The LDS Church has members of all political persuasions. The LDS Church has never to my knowledge excommunicated anyone for voting for a political candidate. Neither has the LDS Church to my knowledge endorsed a political candidate in the last 100 years. In fact the LDS Church has a policy of not endorsing political candidates.

The LDS Church has members around the world and most of them wouldnt even know the difference between Democrat and Republican politics in the United States. What difference does it make to a person in Chile? What difference does Chilean politics make to an American? Not much.

the LDS News Room states

"Political Neutrality TOPIC

The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The Church does not:

Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.

Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.

Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.

Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.

Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

To say that Mormonism is political is a stretch. Some people pretend that Mormonism is their least favorite political party and Recovery From Mormonism is their favorite political party. Neither the LDS Church or RFM are political parties. Stop acting like they are. My experience in Mormonism wasnt political at all. The only time I heard politics mentioned in a meeting was to say we dont engage in politics as church leadership. Members can discuss whatever they want amongst themselves in private conversations.

Harry Reid wasnt excommunicated for being a Democrat and neither were you. The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts which is very much Democrat controlled. The fact is Mitt Romney had to go along with many Democrat policies to become Governor. Many people view Mitt Romney as more Democrat than Republican. Many people here seem to make things up to fit their extremist views and try to silence others with emotionally charged statements.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The LDS Church has members of all political
> persuasions.

"Seven-in-ten U.S. Mormons identify with the Republican Party or say they lean toward the GOP, compared with 19% who identify as or lean Democratic – a difference of 51 percentage points. That’s the biggest gap in favor of the GOP out of 30 religious groups we analyzed, which include Protestant denominations, other religious groups and three categories of people who are religiously unaffiliated."

(Pew Research, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/ )

> The LDS Church has never to my
> knowledge excommunicated anyone for voting for a
> political candidate.

I don't know of any, either.
But since ballots are secret in this country, how would they know anyway?

> Neither has the LDS Church to
> my knowledge endorsed a political candidate in the
> last 100 years.

Given that doing so would cost the church its tax exemption, that's neither surprising nor unique in any way. No US church endorses specific political candidates.

The church *did* endorse CA Prop 8. And tell its members to give time & money to its passage. And spend a bunch of money on passing the measure itself, which it lied about and failed to properly report, resulting in fine for violating CA election laws.

> In fact the LDS Church has a
> policy of not endorsing political candidates.

Again, since doing so would cost them their tax exempt status, that's neither surprising nor unique (practically every church in the US has the same policy).

The church also *heavily* influences legislation in Utah. Representatives themselves have admitted to getting "suggestions" from the church for legislation, and of being called to the church office building for meetings on the church's position on issues -- expressed privately, not publicly, and which LDS representatives are expected to go along with.

Bottom line: the church tries really hard to make a good public show about "not being political" most of the time. However, many of the church's private and public actions belie that carefully crafted PR image of neutrality. Mormons know how the church wants them to vote, and they often do so.

"and which LDS representatives are expected to go along with."

What do you mean by LDS representatives? The leadership represents the LDS Church. When members vote for a governmental representative it doesnt have anything to do with the LDS Church. Just because the LDS Church leaders talked to Government leaders doesnt mean there is this huge conspiracy going on.

Just because the majority of members of the LDS Church (in the US) are Republican DOESNT mean that the LDS Church is FORCING them to be Republican. That is CLEAR from the fact that 20% (according to you) arent Republican (in the US).

Plus you threw in the words US Members. The LDS Church is an international organization. Dont take little samples then try to pretend like it represents the whole when you should know that isnt how it is.

How did they know they were expected to go along with a political position when the LDS Church doesnt express political positions? If so show me a member who was disciplined for going against it. If their is no discipline for not going along with it then how is there an "expectation" to do so? If there was an expectation then there would a consequence.

How is it that Forbes rated Salt Lake City 8th out of the top 10 cities for LGBT people? Forbes rated Salt Lake City as more friendly to LGBT people than Los Angeles California. Plus Salt Lake City just elected an openly gay woman as its mayor.

