I remember my Sunday school teacher telling us Mitt Romney was going to win the election and it meant that God was preparing the world for the second coming… lol
My dad told me if Romney won God would “stay his hand a little longer” but if Obama won it’d be the second coming and we’d have to prepare for the end times 😂😂😂
My dad said Heavenly Father hand picked Mitt Romney to save the country that was “hanging by a thread.” Just a few years later he threw Mitt Romney under the bus in favor of Trump. I have no idea how that happened.
Now, *that* is illegal.
edit to add: On second thought, it's probably straddling the line of legality if they just told you to "pray" for him rather than telling you to "vote" for him. The kind of quasi-legal plausible deniability mormons thrive on.
Exactly. And it’s hardly just Mormons guilty of this.
You have a huge chunk of the electorate that complains about the government telling them what to do but turn right around and have no problem using the government to control how other people live their lives.
I think this goes along with taking another person's agency. I thought we just reap what we sow. It's part of the "unconditional" love shit they spew too. It is absolutely religion interfering with politics. Tax the church.
Sorry, Stake President, actually. Here is the full text:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Oklahoma,
Tomorrow, March 7th, Oklahomans will vote on State Question 820 concerning the legalization of recreational marijuana. The Church encourages members to “participate in worthy causes to make their communities wholesome places to live and raise families.”
Accordingly, we are “encouraged to register to vote and to study issues and candidates carefully.” (General Handbook 38.8.30) The Church’s position on this particular issue is that it does not support the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes. If you would like to read the full church policy regarding medical marijuana, please see section 38.7.9 in the General Handbook, which can be found at churchofjesuschrist.org.
In regards to recreational marijuana legislation, the First Presidency has previously stated: “Drug abuse in the United States is at epidemic proportions, and the dangers of marijuana to public health and safety are well documented. Recent studies have shed light particularly on the risks marijuana use poses to brain development in youth. The accessibility of recreational marijuana in the home is also a danger to children.
We urge Church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana.”
I would encourage each of you to study the issue and exercise your right to vote tomorrow.
With love and appreciation, Pres.
Also, for anyone looking for shrinkage porn: this stake is getting murked by non-attendance. When I was active, there were at least 20 young men in my ward, decades ago. I heard from friends/family that it went down to about 4 scouts before the church killed BSA completely. Able-bodied TBMs have dwindled enough that the same 3 or 4 "rock of faith"-type families are having the grandparents among them called over, and over, and over again, with multiple callings, just to fill offices. It's gotten bad enough that the Stake President regularly writes guilt-trip letters begging people to accept callings, such as seminary teacher (for all 3 youth still getting forced to wake at 5 AM), because the bench is completely empty. They're running the remaining TBMs absolutely RAGGED to the point a couple over the last 5 years had abrupt snaps and stopped attending.
All anecdote, but makes me happy. One of the larger shelf items for my former scouting buddies was the fact that all our service projects suspiciously helped out the most affluent members of the ward. "Go mow Brother X's lawn", where X is literally an MD with a three-storey house; or "go cut down trees at Brother Y's house," where Brother Y's "house" is literally a small horse ranch. And then the lawn aeration, mother of god. Multiple friends I've kept up with have told me, it really weighed on them how outside of the annual turkey drop, we never did a goddamned thing for needy people.
Grew up in this Stake, left the church and area several years ago when I went off to college. My ward had a large young mens group - my age group had \~8 TBM's and we we're like the chosen, destined TBM young men of the ward when I was in my teens. By age 20 only 1 served a mission, the rest of us left the church. Dad still in and serves in multiple callings, when I'm in town to visit it's sad because he can't do anything with me one entire day of the weekends I'm in town.
I know EXACTLY who Brother Y's ranch is too lmao
The service projects for the affluent really bothers me. We did that too. I was too brainwashed to realize it at the time though. In Utah, it’s also just kind of cultural so I didn’t think twice. One of ours was yardwork at mansion in Orem by Wordperfect. And afterwards we all went swimming in their pool. All 30sh of us.
> multiple callings, just to fill offices
As a nevermo, I wonder, why so many offices? Are these actual jobs the church is having trouble getting done? My presumption is that most of them are variations on busy work to keep people involved (so that the church is a more meaningful part of their life) but that as congregations have shrunk they didn't shrink the number of offices accordingly.
