Why We Don't Take Government Funds

Daniel,
I didn't realize you had commented again. Brief response:

I wouldn't shun them, ostracize them, or treat them badly in any way. I would feel disappointed, and they could feel that disappointment, but they'd be used to that because I have consistently taught my children that we choose our actions and by so doing choose their consequences. I would refute any inkling that they "can't choose differently". We don't necessarily choose our feelings, but we choose what we do with them.

I would help trace the steps leading to the belief system that I consider self-deception, by asking questions and having open dialogue.

As to the preamble to the Constitution, anyone who thinks it doesn't imply looking toward posterity and preserving standards and values that will help maintain a supportive social fabric with in-tact families, is interpreting it to their own choosing but against the "general welfare," in my view.

Danielinthelionsden,

I liked your comments to Parker from early this morning. Of course, he will refute them with the usual Book of Mormon stuff.

A couple of nit-picky points, though.

You said, "If all you knew about black people came from the KKK, then you probably would not like them either, would you?"

He probably doesn't -- or didn't. Until fairly recently, anti-black sentiment and discrimination were part and parcel of the Mormon belief system. That is, until one of the old-man prophets decided to adjust the Mormon image with a "revelation" from God allowing black men into the "priesthood."

"The Mormonn Church is not going to collapse if its members begin to think."

Actually, it probably would. The foundation of the church is hierarchical, exclusionary, divisive, secretive, and paternalistic, and if members start thinking -- really thinking -- about what they're hearing and being told to do, they might realize what a sham the whole Mormon circus tent really is.

"Mormon doctrine has changed in the past, and it will change in the future..."

Oh, right, that convenient revelation thing again. Anytime a church position starts to look thorny in the larger, more enlightened society, the grand poobah gets word from God that things need to change.

This is a hypocritical cult of non-thinking, blindly believing sops who are comfortable being told what to do, when to do it, and how much of their income to surrender.

Again some reality observations about gay sex that should help-

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

" And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? "

Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation.
And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

From Wikipedia:
"Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

With respect to gays, they act differently because of differences in their physical makeup. If there is a god, one assumes he will not punish said individuals since said god is responsible for their created differences to begin with.

If there is no god, then there is no hell (or heaven or purgatory) to worry about.

Parker

If you want to know the truth about gay people, then you should seek out a gay person and ask some questions. Don't be afraid that by knowing a gay person, you may suddenly "go gay." It doesn't work like that. You may feel that you don't know any gay people, I feel sure that you do. Or you may say that you do not know where to find any gay people nor how to contact any, but in that case, your fear of them and their influence is unfounded and moot, isn't it?

All of your assumptions about gay people are second hand stories about subjective things. It is more scientific to ask gay people yourself, and take their word over people who have a defined anti-gay agenda. If all you knew about black people came from the KKK, then you probably would not like them either, would you?

What is it about gay people that you think is so bad? What is wrong with being gay? If being gay is a choice, why do you think people choose to be gay? And why did you not choose to be gay? Do you remember the exact moment that you decided not to be gay? If not, then why do you say that sexual orientation is a choice?

Isn't it about time that you begin to use your brain, and think? The Mormonn Church is not going to collapse if its members begin to think. Mormon doctrine has changed in the past, and it will change in the future,

Currently, the Mormon Church, along with other churches, cannot cope with the problem of the existence of gay people. Being gay is not a choice, and gay people are not God's throw-away mistakes. Being gay is not a crime or a sin. It is not obnoxious or bad. It is not a big deal, except to the persecutors of gay people, who spend way too much time, trying to figure out what to about this "gay problem."

Daniel,

I think that you are totally wrong about that people cannot freely "choose" all their actions. I will give you an example: Parker2 freely chose the action to give up his rational thinking and take for certain all what the leaders of the Mormon Church (sect?) tell him/her to believe and to do.

This means that when Parker2 is answering you a concrete question, he/she first checks the “official response”. He/she acts as a mere intermediary when answering back to you. This is what a good religious person is expected to do, and Parker2 looks as a real good one.

Parker2

I do not think that you gave much cosideation to my question. I am not sure that you are able. That, right of the bat, calls in to question your suggestion that people freely "choose" all their actions. You cannot even choose to regard my comments and question seriously.

You may believe in the Constitution, but that belief is not relevant to gay marriage. In fact, the Constitution does not comment on marriage at all.

Being a Mormon is more of a choice than being gay. Evidently, you either are not aware of that, or you do not beleive it. If you would like to know if being gay is a choice, then you should ask real gay people, and not just assume that you "know" based on false information that you have obtained second hand.

Being gay is not mental illness, and does not require a cure. In fact, there is no way to cure it. Only quack-doctors would suggest and advise a cure. Certain kinds of religious mainia, are, however, diseased, and can be forms of obsessive compulsive neurosis, or features of paranoia.

Gay people, not just men, but women too, turn up in the devout families of ALL religions. Increasing the intenstiy of religious instruction cannot change a person's sexual orientation. Having a person study the Book of Mormon will not cause that person stop being gay.

I guess I did not make my question clear. If you had a gay child, would you accept him as he is, or would you ostracize him and cast him out? You hinted at the answer, implying that you would seek to "cure" him. You would reject him for being gay, but you would falsly insist that by his choirce of sexual orientation, he has rejected you.

If a gay Mormon has 2 choices, become heterosexual, or suicide, why do think they choose suicide? Would you think that is a good option, to be encouraged?

Hmmm, tis interesting that Mr. Otterson never explains the theological and "foundational" problems of Mormonism e.g. the "pretty, talking, fictional thingie" named Moroni and the con-man Joe Smith's revelations about said "thingie".

YACTTB,
What a pleasant surprise! So glad to hear from you. I hope all in your family are doing well.

I for one enjoy each opinion piece Brother Otterson writes here, and wish the previous ones were more generally known by a broader group in the Church because of both what they teach and how they exemplify good approaches to often complex topics. I've learned a lot from them.

Thanks for the note, good friend.

Parker,

Good to see you on here again old friend. You've said many things I've wanted to say for many years and agree with completely. Glad you came out and said them and appreciate your efforts and ability to stay calm here. Keep up the good work!

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Truth, Reality and Common Sense do not change i.e. Mormonism is a business cult fronting as a religion and you are trapped in the grips of its theological and "foundational" mumbo-jumbo.

