Leaderboard

Yes, because it is the courts' job to interpret and apply the tax code. In fact, this has happened before (to a religious university, not to an actual church, that discriminated based on race). The case was Bob Jones University v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in 1983. The Bob Jones court held as follows: So the question isn't whether the institution discriminates in allocating a government benefit (like marriage); the question is whether the institution discriminates at all. And the Church does.Now, the Court did limit the application of the ruling to educational institutions; but I think the public and judicial mood is now right for extending that ruling to churches as well since anti-religious sentiment is on the rise and the underlying IRS nonprofit statute specifically encompasses both types of institutions.

There is no life in homosexual principles. It is a dead end. Our species cannot survive if we subscribe to homosexual principles. Life is in heterosexual principles. There is no other way for our species to live except through the principles of heterosexuality. Homosexuality cannot exist without heterosexuality. Heterosexuality has primacy in nature and in principle. It doesn't matter which individual is capable or not capable of procreating. There is no life in homosexual principles. It is an impossibility and that is what matters to the question of marriage. Godless, you and millions of others have diluted yourselves in to believing a fictional version of reality. Only by denying reality can you successfully argue that homosexual "marriage" is "good" for society or on equal footing with authenticate marriage. The reality that you are denying is that homosexuals and homosexual "marriages" cannot be relied on for the long term survival and good of the human race. We just can't. If a society supports homosexual unions it will ALWAYS be subsidized (so to speak) on the back of real marriage up until society just can't afford or just doesn't have the luxury any more to support a way of life that literally doesn't bear fruit or seed. -Finrock

Someone more versed in Tax law could better answer.... But here are a few things I see... 1. Less money toward the mission of the church because it is diverted to a tax bill 2, The church becomes a target to IRS investigations and related politics. That being said I think the church has an out. If it comes down to it the LDS Church can get out of the legal marriage business. It can tell its leaders not to perform any marriages whatsoever. It can inform it members to acquire and legal marriage outside the Temples before going to the Temples to be Sealed to their spouse (like they do in England currently). Rendering Sealings a purely religious ordnance with no legal standing. This should allow the LDS Church to avoid the issue entirely if it happens and not require to much change in how the Church does things.

Cancel the wedding. You can always plan another one. Get premarital counseling. What you're feeling is more than jitters and it needs to be sorted out.

Of course my response is only knowing what you are telling and not hearing his point in the matter. But, if what you state is fact, then.... His temper frightens you... GET OUT NOW! You feel hopeless and terrifeid... GET OUT NOW! If you are so frightened of this man that you are having panic attacks, that is not a good sign. This is someone you will spend the rest of your life and eternity with if sealed. Why would you want to live like that. It will NOT get better by getting married. If he is picking fights with you now... they will be worse when you get married. They won't just disappear! Abusive people normally will be VERY apologetic after they pick the fight or abuse a person. Don't let that fool you. It sounds like you both need to grow up a little and/or get into counseling. Praying you make the right decision.

Wow... Brother... that post, man... For starters, you do a grave disservice to the people of Baltimore with these comments. You talk about personal responsibility being lacking, which tells me you haven't heard the story of the people who went out on the morning after the riots and started cleaning up the streets, taking responsibility for the condition of their neighborhood after the looters had their little party. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/baltimore-community-cleanup_n_7162666.html I also think it's unfair to just dismiss it as overreaction and on that basis, ignore them. As LP's link pointed out, the peaceful protests had been going on for days with -zero- national attention. If you can't imagine why that's frustrating then I don't know what will help. And to say the vast majority aren't protesting anything... That's flat wrong. The vast majority WERE peacefully protesting (and continue to do so) but all the media is showing you is the violence. If the reasons for THAT aren't obvious... then again, I don't know what would help. And just "move" is a cute suggestion but people who have no money can't just decide to move out of West Baltimore and head out to the 'burbs and into a nice $350,000 house with a white picket fence, a minivan and a German shepherd. I DO agree that to an extent they brought some of this on themselves by religiously voting Democrat when the Democrat party has demonstrated breathtaking apathy toward the problems in the inner city, but why should they vote Republican when the best advice they normally hear from the right is "Well why don't you just move somewhere else?" At least the Dems pretend to care.

