Proposition 8 take a break..we can reach our destination..but we're still a ways away
 

Well, the shiz is going to hit the fan soon...or at least it will get interesting.

Today I returned to our ward after missing last Sunday due to our vacation. I think I have mentioned here before that I teach the Priests during the 3rd hour. As expected, the Bishop also attends our class.

Since most kids were away on vacation this past week, there were only 2 priests in class today. We had some time to chat and I asked the Bishop about the "letter." I had initially been told that the letter had not been read in our ward, but the Bishop confirmed to me that he DID read the letter last Sunday.

I asked him why some wards read it last week, some did not, and some wards read it a few weeks ago.....inquiring as to whether the FP gives SPs and local leadership some discretion in reading these things.

He assured me that it was to be statewide last Sunday. He then busted out the cover letter that went with the actual "letter" that we have all seen here. His cover letter clearly stated that all Bishops were to read the letter on June 29.

Of more interest.....the events to come between now and Election Tuesday.

The Bishop said that the SP has instructed all Bishops in our stake of the following:

1. Over the next month or so (as early as next week for our ward), SPs, Stake HCs, and Bishoprics will be giving Sacrament talks focused on The Proclamation and other family topics. This will not be a 1-time Sunday event, but rather a common theme over several Sundays for the next few months...until the election.
2. Members of the Bishopric/Stake HC will be visiting some families asking them for donations. Bishop said that the Church has asked SPs to refrain from asking for donations from the pulpit or really during Church at all (political neutrality...). Bishop said not every family will be asked. I didnt asked what the criteria was, but my guess is that the older, wealthy families will be the ones asked to contribute.
3. As of now, there is no mandate for door-to-door campaigns, but the SP said that it was not definitely still possible.
4. We will also be encouraged to place anti-Prop 8 signs on our lawns.
5. The mantra for this movement is not "anti-gay," but "pro-family."

I asked the Bishop what would happen if he went to a family's home and they refused to donate or go door to door. The Bishop responded that it was "[our] job to help these families understand the seriousness of this issue." I didnt push him for the scenario in which the family does not agree with the seriousness of this issue because we were in front of the 2 priests and I didnt think it was the right time to go into all of that.

This is a very interesting position for me because I have never really "opposed" anything in the Church before. The last time this issue was raised in California, our ward was not asked to go door to door, so I only heard the letter read in Sacrament meeting. I didnt have to or refrain from anything because there was no individual accountability. It seems that this time, the Bishopric may come into my home and talk to me face to face.

I might need to borrow a gun from one of you guys to protect myself from the righteous indignation that will accompany the visit.

Good luck with all that.

Go out with some hookers and give your bishop something else to be concerned with.

I just read on CB in an FO post that in PEC today, this CBer was shown the donation slip the is specifically for Prop 8......min donation $50, max $5,000....Bishopric instructed to ask families to give all they can give.

Each slip has a space for ward and stake designations, so all donations will be tracked.

I may fill out a slip and put "zero" on the form....civil disobedience-style.

I really wish the Church would truly stay politically neutral. It is putting a lot of people in an awkward position unnecessarily.

Similar to all of you, my Bishop has built up an immunity to my hijinks.

This whole thing makes me a bit sad. a week or so ago, mikewaters linked a proposed bit of legislation aimed at helping children of immigrants....why dont we get involved in something like that? Something more uplifting for the community that helps instead of divides?

As I was driving home this morning from Vegas, I kept thinking about the irony of our aggressive shift towards legislating morality....when until recently, there was still an Extermination Order on the books in Missouri...the direct result of local government mandating against things they though were weird, but were not really doing them any harm.

Can we just please leave gay people alone? Let's show them the same compassion in our legislation that Utah lawmakers we were recently asked to show illegal immigrants. Sheesh.

odd that this is the battle cry for Monson's era. I wonder if this is Monson or Eyring.

What chances are it that the Proposition will be adopted?

all you have to say is "I've prayed about it, and I'm unable to support it at this time."

Or, "I'm against gay marriage, but what I'm more against is a constitutional amendment prohibiting it." Then grab a folder full hundreds of pages of print-outs and say, "I'd be happy to discuss the legal, moral, and spiritual underpinnings of this."

I am guessing that it will pass, but solely based on the fact that the last vote passed overwhelmingly. Admittedly, not scientific, but a fair barometer. The last vote was when.....about 5 years ago? I wonder if attitudes have shifted since then?

