LDS

[SezMe]

• At the very least the Church violated their own rule of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
• The Church should lose their 501(c) status for their over lobbying.

No argument from me but I would note that if the IRS really did enforce this section of the law they have an enormously rich field of targets to go after, not just the Mormons. Some (more than 1000, I think) Christian congregations participate in an organized program (I forget the name) where the preacher specifically endorses a candidate; they are looking for an opportunity to challenge the law on free speech grounds.

 

[Pup]

SO the church feels it is a moral issue, and will actively take a political stance on it, thus eliminating the rights of those that are not members of their church?

There is a difference between speaking out on moral issues, and being active on a political issue to strip rights from a segment of the population.

This issue actually intersects with a couple of things I "know to be true" without evidence.

While one can disagree with the church's views and argue against them, any actual attempt to stifle their involvement would be infringing on the right of free speech, by not allowing certain categories of people to recommend certain views to others that they associate with.

While I know (no evidence necessary) that marriage between any consenting adults should be allowed equally--which of course includes people of all races and sexual orientations--I also know (no evidence necessary) that free speech is vital for all people.

This is an example where those two rights intersect, but I have faith (without evidence) in the eventual triumph of more freedom and fairness if all sides of issues are debated openly. So in general, I come firmly down on the side of free speech, even if it's speech promoting a viewpoint I personally believe is wrong.

As far as the details--parade permits for Klan rallies, tax status for churches, laws concerning political donations, when public property can be used for religious promotion--it's all going to be sticky, and I don't know enough legal details about most specific issues to have an opinion on a lot of stuff.

But as a general guiding principle, I lean toward free speech as much as possible.

Edited to add: What amuses me on this issue is that the church could use it as a bargaining chip: We'll support your right to gay marriage if you'll support our right to have polygamy again. But polygamy has been so thoroughly eradicated from the mindset of the main Salt Lake City church (not counting the weird little sects that pop up here and there of course), that the congregation would be aghast at such a suggestion.

 

[Shalamar]

This issue actually intersects with a couple of things I "know to be true" without evidence.

While one can disagree with the church's views and argue against them, any actual attempt to stifle their involvement would be infringing on the right of free speech, by not allowing certain categories of people to recommend certain views to others that they associate with.

While I know (no evidence necessary) that marriage between any consenting adults should be allowed equally--which of course includes people of all races and sexual orientations--I also know (no evidence necessary) that free speech is vital for all people.

This is an example where those two rights intersect, but I have faith (without evidence) in the eventual triumph of more freedom and fairness if all sides of issues are debated openly. So in general, I come firmly down on the side of free speech, even if it's speech promoting a viewpoint I personally believe is wrong.

As far as the details--parade permits for Klan rallies, tax status for churches, laws concerning political donations, when public property can be used for religious promotion--it's all going to be sticky, and I don't know enough legal details about most specific issues to have an opinion on a lot of stuff.

But as a general guiding principle, I lean toward free speech as much as possible.

Edited to add: What amuses me on this issue is that the church could use it as a bargaining chip: We'll support your right to gay marriage if you'll support our right to have polygamy again. But polygamy has been so thoroughly eradicated from the mindset of the main Salt Lake City church (not counting the weird little sects that pop up here and there of course), that the congregation would be aghast at such a suggestion.

It's not so much an issue of free speech. They have the right to scream that it's immoral. But being completely tax free, does that give them the right to support, via their tax-free status, to spend money and influence the passing of a law that strips the rights from a segment of the population?

If they aren't allowed to endorse a candidate, why are they allowed to endorse ballots or propositions?

 

[John Jones]

This thread is about the alleged criminal activities of Joseph Smith, beginning with his 1826 trial.

It seems to me you would jump at the chance to start a thread in which you "prove," for example, that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative, or that it's a 19th century work, or that many of the items referenced in the BoM didn't exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. Surely, you know all about such matters, don't you?

The subject line says LDS. Joseph Smith was the founder of the LDS. How do figure this was off topic?

 

[Pup]

But being completely tax free, does that give them the right to support, via their tax-free status, to spend money and influence the passing of a law that strips the rights from a segment of the population?

As I said, I don't know enough about tax laws to comment. Is the Klan as an organization tax-free? What about Peta? Greenpeace? The local bowling club? The Masons? Are they allowed to support specific candidates and/or political issues?