How is it that people claim it is a theocracy but their mayor seems to be against everything the LDS Church believes in and Forbes agrees with that?

Nothing wrong with pointing this out, but it doesn't mean everything about mormonism and recovery is connected to this fact.

I'd say the reason SLC is a haven for gays and possibly for democrats is because the rest of the state is so inhospitable. Anyone in Utah who wants a looser more diverse society flocks there to find it.

Your statement that "the LDS Church doesnt express political positions" is credulous in the extreme.

The LDS Church makes statements. Those statements may be about political issues but the reason why they are making the statement is because of their theology not because of politics. Big difference. The theology of the LDS Church is the same around the world regardless of the politics of the country the member lives in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 06:44PM by isthechurchtrue.

So a matter that everyone else considers political is not political for the Mormon church if they care about it?

That's like saying, I obey all laws. Where something conflicts with my interests and desires, it's not really a law.

That is a patently ridiculous statement, but it has the dubious virtue of being how the LDS church in fact operates. Of course, the United States did not accept that logic during the days of polygamy, and the California election authorities rejected it when they punished the church for violating the campaign laws in 2008.

It appears that the church and you are pretty much the only people who accept your definition of "politics."

Explain how the LDS Church's policies are the same around the world regardless of the politics of the city state or country where the member lives.

If their motivation is Utah politics then why would they have the exact same policy in Chile? Why have the same policy in Chile and Mexico when their politics are very different?

The LDS Church doesnt change its beliefs based on which political jurisdiction you live in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 07:02PM by isthechurchtrue.

The LDS church doesn't get to decide what issues are political or not. Those things are decided by the cultures and countries in which the church operates. The motivation behind engaging in politics does not matter, as the courts have held many, many times.

"The LDS church doesn't get to decide what issues are political or not"

Exactly. That would be like a pedestrian getting hit by a car then having someone ask why the pedestrian ran into the car when the pedestrian was standing still and the car was going 40 MPH.

You missed the point.

If the church doesn't get to decide whether an issue is political, it doesn't get to excuse its intervention in policy debates and elections by saying "it isn't political." Regardless of its assertions, it will be held legally accountable.

The church, and you, can say whatever it wants. That doesn't obviate legal or regulatory culpability.

No. You missed the point of the 1st amendment to the constitution.

You cant just call someones religion a "political issue" then demand that they are no longer allowed to talk about their beliefs because they are now "political."

The 1st amendment gives the highest protection to religious speech.

Was the church fined for violating campaign finance laws in California in 2008?

This is very important. I was talking about speech. You are talking about donating money. Those are 2 completely different things.

The LDS Church did pay a fine for not reporting their non-monetary contributions to a political campaign. But you fail to see the details once again. They werent fined because they werent allowed to do what they did. They were fined because they didnt report it on the proper paper work. Big difference once again.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Explain how the LDS Church's policies are the same
> around the world regardless of the politics of the
> city state or country where the member lives.

They have the same politcal stances no matter where they are. I can't imagine how that supports your claims...

> If their motivation is Utah politics...

Nobody said anything about their motivation being "Utah politics." Only that they have the most influence in Utah.

You have a great talent for not addressing the issues raised, and bringing up straw-men. You must work for FAIR...?

> The LDS Church doesnt change its beliefs based on
> which political jurisdiction you live in.

It has in the past.
But in any case, that's (once again) irrelevant to your argument.

"They have the same political stances no matter where they are. I can't imagine how that supports your claims..."

If their beliefs were to influence a local political theater then there wouldnt be any reason to push those beliefs world wide.

Mormonism is a religion. You sound like Mormonism was some sort of trick to disguise a political party as a religion. I dont think so. You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "and which LDS representatives are expected to go
> along with."
>
> What do you mean by LDS representatives?

Legislative elected representatives who are also LDS.

> When members
> vote for a governmental representative it doesnt
> have anything to do with the LDS Church.

Oh, please.

> Just
> because the LDS Church leaders talked to
> Government leaders doesnt mean there is this huge
> conspiracy going on.