The books of the following On Faith panelists: Professors JD Crossan, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, and Karen Armstrong should help you escape your over fifty years of Mormon brainwashing.

To the general reader:
If you read below, you may wonder why I chose to respond to CCNL, an obvious heckler with abundantly evident unread ignorance. I did so because I believe in his ability to change over time, as I believe in that ability for all people. The seeds of change can take years to sprout, however. Hecklers can be amusing if viewed as clowns in the crowd. I apologize for taking up space here with the CCNL conversation. Have a good day, all comers (if any).

We assume you meant to say "fortune tellers" in the same mode as con-man Joe Smith.

CCNL,
OK, I'll respond again to clarify about modern prophets and apostles. Among the apostles are several who would be independently wealthy from their personal savings and investments from jobs they had prior to being called to that position--such as world-renowned heart surgeon, constitutional lawyers, corporate lawyers, university professors and presidents, corporate heads of public corporations, consultants, authors. These men travel the world extensively, repeatedly throughout each year, with all of the rigors of travel and extensive public or private meetings and interviews. If you've ever tried third world travel (I haven't), we're not talking cruises and joy rides. The small support some of these men receive for simple daily needs (from investments by successfully run business entities, not from tithing dollars though that would be fine with me) is a pittance compared to what men putting in comparable time and effort in leading positions in the work-a-day world receive. Your image of them is completely erroneous.

You have assumed all religious leaders are alike. They're not. You can read about these men easily on lds.org or in Wikipedia. Do some homework without making silly assumptions, already! Enough said. Bye again.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Your prophets take their "take" before giving any support to anyone. How else could they exist?

Small minded chatter? That is a good description of the mythical OT and anyone who follows said myths.

From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

CCNL,
Your distorted picture won't change, but it's amusing in view of your comment that recently a letter from the LDS First Presidency was read supporting food drives for multi-cultural food banks, and the LDS participation in "soup kitchens" is well known in several states. You really don't believe in that group whose website you cited, do you?

Leave it alone, Concerned. I have more conviction (meaning deeply held firmness of belief, independently) than you will ever dream of having. I suspect your children have more conviction than you do also, which is a good thing. If they introduced you to that website, then good for them. Read it again, and put it into practice.

As to tithing, you don't believe anything the Old Testament teaches, but my experience trumps your facade of small-minded chatter. Malachi's promises are abundantly true. Even you could put them to the test, and find it out for yourself. Learn from your children, CCNL! (Bye)

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Until you realize that your life revolves around a "pretty, fictional thingie", you will never be able to say you are an independent thinker.

As an experiment, tell your local "prophet" that you will send your 10% tithe to your local soup kitchen and see what he says.

CCNL,
I clickled on the website you cited, and enjoyed reading the "core values." I hope your children live by them, and that you do, too. If so, you will respect the differences in religious traditions and stop raging against those you don't agree with. (I would quote the website, but I'm sure you can find the many statements that say essentially that.) Good luck to you and your children in the endeavors that uphold those core values.

I have a retirement coming from working many years for Lockheed Martin. You still can't seem to realize that a person can think and act independently without thinking and acting like you do. Mine is an independent, first-hand witness that how I live brings more personal happiness than anything I have observed in any other religious or secular tradition. There are hundreds of layers to that source of happiness, and your gainsaying (particularly when coming from someone so obtuse--again, follow those "core values!) falls on deaf ears.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Obviously you are suffering from the Three B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Mormonism. Elimnating all the mumbo-jumbo of con-man Joe Smith is very possible but more than likely you are economically tied to the Mormon church so you have no real incentive to seek Truth, Reality and Common Sense (TRC).

BTW, it was my children who got me to seek TRC. I strongly recommend the NT and historic Jesus exegetes and their books as listed at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited
for a good start for your journey.

ColoradoDog,
You introduced the topic of "shock therapy"--not me. If you don't want to call it a medical treatment, then call it what you want to call it. I was not there. I have no idea what the people who signed up for it thought they were doing, but they signed as knowing recipients. You act like they were unknowing guinea pigs.

Your view of the world seems to imply that people have to act just the way you want or they will be dressed down by your words (chosen for their vindictiveness). It is your loss, not mine, for you to view the world that way. Live as you choose to live, or not. But don't blame others for how you feel. Bye.

PS: Parkerr1,

Spare me your sanctimonious, two-bit psychoanalysis and worry about your own soul.

By stating "...That would have been an awful, tragic experience" in the conditional implies I am lying, by comparing the BYU "experiments" to a bona fide medical procedure and by implying that being gay is a "medical condition" tells us volumes about where your own mind is at.

ColoradoDog,
The hatred that seems evident in your writing is a choice you are making, whether conciously or unconciously. Your statements are all false, arising from that hatred.

As to "eternal damnation," the punishment we bring on ourselves by our choices is separation from light and truth, but your friend would have known and understood (and so would any BYU student who was listening at all) that Christ forgives when we change our actions and our hearts, even if there is a process to go through to receive complete forgiveness within the rolls of the membership of the church so that there are no "wolves in sheeps clothing" among the members.

By the way, even those who choose not to so change will have it better in their "eternal reward" than they ever knew in this life. That is Mormon doctrine. The telestial kingdom or the terrestrial kingdom are kingdoms of glory, not punishment. Christ's forgiveness grants access to those kingdoms of glory as well.
I go now for quite a while today...

ParkerR1 wrote:

ColoradoDog,

Your statement was false. But anyone who enters into medical treatment approaches, signs their consent. You would know that. Members make their own choices--the First Presidency doesn't make their choices for them, silly.
____________________________________

The First Presidency made a "choice" to condone this "therapy" and to later refuse to acknowledge it. What "choice" did a 15-year-old have or what "choice" did the BYU students who were rounded up in the gay witch hunt have when faced with expulsion from college, excommunication and, therefore, eternal damnation? Your response is "silly" because it implies the Church had no culpability in this gay, perverted procedure or for the atmosphere of homophobia and hatred that caused my friend to take his life.

If Otterson were honest, he would acknowledge these atrocities and state that the Church does not take Federal Funds because of its continued discrimination against gays that would be in conflict with the anti-discrimination clauses of such funding.

Your blind, closed-minded apologies for the Church are typical. Do you live in Utah, too?

