terrible sin. Probably worse than sleeping with your sister or mother. But just point out one time in the BIBLE where Jesus speaks of homosexuality. And the many verses people cite. I can go in and cite just as many that would condemn you. We are all guilty of sin. In the Christian faith, the only certainty is that if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior you are granted entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. ONLY IF YOU ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOR! Not if you accept Jesus Christ but slept with someone of the same sex, oops DENIED! And to say the “What if everyone did it” schtick? Have you ever heard the phrase “Well if so and so jumped off a cliff, would you?” Yeah that was the reply you got when you did the same stupid thing someone else did. We are all individuals, capable of making our own decisions. God made us all unique. Everybody would not be homosexual, just like everybody would not be heterosexual. The human race would go on, at least until one of you religious freaks annihilated everyone in the name of your God. Again, you take it to the extreme, which you are very good at. Do they teach that in Bible school? You know here in Dallas, we had a church whose Sunday sermon was “How to Approach a Gay” Isn’t that something. What else do they teach you? I think we need to start teaching, “How to Approach a Religious Zealot Who Takes What He Wants From the Bible, Twists It and Contorts It To Fit Whatever Argument He Wants To Win and Is In Denial When He Refutes His Own Statements Just To Prove A Point” Whew, that would be a long class.
So, in closing, while I certainly do not agree with you. I am content to let you live in your bubble. But, I want to live in my bubble as well. That’s the great thing about this whole freedom thing. You can believe what you want and I can as well. Just don’t push it on me and i won’t push it on you. Now I bet the argument about your kids being exposed to it, blah blah blah. Well, see it as an opportunity to teach them about sin and immoral acts. See we are doing you a favor. God Bless!!
January 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
John Adams, nice play by play of the video. You did such a great job at disecting each point and even provided documented research to back up each counterpoint. Bravo! Now would you please go back and pull the videos the LDS Church aired up until election night which INCORRECTLY depicted Prop 8? I would be very interested to hear your take on those. But I bet you would gloss over those. Look, basically this is not an ATTACK on anybody really. It is merely a group of hurt and angry people who are only reacting to those who supported a denial of their rights. While this whole argument seems to revolve around a religious belief we are simply demanding something else. Something unrelated to religion. I am starting to believe we are living again in the 1600’s where if you subscribe to a different thought, if you believe something other than what the mainstream believes, then damnation to you. My religion is NON RELIGION because as far as I can see, the only thing religion is good for is hurting others, gaining power over others, and taking money from others.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
GIOVANNI, YOU SEEM TO PLAY THE VICTIM VERY WELL. FUNNY TO TURN IT AROUND. WHEN A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION DECIDES TO BOYCOTT A COMPANY, TV SHOW, BRAND OR PRODUCT BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEFS THAT IS THEIR PREROGATIVE. BUT WHEN THE TABLES ARE TURNED, YOU PULL OUT THE OLD VICTIM ACT. SO GO AHEAD AND KEEP BELIEVING YOU ARE THE “CHOSEN” ONES. BECAUSE THERE ARE ABOUT A DOZEN OTHER RELIGIONS WHO FEEL THEY ARE THE CHOSEN ONES.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The simple question is Did the Mormon church actively tell its members to support Prop 8? Or did the members just do it under their own power?
The Mormon Church told their members to support prop 8, and that is politics in church. In my book that means they loose their tax status.
Signed a recovering Mormon.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
In all of the posts I have read it seems that those who are upset with the Mormons either ignorant, guilty of selective memory, or just being deceitful.
I believe that if you were to hear the Rev. Wright, Obama’s ex-minister, he uses his church pulpit to demean our country with his outlandish accusations and is preaching poliltics behind his own IRS tax exempt status?.
Don’t you think that this minister is trying to influence some by preaching hate towards his own country. Isn’t he trying to alter the outcome of our democracy?
Aren’t the gays trying to do the same thing with all their donations and time and talents in their cause?
Surely what is good for the goose is fit for the gander?
Out of your own mouths you condemn your own works!
January 24th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I should note, Robert, that the LGBT community is not a tax-exempt church. And frankly I’m not sure what the Rev. Wright has to do with Prop 8. Thanks for your comment, though.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:38 am
I am writing from California, 15 days after this story. I can tell you that no matter how one feels about Gay marriage, the implications of the Mormon Church’s behavior in violating California state campaign laws extend FAR BEYOND this particular controversy.