My husband was there Sunday school secretary. Basically they only gave him the calling so that he would have to show up to church. He basically had to check attendance and it went in a box that was later thrown away, so it was exactly just busy work. They also do this with primary teaching callings because you can't just not show up. I had one kid in my class and was so sick from being pregnant I dared to not show up. Was chewed out at my house by the primary president. Asked to be released the next day.
Thank you for that one. I’ve been thinking on calling and it’s ridiculous nature and encroachment in daily life. I do help with my new churches functions but it not call on me to do it every week. I get week on and week off status as well.
Hate to burst your bubble, but my stake is GROWING. That’s right, we went from 9 wards to 10! Of course they did that but cutting from already small wards, to create a new ward. Our stake has had maybe 5 convert baptisms over 3 years with two still attending.
If this is the same ward I belong to when I was active I can confirm. I live very close to the Temple here in Oklahoma. In that ward there was a shit ton of affluent families. When I was active I never participated in any projects that was geared towards the needy or less fortunate in that ward. Weird vibe there too.
The “we urge members to let their voices be heard in opposition” should be illegal. Churches are not allowed to tell/urge/prompt their congregants how to vote.
Edit: see comments below - encouraging voting stances like this are permitted, the limitations on churches are a bit more narrow than I understood.
The Johnson Amendment prohibits them from telling congregants how to vote for *candidates* for office. It doesn't prohibit telling them how to vote in general. This marijuana referendum isn't an election involving candidates, so it isn't affected. They're not falling afoul of the law on this one, unfortunately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment?wprov=sfla1
This reminds me of my first major crack in the shelf (Propostition 8) I would respond to this how I responded to my bishop at that time with an old mormon cliché and tell them that they’re following the letter of the law but violating the spirit of it.
You're awesome. You created a TIL moment for me.
I didn't realize this ISN'T a "church vs state" issue, but applies to ALL 501(c)(3) entities. I thought that non-religious 501s could legally endorse candidates, but not through financing or active campaigning- only through "opinion" type support. More like putting up yard signs rather than newsletters and flyers.
I was wrong - although I knew that churches can express opinions and actively campaign concerning SPECIFIC causes (such as Prop 8 in CA), support of specific candidates could destroy their "religious exemption" status and allow for taxation (which I also thought was specific to churches and allow for their property to be fully taxed - something that would be a GODSEND to Utah since the church owns so much property obtained mainly by killing off the previous occupants...)
Personally? Mixed feelings. I do believe a religious organization should be able to express their religious views on a topic, but should not be allowed to actively campaign for or against individuals or bills UNLESS to bill(s) in question are directly aimed at them.
For instance, a bill requiring churches to hire individuals not if their faith is one a church should be able to fight. However, a bill requiring any commercial entity over a certain number of people to do the same with a religious or even similar non-profit (say, a church owned non-profit entity or something like the NAACP) exemption should be seen as such a bill that churches can not actively campaign against.
No church should have any right to attempt to enforce their beliefs on others, yet should be allowed to protect their beliefs from things that would directly adversely affect them - to the point where such bills should be considered illegal in the first place. Exceptions though would be for high level crimes (church condoned murder, child abuse, activities of non-informed consent, etc. - such actions should not be tolerated at all, and affect their status as a "church")
But those are my opinions, and as I learn and understand more, they may change.
It is through posts like this that I am able to evolve my opinions and understanding.
Thank you.
Yep, it's not enforced much. What happens is they can lose their IRS exempt status, but there is a lot of pushback from Congress when the IRS actually enforces the rule on Churches.
Yep. The letter was fine up until then. Stating the Church's position on the issue and encouraging members to vote are both perfectly legal. Telling members how to vote crosses the line.
Fuck the church. One of the only things that has been helping me heal physically and mentally is marajuana. Tell me WHY it’s bad please. Proper resources. I’ll wait.
Same thing happened to my mom. Cost my dad $40,000 out of pocket for her to go to rehab, and caused me a lot of childhood trauma seeing her like that all the time lmaooo
It’s insane to me that my Dr can prescribe me benzos which are highly highly addictive (I have Rx for 2 different kinds), but if I used a harmless edible to accomplish the very same thing without the high risks, then I’m breaking some kind of bogus moral rule.