Triplett, this is brilliant.

By refusing to participate, you're excluding yourself from more time-consuming callings. Brilliant.

Il Padrino and I should be so proud at your laxity.

I suppose you are right.

There go my dreams of ever being an Area Authority.

Interesting events, DDD. Thanks for posting that.

I wonder how I would react if I were a church leader in California right now? There is no way I could support that movement. I am sure there are leaders there that feel the same way.

You want my little theory? This isn't Monson at all. Probably not Eyring or Uctdorf, either.

My guess is that somebody in the twelve with sufficient muscle and momentum is encouraging the First Presidency to sign the letters and pass out the memorandums that would have been quashed under President Hinckley's direction while the new guy is still cutting his teeth on the mantle.

As if Monson is a greenhorn and still finding his sea-legs?

This is a continuation of 2000. Hinckley signed off on that, didn't he?

My father-in-law lived in California during the last time around, and was asked by the Stake President to donate money to the cause. He's a pretty conservative guy, but was against the proposition. He said he would think about it, but did not end up donating. The SP never followed up and nothing more was done.

There must be church leaders in CA who are against this. I'd be interested to see how they're handling this.

Why is everybody discounting the possibility that Jesus Christ himself inspired his prophet, seer and revelator, Thomas S. Monson, to take this course of action?

Because that possibility's a given.

I don't buy that for a second. President Monson isn't holed up in a downtown apartment being nursed through his Benson-esque senile dementia. He's aware of and behind this action.

I think that allows them to feel more comfortable about criticizing this.

How could Christ be behind this, didn't he teach us to love one another?

This is being dreamed up by those old men in downtown SLC just because they hate gay people.

Wouldn't it just be so much easier for the LDS church to open their arms and embrace homosexuality, look at all of the people the church would have instantly join the ranks because they love homosexuals.

After that they could petition to reinstate polygamy because how could two men plugging each other be worse than a man and 27 women? Than we could move onto the men and women who want to marry children and have sex with them, what could possibly be wrong with that, after all what happens behind closed doors is nobody elses business, right? And the argument that it is bad for society, well...... Throw that one out because how could two homosexuals possibly benefit society if they can't reproduce?

Next we move onto brothers and sisters marrying each other, or mothers marrying sons and Fathers marrying daughters, after all they could possibly love each other, now what is wrong with that?

This is just getting started, but tell me where any of this is any worse than two homosexuals marrying each other? You can't because it is all morally wrong, but hey who is the LDS church to teach and preach morality?

Next thing you know we will have one guy marrying 25 women!

Leaders speaking does not mean "the thinking has been done."

If they want this memo to be considered revelation from God, then they need to take steps to put it in the canon. I will then exercise my common consent.

There are those who believe that anything the leaders say is by definition, "revelation from God".

Yes, and that position is not scriptural (see D&C 107 & Deut. 18). George Albert Smith came down on that in his letter to the minister that expressed his embarassment of the notion that "when are leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done."

Joseph Fielding Smith stomped on such an idea too.

So did Joseph F. Smith, Charles Penrose, and Hugh B. Brown. I'm sure there are others.

I remember my freshman year at BYU, Reed Benson taught just the opposite. "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

I am not ready to go against the teachings of Reed Benson.

Just received this email from the Bishop. It includes a forward from the Stake President. I have removed names soas to protect the innocent.

I would normally teach this lesson, but since last month, I have been attending EQ on the fourth Sunday (so I can actually meet people my own age in my ward). The Bishop subs for me on 4th Sunday, so looks like it was meant to be that I attend EQ. It would have been VERY hard for me to teach this lesson.

Again, not sure it is a great idea that local Church leaders are wanting us to tie religious teachings to an upcoming Amendment election. Lobbying seems to put the tax-exempt status in jeopardy....

******

From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:30 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: 4th Sunday

Dear 5th Ward YM and YM leaders,

Please arrange for the talk by Elder Ballard below to be the subject of 4th Sunday YM and YW classes this month.

Bishop x

Here is more specific info/clarification on the 4th Sunday lesson for
July:

July 27: Teachings of our Times Lesson: Elder Ballard: "What Matters
Most is What Lasts Longest," Liahona November 2005
This is to be taught in all our classes, groups and quorums

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:54 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: 4th Sunday

Brothers and Sisters,

The Stake Presidency has asked us to change the 4th Sunday lesson for
July to the talk by Elder Ballard that President x references
below. This subject of heeding the Prophet's voice should be tied to
the current California marriage amendment issue.