Look at the facts:
1. The Mormon Church is an out-of-state, $50 Billion institution. Many corporations that are common household names are worth less than that!!
2. Under California campaign disclosure law, ALL $50 billion-dollar, out-of-state corporations are required to fully disclose the extent of their involvement in initiative campaigns. This includes in-kind contributions and regardless of the nature of corporation’s industry or business.
3. The law does NOT exempt religious institutions from campaign reporting requirements.
4. The Church was required to fully report the extent of its involvement in the Yes-on-8 campaign early in the process and througout the entire election season. IT FAILED TO DO SO.
5. It is obvious the ONLY reason the Church has finally filed its statements is because the FPPC opened its investigation — and they waited to file just one day after their members lost a stupid lawsuit in Federal Court that sought to invalidate some of the same campaign disclosure laws. (!)
6. Any other corporation engaged in this type of behavior would be FINED.
7. What does this mean? As a direct result of the Church’s failure to disclose sooner, the **voters were misled** into thinking that the entire election was put forth and arranged by families and individuals, when in fact it was really arranged by a large, out-of-state corporation. The law has been violated and the People have been harmed.
I say this: I HOPE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINES THE LYING, OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATION.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The Catholic and Evangelical churches outspent the Mormon church. Why aren’t liberals screaming at them.
$188,000 is less than half a percent of the proposition 8 donor activity. Not substantial. It is a fraction of the church’s financial activity. Not substantial.
Utterly ridiculous. I can only conclude that the Dallas Voice hates Mormon people, much like Hitler hated Jews.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Dr. B:
“Liberals” are always “screaming” at the evangelicals who push a right-wing social agenda, trying to force their religious belief onto everyone by bullying lawmakers into codifying those beliefs into law.
Regardless of how much “cash” or “in kind” donations the church as an entity unto itself donated to the effort to pass Prop 8, the church had a SIGNIFICANT impact on the amendment’s passage by telling its members around the country to donate and using its impact as these people’s spiritual authority to “encourage” those donations.
That, my friend, is not ridiculous in the least, and it has nothing to do with Dallas Voice hating Mormons or anybody else. And I think you should be UTTERLY ASHAMED to compare LGBT people – who were victims of the Nazi Holocaust – to Hitler.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Everyone has a very short memory regarding this whole issue. 1. In 2000 the issue over marriage was resolved by the people of California, 2. Then we have judges overturning the people’s will. I blame the judges in the court for overturning the will of the people. I believe that this argument was destined to happen due to those judges who have failed to do their jobs!
And now, we have elected leaders (who failed to do their jobs) have allowed greed to corrupt our economy as well as the rest of the world!
Hello, anyone paying any attention out there. if you are mad, you need to take it to your elected officials, they are the ones who keep screwing up America, of course along with the social progressives!
As far as I am concerned, America is beginning to look a lot like the Falling of the Roman Empire. Which, of course came from within!
February 5th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Dr. B: First of all I would like to point you to a previous post in which I said to Giovanni, “You play the victim very well.” I say the same to you. However, in agreement with Tammye, to liken Hitler to the LGBT community is extremely uncalled for. While the persecution of our gay brothers and sisters does not get the attention it deserves, the Jewish community has reached out to the LGBT crowd. With that said, I don’t think this situation messures up in any way to the horrors witnessed then. Now, about the Mormon involvement in the passage of prop 8, I would like to quote a post from another website:
The Mormon Church revealed in a campaign filing Friday that the church spent nearly $190,000 to help pass Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California.
The disclosure comes as the church is being investigated by the state’s campaign watchdog agency for violating state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement in the campaign before voters cast ballots on Nov. 4.
While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign – some estimates range as high as $20 million – the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity.
But in the filing made Friday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time” – hours church employees spent working to pass the gay marriage ban.
