robert perkins

I've been giving thought over the years regarding the Church's
involvement in various political processes, especially considering the
recent activist efforts to change or maintain laws about marriage and
family in the U.S. or elsewhere. [1]

As a bit of background, I note that at least every other year in the
U.S., as the elections for the Congress and the President approach,
the Church republishes a letter which declares the neutrality of the
Church with regard to political party, endor*****t of candidates, and
the use of Church resources in a candidate's campaign. In short, any
express endor*****t by the Church is denied by the Church, and members
and candidates are instructed in no uncertain terms to never imply
that the Church endorses one candidate or the other in any given
political race.

Many Church members have taken the statement to mean that the Church
does not or should not involve itself in any political process, a
notion that was, for these members, remarkably upset by the Church's
insistent funding and support of marriage initiatives and other
efforts to define marriage in law as a hetero***ual union.

Gordon B. Hinckley, in one of his addresses to the Church during these
recent efforts pointed out that the Church also involved itself and
took a stand on ERA in the '70's, and the Prohibition amendments to
the Constitution in the early 20th Century. He also made clear that on
moral and lifestyle political issues where there is clear doctrine,
the Church would always take a stand and endorse a position to its
members.

The idea that the Church does not involve itself in candidate races,
but does involve itself in selected issue races, appears to some to be
a contradiction in motive. To those who believe that way, the Church
is being hypocritical or disingenuous.

I believe that is not at all the case. And based on some new
information it looks now to me that the distinction is based much more
on U.S. tax law than it is in any moral or doctrinal stance on the
issue of Church involvement in the political process.

Specifically, I spent some time last week involved in a seminar called
"PTA and the Law", which I attended as my daughter's school's PTA
Treasurer, in order to get a better handle on what a PTA may do and
what it may not do. It turns out to be a relatively complicated thing.

The seminar leader there explained that there are two kinds of
charitable organizations which a PTA may be, namely, it may be a
non-profit charitable organization which involves itself substantially
in political processes of all kinds, or it may be one which does not.
The names for those organizations are taken from the tax code,
respectively, 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(3).

Now, a 501(c)(4) non-profit may endorse candidates and participate in
lobbying activities and other political efforts, but donations to it
may not be deducted from one's income taxes, regardless of the amount.
The Christian Coalition is an example of such an organization.

In contrast, donations to a 501(c)(3) non-profit are as tax-deductable
as the law allows. 501(c)(3) are required to furnish donors with
statements if their donations exceed $250. But they are also required
to state that they never endorse political candidates or their
campaigns, and to instruct their boards and members not to behave in
their capacities as non-profit administrators as though they did.

In the U.S., the Church receives donations which are tax-deductable.
It provides donors with statements if their donations exceed $250 in a
year. And, the Church publishes a letter of neutrality regarding
political campaigns before and during each election cycle. Therefore,
the Church is organized for tax purposes as an IRS 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization. Many churches are so organized. The benefits
in property and income tax exemptions in the entire nation are very
good.

Now, what of the political initiatives in which the Church does
involve itself? Well, according to this PTA administrator, a 501(c)(3)
may do so, as long as the involvement is not "substantial". I think
this is the kind of thing that got the Christian Coalition into the
trouble it was in with the IRS a number of years ago; its enemies
helped the IRS determine that its 501(c)(3) status was inappropriate
to its activities, and re characterized it under 501(c)(4).

What I've drawn from all of this is that the Church has taken its
position on political campaigns not out of a doctrinal or moral basis,
but simply because the law requires it to behave in a certain way in
order to maintain tax exempt status for its property and the income
derived from the tithes and offerings of its members.

If my reasoning is correct, then the remaining question is whether the
Church has engaged in political and lobbying activities in a


"insubstantial" degree. The description of "lobbying activities" bears
examining:

"What is 'insubstantial'? Although there is no recognized formula...,
it is generally recognized that an organization that spends up to 5%
of its resources on lobbying is not engaged to a substantial degree in
this activity. Some experts, however, state that 20 percent is
acceptable." [2]

The definitions of what is and is not "lobbying activity" is also
germane:

"Examples of Lobbying Activities:
" -- Advocating... specific legislation
" -- Communicating with a legislator... in regards to specific
legislation
" -- Using the public to contact a legislator with respect to specific
legislation