I didn't say anything about a "conspiracy." This is simply how government is done in Utah. Nice straw-man.

> Just because the majority of members of the LDS
> Church (in the US) are Republican DOESNT mean that
> the LDS Church is FORCING them to be Republican.

I never said anybody was forcing anybody to do anything.
Another straw-man.

> That is CLEAR from the fact that 20% (according to
> you) arent Republican (in the US).

So you ignore the 80% that ARE. Hmm.

> Plus you threw in the words US Members. The LDS
> Church is an international organization. Dont take
> little samples then try to pretend like it
> represents the whole when you should know that
> isnt how it is.

I only mentioned the US because we have good, reliable data on what party members are. That's not the case worldwide.
It's also where the church is based, and where it exerts the most political influence.

> How did they know they were expected to go along
> with a political position when the LDS Church
> doesnt express political positions?

It does express political positions. It just doesn't always do so "officially." I gave you one example where it DID do so "officially" -- why ignore that one?

> If so show me
> a member who was disciplined for going against it.

Kate Kelly. Ex'd for supporting equal rights for women.
Not that it matters -- just because they don't excommunicate people doesn't mean they aren't exerting political pressure.

> If their is no discipline...

False premise. Excommunication isn't the only form of "discipline," either official or unofficial.

> How is it that Forbes rated Salt Lake City 8th out
> of the top 10 cities for LGBT people?

Good for SLC. That ranking says nothing whatsoever about whether or not the church exerts political influence on its members.

> How is it that people claim it is a theocracy...

Another straw-man. I never claimed it was a theocracy.
It USED to be...

> ...but
> their mayor seems to be against everything the LDS
> Church believes in and Forbes agrees with that?

You do realize that SLC isn't the whole state, right?
Just checking.

"That ranking says nothing whatsoever about whether or not the church exerts political influence on its members."

Well considering that you didnt offer any proof at all that the LDS Church forced anyone to support a candidate or party or disciplined anyone for not supporting a candidate or party there was nothing to refute to begin with. The only thing the LDS Church forces people to follow is their theology just like any religion. As absurd as you consider their theology to be it is what they are about.

What I see is a church talking about issues based on their theology. If a candidate wants to run on an issue or with a political ticket it is completely up to them and is not controlled by the LDS Church.

Politics are constantly changing. Their theology for the most part doesnt. That shows their motivation isnt political. Its religious.

LDS theology for the most part does not change?

What planet do you live on?

For example (since people are complaining about the issue of gay marriage): The LDS Church has always opposed gay marriage on theological grounds (from its creation) before it became a political issue. Just because they continue to follow their religion on an issue that has become political doesnt make them political. Its like when Ronald Reagan said I didnt leave the Democrat party. The Democrat party left me. That is a big difference. Ronald Reagan didnt change. The Democrat party changed which put him outside of it.

Theology is the study of God or a system of beliefs about God. You asserted that LDS theology doesn't change. The fact is that half of the BoM teaches a Trinitarian notion of God and the other half teaches that God and Jesus are separate. Lectures on Faith, which was part of the D&C for decades taught that God was a personage of spirit and not flesh. King Follett introduced the radical new notion, nowhere in scripture, that there is an infinite hierarchy of Gods. Not much constancy in theology, then.

In this post you switch to arguing that church doctrine doesn't change. You say that the church's position on homosexuality hasn't changed, yet Michael Quinn has written extensively on this and shows that in the 19th century the church didn't really care. Regarding abortion, which you raise elsewhere in this thread, the church didn't have a position until the 1930s. On other doctrines, there's that polygamy thing--big change there, so too LDS notions of God--and oh yes, the priesthood ban. The truth is that church theology and doctrine change direction faster than the wind on an blustery afternoon.

And as for the notion that fidelity to one's beliefs (assuming counterfactually that the church ever had such a trait) excuses involvement on one side of an issue that for whatever reason becomes political, there is no legal or constitutional basis for such an assertion. Nor have you addressed the church's direct and illegal interventions in public political debates.

You and your church are insisting on a definition of "politics" that no one else accepts.