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1588844.html
Now why would the LDS church fight so hard to not have the donor list made public? Was it the fact they feared more boycotting of their services or businesses? Or was it that their involvement went deeper than what they led us to believe? You tell me. And for the record, we are not attacking you for your beliefs or strict adherence to your doctrine. We are attacking you for the methods in which you used to reach your desired goal. Any confusion of that needs to be made clear. While some have come out on the attack and targeted your specific sect, it should not be with violence. But rather a seeking of the truth. And it seems where there is smoke there is definitely fire. If you would like to continue a discussion in a more private forum, please email me at nikkos_71@yahoo.com I would be most interested in hearing your POV. I believe in order to come to a compromise, all sides need to be aware of each others beliefs. Find a common ground. And seek to bring justice and peace to this situation.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Robert, You forget that the Constitution in its basic form is there to protect the rights of the minority. So while you say the matter was handled in 2000 actually it was not. It was handled in 2008. But by manipulating the system, the Proposition was put up for a vote. It will eventually be overturned because a government ruled by a majority is no longer a Democracy.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Bill,
Your premise that the Constitution is for the protection for the rights of the minority is absurd. Iif this were the case why does the majority rule when it comes to elections? You need to put the ‘kool-aid’ down and get a grip. This premise is what has gotten you people in trouble. You want your ‘cake’ and eat it too! Hey, life is not fair and you know this to be true. So why do you want to spin life facts to fit your wants/desires. There is opposition in all things and this means that there will always be winners and losers. You are ignoring the facts I previously stated. This question was answered by the majority of the people in California before, then we have judges taking the will of the people from them. Now the will of the people have spoken again so why are you trying to obfuscate the facts and continue to “muddy’ the waters? This is nothing but contention. History has spoken so you need to find some way to live with it. This is the bottom line, not that the church did or did not use it’s resources because in the end it was actually a majority of blacks that brought about the final outcome.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
When you say get a grip and say the majority votes in the election to elect a President does not compare with a group of people voting on basic civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I am being realistic. It boils down to a matter of religion versus goverment. No matter how you reason it or choose to look at it, we are not goverened by biblical law or adultery would be against the law. It’s time to put down the bibles and look at this from a broader perspective. It has been proven time and time again that with civil rights, the law has always stepped in where the majority was not in favor. However, after a short period of time this turns around because we are wired to act out on that which we do not know or otherwise fear. Whie it may be true the blacks brought about the passage, I can bet you it was out of religious fear or bias that motivated their actions. In regards to the LDS situation, again, the reason I think they are being so blatantly targeted is their denial or non-disclosure of all their contributions. You can’t deny that fact. But instead, people want to divert attention to the majority or what GOD says or something other than the fact that they LIED. And now they are being exposed. If the Catholic Church had done the same thing, you can bet the fire would lit under their pulpits as well.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Robert:
You are wrong. The United States is not a pure democracy. It is a republic. And in a republic the courts have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.
The United States’ “founding fathers” deliberately created this country as a republic to protect the minority against the “lynch mob” mentality of a pure democracy.
Simple fact. Look it up.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
If these numbers come out to the sum that we’re all fearing (a bit fewer than $100,000), then this is a huge Constitutional issue. We cannot allow ANY religious faction to sway political propositions, especially one that takes away the rights of others.
http://activism.ology.com/2009/02/05/lgbt-rights-did-the-mormons-lie/
-Jared J. H. Catapano (ology.com)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
[...] the Mormon church spent nearly $190,000 in support of Proposition 8 has rekindled a fiery debate in the comments thread below. And clearly some Latter-Day Saints have located this blog (probably on church computers). [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Dear Tammy and Bill,
Tammy, Bill,
You are correct about that this country was set up as a “Republic” but it is also founded under “Democracy” where the majority of the people have control. You are wrong. The only time the “minority” have a say is when as you put it, a “mob” takes control (such as the gay community). I thank God for the Declaration and the Constitution. Both parties are certainly heard but it is the majority that has been right many more times than the “minority.” I need not excuse this conclusion, because you cannot refute it, it is history.
I affirm the fact that there is a God and He has spoken regarding the laws of morality. if you choose to follow after your carnal state that is your prerogative, but don’t “PUSH” your immoral behavior on the MAJORITY of the citizens in this country. The number of sexual predators have risen sharply in these past 10 years, and why? Because God’s laws are IGNORED. Look at the number of abortions that have taken place since Roe v. Wade. Just because a few people have pushed their immoral agendas on this country all those who have committed this act out of selfishness (there are exceptions that can be justified) will stand at the Bar of God one day and then what will be their excuse? The number of “expedient’ abortions is staggering.
In my youth we rarely heard of someone that have “same sex” attraction. This is a sign of corruption in these the last days. These things of which you champion are unGodly. They are not just a ’secular” thing. I would encourage both of you to read the Bible and then ask God if these things are true. Let Him tell you, if you are sincere He will reveal the truth of this matter to you. This is the key by which the Bible was written. it is called personal revelation. I highly recommend it to all of you.