Bishop x

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:42 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: 4th Sunday

Here is the link to Elder Ballard's talk for use on the 4th Sunday.

Pres x

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...____&hideNav=1

I seriously doubt this is an autonomous move by local leaders. More than likely, this has been filtered down through the FP down through the chain of command down to the Area Authorities who then have the Stake Presidents instruct their units to do the above.

I dont disagree with you. I never mentioned autonomous moves or local mutiny. I simply stated that the emails were from local leaders. relax, tex.

From a tax exemption perspective, it seems even worse if it is coming from Church leadership.

I fail to see how this endangers their tax exemption.

I thought you were a stats guy? Are you trained in tax? If not, then why would you expect to be able to see it?

You mean things like calculating life insurance tax reserves, and understanding things like IRS codes 101f, 409A, 7702, 7702A and an assortment of revenue rulings?

Nope. Not me.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. You dont even deal with the entire section, just sub-sections.

You are not a tax guy, so give it a rest. Dont pretend to be one. You start sounding like Statman that way.

Do you ever do much 501 stuff, because if you did, it would actually be relevant to our conversation.

How about just giving a brief explanation why opposing Prop 8 endangers the church's tax exempt status.

The church throwing its support or opposition to various voting measures, including fundraising by its membership, is hardly a new development and yet their tax exampt status has never really been challenged.

You don't have to be a tax guy to know that. Hence, I fail to see how supporting Prop 8 endangers their exempt status.

Thanks in advance.

This is a very basic code section, but I am convinced that most have never read it.

In relevant part:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., 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.

With regards to lobbying specifically:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
****
Obviously, that the Church spends a "significant" portion of its time lobbying is not likely. The educational exemption goes out the window when we are told by religious leaders to teach the congregation on Sunday.

Overall, will it hamr their status? Extremely unlikely. But it certainly flirts with the line and is definitely NOT the behavior of a politically neutral organization.

Update: today, 2 talks in Sacrament....1 from Bishop, 1 from Stake President (1st C).

Stake Presidency shared the following:

1. 2 Sundays ago on the morning the letter was to be read, there was a video conference with all SPs in California and the 12, FP, and cannot remember whom else. The purpose was to reiterate the importance of this Prop 8 initiative.

2. The Stake has been given the goal of visiting every stake member household for the purpose of soliciting funds.

3. The talks were interesting, nothing new. Except the SP mentioned that one of the legal reasons we are against gay marriage is for reasons of adoption. The SP shared that in Boston, a suit was brought against the Catholic Church after gay marriage was made legal because the Catholics would not allow for gays to adopt through the CC adoption channels. As a result of the suit, the Catholic Church no longer handles adoptions in the state.

After the talk, a bunch of questions ran through my head....first and foremost was why the LDS Social Services in Mass was not also forced to allow gays to adopt through its channels.

After the meeting, I went up to the SP and politely engaqed him, asking for more info. He said that he was only sharing the story anecdotally.....the Catholic Church had been accepting federal monies to help run their adoption agencies and this were compelled by the state to not discriminate. The SP acknowledged that LDSSS does not accept federal money and would therefore not be compelled by lawsuit to "not discriminate." In other words, gay marriage would basically have zero effect on LDS adoptions through LDSSS.

I had never heard of this lawsuit before so I asked the SP for the reference. He said he would get back to me.

Hmmm...

The Boston Diocese recently made the news on this issue and case.

I started looking it up a little bit ago.

This article raised some very good points:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...kgwgh.asp?pg=1

And this article popped up......I forgot about this pro-gay rights guy....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._gay_adoption/

I have a hard time taking any article seriously that uses the phrase "Adam and Steve."

I disagree that children in Mass. will suffer. These "unwanted" children will now be available to a larger pool of people (i.e gays). I disagree with the premise that the Catholic adoption agency can't be replaced by one or many that cater to a more inclusive group of people.

I agree with your points....but I do have a problem with the state telling a Church that does not use federal or state money that it also has to allow gays to adopt.....for the same reason that I am opposed to the state using religious reasons to prevent gays from marriage. State and Church need to stay out of each other's backyard.

I can agree with that.

By the way, would you include blacks among those that are allowed to be barred?