I honestly don't know--don't follow such things closely enough. But I believe that the LDS church (or any church) should be taxed and regulated the same as organizations like those, since I see them all as the same general category: people who are like-minded on certain topics, voluntarily forming groups that aren't for-profit corporations.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The subject line says LDS. Joseph Smith was the founder of the LDS. How do figure this was off topic?

Yes. The OP simple states:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also known as LDS /Mormon, is a Christian denomination, but is neither Protestant nor Catholic... it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence.

 

[bruto]

The subject line says LDS. Joseph Smith was the founder of the LDS. How do figure this was off topic?

Since the OP includes the opinion that the doctrines involved are eternal, arguing with any kind of evidence that they are 19th century fabrications cannot be off topic even if it's wrong.

 

[skyrider44]

Not the same thing. Those are my opinions. The attribution IS MINE! I'm NOT talking about your opinions. I'm talking about your empirical claims.

Sorry, your diversionary tactic won't work here. You state the quotations I list as facts, without qualification and without equivocation--and you do it repeatedly, in post after post. (Yes, I can provide more examples.)

You appear unaware of qualifiers such as "I think," "It seems to me," "I could be wrong," "It's my belief," etc.

Do you suppose that I believe you can get inside Joseph Smith's head, read his mind, and weigh his motivations--and do so with certainty? That, in essence, is what you posit as fact. Apparently, you further suppose that to challenge your statements, I need to provide attributions. Why? Some of your statements about Joseph Smith, which, again, you present as fact, are--on their face--nothing but rank speculation. Finally, you suggest that your opinion constitutes legitimate attribution, as in "The attribution is MINE!" Oh, please.

If you are offering an opinion, say so.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, your diversionary tactic won't work here. You state the quotations I list as facts, without qualification and without equivocation--and you do it repeatedly, in post after post. (Yes, I can provide more examples.)

"Diversionary tactic"? They are opinions. Now, please to answer my question.

You appear unaware of qualifiers such as "I think," "It seems to me," "I could be wrong," "It's my belief," etc.

I'll grant you the premise. They are opinions. Now you know. Will you please answer my question?

I need to provide attributions. Why?

You made a claim. BTW: Sky, if I make a claim that requires a source I provide it. Go back and check how many sources I've provided.

If I make an empirical claim I provide a source. You made an empirical claim YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE A SOURCE!

 

[skyrider44]

These are RandFan's opinions; as such, you may disagree with them, even offer contrary opinions. You may ask RandFan to support his opinions. You may even dispute RandFan's opinions. But the attribution for RanbdFan's opinions is, in fact, RandFan himself.

Your last sentence is problematic. Why? How is the reader to know when RandFan is stating an opinion and when he is stating a verifiable fact? If it's a verifiable fact, why the reluctance to provide attribution?

 

[RandFan]

Skyrider, which of the following is an empirical fact.

Presumably you mean claims such as these:

Post 1751: "A non-Mormon interpretation would be that because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guest at what was best."

Post 1746: "The world isn't a conspiracy theory against Mormons anymore than it is against Scientology."

Post 1767: "Faith leads people to false conclusions."

Post 1804: "Once you give a god like the Christian god attributes, the theology goes to hell in a hand basket."

Post 1811: "To be honest, yes, I'm sorry but they are impossible fairy tales."

Please to tell me which of these claims can be proven with empirical data?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sorry, your diversionary tactic won't work here. You state the quotations I list as facts, without qualification and without equivocation--and you do it repeatedly, in post after post. (Yes, I can provide more examples.)

You appear unaware of qualifiers such as "I think," "It seems to me," "I could be wrong," "It's my belief," etc.

Do you suppose that I believe you can get inside Joseph Smith's head, read his mind, and weigh his motivations--and do so with certainty? That, in essence, is what you posit as fact. Apparently, you further suppose that to challenge your statements, I need to provide attributions. Why? Some of your statements about Joseph Smith, which, again, you present as fact, are--on their face--nothing but rank speculation. Finally, you suggest that your opinion constitutes legitimate attribution, as in "The attribution is MINE!" Oh, please.

If you are offering an opinion, say so.

...and if you are offering evidence--empirical, physical, demonstrable evidence, from an unbiased, academically respectable source--of the domestication of barley in the pre-Colombian Americas, do so.