Sincerely
RLM
February 6th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Once again Robert: This country is a republic, and in a republic the majority rules except in cases wherein majority rule would deny equal civil rights to a minority, and in those cases the courts are required to step in and protect the rights of the minority.
It is true that there have been numerous times in our history when majority rule was allowed to negate the rights of certain minorities, but that doesn’t make it right nor does it make it constitutional.
Just like something being “traditional” doesn’t mean it is good.
You base your whole argument on your religious beliefs and your interpretation of the Bible. That is all well and good in the realm of religion. But we are talking about CIVIL rights in the realm of CIVIL government, and those are — or at least should be — separate from your religious beliefs or anyone else’s, including mine. Because trust me, my interpretation of the Bible and my religious beliefs are VASTLY different from yours.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Since you wanted to look at history we shall: Look at desegragation in Brown vs Board of Education, Topeka, KS. Look at Loving vs. Virginia for the legalization of interracial marriages. Look at the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. In all these cases, the majority was against granting EQUAL RIGHTS to a MINORITY. Just because something is popular does not mean it is RIGHT. It was the LAW that stepped in to prevail and restore the dignity to the Constitution. As you will also see, over time the Majority became the Minority. What is propelling the case against Gay Marriage is Fear!! And just so we can clear the air, besides the Religious rhetoric, I have been researching other angles as well. To make a case that homosexuals are a threat to society and to themselves is preposterous. No study exists where a control group can be established to weigh any sort of data against. In the end, every argument against Gay Marriage and Homosexuals boils down to religious tyranny. How many lives have been lost in the fight for religious power? Too many to count, that’s how many. Even supposing religion has a role, which religion do you choose? Again, too many to count. The motto is if you don’t approve of gay marriage then don’t marry one. Simple as that. I would love to continue this conversation but take out the Mormon participation. That is what’s muddying the water. We need to pull back the focus and address the issues at hand. I can honestly tell you that I am a productive american citizen who works hard, pays taxes, respects the law and participates in community improvement. I expect to be treated as such.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Tammy, Bill,
I feel sorry for both of you and I do understand that you must be hurting on the inside. It is difficult when people don’t fully and completely appreciate you. I too had to deal with these very same issues as I was growing up.
As all debates go they never resolve really anything, why, because of the “self interest’ that most of us steep ourselves into. We often forget to remove the beam in our own eye before we can see clearly.
I am sorry that both of you sound like a broken record on this issue. This will be my final post.
I encourage you both to re-read my last post.
God Bless both of you
Adieu
February 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Adieu Mr. Maloney
Like every other individual I have attempted to have an intellectual conversation with, a genuine exchange of ideas and POV they choose to run away. So be it with you as well. And for the record, I have been reading the Bible and I am finding some fantastic things in it. I am realizing that today’s Christians have no idea about what the Bible truly says. Instead, they choose to cite remote passages to back up their points. Instead they focus on hate and exclusion to protect their precious fragile souls. I recommend you read “Live Forgiven” by Jeff Warren. He is a Pastor here in the DFW area in McKinney. He talks about what it really means to live in Christ and how to live FOR Christ. He talks about the congregations who have strayed from the truth and message of the Bible. I must say, it is truly changing my own ideas about what Christianity is about. From someone who experienced many church sermons from many denominations as a child, I never saw the ideas he presents. Instead I saw hypocrisy, bigotry, and lying.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Okay, I know Robert Maloney says he is gone and won’t post any more, but just in case he happens to look in again, let me say this: I am not hurting inside. I get angry sometimes, but I am a happy, healthy person in a wonderful relationship with a beautiful woman. We have two wonderful, smart children and a great house and great jobs.
You may think I have sounded “like a broken” record, but that is simply because the points I have made are valid and based on fact, while you have repeatedly argued that you are right because your religious beliefs say so. You, my friend, have the beam in your eye, and yes, I know what that means. I have actually studied the Bible, instead of just letting someone else tell me what is says and what it means. I have also read the Book of Mormon and parts of the Torah, and I have been to Bible study with people of the Jehovah’s Witness faith.
The Bible tells you to leave unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give God what belongs to God, and it tells you judge not lest ye be judged. And yet, you judge me by trying to force your religious beliefs onto me in the form of civil law, and you mix up what is Caesar’s and what is God’s, again by trying to put your religion into law.
Think for yourself, man, instead of just letting someone else bottle-feed you what they say is the word of God.