Prop. 8 Aftermath: It's Getting Worse

[Solon]

The church strikes me as being pretty good with legal issues. I'll bet in the end this is a non-issue, but it's still not the publicity LDS leaders want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us...th&oref=slogin

[Mormon Red Death]

Don't you know? The church is way more apt to lose its tax exempt status if gay marriage is legalized than this.

[Solon]

Don't you know? The church is way more apt to lose its tax exempt status if gay marriage is legalized than this.

That's right!!!!

Seriously, though, as remote as it might be, what do you think the loss of tax-exempt status would do to charitable donations from LDS members?

My memory's a bit hazy, but I remember something along the lines that a few years ago the state of Utah wanted to eliminate deductions altogether and go to a single flat-rate income tax. LDS officials spoke out against it, presumably because they feared that members would be less inclined to donate if they couldn't deduct it from their taxable incomes. The proposition died quickly and quietly.

Does anyone remember the details better than I do?

[Clark Addison]

That's right!!!!

Seriously, though, as remote as it might be, what do you think the loss of tax-exempt status would do to charitable donations from LDS members?

My memory's a bit hazy, but I remember something along the lines that a few years ago the state of Utah wanted to eliminate deductions altogether and go to a single flat-rate income tax. LDS officials spoke out against it, presumably because they feared that members would be less inclined to donate if they couldn't deduct it from their taxable incomes. The proposition died quickly and quietly.

Does anyone remember the details better than I do?

I do not, but, anecdotally, I have relatives who have lived in countries in which you can not deduct tithing, and they have told me that tithing payments are far less than they are in the US. Of course, even if they are correct in that, there could be other reasons for less tithing being paid (newer area with less of a foundation for members, poorer area with less discretionary income, etc.).

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's right!!!!

Seriously, though, as remote as it might be, what do you think the loss of tax-exempt status would do to charitable donations from LDS members?

My memory's a bit hazy, but I remember something along the lines that a few years ago the state of Utah wanted to eliminate deductions altogether and go to a single flat-rate income tax. LDS officials spoke out against it, presumably because they feared that members would be less inclined to donate if they couldn't deduct it from their taxable incomes. The proposition died quickly and quietly.

Does anyone remember the details better than I do?

I seem to recall that story. I am sure that donations would drop. The only question is: how much?

99% of the time, the Utah legislature does exactly as told by the LDS church. The only possible exception I can think of is when Marlin K. Jensen told them to back off on immigration a couple of years ago. It didn't seem to have much effect. And in that case, perhaps he didn't give enough specifics; he just told them to show compassion and to not go too far. And in some cases, they go beyond the mark. They interpreted the anti-gay marriage stance as a green light to block any and all legislation regarding gay rights.

[tooblue]

Don't you know? The church is way more apt to lose its tax exempt status if gay marriage is legalized than this.

Don't you know? The whole gay marriage question has nothing to do with it -- isn't the cause of it all -- the church is!

[UtahDan]

Mr. Karger said he respected the right of Mormons to vote in line with their religious beliefs, but added “if they’re going to play politics, then they need to play by the rules.”

I think this is sort of the issue for the church. This is not the sort of thing we typically get involved in so there is not a wealth of knowledge about the ins and outs of the law in this area, notwithstanding that I'm sure we have some bright lawyers working for the church.

Some things you just learn from hard experience. Would anyone really be surprised if the church because of its relative inexperience in these matters ran afoul of the law? I bet we did run afoul of the law, will end up paying a fine, and will not make those particular mistakes again. We do, in fact, need to learn the rules if we are going to play, but sounds a lot simpler than it is.

I predict, assuming there is some violation, that the church will pretty quickly admit that some mistakes were made in terms of reporting and will chalk it up to inexperience. That is what it should do anyway, IMO.

[creekster]

It is an interesting question,. I think the church was pretty clear in the directions it provided. For example, we had phone banks in our stake but they were all at private business and all involved donated phones. I am aware, however, of a few places where they used church phones to make calls. This was not supposed to happen.

The church's great strength in this type of effort is also its great weakness: individual members. The church provides specific instrucitons but as they are passed through leadership down to the indvidual members, it is a bit like playing the telephone game. Usually this is OK for chruch matters, becaseu the policy is adapted for the local congregation and everythign works fine. Here, however, if we are told not to use church facilities by the leaders, it ends up being "try not to use them unless you need to" and so they get used and you have a violation.