ColoradoDog,
I just read your later entry to me. That would have been an awful, tragic experience, and of course you now have strong feelings about the subject that colors your view of life. You implied a cause-and-effect that I disagree with, but you have a right to choose what internal "voices" you want to listen to that guide your belief system. Those internal voices are not what you implied--not anywhere near. I sense you're trying to "get back" at something you think is unfair. Well, this life probably seems unfair to most people, but it all has purpose and how we treat others will definitely impact our soul in the long run. May you find a way to treat all people respectfully. Peace to you.

ColoradoDog,
Since I happen to have a daughter who has struggled with complex health issues for which we have tried many kinds of treatments including electro-therapy at a prominent hospital trying to reset her brainwaves (didn't work), then I am aware that the medical world as well as the alternative medicine world take approaches that sometimes are an attempt that may have worked in some cases but don't work in other cases.

Your statement was false. But anyone who enters into medical treatment approaches, signs their consent. You would know that. Members make their own choices--the First Presidency doesn't make their choices for them, silly.

Daniel,
I wrote a long entry, but it was too long for the website to accept. Rather than repeat myself, I guess I'll just say that I am for the US constitution as it was intended by the founding fathers, with a view toward preserving all freedoms for the betterment of "our posterity", and I don't think redefining marriage is consistent with that clear intent. But I don't condemn you and your choice.

If I had a son struggling with that, I would encourage them to read the Book of Mormon daily, deeply thinking about its teachings including that we are free to choose our actions in life, not succomb to feeling like we "have to do something or act in such a way."

Peace to you, sir.

One at a time,
CCNL,
I hope you will understand an important point here. My belief in Mormonism is based on independent first-hand experience and study. I believe the Book of Mormon is true as much because of its doctrine (which includes hundreds of principles about how to live life more truthfully, lovingly, happily) as because of the impossiblity of its having been produced by a farm hand in 1830. I live the teachings, and know that they bring personal peace and personal growth. I don't need an angel to tell me it is a true book.

My belief in living prophets and apostles is also based on what they teach and exemplify through their lives. It is a first-hand belief through valid living personal experience. I absolutely know that anyone can by following their teachings sincerely, be happier and more fulfilled in life. Most of those teachings are about how to live life on a day-to-day basis--how to raise families with honesty and integrity and compassion, how to serve others without thought of reward, how to listen empathetically, how to guide without being controlling or snobby.

By the way, CCNL, whatever led you in your life to be the way you appear on the internet (though I actually much prefereed your very last entry here)--if I had that background I would want to change with every fiber of my being, because it is so obnoxious. I think you are less cutting in real life, at least I hope so. I hope your children find in you a supportive father, and your wife finds in you a supportive and loving husband. That is what I hope, regardless of how you treat people like me (though how you treat me cannot help but have a bearing on the feelings you drag around with you, so try this: try a change of heart!) Peace to you, CCNL

Oh Parkerr1, I forgot to mention that if I seem critical of the Mormons' treatment of gays, it is because when I was 17 in Ogden, I received one of your "gifts of the Holy Spirit" watching my 16- year-old gay friend blow his brains out in front of me because his "loving" Mormon parents, family and church would not even acknowledge, less alone accept his sexual orientation. Thank you, again, oh great Holy Spirit of Moroni for this wonderful gift.

So Parkerr1, I suppose it was the "gift of the Holy Spirit" that caused your First Presidency to originally condone and now refuse to acknowledge the Church's practice of trying to "cure" gays, some as young as 15, by strapping an arousal sensor around their penises, attaching electrodes to their arms and wrists, showing them homosexual pornography and torturing them with electric shock when they became aroused. This "gift of the Holy Spirit" was homosexual in itself, perverted and against moral, State and Federal laws.

Because Mormon culture is so anti-gay, there are also many gay people in Mormon culture who stay in the closet, get married for the sake of appearances, and live out loveless and unhappy lives, with confused and uhappy spouses, and children raised in unhappy homes. The Mormon Church encourages this, but this is not good.

I am all for Mormon family values and all of that. But all people do not fit into the same mold. Gay people are not a good fit for Mormon families values. So what? They are still people aren't they? If family is important, then that is all the more reason to acknowlege and legalize gay marriage, so that gay people can have families too.

That is the pity and tragedy of Mormonism, that they have such a successful system going, that this harsh treatment of people who come out different is not necessary, that they could still have their happy little standard Mormon families, and acknowledge that sometimes, from time to time, a person is born gay.

Mormon culture in Utah works ok. But if Mormons want to mix in the world, a greater sophistication towards other peoples, cultures, and ways of life is necessary. Their, hard-as-nails intolerance needs to give way to a more confident tolerance towards others, including gay people. Otherwise, I am afraid that they will will become increasingly thought of as an undesirable group, whom people may wish to avoid.

CCNL

There is alot of information on homosexuality and the dysfuntion of Mormon culture. You are free to do the research yourself, if you are interested.

The problem is Mormon intolerance, which is hard, harsh, mean, and unyielding. It is a little sad, because they are so rock solid certain in their moral superiority that they cannot even comprehand the concept and doctirne of "tolerance" and "toleration."

They either insist that they are tolerant, or they belittle tolerance. They do not get it. All they get is that being gay is very bad, and that even a blood punishment is not too severe. Mormon families who seek reconciliation with a gay child through modification of their homphobic beliefs to accomodate the love they have for their child whom they do not wish to cast out, also have a hard time making their way in Mormon culture, which is dominated by the homophobia of the Mormon Church.

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/14/the-lds-church-homosexuality-and-suicide/

Dan in the Den,

You noted: "And please don't side-step this question by saying that no child of yours would ever be gay. It happens all the time in Mormon families, often with DISASTROUS consequences, even including suicide."

Specifics supported by references????

Parker1

How would you react, if one of your children should reveal to you, after they have reached adulthood, that he or she is gay?

And please don't side-step this question by saying that no child of yours would ever be gay. It happens all the time in Mormon families, often with DISASTROUS consequences, even including suicide.

It is a real problem, for one of the people whom you love most, to turn out to be an innocent manifestion of human existence which you have always regarded as an abomiination.

Something would have to give; you would either have to change how you feel about gay people, or you would have to change how you feel about your child.

Of course, statistially speaking, this is not likely to happen, and you are not likely to be tested in this way. But instead of thanking God that you may continue to live in ignorant bliss about these matters, why would you not at least consider the possibilities of this happening in others families that you know and care about? And in this consideration of how it might be handled, keep in mind that probably most Mormon families would be profoundly torn by such a problem, but would also seek to keep it consealed from their friends and neighbors.

