They should for the organization, not the individuals.
Yes for the organizations not the individuals.
The law with respect to Churches and taxes is only a federal law. So, you stay on topic. The poor pay no federal and state taxes.
You are simply having difficulty realizing you have lost this one big time. You want to keep the poor, blacks and Hispanic illegal aliens from participating in politics and that means voting 
KCā¦
This is a bit pickyā¦ but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Tax Exempt as per the IRSā¦ which means money collected through Tithing, Fast Offering, etc is Tax Exemptā¦
HOWEVER, the Corporation of the First Presidency IS a Tax paying Organizationā¦ For example, The Church Office building pays Taxes as well as several ranches the church owns. Then there is the Deseret Book. Bonneville International and Zionās Holding. I do believe the schools the church own also pays taxes.
So to say the Church pays no taxes is not accurate, because there are two sides of the Church (Church and the Corporation).
True, but the corporation isnāt the one getting into politics, the church side was what I was talking about. The corporation under those entities they hold are free to be involved, according to the law. The church is not. Itās pretty simple.
Trying to split hairs. The corporation is owned and run by the Church. Itās part of the Church.
Also, why are you opposed of individuals speaking out about politics? So what if they are leaders of the Church. I donāt understand your obsession with taxes being the measuring rod for speaking out about political issues that affect morality and the potential ability to freely exercise our right to believe and express our religion? My example of the poor that donāt pay federal and state taxes lines up with your opinion. A corporation is legally a āpersonā with respects to taxation. Whatās good for the goose is good for the gander.
Well can you tell me for certain that they are not? They are pretty intertwinedā¦
Next time you see a release from the Church, look to see if it says āCorporation of the First Presidencyā on itā¦
Not sure why you think the church can not express their opinions on Moral issuesā¦
Not sure where you get that the Church is not allowed to get involvedā¦ there is NO LAW about itā¦
In the requirements of a 501.c.3 it says: " it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates".
If the church release a statement on a Moral issue (Say Gay Marriage) that is not considered ālegallyā an attempt to influence Legislationā¦ Although that is the common theme here in Utahā¦
What they did in California, came close, but according to the legal experts reporting on it, it was close, but did not cross the lineā¦ I believe that is why First Presidency pulled back on other states.
I believe Perception is the issueā¦ just because the church takes a stand on an issue, is perceived by non LDS people the church is trying to pedal influence to the legislatureā¦
The other problem is that while they may be authorities in the Church, member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12 still has the right to get involved because they are citizens of this country. Many people mistake this as āinterferenceā when in actuality it participation in politics every American has the right to do.
Members forget that they are the Lordās servants only when they are performing their callings (by the gift of the Holy Ghost).
Here is the section on a 501.c.3 which allows āsomeā lobbying of Charitable organizations:
āIn general, no organization may qualify for section 501Ā©(3) status if a SUBSTANTIAL part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501Ā©(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.ā
2 Likes
Actually Prop 8 crossed the line, and the brethren were told there will never be another action taken like this. They are still laying legal fees fighting the aftermath of Prop 8.
Do you know the meaning of ālobbying?ā It doesnāt appear so. Putting out money to help with members (not legislators) to fight against sin and immorality is not crossing the line. The reaso the Church may still be in battling against law suits is because those Satan driven antagonists against the Kingdom of God on the earth are still bringing suits. Anyone can sue and they are. So, whose side are you on?
When and where did this happen? Please provide evidence.
Perhaps he meant the brethren told us there would never be another action taken like this. I donāt know. Iām sure there will be many battles still ahead with respects to good vs evilā¦The spineless will give in.
Unless you post in a particular thread, there is no way of knowing what is being said unless you read the entire thing or post something in that thread, etc.
Just another reason why I donāt like the new format.
Anyhow, is it just my imagination or do some of you need some grammar lessons? I know SG has some spelling issues but KC, I thought you were a little more on top of your game. Where do you come up with āmute pointā or ātax exceptā ? Isnāt it MOOT POINT and TAX EXEMPT? 
I can understand some misspelling once in awhile or the occasional improper usage of terms, but these are pretty basic.
I apologize if my comments are offensive but you guys are too intelligent for me to let this go. 
I am hoping for an answer to your question as well Russ.
What is a church supposed to do when moral issues cross into the realm of politics? Of course these things have always been a part of the equation but as the government intrudes more and more into our everyday lives it is bound to get worse.
As a member of a religious organization with specific beliefs, when and where does a person draw the line?
Iām much better with spelling. Although itās never been a strong point. My strong point is based in logic and reasoning 
And why should there be a line drawn?
100% mobile phone user for the new site, spell check and just iPhones inability to keep up with my thumbs
1 Like
The legal department for the church made this clear to the brethren, itās not going to happen again.
Well, how do you know this?
I have heard from multiple sources that Elder Perry has made comments about California and Arizonia, and why we havenāt got involved in other states. He said that God told them to tell us to get involved, but hasnāt said the same thing in other locales. He also hinted that the Church had a more significant influence/resources in California and Arizonia, where is did not in other places.
Donāt forget about auto correct making changes on youā¦ I get bit by that many times and donāt notice it until after I already post.
1 Like
A close family member on my wifeās side of the family is associated with the Q12 and told us about the legal departments instructions as well as the multiple ongoing legal fights they are still trying to settle. As well as the scare the government notice gave them.