Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[JoeNormal]

Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church [Mormon] and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people.

I am not a member of the Mormon faith but do frequently attend meetings and classes with them. You state they are wonderful people, which they are and they have strong family units. The leaders in each of their churches are volunteers and are paid nothing. They have full-time day jobs and choose to serve the church. Their youth commit to two years as missionaries in every part of the world subsisting on the generosity of other Mormon's in that area. That begins when they are eighteen. If their assignment is to be in a foreign country, they are taught that language.

How is that a bad thing and what business is it of yours what they do with their money?

For one thing, because those of us outside of the church have to make up the tax money that evaporates thanks to deductions for huge families and the tax exempt contributions to the church. For another, we are treated as second class citizens in our home state because of the crappy influence of the church in political affairs.

Okay, again, we need to address this "tax money evaporates" assertion you keep throwing around. You really need to come to grips with the fact that people's income belongs to THEM, not to the government. To say that "tax money evaporates" when people aren't compelled to give it to the government to spend is to imply that the government has an implicit right to ALL of your money, and what you keep is what they are generously allotting you.

As for "deductions for huge familes", tell me something: do you claim deductions for your offspring, or did you when they were young enough? Why or why not?

Do you claim deductions for charitable contributions you make on your taxes? Or do you feel that that is "evaporating tax money" and burdening other people by doing so?

In regards to your continued hatred of living in a place where you are outnumbered by Mormons, I will say it again: Move. I've been to Utah, and I feel pretty safe in saying that the Mormons are not holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to live there.

There's that black and white, right wing thought that I've been waiting for. I can see the value that the government provides from the tax money that I contribute so that means I give them the implicit right to take ALL of my money. Uh, yeah, right.

As for leaving, I did manage to escape for 5 years. I came back when my parents needed some help and in the meantime, life happened and now I'm stuck for a while. Don't worry though, as soon as it's feasible for me to leave, I'll be gone with bells on.

Excuse me, I'M exhibiting "black and white thought"? Hypocrite much?

Is it just that you really don't see your own egregious behavior while nitpicking others, or you simply don't think yours matters because, after all, YOU are right?

I thought I made it clear the I saw different members of the church in different ways. Did you miss that? Or does everything just get filtered through your black and white lens?

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

Oh, okay, the solution isn't for you ******* leftists to stop trying to make everyone conform to you. It's for the rest of us to just stop thinking we should have a right to live as we choose and influence the policies and societies in our own states, and we should abandon the entire country to you.

And naturally, once we left the United States and went to form our own country, you leftists wouldn't DREAM of ******* following us and trying to "upgrade" THAT country to your standards.

Unfortunately for me, anywhere worth living is going to be subject to an influx of leftists who just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere disagrees with them. For example, I think the way leftists in California run their state is utterly insane and driving it into the ground. Therefore, I live in Arizona, which has always been a mostly red state, and I avoid California every chance I get. And what's happening? The California leftists are fleeing the results of their own retarded policies and flooding my state. And then they turn right around and try to impose the same bullshit here, because they're incapable of learning their lesson.

Unfortunately for YOU, there's a limit to how much real estate conservatives are willing to concede before we recognize that you fuckers are never going to stop trying to control the world and everyone in it, and decide to stand our ground and fight. I can assure you that that point is well short of us surrendering you the entire country, or even REMOTELY accepting your premise that you have a right to expect us to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hope you realize that assuming someone is "getting away with something" simply because you believe they CAN get away with something is utterly meaningless.

Once again, I have no idea which church you are specifically talking about, so I cannot address it. Therefore, we will not be conducting any sort of debate on their activities based on assuming that your assertions about them are correct.

Finally, I have no intention of condemning any organization for being "reluctant" to pay taxes. I consider eagerness to give money to the government to be a sign of mental illness.

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

Oh, okay, the solution isn't for you ******* leftists to stop trying to make everyone conform to you. It's for the rest of us to just stop thinking we should have a right to live as we choose and influence the policies and societies in our own states, and we should abandon the entire country to you.

And naturally, once we left the United States and went to form our own country, you leftists wouldn't DREAM of ******* following us and trying to "upgrade" THAT country to your standards.

Unfortunately for me, anywhere worth living is going to be subject to an influx of leftists who just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere disagrees with them. For example, I think the way leftists in California run their state is utterly insane and driving it into the ground. Therefore, I live in Arizona, which has always been a mostly red state, and I avoid California every chance I get. And what's happening? The California leftists are fleeing the results of their own retarded policies and flooding my state. And then they turn right around and try to impose the same bullshit here, because they're incapable of learning their lesson.

Unfortunately for YOU, there's a limit to how much real estate conservatives are willing to concede before we recognize that you fuckers are never going to stop trying to control the world and everyone in it, and decide to stand our ground and fight. I can assure you that that point is well short of us surrendering you the entire country, or even REMOTELY accepting your premise that you have a right to expect us to.