I do not believe that this will move you in any way to consider the problem. But, who knows, I am sending it to you, and maybe it will.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

It is all about Reality, Truth and Common Sense. Your experience unfortunately has not encountered any of these based on your belief in current and past prophets/fortune tellers and "pretty, talking, fictional thingies".

Here's hoping that fathers and mothers can teach their children without belittling them or attempting to control and dominate them. Here's hoping that grandfathers and grandmothers can do the same for their grandchildren.

Here's hoping that people can learn to respect others' beliefs and experiences without their personal self-deception that says, "No one has experienced that which I have not experienced. I, only I, know what the true experience in this vast world is." Here's hoping that such self-deception can be overcome by even the most self-adulating of humankind.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Your superstitious belief in pretty, talking, fictional thingies unfortunately spills over onto the families you care so much about. Time for you and these families to join the 21st Century!!!

What indeed does life "revolve around"? My life, and those of all the people I know personally, revolve around their families. This is the province of joy and happiness. To experience the love of parents for their children, of siblings for each other and for their children, to have fun together and talk together without belittling or begrudging, to experience the growth from close relationships where there is mutual respect and a sharing of one's inner self--these are what life can revolve around to bring inner peace and outward joy. Then to have those associations deepened by what I mentioned before that the world inevitably belittles--now that is something to seek and be grateful for.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Your "holy spirit" is nothing more than another "wingie, flying, fictional thingie" typically represented by a flying white dove. Time to give up the thoughts of children and join the adult 21st Century!!!

Tis strange that so many adult lives revolve around fictional thingies like Moroni, Gabriel, Michael and Satan!!!!!

To the general reader:
This comment section rehashes many things that are brought up over and over again by bloggers and by the media against the LDS church, some well-intentioned but often deliberately misleading and of course lacking detailed information. One may ask, "In view of such opposition, how does that church continue to grow throughout the world?" "How do its members stay so devoted to it if these things are anywhere near true?" (Simple answer, of course, is they're not.)

Without doubt, the most important aspect of the LDS church conversion rate and member devotion is found in what non-LDS bloggers don't have and don't care to understand--the "gift of the Holy Spirit". When one receives this gift, spiritual understanding and a process of spiritual growth radiate the soul of such a person, illuminating their mind, providing comfort during times of sorrow or struggle, and deepening a well-spring of joy and peace that living the gospel brings.

This is what the Savior promised to His followers. His apostles and disciples understood as they experienced that supernal gift. But the world at large will mock and belittle and will never understand it--not now, not ever, because it is hidden from them. Yet, it is a free gift to all who will seek it who are willing to humble their hearts, enter the waters of baptism and begin a newness of life.

Dan in the Den,

You noted: "When a member of a Mormon family is reported to be gay, the Mormon Church and Mormon culture works AGGRESSIVELY to destroy that family, and to ruin the life of the gay person, even driving gay people to complete ruin, even suicide."

Specifics with supporting references????

Stracypete said:

It may be politically incorrect to the liberal mindset, but for most Americans still, the thought of two men being "married" or two women being "married" is just -- well, the tought makes reason stare. A 5-year old would understand this. And it's not hateful to say that. Quit villifying those who disagree with you on a fundamental question of basic human morality and decency. Yes, decency. It's indecent -- homosexual relations. It's a perversion and no amount of political correctness is going to "cure" that!"

Being gay is not a sin; it is not a perversion; it is not bad; it does make reason "stare;" five year old kids do not automatically hate gay people unless their reiigious elders instruct them to do so.

Mormons cannot handle the fact of the existence of gay people. They cannot comprehend that gay people exist in the world among us, and that there is nothing wrong with them. It is a flaw in their religion, and in their concept of God's creation, and undermines the credibility of all else that they belief, teach, and insist upon, which is, by itself, pretty uncredible.

The Mormon Church is one of the most intolerant religions on the face of the earth. And when confronted with this, Mormons scarely comprehend what you mean; they are so consumed and marinated in their base culture of intolerance.

When a member of a Mormon family is reported to be gay, the Mormon Church and Mormon culture works AGGRESSIVELY to destroy that family, and to ruin the life of the gay person, even driving gay people to complete ruin, even suicide.

And Mormons believe in charity ONLY for other Mormons, and not for non-Mormons. If that is their policy, then fine, but they, at least on this thread, lie about it.

But I would say that Mormon deception on this point is the least of irproblems and sins.

Parker noted: " it is clear that the Savior wants us to follow the clear examples that are set before us in the Bible as to how to help the poor."

Reality and Truth demand a rewrite as follows: "it is clear that Santa Claus wants us to follow the clear examples that are set forth in the semi-mythical, semi-fictional books like the bible and koran as how to help the poor.

Or maybe your aid to the poor should be sent directly to the poor instead of some "propheteering"/"profiteering" prophets/middle men who take their cut of said aid to the poor to build tabernacles, football players, choirs and monopolies.

One practice that differrentiates an open religion from a cult is that open religions do not have a concept-practice of "heavenly deception" (it is ok to lie for a greater cause) whereas cults, like Mormonism do. In their Handbook for Missionaries they specified several practices for optimum results in recruiting that most folks would consider sanctioned deception. Futher, open religions do not have layered theology and ultra-secret rituals, into which initiates are introduced the more trusted and inside thy become; cults like Mormonism do (initial contacts and potential recruits are not told about Jesus and Lucifer as Spirit Brothers from a Heavenly Father named Elohim, that all faithful Mormon males may become Gods with their own planet to be populated with little spirit beings produced ny plural sealed wives to be sent down to inhabit odiers on earth; nor are they told that the so-called unerring Book of Mormon describes a goal of Indians--"Lamanites--is to have skin color that is "white and delightsome" changed to "pure and delightsome" in the 1981 Book of Mormon). Mormons demand acceptance and mainstreaming under the notion of respect for diversity, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and association--the very same rights they will take away under a Mormon theocracy for America and the World and any denial of such, layed out in their own books (Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenant and Book of Mormon) is nothing but more "heavenly deception". They renounced polygamy only to get statehood for and a virtual theocracy in Utah; but they will never renounce as sinful, or adultery, or exploitation, or even pedophilia, the practices of the founders of Mormonism (Joseph Smith "sealed" to 49 wives including 4 pairs of sisters, a mother and daughter and 11 women married to other men at the time).