1) "You asserted that LDS theology doesn't change" No I didnt. Dont misrepresent what I said. I clearly said for the most part it doesnt change. Big difference.

2) You listed a bunch of issues that arent political so how is that an example of them being political? It isnt.

3) You listed some theological beliefs that were changed based on politics but you missed the key part. That was politics changing the LDS Church not the LDS Church changing politics. See. The truth is in the details.

4) "there is no legal or constitutional basis for such an assertion. Nor have you addressed the church's direct and illegal interventions in public political debates." So you think it is illegal for the LDS Church to express their beliefs? What are you even talking about? What?

5) "You and your church are insisting on a definition of 'politics' that no one else accepts." I am not Mormon. What are you even talking about? My church? What? You sound VERY confused.

1st Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is that constitutional enough for you?

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) "You asserted that LDS theology doesn't change"
> No I didnt. Dont misrepresent what I said. I
> clearly said for the most part it doesnt change.
> Big difference.

Really? Big difference?

If you insist. You still haven't explained why changing the number of God(s), whether God is a spiritual or physical being, whether God and Jesus are identical are not major changes in theology. Which of course they are.



> 2) You listed a bunch of issues that arent
> political so how is that an example of them being
> political? It isnt.

I listed points designed to show that your assertion that the church's theology (by which you meant "doctrine") doesn't change "for the most part" is false. Church doctrine is the shape of water.




> 3) You listed some theological beliefs that were
> changed based on politics but you missed the key
> part. That was politics changing the LDS Church
> not the LDS Church changing politics. See. The
> truth is in the details.

Do you mean "theological beliefs?" Probably not, since Mormons didn't change their beliefs regarding the nature of God due to political pressure. So you probably mean "doctrine" or "practice" changed under political pressure. That is obviously untrue regarding the church attitude towards homosexuality, which was not driven by US politics when it turned hostile many decades ago; nor regarding abortion, which was not a national political problem for the church when it decided to condemn the procedure in the 1930s.

What happened was that you claimed that the church's position on homosexuality and abortion was based on theology (you meant doctrine) and constant despite the passage of time. I demonstrate that those doctrines changed dramatically, and you now shift your argument to say that those changes were imposed by national politics. I'm not sure which is more important: that you are wrong on the substance (still) or that you have implicitly acknowledged that your original statements about immutability were false.

>
> 4) "there is no legal or constitutional basis for
> such an assertion. Nor have you addressed the
> church's direct and illegal interventions in
> public political debates." So you think it is
> illegal for the LDS Church to express their
> beliefs? What are you even talking about? What?

The answer to this paradox is simple. The government gets to pass laws restricting behavior of religions and religious believers all the time. The constitution limits the state's ability to restrict belief but not behavior. That is why the church was punished for violating California election law. It is why people the Lafferty brothers are in jail. I repeat: there is no legal or constitutional basis for your assertion that it is permissible for a religion or believers to act illegally--even if the they really, really want to.



>
> 5) "You and your church are insisting on a
> definition of 'politics' that no one else
> accepts." I am not Mormon. What are you even
> talking about? My church? What? You sound VERY
> confused.

Great. You are not Mormon. I'm merely trying to understand why you defend the church in the face of overwhelming evidence that the church is wrong in this instance.

1) "You still haven't explained why changing the number of God(s), whether God is a spiritual or physical being, whether God and Jesus are identical are not major changes in theology. Which of course they are."

I am not saying they didnt change their theology. You claimed I did which I didnt. You just misrepresent everything I say.

2) "The answer to this paradox is simple. The government gets to pass laws restricting behavior of religions and religious believers all the time. The constitution limits the state's ability to restrict belief but not behavior."

If you actually understood the first amendment then you would know that it guarantees a person right to freedom of speech. All I see them doing is expressing their beliefs.

3) "or that you have implicitly acknowledged that your original statements about immutability were false."

Again. The statement I never made but that you insist I made.

4) "in the face of overwhelming evidence that the church is wrong in this instance."