This is the $0.02 advice from some random stranger on the internet, take it or leave it. I’m also kind of blunt… Step 1) Take a deep breath. You’re freaking out right now and your judgment go sckitzo. Step 2) Say a prayer. Not for answers “is he the one”, but simply for peace and calm. Step 3) Wait and listen for that peace. Step 4) Ditch any notions of “type” or “soul-mates”: there’s no such thing. There’s only people whom fall in love and convent to be with each other. All you’re doing by comparing Kyle to some hypothetical “soul-mate” is selling him short. Judge him as him, no one else. I’m not going to tell you whether or not you should marry this dude, because I have no idea. But from your post, your personal emotional state seems to be a house built upon very shifty sands, and like you already have one foot out the door of your relationship. That will not magically change 7 days for now. My 100% armchair advice is that you need to work taming your general anxiety, through counseling, yoga, or whatever. Maybe waiting a while before getting married will be a good thing for you. (Again, I don’t know anything for sure).

Personal responsibility is the missing factor in Baltimore and other cities where overreation and lack of self control prevail. The State is a democratic stronghold as is Baltimore itself. I believe the majority of the police as well as the governing class in Baltimore is black and democrat as well. Maybe....just maybe...they should exercise a little bit of forethought before they vote if they really wanted change. The vast majority of those people are not protesting anything. They are just engaging in mob mentality and if they find life where they live to be distaseful or they are not prospering, here is a suggestion....move. Correct what is holding you back from fulfilling your potential....however limited or limitless that may be.

People love to say this as if it has any meaning whatsoever -- like the criteria for good or evil, acceptable or unacceptable, destructive or beneficial, is being a human.

Your situation raises a lot of red flags. Why rush into a contract for eternity? The church has a great marriage preparation manual. I would call off the wedding, go to the temple...if you do not have a recommend that would be a great next project, lds counselling - just for yourself, would be a great step. Have you talked to your bishop? Some elderly ladies in the ward? Elderly ladies in the church are a great source of wisdom. Good luck!

The husband is responsible? Shouldn't this be something both are responsible for? I understand this particular husband is not interested but to say that he alone is responsible seems odd, since marriage is a partnership. M.

I find it interesting that the concept of the state has been around as long as it has, and Godless' notion has only existed for less than a dozen or two years. Yet he states it with such surety, as if the notion was so obviously above reproach, it needs no justification or persuasion.

Why should the state have any sort of obligation to formally recognize who's (purportedly monogamously) shacking up with whom? It's very nice that the state does it--I'm not complainin'--but to say that the state must not only permit me to have a sexual relationship with someone (via my right of private association), but affirmatively say "hey, JAG! Nice little relationship ya got there. Let us give you formal praise for your choice, memorialize the relationship in the state archives, and give you a few pecuniary taxpayer-subsidized benefits as well--and all because we, the State, are just hopeless romantics!"? That seems . . . well, unpersuasive. Government often allocates benefits to specific groups, for the purpose of attaining a particular goal; and in general terms it is perfectly fine for government to deny those benefits to those who are unlikely to attain that goal (which is why I don't get that contract to produce F-35s that I keep bidding for). Where marriage is concerned, it should be enough that government makes some basic efforts to deny marriage to those straight couples that it knows are incapable of procreating healthy children. That's what government has done by--for example--prohibiting marriages within a certain degree of consanguinity, and allowing for annulment when it turns out that one party or the other is demonstrably sterile. It's just that these steps haven't caught up with the times--up until a few decades ago, there was just no way of knowing who was fertile and who wasn't. (Well, you could tell with a menopausal woman, I suppose; but if you deny marriage to menopausal women but not men of a particular age--there's gender discrimination; and the simple fact is that a man can be fertile very late in life--probate law didn't come up with the concept of a "fertile octogenarian" in a vacuum.) But they already pay taxes on those particular earnings. Surely you aren't saying that religious institutions should be double-taxed merely because they are religious institutions? And, do you think all nonprofit entities should lose nonprofit status? Or just churches? If the latter--on what grounds do you give a group non-profit status?

That would be helpful, actually; I don't care to give money to people who openly oppose my beliefs, because it has an irritating way of ending up in the campaign funds of politicians who want to take away my freedom to live by those beliefs.

Hello. Welcome to the forums. It's nice to meet you. Thanks for telling us a bit about yourself.

I dunno . . . People on drugs can do some surprising things . I'll wait for the medical and autopsy reports, and then maybe I'll trade you that beachfront property for my genuine Amazonian snowball. :)

Fair enough...I deleted the post. I think Drudge, which is just links to a lot of media links to Huff....