But I am on the same page with Mormonism and all cults in one respect: Yes do read their holy books and literature--carefully--and you will se what they are and what they intend.

KJohnson3 writes:

And, no, the point is not inane. Other churches don't brag publicly that they accept no government money. THe LDS church does, as demonstrated by Mr. Otterson's message.

So, it follows that, unless the LDS church renounces its tax-exempt status and begins paying property taxes, it is lying when it claims not to accept government money.

February 12, 2009 3:00 PM
__________________________
I would remind the author that offensive personalizing words like "bragging" and "lying" are offensive and have no place in a discussion such as this. Such language is all the more out of place since the essayist in no way expressed racist or other highly offensive views. In such cases, IMO, counterfactual strategies may be effective. This is not such a case. Civility, please.

The Mormon Church does take government funds indirectly while acting politically and fraudulently using it's tax exemption as a religion. Case in point were anti-gay campaigns PRIOR to the last one in California where the Church (not just is members) DIRECTLY spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in Alaska, Hawaii and California before for these campaigns. It's not just a church but a right-wing PAC as well and should loose its tax exemption.

As a life-long member of the LDS church, and as one who is concerned passionately about the youth of the United States and the examples that are being set for them through both policies and principles they observe in society, I am very grateful for a religion that teaches and has an employment resource system as well as ongoing efforts around the world to bring about "teaching a person to fish" rather than "giving a person a fish" to help them succeed in the work-a-day world.

I am also deeply grateful for the law of the fast, which promotes health and spiritual depth of character, as well as assisting the needy through fast offering donations. These things are inspired by the divine Giver of all good gifts. Others will call "good" evil and "evil" good as prophesied by Isaiah, but for me it is clear that the Savior wants us to follow the clear examples that are set before us in the Bible as to how to help the poor.

To elaborate:

Many religions are founded on "pretty, wingie, (flying), talking, fictional, thingies and therefore one must conclude that the members of said religions have been taken for a ride, a long ride in case of the Jews and Christians.

To wit:

Joe Smith had his Moroni. (BTW, Moroni did not have wings so he, according to Mormon "authorities" on this blog, could not fly.)

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

volkmare,

Actually, it was Marmacs who said that, not me. But I agree completely.

And, no, the point is not inane. Other churches don't brag publicly that they accept no government money. THe LDS church does, as demonstrated by Mr. Otterson's message.

So, it follows that, unless the LDS church renounces its tax-exempt status and begins paying property taxes, it is lying when it claims not to accept government money.

kjohnson3 :
you said: “When LDS pays federal income tax on the tithes received from its members, and when LDS pays property tax on all its property, its representatives will then be in a position to brag about not receiving money from the federal (or any other) government.”

Gee whiz, dude.
No religious entity pays tax on their property or tithes.
That makes your statement rather inane.

Bragging? Hardly.
Just a statement of fact.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

kjohnson3 :

If you have evidence that the LDS church is taking government money, let’s hear it.

Otherwise....

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Only churches receive property tax exemptions. No other non-profit receives such exemptions. Since churches receive a wide range of services from the state without paying for these services, then atheists and other non-religious Americans are forced to pay extra taxes to subsidize religious claptrap. This is establishment of religion. I have no problem with income tax exemptions but special rights for churches are unacceptable. If you want tax money, you may not discriminate. Period.

"The question on tax exempt status, which is of course not a Mormon-specific question but applies to all churches, is more complicated."

RobertsRobinson,

It is a Mormon-specific question in this forum because Mr. Otterson is claiming that the Mormon church doesn't take government money, which is untrue.

"When LDS pays federal income tax on the tithes received from its members, and when LDS pays property tax on all its property, its representatives will then be in a position to brag about not receiving money from the federal (or any other) government. I would also apply those requirements to every religious body in this nation."

Yes, Marmacs, absolutely right.

"In any event, it's clear where LDS priorities lie. Given the choice between having their members contribute tens of millions of dollars to make sure that two aging lesbians don't get survivorship benefits and having their members give that money to keep AIDS babies in Africa alive, or to cure totally preventable diseases in Africa, they chose to instead make life more difficult for the aging lesbian pair."

Hillman,

Yes, this sums it up in a nutshell. And it's an attitude shared by panelist Mohler (of the Southern Baptist congregation). As he makes clear, he would rather his parishioners refuse government funds to help poor, hungry, sick, and dying people than accept the provision that they must not evangelize while doing their charitable work.

These religious groups, which set themselves up as shining examples of Christian piety, are a mockery of morals and decency.

If you don't want Caesar telling you what to do, don't take Caesar's coin - it's that simple. I don't agree with Mormon teachings, but I respect their willingness and ability to walk the walk.

As for Prop 8, the fact that ANY wealthy organization can pour money into a campaign opens the question of whether it has "bought the election." That goes double if the organization is based outside of the state. Did the people of the state of California speak - or did an out-of-state organization that has demonstrated again and again its ability to apply its wealth to leverage political power? Until ALL political contributions are limited to registered voters eligible to vote in the election in question, there will be questions like this.

Although much of the vitriol in the comments suggests sublimated anger over proposition 8 rather than a a serious response to these issues, a couple of points are worth responding to:

1. Tithes are not compulsory, they are voluntary and discreet. The person sitting next to me in church will have no idea whether and how much I pay.

2. Suggesting that the church is a money-making enterprise begs the question: money-making for who? The local clergy is composed of unpaid volunteers, and the global leadership does not live lives of obscene opulence. The money is used to further church activities such as temple and meeting house construction, missionary work, and as this article describes, humanitarian projects.

3. The question on tax exempt status, which is of course not a Mormon-specific question but applies to all churches, is more complicated. It is plausible to see it as a form of government subsidy, but the alternative is to give the government a club which they might eventually use to infringe religious practice. The loss of property tax revenue is the price we pay for unencumbered religious freedom.

CCNL I invite you to take Professor Nibley's book of Mormon Challenge given sarcastticaly to students of his class several decades back. to my knowledge no critic of the Book of Mormon has ever been able to complete it successfully.

"Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.
"Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!

"To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done."

fr computer_forensics-:

>..Prop 8 is the law. It was added as an amendment to the California State Constitution after the George's California Supreme Court ruled the existing statute as being unconstitutional.