What overwhelming evidence? You seem to be disconnected from this conversation. You claim there is overwhelming evidence when you havent even provided any evidence. This thread proves the exact opposite of what you are saying. The underwhelming evidence that you provided is more like it.

Was the church fined for violating political finance laws in California in 2008?

Okay, I'm calling BS on this entire thread.

You wrote, at 7:42 PM ET:
"I am not Mormon. What are you even talking about? My church? What? You sound VERY confused."

But in your OP, posted at 5:26 PM ET:
"My experience in Mormonism wasnt political at all. The only time I heard politics mentioned in a meeting was to say we dont engage in politics as church leadership."

You're a TBM just trying to fuck with us. Screw you. I'm done wasting my time on this thread.

I am an ex-Mormon just like 95% of the people here.

You cant just accuse people of trolling because you disagree with them.

Swearing ISNT an argument either.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well considering that you didnt offer any proof at
> all that the LDS Church forced anyone to support a
> candidate or party...

Well, gee, since I never claimed the church forced anyone to do anything, I can't see why I should offer proof of something you made up out of thin air.

As I pointed out above, you don't address what's said, you misquote and make things up and change what's being talked about, and then pretend you're being honest (when you're not).

There's really no point discussing things if you're not going to be honest.

What a fine representative of your church you make with your obfuscations, dishonesty, and straw-men.
They must be so proud.

Here, let me give you a simple example of why your dishonest argument (making up your own definition of "political" and misquoting people) is such bullshit:

The NRA, as far as I know, has never forced anyone to do anything. The NRA has, as far as I know, never kicked out a member for voting for the "wrong" candidate.

Yet the NRA is manifestly "political."

Get the point?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 08:44PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"What a fine representative of your church you make with your obfuscations, dishonesty, and straw-men.
They must be so proud."

What Church? What are you even talking about? What?

"The NRA, as far as I know, has never forced anyone to do anything. The NRA has, as far as I know, never kicked out a member for voting for the wrong candidate.
Yet the NRA is manifestly political.
Get the point?"

I dont agree with your point because the NRA was created to be political and Mormonism was created to be a religion. Of course the NRA is political that is its purpose. The purpose of Mormonism is to be a religion. See the difference.

Your definition of what is political is what is messed up. You think that because a person makes a religious statement that influences others thoughts on politics then it must be a political statement. No. The statement was religious. The person took the information and made it political in their mind. That isnt the same thing.

For example (according to your thinking) if I went to Subway and ate a sub and thought I like this food. Maybe we should vote yes on prop 3 to allow subsidies for farmers so they continue to make good food like this then that makes subway political.

I dont think that so. Subway isnt a political organization. It just makes sub sandwiches. Could a persons perception of subway cause them to engage in politics? Yes it could. Does that make subway political? Not it doesnt. A person might walk by subway and think. "I am tired of these capitalists trying to make money on the starving people of my country." Does that make subway political? I dont think so. They just make sandwiches.

You've done it again: you've made your opponents' point.

You observe that "Subway isnt a political organization. It just makes sub sandwiches. Could a persons perception of subway cause them to engage in politics? Yes it could."

In your example, feelings about the issue--sandwiches--makes a person engage in politics. Just as feelings about public policy make the church engage in politics.

You have just explained why the church is bound by political finance laws and, by extension, why it was fined for breaking those laws in 2008.

Subway isnt a political organization. By your view of "political" it would make everything a political organization. That is non sense.

The customer is the person engaging in politics in my example. Subway wasnt engaging in politics. It was just selling sandwiches.

If you cant tell the deference there then I dont know what to tell you.

That is where your intellect fails you.

It is not Subway whose activities are regulated. It is the customers who try to change the laws that constrain the company.

It is not gay marriage that is regulated under campaign finance laws. It is those who engage in the political debate over gay marriage.

It is the process and the participants in the process, not the issue, that is subject to political regulation.

THAT is why the church was fined for violating the laws in 2008.

"It is those who engage in the political debate over gay marriage."

No. Debate is speech protected under the first amendment. Giving a political campaign money is another issue. You are trying to say they are the same when they arent.