I have along parade of horrible about where federally-mandated gay marriage and the accompanying attitudinal shifts take us, but in the short term and limited just to tax consequences: 1. Your tithing is no longer tax deductible. 2. The Church pays corporate income tax, nominally 35% of income, on its global donations receipts. 3. The Church pays state property tax for its (I'm guessing as to the number) five-thousand-odd chapels and eighty-odd temples in the US. 4. Church-owned educational institutions could also pose nonprofit status, and run into additional difficulties if they or their students take federal funding. 5. Mission president stipends/living expense reimbursements are currently non-taxable under some obscure IRS rulings; that would probably change. I think the LDS church with its centralized budget and property-holding procedures, subsidization of local congregations from a Salt Lake, and vast revenue-generating business holdings; will be better situated than most churches to take these blows. For your average church in-say-Sacramento, California, with a building valued at $2 million--basically, you'll have to raise another $13,600 just to pay your property tax. But that $13,600 you just raised is ALSO subject to corporate income tax of 35%, so really you have to raise $18,360 just to keep your building from escheating to the state; and on top of that your annual budget just took a thirty-five percent cut. This will be difficult even on local congregations of large national churches, if those congregations are funded primarily by local donations--and to small, independent churches it will probably be a death blow. And, yeah--I think that's the plan.

Fair enough. As for the injury... I'm not a doctor but as I understand it, if the injury was high enough to damage the nerves carrying signals to regulate respiration or heart function, it's easy to see how it can be fatal. As I understand the preliminary medical reports, the damage was to his neck area. But your question is a good one... why is he dead? He was sufficiently healthy to run, and by the time he got out of that van he was fatally injured. The local government here has been testing the waters with spin saying Freddie hurt HIMSELF in the van. To anyone who believes that: I have some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you if you're interested...

That's right, but when your options are "Hey, we care about your plight" and "Hey slacker, just get a job and move away." I'm not prepared to pass judgement so easily. Side note: I agree that HuffPo is generally little more than left wing propaganda, but the problem is that sometimes they actually serve a purpose, which is to provide insight into how people on the left see things. We conservatives suffer the same malady liberals do, namely, we have heavy confirmation bias and tend to be deaf to the point of view on the other side. I would suggest that the approach of simply dismissing someone's link because you don't like the domain name at the beginning of it is pretty insulting. Do you like it when a liberal refuses a link of yours because it's from Fox news or Drudge?

That's an intriguing idea, but it's worth noting that per the Spiegel article they did not actually "decriminalize" possession; they just converted it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony and instituted a program that looks very much like a Utah "drug court" on steroids. (Okay, maybe an unfortunate choice of words . . ,) FWIW, my anecdotal experience in Utah is that simple possession of marijuana cases are usually misdemeanors and rarely result in a jail sentence, EXCEPT where the defendant refuses to attend treatment or otherwise fails to comply with probation. Harder stuff--heroin, meth, crack--those cases usually do start as felonies, but my experience is that judges are usually pretty willing to avoid conviction via a plea in abeyance or diversion to drug court so long as the defendant goes to inpatient treatment; and if you get into the drug court your treatment will be state-funded. (If you live in UT, write to your legislators about drug court. It's a great program, and it really needs all the funding it can get.) Utah has a very conservative bench, and even *our* judges tend to understand that not much "rehabilitation" really goes on in prison. The people you see incarcerated for possession charges--at least in Utah--are generally the ones who are too mentally ill, too damaged by these "harmless" substances, or just too contemptuous of authority to complete their treatment; and I imagine even Portugal would resort to incarceration for at least some of those folks. I'd be very interested to know how Portugal treats drug dealers, though.

LP....your post is hyperbole. Another day in America...really? Your posts sound like the brown shirts are dragging jews into the streets and executing them. Media sensationalism.... And no...never been to Washington. But, I can assure you I have a much geater understanding of the black issues than u do with your in depth conversations on facebook. Most people from the West have no clue.... Funny how black folks and white folks etc seem to avoid "another day in America" by simply not breaking the law. Perhaps, certain groups of people should begin to understand that simple tactic. Stop making excuses for them or anyone else that behaves this way. That attitude of poor me is destructive and leads to the baloney we see on TV and is just bigotry. You say the justice system isn't working for them, I say it is working overtime because of them.

... that I have now officially joined and have officially been made an official member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That being due to my baptism and confirmation yesterday. I have been meeting with the missionaries, posting on the forums, praying, studying scripture, visiting stakehouses and the Los Angeles Temple or attending services daily. That is, some activity every day. I have met a lot of new people. Of course a major topic is Utah. Inevitably someone is going there, coming from there, etc. I have had a chance to look back 52 years when my mother and I visited the Temple in Salt Lake City. She was a Mormon Tabernacle Choir fan (big fan) so we had to stop. In two weeks I will be there again. I also was able to recall 40 years ago stopping in front of the impressive looking Los Angeles Temple and praying. So it looks like there was just some inevitability to it all. And it has now come to pass. Now, if I can make it in happiness (a job?) to Utah this year to live, all will be right with the universe or at least part of it in Utah. The stake president early on said, or, you can just 'hang out' here (if you don't make it to Utah). Yes. dc Previous reference: http://lds.net/forums/topic/56658-utah-and-lds/#entry815683