People who have supported this measure, in the amount of $100-$1000, have been labelled as bigots, have had protests in front of their businesses, calls to their employers which cause a disruption in the workplace, etc.

This is wrong.

The people of California have spoken, THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX. Get over it already and let's move on.

NO. Prop HATE will be overturned, and we will work until such a HATEFUL amendment is deemed unconstitutional. It should have NEVER been brought to the ballot in the first place. How would YOU feel if someone religious biddy or "dr" (dobson comes to mind here) waltzed up to YOU and said that just because THEY didn't like YOUR straight marriage that it was now null and void? You wouldn't.

Grow UP and get a life.

To clarify some points:

The LDS Church and its leaders have never had any intent to overturn the Constitution and particularly its guarantee of freedom of religion (and freedom of conscience), as demonstrated by repeated statements from Church leaders to that effect. On the contrary, Joseph Smith supported the preservation of the Constitution and the freedom of religion without qualification, as clearly evidenced by his stated political positions. Claims that Church leadership, past or present, had an agenda of replacing Constitutional government with a theocracy are totally groundless and in direct contradiction of clearly stated positions.

The LDS Church has the right to take political positions, as any other tax-exempt organization does, and has done so within the limits set out by the courts and the IRS. Calls for removal of its tax-exempt status as a result of political activities clearly within the set limits of the law are a shameless attempt to use the power of government to discriminate against the Church and its members, and a clear violation of the First Amendment. I should note that the voices calling the loudest for the removal of the Church's tax exempt status as a result of its support for Proposition 8 have been silent on whether tax-exempt organizations who opposed Proposition 8 should also have their tax exempt status removed.

To the original point of the article, I think the author makes a strong point that government funds invariably come with strings attached. Churches who accepted funds under the faith-based initiative are discovering that the hard way, as the Obama administration is set to review their hiring practices; if they have become dependent on those funds, they will not be in a position to protest government involvement in their organization. Similarly, universities and schools that accepted money from the Federal government discovered that they were not in a position to protest the presence of military recruiters on their campus. This is yet another reason to limit the reach of government into everyday life; with government money comes government control.

When LDS pays federal income tax on the tithes received from its members, and when LDS pays property tax on all its property, its representatives will then be in a position to brag about not receiving money from the federal (or any other) government. I would also apply those requirements to every religious body in this nation.

Educational and Charitable enterprises also have tax-exempt status and yet no overt constitutioanl protection like religion, should they also be deprived a political voice?

"This requires the religious and religious organizations, when acting in the political arena, to only do so on limited and secular grounds."

No it doesn't. It just requires them to give up their tax exempt status if they politic.

In any event, it's clear where LDS priorities lie. Given the choice between having their members contribute tens of millions of dollars to make sure that two aging lesbians don't get survivorship benefits and having their members give that money to keep AIDS babies in Africa alive, or to cure totally preventable diseases in Africa, they chose to instead make life more difficult for the aging lesbian pair.

So you get hardworking Americans having a tougher time in America (during a depression), and you have a lost opportunity to actually do God's work for the starving and the poor.

Nice job, LDS. Hate wins again.

Mormonism Reality 101 - Part 2

From: lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

"The first divergence between Mormon economics and that of other denominations is the tithe. Most churches take in the greater part of their income through donations. Very few, however, impose a compulsory 10% income tax on their members. Tithes are collected locally, with much of the money passed on informally to local lay leaders at Sunday services. "By Monday," says Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone, an independent Mormon magazine, the church authorities in Salt Lake City "know every cent that's been collected and have made sure the money is deposited in banks." There is a lot to deposit. Last year $5.2 billion in tithes flowed into Salt Lake City, $4.9 billion of which came from American Mormons."

"The Mormons are stewards of a different stripe. Their charitable spending and temple building are prodigious. But where other churches spend most of what they receive in a given year, the Latter-day Saints employ vast amounts of money in investments that TIME estimates to be at least $6 billion strong. Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or stock in other peoples' companies but is invested directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns, the largest of which are in agribusiness, media, insurance, travel and real estate. Deseret Management Corp., the company through which the church holds almost all its commercial assets, is one of the largest owners of farm and ranchland in the country, including 49 for-profit parcels in addition to the Deseret Ranch. Besides the Bonneville International chain and Beneficial Life, the church owns a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain. (For a more complete list, see chart.) All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church's nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million. "

"Members of the church celebrate the Lord's Supper with water rather than wine or grape juice. They believe their President is a prophet who receives new revelations from God. These can supplant older revelations, as in the case of the church's historically most controversial doctrine: Smith himself received God's sanctioning of polygamy in 1831, but 49 years later, the church's President announced its recision. Similarly, an explicit policy barring black men from holding even the lowest church offices was overturned by a new revelation in 1978, opening the way to huge missionary activity in Africa and Brazil. "

Bottom line: Mormonism is a business cult using religion as a front and charitable donations and volunteer work to advertise said business.

Mormonism Reality 101- Part 1

Moroni was a "pretty talking fictional thingie" or would a better description be "one of the many hallucinations seen by founders of the major religions" or " a clone of the fictional Gabriel" or "Moroni the golden hornblower", or "son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer", or "actually Nephi", or "good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels" or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]

A few added notes about Mormonism

contemporary definition- A business/religious cult based on Joseph Smith's hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

An excellent and rational article about a very effective programme.
Keep up your excellent work!

Many of you seem have bought into a relatively recent liberal spin on the alleged meaning of the extra-constitutional phrase ‘separation of church and state’. Your interpretation alleges that churches can have no political involvement and no meaningful political voice. Such an interpretation is without merit historically or intellectually.
I encourage you to examine the founders words and their behaviors, placing them in the correct historical context to discover the original intent of the establishment clause. No amendment to the constitution has been passed that alters this intent, only judicial sophistry opens the door to your interpretation.

The IRS does limit candidate-specific endorsing activities by churches. Addititonaly, a church may not devote a ‘substantial’ part of its activities to legislation. The LDS church has complied with these requirements.

The intellectual fraud of the “churches don’t get a political voice” position is that it seeks to establish irreligion as the state religion. This requires the religious and religious organizations, when acting in the political arena, to only do so on limited and secular grounds. The consequence is to establish secularism and to FORCE the religious to accept the major premise of secularism that religion has no place or bearing on public affairs. How is this any different than the government declaring a given religious sect as the state religion and then requiring obeisance to it and its ideas?