"Examples of Activities that do not Constitute Lobbying:
" -- Publication of position papers on issues that do not address
pending or proposed legislation
" -- Communication to your members regarding pending legislation as
long as you are not asking your members to engage in grass roots
lobbying
" -- Conducting, commissioning, and/or publishing nonpartisan
****ysis, study or research that has a demonstrated factual foundation
and is presented in an independent and objective way
" -- Responding to a legislator's request for advice or assistance,
even with respect to pending legislation
" -- Communications that relate to pending legislation that might
affect the existence, duties, or powers of your organization
" -- Routine communications with legislators or governmental
officials" [3]

The law also permits election under IRC 501(h), for a non-profit to
declare the amount of "insubstantial" money and time it will devote to
"lobbying" and "grass-roots lobbying", but it doesn't require it.
Given the possible percentages, which I'll discuss a bit more below, I
think it's probably not in the Church's best interests to make a
501(h) declaration, since that would seem to limit the effort to $1
million in money and volunteer time. [4]

So what does all of this mean in terms of the allegations laid by the
Church's critics with regard to its political involvement?

In my opinion, it means that there is no real doctrinal prohibition
against the Church's participation in any political process, and I
think in its history that it didn't restrain itself from partisan
endor*****ts unless it was in its best interest, as it is today under
the Internal Revenue Code, to do so. In any case I don't consider it
immoral or remotely bad for a group of like-minded people to offer
endor*****ts on political issues. Doing so is the very definition of
participation in the democratic process.

It also means that :

-- When a Utah politician contacts members of Church leadership to get
their opinions on legislation, that is lawful, and might even be
desirable to that politician's constituency. But that is an issue
between the politician and his voters, a valid issue to raise in his
campaigns, and not the politician and the Church.

-- When a politician implies or announces his Mormonism as a reason
why he should be elected, that is also lawful, if a bit distasteful to
his constituency and non constituent observers. (It commonly comes
across to me as a non-sequitur anyway; incompetent Mormons abound,
after all.) The Church has no responsibility and maybe even too much
culpability if it speaks out against a candidate on those grounds. On
the other hand, if that politician implies specific endor*****t from
the _Church_ (as opposed to his social involvement as a Mormon or his
allegiance to Mormonism as a movement), that's troublesome and the
Church should denounce it to protect its tax-exempt status. And it
does, each election cycle.

-- When the Church distributes general statements that its members
should support or oppose certain classes of legislation (which the
Church does all the time, IME), such as gambling legislation, or
Prohibition, or *** marriage, or whatever, that is also lawful,
because it is not a lobbying activity.

-- When the Church calls for its members locally to canvass
neighborhoods in favor of or against a pending piece of legislation or
an initiative, then *maybe* it is engaging in "grass roots lobbying".
There is a difference, after all, between asking your people to tell
their neighbors and asking them to write their congressman. The
Church, during the California Proposition 22 campaigns, did the
former. Even so, it is lawful if the organization effort, combined
with all its other political lobbying efforts, constitutes an
"insubstantial" portion of all its activities.

-- When the Church calls on its members to vote "yes" or "no" on an
initiative or referendum, that also appears lawful, since
communicating to one's members regarding pending legislation does not
constitute lobbying, grassroots or otherwise. However, if the Church
asks the membership to get involved under the Church's banner, it
would have to make sure that its involvement was "insubstantial".

And so forth.

Proceeding forward, then, we'd have to consider whether or not the
recent political efforts supported by organized Church statements
qualify as "substantial" in the eyes of the law. This becomes a bit
difficult, since the IRS standards for judging what is substantial is
based on what is spent, not what is taken in, and the amount of money
the Church spends each year is unknown to me. But for the sake of this
argument, let's use an article written by Gerald and Sandra Tanner
about the late-90's TIME Magazine article, "Mormons, Inc." In it the
Tanners quote TIME magazine as reporting a United States income from
tithes at $4.9 billion. [5]

I also note the claim by the *** and ******* Political Action Support
Groups, in a report about Elder Ballard's recent BYU speech, that "The
Mormon Church has spent millions of dollars campaigning against ***
marriage," which is true. [6]

Now, given an income value of $4.9 billion, the conservative
5%-of-all-activites figure would result in a maximum permitted
expenditure of $245 million per year on all of the Church's lobbying
and grassroots lobbying efforts. [7] If one were to use the 20%
figure, then the Church could spend up to $980 million of donated
funds for political efforts before violating Internal Revenue Code
regarding the tax-exempt nature of its donors donations.

In addition, the Church would have to be careful never to endorse a
candidate or give more than $0.01 to a candidate's campaign.