Everyone in America has the 1st amendment right to engage in political debates and teach their religious beliefs. That is the basic understanding of the 1st amendment.

They don't allow abortion and they tend to favor conservatism.

These things are concerning and should not be overlooked but do not mean that posts on RfM must be partisan and dwell on politics when it isn't part of the issue under discussion. Nor do RfMers have to speak with one voice on these or other political issues since there are usually dozens of legitimate points related to every topic or fragment of a topic.

Saying no one can separate politics from religion is inaccurate since RfM has threads and replies every day that focus purely on politics with no hints about anything religion oriented even though this is against board rules.

Also, many posts are focused on religious issues and the posters refrain from expressing their views on political candidates or blatant political opinions. In fact this was the daily practice for many years until admin tried this less than successful experiment of trusting posters to curb political comments unless they are central to mormonism, recovery or an occasional important religious issue.

The basis for your argument is that the actions of the members equals the actions of the LDS Church and equals the actions of the Utah State Government. I dont think that is true at all.

From my understanding it is legal to have an abortion in Utah.
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter7/76-7-S302.html?v=C76-7-S302_1800010118000101#76-7-302(3)

Does the LDS Church say they oppose abortion. Yes they do. Is that a political issue. Yes it is. But they dont endorse political platforms. They get that from their scriptures not from political candidates or platforms. In other words the LDS Church would be saying that if it was or wasnt a political issue.

To answer your question "NO"

It's in his alias!

The church is very, very political.

Citing the church's own website on the matter is a bit like believing what a used car salesman tells you or buying, sight unseen, beachfront property in Florida. But moving beyond that, the article you cite says that the church does not endorse candidates or engage in party politics. Politics is much broader than that.

The church meets regularly with Utah political leaders, both in large groups and individually. There was also a recent MormonLeaks video in which an Oregon (?) legislator told church leaders how available he and his Mormon are and how much they want to hear the church's views on policy matters.

As for excommunicating people, it has been a long time since B.H. Roberts and Moses Thatcher were disciplined for running for office without the church's approval, Thatcher losing his position in the Q12; and the church adopted its Political Manifesto of 1895, forbidding church officials from running for office without permission. But Kate Kelly and John Dehlin would not accept with your assertion that the church doesn't demand obedience on political matters.

And Hie is correct about Prop 8 in California although that is but the tip of the iceberg. The church was also a major force behind Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000 in an effort to preclude gay marriage; and it also invested time and money in fighting gay rights in Hawaii and elsewhere. Hinckley had the wisdom to keep those efforts quite, but the Monson was foolish enough to reveal the sausage-making process in all its salaciousness.

The key question is whether one is willing to accept the church's assertion that "politics" only comprises party and candidate endorsements. When it comes to policy issues and advocacy, the church explicitly reserves "the right as an institution to address. . . issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church." In other words, it intends to use money and personal leverage to achieve whatever political ends it wants.

Former Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) explaining how his church membership is more important than his constituents or his own conscience (Iraq War) and how his office staff is church broke (48 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4FPVZH8fIg


and how Jeff Holland lies about it (with G. Smith audio; 5 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90EJXrG01O0


President Newsroom is lying. Did you expect us to just take their (and your) word for it?

Yes, that is the video I was referencing. It is revealing.

It sounds like Sen. Gordon Smith is endorsing the LDS Church not the LDS Church is endorsing Sen. Gordon Smith.

There is a huge difference there. Notice that the LDS Church is just being talked about. It isnt doing the talking.

Again, credulity.

The LDS church lobbies the Utah legislature frequently and insistently. Several ex-legislators, including Mormons, have complained about that publicly.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/08/04/former-utah-senator-criticizes-secretive-puppet-string-lobbying-by-mormon-church/

If you don't live in Utah, you can't comprehend how the church controls state politics. If you do live in Utah and still have your opinion, you're willfully ignorant to Utah politics and church involvement.

You're using a very narrow definition of "politics," limited to "officially and explicitly endorsing a specific party or candidate." As has been pointed out to you, they can't do that in the US without risking their tax-exempt status.