Brother, it isn't that we don't want to talk about it. The problem is that it feels like every time someone tries to talk about something else, we get accused of being cop haters or liberals and summarily dismissed. (You haven't done that, and I do appreciate it. My impression of several senior members has suffered because I see them doing it.) I mean seriously, what else is there to say about rioters? Yep, rioting is bad. Stealing's a no-no. You shouldn't burn police cars. Ayup. We've all agreed on this. The people who are lighting fires and throwing rocks at cops have no personal responsibility and should be locked up. Yes, we get it. We agree. Nobody's saying riots are justified or that looters are entitled to steal whatever they can grab. I'm just not sure where else there is to go on that point, especially because I personally regard it as a distraction. I feel like people want to keep focused like a laser on that topic because they have some kind of aversion to acknowledging that, at least in some places (such as Baltimore), policing is BROKEN. There are severe tensions between the police department and the community and nobody wants to hear anything hat doesn't put cops on a pedestal and put every scrap of blame on the community. People from other countries, even ones where the people don't have a 4th or 5th Amendment look at the police in the United States and say "Man, you guys' cops are out of control." Brother, that' a PROBLEM, and that problem isn't going to go away by trying to force the conversation to stay focused on the stuff we all already know... Rioting is bad, mmmkay? Will you concede that the Baltimore Police Department has mishandled this incident? Will you concede that Freddie Gray probably died due to excessive force on the part of the arresting officers?* (*I say probably because, to be fair, the investigation isn't over and we don't have all the facts yet.)

Exactly my point. The problem is the breakdown of the family, and lack of personal responsibility. No one wants to talk about that........

I think we've all repeatedly said we agree on the point that lawlessness isn't the answer. I assure you, the horse is dead. How wonderful the world would be if things were that simple though, wouldn't it? One doesn't have to agree with the behavior of rioters to be able to recognize that there's a very serious problem that's getting ignored by those who prefer to just blame the rioters and ignore everything that led up to this.

I've never come across any restriction on post-baptismal refreshments. I agree with those who have said its for the Ward Mission Leader, with the approval of the bishop, and not the RSP to decide how baptisms should happen. In our ward, the question of whether or not there will be refreshments is usually up to to organiser of the event. In the case of convert baptisms, that's usually the WML, and he sees post baptismal refreshments as a great way for any non-members the baptismal candidate may have invited to mix with the members. In the case of member baptisms, then its usually up to the parents, and most, but not all parents, will organise for refreshments. Even when the baptism is taking place on a Sunday at a time when the other ward is using the chapel, there will still be post baptism refreshments.

Who would prepare the medication?

The Lord's preferred method of cleansing is baptism by full immersion. This should take care of your whole computer, not just the screen. If you let it soak for a while, you'll probably never need to clean that particular computer again. :)

If homosexual relationships are not in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and they are not) it IS destructive to society. It is the natural man, which is an enemy to God that causes some to justify or treat gross transgression as though it does no harm. I am of the belief that we will be held accountable for that which we deemed good, just or as doing no harm when it is obviously in opposition to Gods plan of Salvation. It is mind boggling how so many claim to be faithful Latter Day Saints and yet clearly have little understanding of the Gospel. ' The things of God are only understood by the power of the Holy Spirit....

An interesting question, Yes, my OP assumed that whoever might read this latter day book would also have read the Book of Mormon. I'm not talking about a future book that replaces the Book of Mormon, but a latter day Testament of Christ made up of teachings from latter day prophets, just as the Book of Mormon is made up of teachings from ancient American prophets, with a few additions from Isaiah and Zenos. So, what to include in the latter day Testament of Christ, from existing standards works? hmm, The Sermon on the Mount. Nephi's prophecies in 1st and 2nd Nephi. Sections 84, 88, 20, 107, 134, 135, JS-H, most of Moses, Abraham 3, Mormon 8 and 9, Mormon 7 and 10.

The idea that marriage solves everything is bunk. You will still struggle with the same things until the both of you learn and grow to deal with them. You could break it off and hope to find someone else.... but all that will do is change what things you struggle about. It will not remove the need to learn and grow. So need to ask yourself what set of struggles does the Lord want you to learn to over come and are you willing to do so?

I went to a fundraiser for the Democratic party once......

Do him and yourself a favor and call it off.....your setting yourself up for a disaster. getting married is no magical pill that will resolve your issues. They will still be there

I shake the globe and watch through the snow flurry are you there?