In short, to be not "insubstantial", the Church would have to spend
almost $250 million per year in time and money in order to come close
to twigging a violation of federal law, in my opinion. No figure
offered by its critics comes very close at all to that figure. One
report shows that about $1.1 million was contributed by the Church in
efforts to defeat "*** marriage" initiatives there, and $3.3 million
to support Proposition 22 in California, during the years that was in
question. [8] Similar efforts, such as the Church's declared
opposition to pari-mutual betting in Utah, are likely just as small,
percentagewise.

If we figure $4 million per year lobbying and grassroots lobbying, the
Church would be expending 0.08% of its donated income on political
activities, two to three orders of magnitude below thresholds defined
as problematic for a Church who lobbies politicians or endorses
legislation. And that's the yardstick by which the Federal government
measures these kinds of activities for IRC 501(c)(3) organizations.

As near as I can tell. I'm just a li'l ol' PTA Treasurer, after all,
and not a Lawyer, but I thought it interesting.

Rob

[1] I *don't* want to get into a discussion about "*** marriage",
which is a long and seemingly un-winnable set of arguments both here
and elsewhere; there's far too much emotion behind it.
[2] _Your PTA and the Law -- A Publication of the Washington State
Parent Teacher Association_, pg. 10
[3] Ibid, pp. 10-11
[4] If you ever wondered why the Church computes the value of its
volunteers' time, this is it.
[5] http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lhm1097b.htm. Some dispute
that figure, arguing that it is much lower than that. For the purposes
of this essay, I treat it as accurate enough, even though it probably
does not include the value of volunteered time by 60,000-plus
60/hour/week missionaries, nor any of the part-time work by other
missionaries throughout the country or the world.
[6] http://snurl.com/2hew, an article entitled "Mormon Leader Trashes
*** Marriage"
[7] Now one can see why a 501(h) declaration might not be advisable
for an organization as large as the Church.
[8] http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/chavez/mauleonb.html,
which acknowledges that the Church operates within the bounds of the
law.

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

sam kitterman jr.

Given the length and substance of your post I would agree you've clearly given this some thought.


Being a member of the Church here in Nevada where we dealt with the
"defining marriage" issue for the past 5 to 6 years, I found the Church's
methods of "endorsing" this position to the members to be very heavy handed
and if anything, constituting a substantial involvment by the Church as to
the issue. At the same time that the Church issued the prefunctory annual
letter about choosing leaders who we find to be "good" but not telling us
who to vote for, we were told repeatedly in Sacrament, Priesthood and RS
meetings about the importance of not only being involved in supporting the
proposition to amend our state constitution but to fund the group that was
spearheading the issue. We were further told about which candidates were
or were not supporting the issue and how that somehow reflected whether they
would be appropriate individuals to receive our votes. Our stake then had
the bishops appoint members who were in charge of members walking our voting
precinct, handling out pamphlets regarding the issue, and asking people how
they were going to vote on it.

As an attorney I will admit I stayed away from any and all tax law
classes and so, I have no comment concerning your comments regarding the
501(c) classifications. As an attorney, however, I found myself also deep
in contemplation regarding this particular issue and the ramifications of
amending a state constitution to reflect a particular moral value. What
was even more distressing to me was comments by my then-bishop that one
could not be considered a "good" member of the church even if we had the
tiniest question about the issue (but that's an issue for a different post).

I do not doubt that the Church has the right to comment on moral issues.
However, it is very disturbing to me when the Church as an organization
proceeds to become so involved in a particular matter which has both legal
and moral overtones that members find themselves almost "herded" by their
leaders as to how members are supposed to think on a particular issue. The
impact of such efforts is that we do begin to have the appearance of blindly
following our leaders without pondering and praying for ourselves as to the
issue. (that likewise is an issue I am sure has been discussed multiple
times in the past and will be in the future). Yet, it seems that the
Church's involvment on this particular issue was so substantial as to cause
a potential violation of its tax-exempt status.

robert perkins

I was a member in Kentucky at the time the DOMA state laws were being
formulated in response to the Supreme Court decision permitting States
to determine what they wanted for themselves. The Church involvement
in that legislation was a request for grass-roots writing to the
Commonwealth legislators.

I think the cost to the Church was no more than an hour or so of a law
office's billable time, followed by a letter informing people of the
legislation, passed down by the Area Presidency to the stakes with
wards in Kentucky.

Including the lawyer's fees I'm sure it cost the Church less than
$1000 in money and time to ask for grassroots support of Kentucky's
DOMA.