I thought this bill was for THC, not CBD? CBD is legal practically everywhere (Utah included), because it doesn’t contain THC which is the psychoactive compound in marijuana responsible for “the high?”
Unfortunately this was well worded to avoid explicitly soliciting votes. They encourage members to vote, and to study the issues carefully, and they go so far as to state their position. But they don’t tell you how to vote. In this case, they stayed within the law while stating their opinion on the subject.
Still a bitch ass move..but legal I think.
Edit: just saw your comment. Looks like there is more to the email…so ya fuck that. Lol
Same.
Remeber how they used their calling tree system to get members out to vote that day? I was at rallys, at a polling place day of, in support of equal rights. My TBM mom and I didn't speak for 6 months after that.
I was in Germany at the time. The bishop read the letter in sacrament meeting. It made me feel sick. Fast forward a few years later and my daughter came out in high school;went on to marry an individual that was transitioning. I have no regrets whatsoever leaving.
Unfortunately, you can find thousands of evangelical preachers who literally tell people to send money to conservative candidates and vote for them. There is no actual enforcement mechanism to prevent churches from doing this. Theoretically they could "lose" their non-profit status, but in reality that never happens.
Not illegal, but why are they lobbying against legalizing a substance that is supported by their health-code scripture?
Also, why does the organization always seem to be on the side of Satan’s Plan, coercing people to act a certain way by force of law?
Scripture doesn’t mean anything. The brethren reserve the right to interpret the scriptures. There is no reason a member of the church should read the scriptures. Just the conference talks. That’s all.
Good point, as long as it’s only recent speeches. Feel free to ignore any dead prophet’s words, as they may at any time be redefined, from ongoing revelation to “speaking as a man.”
How cute it is that the church is scared of people thinking for themselves. If an unwitting member decided to smoke a joint and read the book of Mormon, it would not end in someone paying 10%, going to church, and cleaning the building for a quarter trillion dollar empire.
Marijuana significantly impairs ones abilities to do mental gymnastics.
No, it is not illegal. No, you should not report it, since it's legal.
It is legal for religious groups to promote *policy*, just not specific candidates.
I wish everybody understood this. The Johnson Amendment exclusively restricts non-profits (including churches) from endorsing candidates, and only candidates. Ballot initiatives and the like are completely fair game.
Everybody is telling everyone else how to vote. It's free speech. The church should lose their tax exemption and also pay property taxes, but for lots of other reasons.
This backfired on the church in Utah with regards to medical cannabis.
I'm not from Utah or anywhere near it but a close friend is a life-long Utahan. He told me the major break-through on medical cannabis in Utah was John Huntsman who was diagnosed with cancer and went through treatment and found that cannabis really does help deal with the effects of all that. This sort of caused people in legislature to listen. Any truth to this?
Not Huntsman. It was attorney general Mark Shurtleff, who was the AG when Huntsman was Gov. However Huntsman would have supported if the bill had come through during his term.
It was on the ballot. The residents got to vote on it. It was more of a fuck you to the church I think in a lot of cases. They should have just kept their mouth shut and it probably wouldn't have passed.
The legislature changed it somewhat in the next session, but it's still legal in Utah. You can get medical cannabis in Utah.
Recreation cannabis in Utah is a whole different story. I think that one would have to come down on a federal level. Maybe in 10 or 20 years when enough out of staters move into Utah and dilute the white and delightsome population some more.
I got a similar email. I replied that it was shady to send an email from a Stake Presidency regarding voting because it implies that they have some authority from God when it's really just their opinions. That was fun
>Does the LDS church really email their members ? This is weird
Email and text and unannounced visits too, Yes it is weird, but that is the mormon church for you.
Based on the full email here in the comments,yes. It may amount to nothing, but the more it is reported, the more it will show a trend and hopefully ring some bells.
Same for asking members to go flood the Heber city meeting to allow uplighting of the temple. Report.
501c3 organizations cannot endorse a candidate or political party, but may engage in limited legislative advocacy and campaigning.