...or if you are offering evidence--empirical, physical, demonstrable evidence, from an unbiased, academically respectable source--of the existence of the modern horse, and its use as a beast of burden or transport, in the pre-Colombian Americas, do so.

...or if you are offering evidence--empirical, physical, demonstrable evidence, from an unbiased, academically respectable source--of the domestication and husbandry of modern cattle, in the pre-Colombian Americas, do so.

...or if you are offering evidence--empirical, physical, demonstrable evidence, from an unbiased, academically respectable source--of the existence steel production technology, and of the existence and use of steel artifacts, in the pre-Colombian Americas, do so.

You state opinions about mormon theology as bald statements, without any qualifiers. Why do you keep a blatant and pervasive double standard about the opinions of others? It seems to me that it is part and parcel with your unreasoned rejection a "anti-mormon" any source that disagrees in any way with your claims, while accepting uncritically any wholly-owned house organ of the church.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Your last sentence is problematic. Why? How is the reader to know when RandFan is stating an opinion and when he is stating a verifiable fact? If it's a verifiable fact, why the reluctance to provide attribution?

If the existence of the modern horse, and its use as a beast of burden and of transportation, in the pre-Colombian Americas is a verifiable fact, why the reluctance to provide attribution from an unbiased, academically respectable source?

If the cultivation of domestic barley, and its use as a foodstuff, in the pre-Colombian Americas is a verifiable fact, why the reluctance to provide attribution from an unbiased, academically respectable source?

If the existence of domestic cattle, and their husbandry, in the pre-Colombian Americas is a verifiable fact, why the reluctance to provide attribution from an unbiased, academically respectable source?

If the existence of steelmaking technology, and the existence and use of steel artifacts, in the pre-Colombian Americas is a verifiable fact, why the reluctance to provide attribution from an unbiased, academically respectable source?

If the semitic descent of mesoamericans is supported by DNA evidence, why the reluctance to provide attribution from an unbiased, academically respectable source?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

If you have facts, bang on the facts. If you don't have facts, bang on the table!

 

[skyrider44]

. . . if I make a claim that requires a source I provide it. Go back and check how many sources I've provided.

I listed in an earlier post claims you have made, and I demonstrated that you didn't provide a source. Your back-door explanation is that those claims were merely your opinion, and as such, you, yourself, constitute legitimate attribution. How, then, is a reader to separate your opinion from supportable, verifiable facts in text you post?

A claim is a claim, empirical or otherwise; you are responsible for it in every case. Opinion? Say so. Verifiable fact: Give attribution.

: If I make an empirical claim I provide a source. You made an empirical claim YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE A SOURCE!

That's probably true; however, it's not my standard operating procedure.

 

[The Norseman]

If I make an empirical claim I provide a source. You made an empirical claim YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE A SOURCE!

That's probably true; however, it's not my standard operating procedure.

There's no need to belabor the obvious.

 

[skyrider44]

Skyrider, which of the following is an empirical fact.

Please to tell me which of these claims can be proven with empirical data?

The "empirical data" point is irrelevant. You stated the claims as facts because you didn't say they constituted your opinion. I repeat: How are your readers to know when you are stating an opinion and when you are stating a fact? You would place that burden on them, wouldn't you? Opinions require some mitigating introduction, which can be accomplished with a short sentence or phrase. Why are you reluctant to do that? Do you fear it will weaken your argument?

 

[DragonLady]

Opinions require some mitigating introduction, which can be accomplished with a short sentence or phrase.

Not necessarily. One of the skills involved in critical thinking is learning to distinquish concrete facts from abstract ideas or subjective opinions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The "empirical data" point is irrelevant. You stated the claims as facts because you didn't say they constituted your opinion. I repeat: How are your readers to know when you are stating an opinion and when you are stating a fact? You would place that burden on them, wouldn't you? Opinions require some mitigating introduction, which can be accomplished with a short sentence or phrase. Why are you reluctant to do that? Do you fear it will weaken your argument?

What evidrence do you provide for this claim?

 

[SezMe]

If they aren't allowed to endorse a candidate, why are they allowed to endorse ballots or propositions?

See here. One snippet:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Note my highlight. Before 1964 there was no limitations on what religious organizations could do. Playing politics, Johnson traded some legal immunity for the restriction on candidate advocacy.