When we got the letter in our ward council meeting, I felt a bit of
discomfort, as did members of the Bishopric, but the discomfort was
limited to whether or not we ought to have discussed the issue in the
Bishopric and Ward Council meetings.

We decided to make it a prefix announcement, without commentary, to
the Ward Council, before the opening prayer, and didn't track the
members' positions one way or the other on the law.

The next day I wrote to my Commonwealth representative and senator, as
well as all the authors of the bill, which as I recall made no
difference whatsoever. It being Kentucky, the law passed without
trouble.

The whole process struck me as not at all heavy-handed, but it was a
bit... different, since it was the first time in my adult life that
the Church had taken a stand on a national issue.


.....which is consistent with what a 501(c)(3) is permitted, according
to the guidelines I was given.

.....which is also consistent with the privileges granted the Church
according to my info. A non-profit organization under 501(c)(3) may
tell its members to support a piece of legislation, without violating law.


I think to trigger the tax law violation, they would have had to
single out candidates, but if the list was a complete list of all the
candidates and an accurate portrayal of their positions, that's lawful.

Also permitted. Non-profits can organize neighborhood canvassing
efforts and explain their positions on legislation, especially if they
think the legislation might affect their ability to operate.


Without getting into specifics, I'll offer (IMO, of course) that the
State constitution is a much better place for something like that than
is the Federal constitution. You should see Washington's Constitution,
which IIRC is full of that kind of thing in the sections on public education.

That concerns me as well, but I don't think it concerns the IRS.


Too right. Yeah: Google the discussions on "*** marriage" and we won't
have to do it again.


I doubt it. It has to be "not insubstantial", as measured in a ratio
of money and time outlay toward the political effort for "lobbying" to
all the money spent in a year. As I pointed out the Church, based on
an estimate of its dollar income in just tithing, and leaving aside
donations of time for all purposes, full-time missionaries included,
permits it to spend a couple hundred million dollars, at most, almost
a billion dollars. I don't think it's come close to that by two orders
of magnitude.

I'll point out, too, that before the income tax was a law the Church
had significant endor*****ts in at least one federal election for
President, when Joseph Smith was a candidate. So I believe the way the
Church behaves vis a vis politics really is expediency, to obviate a
heavy tax burden, rather than any sanctimonious picture of "separation
of Church and State."

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

jwtaber

If I ever have a bishop ask me how I'm going to vote on anything, or
sit me down in his office on Sunday and ask me for a political
donation, I will put an affidavit in the mail to the IRS the next day.
My brother and sister-in-law were in California for Proposition 22
and their bishop did the latter - couching it with "I'm not coming to
you as your bishop." Under those cir***stances that is a blatant lie.

mmmtoblerone

Beyond the legalities and the tax status issues, that whole campaign in
California left a really bad taste in my mouth. There are all kinds of
issues that involve people being badly hurt and dying where there is
just the token, do what you believe is best. Then along comes this one
and the pressure to donate time and money was incredible. Even if it is
an important issue and there is clear church doctrine, do you really
want to send the message that *** marriage is more important to your
religious organization than people who are dying from substance abuse,
spousal abuse, abortion, etc? You can ban prohibition and leave people
to decide what and how to drink, but you can't let people decide whether
they are going to follow the counsel not to practice homo***uality?

--
Paula
"Napoleon should be seen in Superdeterminism-****ogy History
theory as the Hitler of France." -- Archimedes Plutonium

john s.colton

Apparently this varied from area to area. I lived in CA at the time,
and had no pressure to donate time and/or money.

[snip]

This is a false dilemma. It's not an either/or situation. The church
of course also actively takes steps to counter the problems you
mention. How does the dollar amount spent by the church on LDS Family
Services compare to the dollar amount spent by the church on the CA
initiative? I don't know for sure, but I would bet that the CA
initiave received a far smaller amount of money.

John


*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****

robert perkins

I anticipated that there would be followups like this, and confess
that the involvement left me a bit uncomfortable as well, even though
(if you google is) you'll see my advocacy for Prop 22 in this very
group in posts from a few years ago.

I think the discomfort comes from a combination of sources. The first,
common to so many Americans, is the idea that the First Amendment of
the Constitution requires a "separation of Church and State", to quote
Jefferson out of his own context. As incorrect as I think the idea is,
I've noticed that most Americans try to construct secular reasons for
doing something to laws before they propose it. DOMA efforts were
different that way; all the reasons not subject to intense but clever
sophistry from either side were and are religious, denying its
supporters common ground with the other side. It was, by definition,
controversial.