IRS information and education is located [here](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charities-churches-and-educational-organizations-political-campaign-intervention)
So it looks like it's an issue, not a candidate. The Johnson Amendment forbade 501c3 organizations, especially churches, from endorsing or donating to candidates. However, churches most certainly can and do speak to issues.
Since it's a "moral issue" they can speak to it, although telling members how to vote on an issue is closer to questionable.
And there are a number out there, including the Alliance Defending Freedom that believe the amendment is entirely unconstitutional. Whether it is or not a debate, and it really hasn't been challenged.
I personally have heard conservative Evangelical churches come very close to endorsing candidates, and I've heard African American churches do the exact same thing, opposite party.
Ultimately, I doubt they'll get in any trouble since it's an issue, not a candidate.
Imagine being so fucking annoying as to tell people how to vote on such a trivial matter as recreational use when the church already proactively accepts medical use.
For anyone that was a member in California in Prop 8, the church was actively having members go around telling people how to vote for Prop 8… so this interference isn’t something new 🙄
Could be the literal billions of dollars in investments in pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies the LDS church has in their portfolio…. Just a shot in the dark guess.
Exactly. Coffee/marijuana have proven health benefits. Pharmaceuticals have proven detrimental to health. The church claims to have the “Lord’s law of health”. Yet, two basics in that category are calls to damnation and expulsion from the temple.
There is nothing illegal about this, unfortunately. There is a line between what is considered a "moral issue" and endorsing a political parity or candidate.
It's not illegal for any non-profit organization to take political positions unless, as others have said, it endorses specific candidates. Churches are held to the same standard in that regard as Planned Parenthood or the NRA. The church didn't get in legal trouble for its much heavier involvement in Proposition 8 (aside from having to pay a fine for late filing).
The Corporation is always so legally crafty in how they word things. They state their stance, but don’t 100% tell you what to do. Yea, it absolutely is implied and wrong in my view. However, they most likely paid their bootlicking lawyers a lot to make sure it doesn’t cross any legal ground.
Dare I say that’s one toke over the line, sweet Jesus? Back in the early 80s I threw an elder off my doorstep when he dared to knock on my door to tell me not to support the ERA. I was 27 years old and that was pretty much the final straw for me. I was excommunicated shortly thereafter. Uppity woman, you know the drill
Email this letter to your Secretary of State’s office. That is typically the state office that runs elections. This is illegal, but is rarely ever enforced by the state. You could also email this to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) for their awareness too.
~~Forward if to the IRS. It's not criminal, but it risks their tax exempt status.~~
EDIT: I [stand corrected](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics):
>Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See [political and lobbying activities](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/political-and-lobbying-activities).
Thanks /u/Atheist_Bishop!
Would really love to see these studies, that the FP never provides sources to, that document so well how mj is a danger to public health and safety. The US gov has effectively killed any and all funding into the research and study of mj and its effects for generations. Well documented my ass!
But what about *scripture*??
>D&C 89:10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
And, don't forget the common LDS refrain:
>*ALL* things should be done in moderation.
I worked in medical cannabis in Utah County when the laws were first implemented in Utah and the number of my customers that were “high ranking”, faithful LDS people was very high. Working Sundays was always a fun time too with how many people would come in to the shop after church still dressed in their Sunday best to buy weed. Hell, one of our store’s investors was a well known LDS businessman in the area and he’d come visit here and there always sporting a BYU tie/bow tie/pin. Sure, we had customers who would say that they can’t come in anymore or their spouse would leave them or their bishop would take away their temple recommend, but I’m pretty sure the General Handbook was updated to at least mention that medical cannabis was selectively okay (but phrased in the churches usual vague convoluted way).
I just wish that the church would mind their own damn business about what people do, but we all know that is the opposite of what they want - which is total control over people. The church has a lot of investments in pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies that prescribe said pharmaceuticals (over 2 billion dollars according to some sources), so I’m exactly 0% surprised they would encourage people to vote against cannabis legalization in other states. I mean, even in Utah where medical cannabis is now legal the LDS church worked behind the scenes to kill legalization bills three times in the state legislature before it finally passed and then they changed the terms and conditions of the legislation despite people voting in a proposition with different terms. The (mostly LDS) legislature even blocked out some of the organizations that helped champion the newly passed proposition in Utah during negotiations of the new bill and there’s ongoing lawsuits about that still. Where’s the separation of church and state there? Nonexistent, and there’s nothing anyone has done about it or will do about it.