******? Moi? Do you kiss your dad with that mouth? So you're allowed to get angry that others try to influence the way you live but I don't have that right?

It sounds to me like you'd be happier living in the Bible Belt. Why don't you move there?

 

[JoeNormal]

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

Oh, okay, the solution isn't for you ******* leftists to stop trying to make everyone conform to you. It's for the rest of us to just stop thinking we should have a right to live as we choose and influence the policies and societies in our own states, and we should abandon the entire country to you.

And naturally, once we left the United States and went to form our own country, you leftists wouldn't DREAM of ******* following us and trying to "upgrade" THAT country to your standards.

Unfortunately for me, anywhere worth living is going to be subject to an influx of leftists who just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere disagrees with them. For example, I think the way leftists in California run their state is utterly insane and driving it into the ground. Therefore, I live in Arizona, which has always been a mostly red state, and I avoid California every chance I get. And what's happening? The California leftists are fleeing the results of their own retarded policies and flooding my state. And then they turn right around and try to impose the same bullshit here, because they're incapable of learning their lesson.

Unfortunately for YOU, there's a limit to how much real estate conservatives are willing to concede before we recognize that you fuckers are never going to stop trying to control the world and everyone in it, and decide to stand our ground and fight. I can assure you that that point is well short of us surrendering you the entire country, or even REMOTELY accepting your premise that you have a right to expect us to.

******? Moi? Do you kiss your dad with that mouth? So you're allowed to get angry that others try to influence the way you live but I don't have that right?

It sounds to me like you'd be happier living in the Bible Belt. Why don't you move there?

As a matter of fact, my father has been dead for about ten years, so I don't kiss him at all. Just as a point of information, I have even less interest in you trying to impose your personal preferences on how I post than I have in you trying to impose them in the political arena. If you don't like how Mormons vote, move out of Utah. If you don't like how I post, go talk to someone else.

Once again, there is a limit to how much real estate I'm going to concede to leftist invasion, particularly since leftists will, as I've said, JUST KEEP FOLLOWING ME. I was here first, Chuckles.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

 

[JoeNormal]

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

Oh, okay, the solution isn't for you ******* leftists to stop trying to make everyone conform to you. It's for the rest of us to just stop thinking we should have a right to live as we choose and influence the policies and societies in our own states, and we should abandon the entire country to you.

And naturally, once we left the United States and went to form our own country, you leftists wouldn't DREAM of ******* following us and trying to "upgrade" THAT country to your standards.

Unfortunately for me, anywhere worth living is going to be subject to an influx of leftists who just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere disagrees with them. For example, I think the way leftists in California run their state is utterly insane and driving it into the ground. Therefore, I live in Arizona, which has always been a mostly red state, and I avoid California every chance I get. And what's happening? The California leftists are fleeing the results of their own retarded policies and flooding my state. And then they turn right around and try to impose the same bullshit here, because they're incapable of learning their lesson.

Unfortunately for YOU, there's a limit to how much real estate conservatives are willing to concede before we recognize that you fuckers are never going to stop trying to control the world and everyone in it, and decide to stand our ground and fight. I can assure you that that point is well short of us surrendering you the entire country, or even REMOTELY accepting your premise that you have a right to expect us to.

******? Moi? Do you kiss your dad with that mouth? So you're allowed to get angry that others try to influence the way you live but I don't have that right?

It sounds to me like you'd be happier living in the Bible Belt. Why don't you move there?

As a matter of fact, my father has been dead for about ten years, so I don't kiss him at all. Just as a point of information, I have even less interest in you trying to impose your personal preferences on how I post than I have in you trying to impose them in the political arena. If you don't like how Mormons vote, move out of Utah. If you don't like how I post, go talk to someone else.

Once again, there is a limit to how much real estate I'm going to concede to leftist invasion, particularly since leftists will, as I've said, JUST KEEP FOLLOWING ME. I was here first, Chuckles.

Well, you won't need to worry about me following you. Arizona is way to hot and dry for me. But if someone does manage to influence things in a direction you don't like, there's always the Bible Belt.

 

[JoeNormal]

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

The they that I mean is church leadership.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

Oh, okay, the solution isn't for you ******* leftists to stop trying to make everyone conform to you. It's for the rest of us to just stop thinking we should have a right to live as we choose and influence the policies and societies in our own states, and we should abandon the entire country to you.

And naturally, once we left the United States and went to form our own country, you leftists wouldn't DREAM of ******* following us and trying to "upgrade" THAT country to your standards.

Unfortunately for me, anywhere worth living is going to be subject to an influx of leftists who just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere disagrees with them. For example, I think the way leftists in California run their state is utterly insane and driving it into the ground. Therefore, I live in Arizona, which has always been a mostly red state, and I avoid California every chance I get. And what's happening? The California leftists are fleeing the results of their own retarded policies and flooding my state. And then they turn right around and try to impose the same bullshit here, because they're incapable of learning their lesson.