You keep bringing up Chile, as if that's even relevant. The church has no political leverage in Chile, so they can't exercise any. They have some political leverage in the US, thanks to their members in the House and Senate. Clearly, the church makes its preferences known to its proxies on Capitol Hill, as the Smith audio and video referenced above prove. They can also count on Hatch and Lee (and soon Romney) to do their bidding at all times.

They have immense leverage in Utah as the majority of state legislators are mormon. The point is, they use their political muscle, through back-door lobbying, to the extent of their ability. Whether the motivation is "religious" or "theological" or not doesn't matter, since it's still political influence. If you can't understand that it's because you're determined not to.

And how can you possibly say that church theology doesn't change "for the most part" with (presumably) a straight face? If you genuinely believe that, you know nothing of church history.

Or maybe you do, and you're just a troll trying to stir s*** up.

I was referring to the recent past since that is what people are talking about in modern times.

Equality for blacks.
Equality for women.
Equality for LGBT.

Three political ideas that the LDS has had trouble with.

The LDS Church had those beliefs long before they became political issues.

That means the LDS Church DIDNT CREATE those beliefs to influence politics.

The church can say that.

But once the country decides an issue is political, the church is bound by that decision. Whether the Mormon stance has always been that way or not does not matter politically, legally, or constitutionally.

All of these are political issues mate, always have been. Two of these - rights of women and blacks were issues being campaigned on before the church was founded.

Politics isn't just about parties snd politicians. Thank God, because in the USA that would be a narrow range that the two parties decide.

Not in the modern political sense it wasnt. People had much different ideas in 1830.

Oh. Good. Lord. A detailed response would be a waste of electrons.

That was very nicely put.

And I say that as someone who has squandered a fortune in electrons.

Saying Mormonism is apolitical makes about as much sense to me as calling Donald Trump moral.

It just isn't possible.

:/

Isthechurchtrue, your ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is showing.

You challenge my scribblings by stating that "debate is speech protected under the first amendment. Giving a political campaign money is another issue. You [Lot's Wife] are trying to say they are the same when they arent."

But they are the same thing. You didn't know that?

Take a look at the supreme court decisions in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon versus Federal Election Committee. In those (and many earlier cases) the court held that financial donations are a form of political speech. That equivalence was the constitutional basis for the decisions.

You then go on, informing us that "everyone in America has the 1st amendment right to engage in political debates and teach their religious beliefs. That is the basic understanding of the 1st amendment."

Well, you got one thing right: your "understanding" is definitely "basic." The topic of those supreme court decisions was the limits appropriate to political speech under the First Amendment. If the court held your views, the justices would not have upheld some restrictions. But they did.

Donations are political speech. Bottom line.

No. You just used the fallacy of equivocation. You used 2 different definitions for what "speech" is then used them interchangeably as if there was no difference.

Obviously, what I was referring to is a persons right to talk freely about their religious and political beliefs. That is covered by the 1st amendment.

Your juggling of multiple definitions of a word speaks volumes to your dishonesty.

Also it is fine to disagree but why do you all have to make up silly conspiracy theories like I am secretly Mormon or even worse I work for FAIR.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory to say that Mormonism is really a political organization disguised as a religion.

I don't know if you are Mormon or not. But you are using, and defending, their unreasonable definition.

As for my using two definitions. Nope. Go ahead and read the decisions. I am using the supreme court's definition, which is what matters when discussing the First Amendment. Your feelings have no constitutional relevance.

Ok, show me the supreme court case that says people dont have the right to talk about their religion in the United States.

Go ahead.

Because what you did was show a court case saying people cant make unlimited political donations. That isnt the same thing and you should know that.

You asked if the LDS Church had to pay a fine in California. They did because they didnt report their contribution to the political campaign.

They didnt have to pay a fine because they couldnt talk about the issues. They had to pay a fine for failing to file a disclosure form. Huge difference.

You, trying to equate, contributing financially to a political campaign with talking is absolutely dishonest.

Absolutely dishonest.