"You will see the constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread...A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America...[T]he land will be left without a Supreme Government...[Mormonism] will have gathered strength, sending out Elders to gather the honest in heart...to stand by the Constitution of the United States...In these days...God will set up a Kingdom, never to be thrown down...[T]he whole of America will be made the Zion of God." (Joseph Smith, May, 6, 1843, founder of Mormonism, quoted in "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church" by Richard Abanes, Four Walls Eight Windows Press, NY. 2002, p xvi)
---
"Listeners of KSL Radio's "The Doug Wright Show" were surprised on November 9, 1999 when Wright's guest, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (a devout Mormon) quoted the infamous "White Horse" prophecy. The prediction by Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, contains what has always been the Mormon American Dream--i.e. the transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy divinely ordained 'not only to direct the political affairs of the Mormon community, but eventually those of the United States and ultimately the world." (Ibid. p. xvii)
---
This lofty aspiration, which dates back to Mormonism's earliest years, continues to be a dominent element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers. Mormon journalist and University of Utah spokesperson, Fred Esplin, candidly explains:"Mormons believe that they have a divine commission to prepare the world for Christ's millennial [i.e. 1000-year] reign in which they will serve as the officers and administrators. The faithful Saint believes he is building the Kingdom of God. This is what motivates thirty-thousand full-time missionaries [60,000 as of 2002] to preach the gospel, and this is what keeps men in their eighties working at a pace that would pitch younger, less motivated men into their graves." (Abanes, Ibid, pp. xvii-xviii)

Michael Otterson's essay ignores the history of the LDS Church with regard to acceptance of public money for the welfare of its members, and the reason the Mormons adopted their current policy.

As historian D. Michael Quinn pointed out in his two biographies of J. Ruben Clark, until the time of the New Deal, Mormons considered the taxes they paid an entitlement for their members to accept whatever public assistance the government offered. The Church welfare program was born in politics, particularly Church President Heber J. Grant's fervent opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt's economic policies.

When Utahns voted overwhelmingly for FDR in the 1932 elections, and consequently turned out long-serving Republican senator Reed Smoot -- a Mormon apostle -- Grant and his new lieutenant, Clark, devised the Church Welfare Plan as a political inducement to keep Mormons in the GOP fold.

Unfortunately for the LDS leadership, the scheme did not meet its political goals. Utahns continued to partake of New Deal entitlements as the concomitantly availed themselves of the relief offered by their church.

The tradition continues today. I'm personally acquainted with a social worker in Utah, who tells me that Mormons in need are the consummate double dippers. They take what their Bishop offers on Sunday, and then file their claims with state and federal agencies on Monday.

Mormonism is not a religion it is a cult. What is the difference? A religion is open about its theology and intentions, a cult is not (see White Horse Prophesy of Joseph Smith and intentions for a Mormon-run theocracy in America). A religion does not engage in deception or coercion to either recruit or to prevent exits, a cult does. A religion does not engage in calculated mind control and manipulation, a cult does. A religion does not seek to deny others, the very same rights, privileges, respect for diversity, freedom fo speech and inquiry, etc that it asserts for itself, a cult does. A religion does not do unto others what it does not want done unto itself, a cult does.

Mormonism violates 501 C3 rules all the time with respect to separaton of Church and State and non-involvement in secular politics, influencing cult members on how to vote etc; they are just slicker about how they do it. Ask some of those who have been inside and have left.

"Any church that has tax-exempt status (which is all churches) is merely claiming all its rights under the First Amendment. Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion -- and taxation has the power to destroy, so churches are tax-exempt."

You conveniently leave out the fact that tax exempt status is not stated anywhere in the Constitution.

And implicit in the deal is that churches were supposed to remain out of the political arena.

I quote the relevant IRS Code below...

"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

LDS has clearly violated that deal.

Unfortunately, I fear that as we go into a depression, we are going to need all of the social help for people that we can get. I am concerned about the needy and I hardly think we should be fighting over who gives that help. I believe there is a role for the government, the non-profits (be they religious or similar to the Red Cross), and individuals. I think each has a role. I like what my church does, but I disagree with those who think the government has no role. There is no way the churches etc. can match the Federal government -- even if only in scope. If a church has a particular belief it does not want to violate, fine, let them help with other things, but let our taxes still help the people whose beliefs do not match that church. That way everyone is helped and nobody is asked to violate his or her conscience. I was born shortly after the Depression and learned much from listening. From what I heard, it took the Church, the local government, and every combination of letters FDR could come up with just for the poor to make it. And, yes, there were many who got wealthy during the depression and some who are greedily looking to repeating that in the coming years. These should be heavily taxed and that money used for those from whose misery they would plan to benefit. Only the government can do that. Non-profits work from donations. Let us all work together and cooperate to cut down the suffering we are about to endure rather than fight over it.

"Yes, decency. It's indecent -- homosexual relations. It's a perversion and no amount of political correctness is going to "cure" that!"

Really?

Since we aren't granted full citizenship, how about you give us our tax money back?

You know, the tax money that supports the services for your churches? Money for roads, fire and police, infrastructure?

And the gay money that is spent on child welfare for straight marriages that end in divorce or the straight affairs that end in single parents.

And the gay money that supports the countless economic benefits you get through marriage.

No? So you are unwilling to treat us as equal citizens, but you sure will take our tax money.

Isn't that hypocritical?

LDS is too self-righteous to stoop to government welfare...

Being from Los Angeles, California, I have to ask, why haven't there been any stories about the non-governmental organizations that do take federal and state funding that fought Prop 8?

Prop 8 is the law. It was added as an amendment to the California State Constitution after the George's California Supreme Court ruled the existing statute as being unconstitutional.

People who have supported this measure, in the amount of $100-$1000, have been labelled as bigots, have had protests in front of their businesses, calls to their employers which cause a disruption in the workplace, etc.

This is wrong.

The people of California have spoken, THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX. Get over it already and let's move on.

The LDS Church does outstanding work with its welfare program. It simply works, unlike most of federal government 'entitlement" mentalities. I've seen it in action. And all of the hate spewers out there on this forum who are embittered because of Proposition 8, I say, get a life. You lost. The voters didn't agree with you. Sorry you're mad, but at the same time, I'm glad you lost. It may be politically incorrect to the liberal mindset, but for most Americans still, the thought of two men being "married" or two women being "married" is just -- well, the tought makes reason stare. A 5-year old would understand this. And it's not hateful to say that. Quit villifying those who disagree with you on a fundamental question of basic human morality and decency. Yes, decency. It's indecent -- homosexual relations. It's a perversion and no amount of political correctness is going to "cure" that!