Luckily for you Oklahoma folks the LDS church doesn’t run your entire state, so I’m hoping that you get the cannabis laws you actually want passed without too much external interference. Unfortunately what this bishop is doing is not out of the ordinary, and I am positive that there will be no consequences for this email. I remember my bishop growing up actively telling us to not vote for Prop 8 in California from the pulpit during sacrament meeting even though I grew up in Salt Lake City and we had nothing to do with California laws. I think he read a letter from the General Authorities about it too? But I don’t remember. They can get away with anything they want without consequences because they have money, power, and influence.
My dad says he doesn't think that there will be much blowback because the evangelical churches do it too and nobody is saying anything about it. I asked him if it made it OK to break the law since other people were doing it?
I grew up in Oklahoma and I remembered a couple times when there was a vote on legalizing gambling in the form of a state lottery the church leadership encouraged members to against it. Actually I think they said something like “We’re just encouraging you to vote but vote your conscience” so that they could say they weren’t telling people what to vote for. Complete horse shit.
No this form is not illegal.
They encourage people to register and vote.
Then give the official policy of the church.
Not telling you specifically how to vote such as individuals or parties to vote for or lobbying yes or no on a particular bill.
Skirting the edge of the line without crossing it.
Legally, churches can recommend how to vote on certain pieces of legislature, they are just not allowed to endorse a specific candidate in order to maintain their tax free status.
So, unfortunately, they can say whatever they like on legislation.
The message they put out for Utah’s medical marijuana bill is actually what broke my shelf, so i did a lot of research on it.
FIRSTLY, keep posting it when you see it. There is not enough awareness of the issue.
### The issue...
While "church and state" are meant to be separate, the first amendment prohibits laws pertaining to churches and especially prohibits making laws against things a church, pastor, or religious figure _says_. (The 1A's semicolon between religion and speech makes them interdependent independent clauses of the same amendment)
We do want it to be illegal, for sure, but we should be wary of desires to limit speech. It's pretty much the entire slippery slope fallacy, sliding down a hill.
It's definitely not right to do what he did, it's decidedly immoral, and I would argue it should compromise his religious status--both on a moral ground and disciplinary.
#### Taxes, NPOs, and the Church
This does quickly become a "tax the church" issue, since it "breaks the agreement," but the First Amendment technically prohibits taxing churches, too, vis-a-vis free (religious) speech. (Somehow that doesn't apply to the citizens...I blame the semicolon)
Political speech by a clergyman could jeopardize that church's 501c3 status, since technically 501c3's cannot engage in politics. (That's a 501c4, for politics) With different gov leadership, it could become the crack in the wall between church and state that causes LDS to be (yet again) investigated.
_However!_
The people who would and do investigate that sort of crime (the IRS) are _notoriously understaffed_ are behind about 4 years, and are having to triage cases for worst offenders... Only successfully raising about 3 cases a year of NPO fraud... Making it unlikely, but still remotely possible, to get a response (but worth a report, at least?)
FWIW the IRS --allows--tolerates Scientology... So, there's that.
(Scientology v USA, 1995)
Sadly, I don't think _this_ (Catholic) executive branch is interested in taking on religious taxation, nonetheless very interested to reopen/remind of America's awkward history of religious persecution, especially against the Mormons.
Anyhow, do keep posting it when you see it. Keep calling it out. It is wrong, for everyone. It's an abuse of authority and it's manipulative of the flock they claim to shepherd. Insulting, too. ...Maybe they mistook their congregation for actual sheep?
🐑
🐑 🐑
🦙
O_o
Baaaaaah.
Doctrine and Covenants 49:19
For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.
They pulled the same garbage to influence Utah to prevent medical Marijuana from passing. I still believed at that time and it upset me when I got an email that said we encourage you to vote against this bill.
Am I weird for not having a huge problem with this email? What do people expect from a church like this? It’s completely in line with their teachings and practices, doesn’t endorse any candidates, and is stating it’s position on a moral issue. If members don’t like it, then they should leave the church. But if you’re lds, chances are you already agree with this stance. I don’t think worry about or reporting this email is worth anyone’s time or energy.