The second is the relative infrequency with which the Church gets
involved in politics at any level. Before the push for DOMA laws, I
think the last time was a very local-to-Utah gambling law, preceded by
the ERA in the mid-seventies. IOW, it was the first time in my life
that the Church got involved.

The third thing to consider is that membership in the Church, even in
the U.S., is comprised significantly of converts since the ERA time,
who would have been trained in schools with the particular "separation
of Church and State" attitude which works against Church involvement
in politics. So they come to the table with certain preconceptions. So
do its life members, if they hadn't seen or didn't notice the Church's
opposition to ERA.

And the fourth is the naivete of thinking that because a Church
doesn't support or endorse candidates or let its facilities be used
for campaigning for office, that it doesn't get involved at all in any
political process. Up until yesterday my wife had that impression as
well.

And, of course, President Hinckley has spoken out as Church President
with a very clear, "Oh, yes we do!" regarding issue advocacy, which
contradicts the notion, however common, that the Church won't get
involved where it legally can.

Combine those four together, and you get the mistaken assumption that
the Church shouldn't speak out on issues if they're on the ballot,
which simply isn't true. The wording of the annual letter and the
shape and scope of the restrictions imposed by the Church on local
political advocacy is exactly that set of restrictions laid out in tax
law for our donations to be deductable.

In any case, I dislike the notion that a Church must remain silent and
uninvolved in politics. Yes, we gain significant tax advantages by
being a 501(c)(3) Utah non-profit corporation, but we do ourselves
intense and damaging disservice if we do not study the scriptures,
hear the meaning of the words of Church leaders, and act accordingly,
perhaps even as activists when time and cir***stances permit or
require. But hearing someone say, "Because you are a Church, you may
not speak to this issue!" leaves me cold, with a stronger
determination to oppose him. Especially in light of how many
politicians go to other churches and speak in their buildings; Al Gore
in a church in California just recently, for example. If that church
is a 501(c)(3), it lost its benefits with that speech.


In most of those issues (virtually all of them?) the idea that people
ought to do something is not in dispute. Only the actual shape of the
action is in dispute.

That's a bit unfair. The Church has spoken out on those issues in no
uncertain terms. (I was too young at the time, did the Church file
amicus curae in Roe v. Wade?) My parents (my mother in particular)
were heavily involved in opposition to the ERA in New York, which was
a bit of an exercise in futility. The way she tells it, the supporters
of ERA used every ounce of parliamentary procedure they could, fair
and unfair, to keep Mom's side from speaking at all at the convention
in Albany, so determined were they to make sure they won those
debates.

As regards substance abuse, the WoW and solid Church interpretations
thereof prohibiting substance abuse has been around for decades.
Spousal abuse has always received at least verbal acknowledgement as a
bad thing, supported by the various sections of the D&C laying clear
the scope and nature of priesthood authority. And so forth. On moral
issues, the Church has never, ever been silent.

The Church actively supported Prohibition and counselled its members
to vote against its repeal, IIRC. Sort of makes your conclusion not
relevant.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

mmmtoblerone

I have never been under this impression, and, in fact, think it is a
very valid and even necessary part of a church's religious ministry to
guide its members on political issues that have moral underpinnings.
Whether that means to pay money to campaigns or not, I don't
particularly care. It bothers me more to pick and choose (and not just
in ways that keep it under 5% for tax purposes) than it does to pay or not pay.

I was around for the ERA fight (BIG topic in my area) and the gambling
debates (though I was voting absentee in a CA election that brought CA
the lottery, not in UT gambling). I have also seen legislation
involving legal marijuana use, attempts to get around Roe vs. Wade or at
least have it interpreted conservatively, etc. Never ever have I seen
the church tell people to get out and canvas their neighborhoods in
support/opposition, pay money to the entities in support/opposition,
etc. I guess I am older than you as well as more cynical.

I'm not a convert, never been taught or believed that separation of
church and state means church should not be involved in politics.

I may have been that naive once, but not in a long long time.

So none of those issues are my problem with this whole thing.


The church's record speaks for whether and when it gets involved.
Legally, it can do so up to a certain dollar amount, from what you
posted originally. Why that dollar amount is spent on some causes and
not on others is my problem.

I was young when the ERA debate was going on, so I don't know if they
were asking for money, but they were definitely fighting for a no vote.
So the two biggest moral issues of today are certain women's issues and
homo***ual issues? We have seen a heck of a lot of political issues
that have a huge effect on moral issues in the past 30 years but these
are the big ones? What about Prohibition? What about abortion
legislation or constitutional amendment? What about drug legalization
or higher or lower penalties for drug offenses, abuse, ******,
terrorism, a million other things? Even if I agree on these issues, I
have to ask why the big deal on these and not so much on other issues,
even where lives are at stake.