Just wanted to make sure your statement here got highlighted, yjacket.

I wonder what's going to happen next

I really regret not representing you there. I have had clients say some good lines, but that one, well there should be some type of award for that one. dc

" Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it comethquickly, saith the Lord. Amen."

Thank you for the many thanks and congratulations. And thank you to Mr. Capitalist for those words. I know. But it is also good to have that idea in mind, it never hurts to be reminded. Two congrats: the first, the song leaders 5 year old daughter. She could barely pronounce the word, but did offer congrats. Cute kid. The second during refreshment time; a nine year old boy, another cute kid, he says "well, do you feel bad now?" A sense of humor is always a good thing. dc

Doesn't the mention of Hitler automatically end the thread?

Congratulations, Dave! Just keep one thing in mind as you move along and progress in the gospel. The Church isn't just a nice religion with nice people and a nice choir. It isn't just a nice social club with nice bylaws. It IS in fact God's Church and Kingdom on the earth today, and HE does in fact preside over it; directing it through modern-day prophets and apostles. The Church is TRUE, and that's all that ultimately matters.

I, for one, have no problem with sxfritz's suggestions; but I think we should realize that they will only take us "so far". I grew up in a VERY active youth program where the bishop annually added a couple thousand dollars of his own money to the fund so that we could take "super activities", road trips to temple dedications, etc. The program seemed effective; and we usually had very effective firesides/testimony meetings during these activities. But--you know what? Twenty years later, based on Facebook the ongoing activity rate for the kids who went through that program is probably less than fifty percent. Programs are great for keeping the weak Saints in the Church; and hopefully it buys us time to transform a few of those weak Saints into strong Saints. But ultimately, you can't "program" a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and the folks who haven't been able to develop those attributes will inevitably drift away. Because--for all the cool stuff the Church does, and teaches--living life as a Mormon is hard.

Serving a mission is not required to be a member. As a people we are supposed to live per this quote; "every member a missionary". As such we come out of the waters of baptism into our calling as a missionary, and are released upon our death here on earth. However we also know that our mission field will then be to administer to those who never had the opportunity in this life...that mission will not end until the "final judgement. I try to go out once or twice a week with our missionaries, as a convert who was already married, I could not go. But now that I am retired so I try to help the missionary cause and calling.

I'd only be interested if ACTUAL cake were inside! ^

I was inactive for over 25 years. It was tough to walk in the building again. I grit my teeth and went to church. People were friendly. I made it a rule to pray and read the scriptures daily. Getting a temple recommend and going to the temple helped a lot. Perhaps this could be a goal? Listening to general conference helped a lot.

The "shortage of sellers" polemic always rears its ugly head whenever someone wants to hedge a quasi-pro-discrimination stance. But it's a specious argument at best.If a "shortage of sellers" is sufficient excuse for forcing an individual to sell a product or service to someone they would rather not sell to; then conversely, a "shortage of buyers" should be sufficient excuse for forcing an individual to purchase a product or service from someone they would rather not purchase from. It's impossible to logically argue that one is moral while the other is immoral. The sad fact of this whole sorry business is that the proliferation of anti-discrimination laws will prove to be an overflowing scourge on freedom and liberty, primarily because there's no limit to the scope of such laws. Almost any economic behavior (along with a great deal of other behaviors) can be defined as "discrimination". Is a college accepting students based on SAT scores not discriminating against those who don't do well on standardized tests?Is a restaurant serving expensive food not discriminating against the poor?Is a modeling agency hiring only thin, attractive women not discriminating against fat, homely women?When you purchase a hamburger from Burger King are you not discriminating against Wendy's?When you buy a PC aren't you discriminating against Macs? And if Blacks can be a protected class, why not Melungeons or Mestizos or Cajuns or Gaels?And if Muslims can be a protected class, why not Candomblists or Santeriaists or Jainists or Druids?And if Homosexuals can be a protected class, why not Asexuals or Pedophiles or Gerontophiles or Zoophiles?And as long as we're at it, why shouldn't fat, short, stupid, or ugly be protected classes? Where will this anti-discrimination idiocy end? Sadly, it won't, and the principles of "freedom of association" and "equal protection under the law" will ultimately end up null and void.

Missions are not mandatory, any more than obedience, happiness, or exaltation are mandatory. But full-time missionary service is the duty of every young Priesthood holder, unless specifically excused.

As another thought, I have observed that converts usually make AWESOME missionaries because they know what it's like to be in the investigator's seat.

True but sometimes the longer you postpone it, the easier to forego it. (Just putting that out there)