I have no doubt there were sporadic violations of the governing laws, but I think they will be very hard to find or prove and I do not think the churhc itself missed the point, I think the violations that may have occurred are likely to be found the result of overzealous or , ironicaly, disobedient members.

[tooblue]

I think this is sort of the issue for the church. This is not the sort of thing we typically get involved in so there is not a wealth of knowledge about the ins and outs of the law in this area, notwithstanding that I'm sure we have some bright lawyers working for the church.

Some things you just learn from hard experience. Would anyone really be surprised if the church because of its relative inexperience in these matters ran afoul of the law? I bet we did run afoul of the law, will end up paying a fine, and will not make those particular mistakes again. We do, in fact, need to learn the rules if we are going to play, but sounds a lot simpler than it is.

I predict, assuming there is some violation, that the church will pretty quickly admit that some mistakes were made in terms of reporting and will chalk it up to inexperience. That is what it should do anyway, IMO.

Or, maybe the church knows exactly what it is doing and is prepared to be held accountable ... because it feels it's members are prepared to be held accountable?

[TripletDaddy]

Am I missing something? What does this article have to do with the Church's tax exempt status?

[creekster]

Am I missing something? What does this article have to do with the Church's tax exempt status?

Tempting though it is to treat your post as a straight line, I will isntead agree, that it has nothing to do with taxd exempt status and only campaign financing, which is the issue I find interesting.

[RobinFinderson]

Ultimately the church is liable for its organizational structure, warts and all. Poor training is one of the disadvantages of a lay clergy. If, in the long run, the church loses its tax exempt status, that won't be such a big deal. Who ever said that following the prophet would not have a price?

[Solon]

And now some obscure rag called The New Yorker is chiming in.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/01/081201taco_talk_hertzberg

[Jeff Lebowski]

And now some obscure rag called The New Yorker is chiming in.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

Good old Newt:

Like a polluted swamp, anti-gay bigotry is likely to get thicker and more toxic as it dries up. Viciousness meets viscousness. “Look,” Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, said the other day (on the air, to Bill O’Reilly), “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence. . . . I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.” For diversity’s sake, he added that “the historic version of Islam” and “the historic version of Judaism” are likewise menaced—which is natural, given that gay, secular, fascist values are “the opposite of what you’re taught in Sunday school.”

I happened to catch that particular episode. What a couple of blowhards.

[LA Ute]

It is an interesting question,. I think the church was pretty clear in the directions it provided. For example, we had phone banks in our stake but they were all at private business and all involved donated phones. I am aware, however, of a few places where they used church phones to make calls. This was not supposed to happen.

The reality is this: The other churches -- Evangelicals and the African-American Christian churches, for example -- used their buildings and premises freely. I am not a tax lawyer but it is my understanding that there's no danger to their tax-exempt status for doing so, because Prop 8 was legally non-partisan. The LDS were simply very conservative and were instructed not to engage even in behavior that was permissible, like having organizing meetings in buildings, distributing literature, etc. The point to remember is, even if the LDS done those things, there would be no jeopardy to the Church's tax exemption.

I have heard of situations in which people got carried away and the guidelines from the Church (Elder Clayton) were not followed, but I think they were a tiny minority.

My strong impression is that if Karger and his group want to go after someone they should go after the other churches -- they'd have a better chance. But we are a target because the LDS effort was highly organized and very effective. We are, franklly, an easier target than the others because we are less well-known and people tink we are weirder than the more mainstream orthodix churches. And -- Prop 8 would not have passed without us. The undeniable fact is also that it would not have passed without the Catholics, who got started over a year ago and the 1,000,000 signatures and the early money, or without the Evangelicals, who also got the early money in the door, or without the support of African-Americans, who enabled the Yes side to win L.A. County. We Mormons did not even get on board until June. But again, we are a much easier target.

I think Fred Karger is mainly full of hot air and quite angry at the LDS Church. I have heard him on several TV and radio shows and he is not careful with the facts. The effort to get the Church in trouble is not going to produce anything other than perhaps some technical violations.