I never said the church was silent on other issues. My whole point was
that the church has basically said that telling its members that
substance abuse is wrong, that spousal abuse is wrong and that abortion
is wrong unless it fits under certain exceptions is enough. Big moral
issues and all that needs to be done is take a stand. Along comes the
ERA or *** marriage and suddenly it is not enough to take a stand. I
sat in church several weeks in a row and was read letters from church
headquarters and local church leaders telling me that I must canvas my
neighborhoods and donate my money to defeat Proposition 22. Whatever my
stand on homo***ual marriage, I got the clear message that this was far
more important to GBH and friends than legislation that has come and
gone in my lifetime in any other area of legislated morality or
immorality. Like it or not, it sends a pretty clear message about what
political issue is most important to the church administration, who
could have called it enough to spend the money on homo***ual treatment
through social services and a statement that homo***ual marriage is not
in line with church doctrine as well.

--
Paula
"Napoleon should be seen in Superdeterminism-****ogy History
theory as the Hitler of France." -- Archimedes Plutonium

jwtaber

The next time my aunt or life partner is in the hospital, the other
one will have no legal right to be there outside visiting hours -
homophobia is now the law in California. For the Church to go all out
and claim that the status quo (which did NOT recognize "*** marriage")
was the end of the world, and use fabrications and out-and-out lies to
make their case, hurt more than it helped.

My father was born in California, and so I have a lot of family there,
most of which I've never met. One of those I have is a second cousin
who in 1970 was tracted out. He and his wife joined and have been
very invovled. (To the point of moving to Utah like all the "good"
LDS did in California in the early 1990s.) The next time one of my
third, fourth, or fifth cousins is tracted out, they will be a lot
less likely to let the missionaries in, and that's a shame because the
Gospel could enrich their lives too.

Now of course, President Hinckley said in Conference, words to the
effect of "don't use this as an excuse to ***-bash". Yet the Church
(just like with the Republican Party in Utah) looks the other way when
it happens, and is even complicit. On my 25th birthday the Boy Scouts
of America declared me a homo***ual until proven otherwise. (Proving
otherwise, BTW, would include knocking someone up.) That means I
can't hold a single position in BSA - not even merit badge counselor.
If I had an Eagle badge to hand in I most certainly would have - good
thing my Varsity Coach sabotaged my project.

And oh, yes, that rubs off in the Church. BSA (in the United States)
is an official program - that means I can't serve in any Young Men
position either. And it gives any member the right to label me
"deviant", or at least give me a hard time about being single - would
they rather I was divorced? I once had an entire Elders' Quorum brand
me as "***." The only leaders who haven't been like that are the ones
who were in my shoes. The rest are like the EQ president in my
parents' ward, who told me last year that finding a wife was more
important than finding a job.

Nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it say "Thou shalt be
homophobic". Nowhere does it say that someone who can't stay married
very long and is getting her third divorce at 30 is in better standing
than someone who's celibate at 30. But both are an integral part of
Church culture - at least in the United States. There have been more
Ensign articles about the perils divorced men face than about those
faced by single men over, say, 23, never mind 25 or 30.

robert perkins

I disagree that the Church has picked or chosen at all. I don't think
the integretous tactics surrounding an issue's advocacy casts
aspersions on the advocacy. Rather, I think that meeting each new
problem's needs with a unique approach shows determination and
cleverness.

I don't know about the levels of coercion actually offered by Church
leadership to encourage or force support of Prop 22. I wasn't there
and there are varying reports from Californian saints about what went
on locally. My aunt in Sacramento went door-knocking for the
Proposition without objecting to the idea or feeling put upon, she
thought it was an optional invitation to get involved. John Colton
just recently reported here also not feeling threatened on the matter.

That leads me to believe that the oppression and discomfort felt
varied from individual to individual, which in turn suggests to me
that it was built up in the minds of offended members, not exclusively
the organizers.[1] Hence my notion that our secular American culture,
combined with a misunderstanding of the scope of non-profit status,
results in the perceived offense.

If someone doesn't fit in that ****ysis, that's fine with me, but I
was pointing up a general thing, not trying to tell an individual what
I think he thought.

Rob
[1] I recognize that there are bombastic priesthood leaders who think
that they Must Be Obeyed, and I consider it part of the problem, to be
sure.

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card