Unfortunately for YOU, there's a limit to how much real estate conservatives are willing to concede before we recognize that you fuckers are never going to stop trying to control the world and everyone in it, and decide to stand our ground and fight. I can assure you that that point is well short of us surrendering you the entire country, or even REMOTELY accepting your premise that you have a right to expect us to.

******? Moi? Do you kiss your dad with that mouth? So you're allowed to get angry that others try to influence the way you live but I don't have that right?

It sounds to me like you'd be happier living in the Bible Belt. Why don't you move there?

As a matter of fact, my father has been dead for about ten years, so I don't kiss him at all. Just as a point of information, I have even less interest in you trying to impose your personal preferences on how I post than I have in you trying to impose them in the political arena. If you don't like how Mormons vote, move out of Utah. If you don't like how I post, go talk to someone else.

Once again, there is a limit to how much real estate I'm going to concede to leftist invasion, particularly since leftists will, as I've said, JUST KEEP FOLLOWING ME. I was here first, Chuckles.

Well, you won't need to worry about me following you. Arizona is way to hot and dry for me. But if someone does manage to influence things in a direction you don't like, there's always the Bible Belt.

You're really missing the whole "you don't get to invade an area, demand to change it to suit yourself, and then insist that anyone who objects leave" thing, arentcha?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

The they that I mean is church leadership.

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

If you are referring to European countries, yeah, they're more liberal and look at the shit problems they are having. Greece, Ireland bankrupt, Germany about there under the weight of their social programs, and France..... 43% tax rate. Not for me!!

 

[JoeNormal]

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding | The Huffington Post
Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City - CNN.com

I could go on.

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

The they that I mean is church leadership.

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

Read the ******* articles. Why do you think I posted them.

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting ******* EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

If you are referring to European countries, yeah, they're more liberal and look at the shit problems they are having. Greece, Ireland bankrupt, Germany about there under the weight of their social programs, and France..... 43% tax rate. Not for me!!

43% is about what I pay now for taxes, retirement and medical. If I had student loans, I'd be paying even more. France isn't a bad deal and much more liveable than the U.S. IMO.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you really feel you must, perhaps you could "go on" to telling me what your point is.

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

The they that I mean is church leadership.

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

Read the ******* articles. Why do you think I posted them.

I did read them. The question is, did you?

Apparently, I'm just not dumbing this down enough for you. I apologize for assuming a higher level of intelligence and perception for you than you actually have. Let me dumb it down and spell it out:

There's a difference between "The Mormon Church" and "individual Mormons". Learn it.

 

[JoeNormal]

Outside of Utah, they spent something like $9 million on political influence on gay marriage. Within Utah, they don't need to spend that much because most of our elected officials are members and have a pretty good idea of what the church wants. My wife and I chuckle whenever some new bill is being proposed. The TV announcer always says that the bill has been presented to the church 'for comment'.

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

The they that I mean is church leadership.

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

Read the ******* articles. Why do you think I posted them.

I did read them. The question is, did you?

Apparently, I'm just not dumbing this down enough for you. I apologize for assuming a higher level of intelligence and perception for you than you actually have. Let me dumb it down and spell it out:

There's a difference between "The Mormon Church" and "individual Mormons". Learn it.

No kidding. My beef is with The Mormon Church. I like/love most individual Mormons except for the super-stinky self-righteous ones. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

 

[LaDexter]

Those most cruel to the poor are those who

1. shut off private sector job growth by inflating taxes beyond the scope of our competitors
2. snuffing out private sector jobs with too many laws and regulations that just enrich attorneys
3. steal taxpayer funds hand over fist


The Dems are 3 for 3.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"They"? As in, "individual Mormons who have the same right to spend money on political campaigns that everyone else has"? Would that be the "they" you meant?

The they that I mean is church leadership.

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

Read the ******* articles. Why do you think I posted them.

I did read them. The question is, did you?

Apparently, I'm just not dumbing this down enough for you. I apologize for assuming a higher level of intelligence and perception for you than you actually have. Let me dumb it down and spell it out:

There's a difference between "The Mormon Church" and "individual Mormons". Learn it.

No kidding. My beef is with The Mormon Church. I like/love most individual Mormons except for the super-stinky self-righteous ones. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

And yet again, I'm forced to ask why leftists think being obtuse is a brilliant debate ploy, particularly against someone who has no intention of letting you deflect and move the goal posts.

There is no one on this board who is confused about the fact that you have a "beef" - which you apparently mean an unreasoning, fiery hatred - with the Mormon church. However, the topic under discussion here is whether or not the Mormon church donated money to political campaigns, or individual Mormons did so. For someone who claims to "love" individual Mormons, you sure do have a lot of trouble with constantly conflating them with the institution.

Furthermore, you are once again being an incredible hypocrite. I can't begin to imagine a Mormon who is more "super-stinky self-righteous" about his Mormonism than you are about your anti-Mormonism.

I don't know much about Mormon doctrine. Could you ask one of these Mormon friends you claim to have whether or not their church teaches the "splinter in your neighbor's eye" concept?