Amen to churches not taking government money.
Please don't accept tax exemptions either.
Thanks
W

oops I meant for prop 8

Yet you were allowed to use this money to donate to the campaign against prop 8. A political cause. Open your books and lets see how much of the money you collect actually goes to your charitable work and how much goes toward promoting your anti gay agenda.

So true, KJOHNSON. So true!

We, the taxpayers of the United States, are SUBSIDIZING this cesspool of prejudice and bigotry.

Why should I have to pay taxes to pay for the services YOUR church gets, Mr. Otterson?

I DARE you to answer this, you hypocrite.

Religion and the government should NEVER mix.

Period.

The Mormon church deserve no credit for not taking a handout the government shouldn't be giving in the first place.

Especially when the Mormon church is an anti-gay anti-woman weird-underwear-wearing freak show.

To wjfreeman1:

Your claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints poured $84 million into California's Proposition 8 is incorrect. The Church filed it's final report on monetary and non-monetary donations last week to a total of less than $190,000, which is less than .5% of the total money given to the "Yes on 8" campaign. For details, see: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports.

What your comment may be referring to is the amount that it's members gave out of their own pockets, which is very different than money that came from the Church itself. The total that members of the Church gave is difficult to ascertain since the office of Secretary of State of California did not require religious affiliation in its disclosure reporting of donors. While most members of the Church contributed to the Yes on 8 side, there were also members of the Church that contributed to the no side.

The total contribution to the "Yes on 8" campaign was estimated to be $40 million, making the claim that the Church gave $84 million absurd. For the record, even a cursory Internet search will indicate that the No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign by about $3 million.

The Mormon Church shamefully poured $84-million into California last fall in support of Proposition 8, the anti-gay initiative. As a taxpayer, I don't what a dime of my money going to support bigots.

So noted, Parkerd1. No quibbling. :>)

KJohnson3,
It sounds like you do much good in your life. (Should I be surprised?--no.) Thanks for sharing more about yourself. I decline to quibble with you over our differences of opinion, different world views, and differences in definitions of words. All the best to you, sincerely.

Packerd1,

Why is it that church-affiliated people always seem to think that those who are unaffiliated are neither grateful nor generous?

As it happens, I volunteer in hospice and domestic violence programs; I feel inexpressable gratitude for what I have (in love, family, work, and relationships); and I don't hanker after material things.

I lead a spiritually rich life, influenced by the beliefs and practices of several "faith" traditions but governed by none of them. I'm happy to leave others to their belief systems as long as they don't force them on me.

And, yes, I'm happy to pay my taxes if my money can help other people -- e.g., social welfare programs that feed, shelter, train, and educate people; that help elderly people without means have a place to live and hot meals to eat; that give poor kids a good breakfast and lunch at school. Etc., Etc.

As long as the government is doing these things, I can even stomach having my tax dollars support churches through tax-exempt status -- that is, until they start promoting political platforms and attempting to interfere with the law of the land.

The LDS church crossed that line a long time ago, and it continues to buy political influence with my tax dollars. That is what I oppose. And I oppose it for any church that uses the pulpit to manipulate the law.

Go ahead and extol the value of self-reliance; in the end, it's usually a euphemism for selfishness.

KJohnson3,
Your use of the word "requires" implies that tithing is not voluntary, but it is. "Commandments" could be viewed as "requirements for complete happiness in this life and the next" but they still have to be lived voluntarily, or their purpose is not served and in fact a commandment is being broken.

Members of the LDS Church are encouraged to gain the blessings from living the divine laws of tithing and of the fast (including fast offerings) given in the Old Testament. I attest to those temporal and spiritual blessings abundantly in my own family.

As to tax laws and government's ability to use money wisely, why do you want people to be double-taxed (which is what you are asking) when the government is proven to be the most inefficient provider of real services and reallocator of resources? Alas, some people see the government as the answer to their problems and want all levels to have more of other people's money so those officials can solve their personal problems.

You might try self-reliance plus gratitude for what you have plus finding a way to help the poor without expecting the inefficient government processes to do it for you.

Booklover1,

Well, there are churches and then there are churches.

Some churches rely on what their congregations can spare at worship services and on the sale of cookies and chocolate bars.

Other churches ask for/require fees for various services and thereby make ends meet.

The LDS church, though, is different. Since it requires a 10% tithe annually, it can maintain an operating budget based on guaranteed income.

That income -- which is not technically or actually made up of donations -- should be taxed at the rates that govern other wealthy citizens.

And by the way, in response to your question "Who would voluntarily wish to surrender constitutional rights?" -- the answer is, of course, the American people, who couldn't seem to give away their rights fast enough when the Bush administration came calling.

Any church that has tax-exempt status (which is all churches) is merely claiming all its rights under the First Amendment. Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion -- and taxation has the power to destroy, so churches are tax-exempt. It's a pity that this simple concept, taught in junior high schools nationwide, seems to elude some of the commenters on this website. Perhaps Pres. Obama should shift his focus to education reform -- it's obviously desperately needed.

So, kjohnson3, why don't you renounce your rights to free speech under the First Amendment? Then maybe churches will be inspired to follow your good example. Though don't hold your breath (wait, on second thought, hold your breath -- hold it as long as possible). Of course, the suggestion is absurd, who would voluntarily wish to surrender constitutional rights? No one. So perhaps we shouldn't ask others to do so. I doubt this logic can penetrate the fog of hatred that plagues some, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway.

The Church of Jesus Christ accepts NO government funding for its welfare efforts, unlike many other churches who have participated in Pres. Bush's faith-based initiatives. The Church remains debt-free and beholden to no one, and the Church routinely lavishes welfare assistance worldwide to those in need, regardless of their faith.

"[My church] simply doesn't accept government funding for its welfare efforts."

Wrong.

Any church that has tax-exempt status is accepting government welfare out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Renounce your tax exemption, Mr. Otterson, and then we'll talk.

It would have been VERY nice for the LDS to disclose the FULL amount they spent pushing Prop HATE through.

Are they going to be doing that soon???