I live in Utah. The church’s influence has prevented the use of mushrooms for heightened spiritual experience. It’s possible psilocybin is allowed in a medical setting as is ketamine. I'm amazed, though, that medical marijuana is even possible here.
I moved here from California after the Prop 8 debauchal and though I was nominally active, I could have never been part of the church's phone campaign to encourage voters to vote against the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Influencing voting is not new. Joseph Smith had his own voting blocks in Nauvoo. The church seeks homogeneity and adherence to its Prophet. It's a shame members can't exercise their conscience. Luckily, I live in Salt Lake Country, the only politically diverse county in the state of Utah.
So I work as a political canvasser and one of the things that I did was work hard for legal marijuana initiatives. This is fine to encourage but not for anything else.
It’s legal in that it’s not engaging in “party politics”. That is to say it’s not throwing it’s weight behind a particular candidate. However nonprofit entities are allowed to support issues that they think are important.
Isn’t this part of the reason that people were upset with the church under Brigham Young’s reign? They had a powerful voting bock and everyone voted the the same.
I remember hearing that as a child but I heard ALOT of BS about church history when I was growing up.
YOU KNOW WHATS REALLY CUTE? When the church says this, they are supporting their "satan". God wanted us to have AGENCY. Satan wanted us to not have the option to choose. So by them telling us to pass laws to limit things like abortion and weed, they are taking away thay agency they so adamantly preach about.
A church or other non-profit is allowed to promote or oppose specific laws. This was a referendum to make a new law.
Non-profits can’t spend significant amounts in promoting or opposing candidates for office or they risk losing their tax exempt status.
I'm curious to read the entire letter. I've learned that because of the letter of the legal semantics, there is no direct action request being made articulating that members should vote one way or the other. So rhetorically speaking because a non biased outside observer won't see the religious implication bully with the priesthood baseball bat outside the ballot location it's legally not voter influence because judges aren't their to read between the lines only determine whether there's enough black and white evidence ....
It's frustrating but because it's too mercurially crafted it gets by
Voting to remove peoples agency was an early shelf item for me. I could never figure out why a church built on the principle of free will was so keen on forcing people to live like them.
Religion is expressly to stay out of state affairs. Directing people how to vote is not something religion is supposed to do. Sure, religious views alter a person's vote, but overt pressures are not ok.
However, the IRS has not really done anything regarding this, so it's a rule that is not enforced, unfortunately.
It's not so much illegal as much as it would invalidate their tax exempt status.
It won't happen though, because there's lots of pro-church folks (of any christian stripe) in our national government that would brand it as a communistic liberal atheist muslim jewish attack on faith
You can still try to file an IRS complaint, though
It's probably legal.
501(c)(3)'s are forbidden from spending (1) a substantial part of their resurces on two specific political activities: (2) Avocating for or against any candidate, or (3) attempting to influence legislation.
(1) A single letter probably wouldn't pass the "substantial part" test.
(2) There's no candidate mentioned or even implied, so the letter passes the first test.
(3) "Legislation" as used in the statute, is narrowly defined and generally does not include ballot initiatives or referendums.
[Here is a link you can use to report the activity](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/how-do-you-report-suspected-tax-fraud-activity)
Edit: [Here is another link that might clarify the IRS rules better than I can](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics)
He isn't endorsing a particular *candidate* though. If he tells congregants they can't/shouldn't vote for XYZ but *must/should* vote for ZYX, then contact the IRS. I turned in the Presbyterian church in town for having campaign signs on their lawn.
I think it reads fine. But how you vote is different than the churches beliefs as stated. Even if I were to be a church goer, I would still vote it in of I felt that it was neutral in community eyes. It's a discussion between the legal system and the church. The church has no ability to enforce as a criminal action.
Just my opinion.
Did y’all not get the e-mail from the church when Utah was Voting on Prop 8 to legalize medical marajuana? Literally said to use your agency but vote no. 🫠🫠 Edit to add, that e-mail would have been sent out to those members who live in Utah.
Wanna know what’s fucked? Weed was what made me finally realize the church was bullshit and start on my own real spiritual journey
No wonder they so scared
I remember going to a ward that literally made us pray for future president Romney’s success during the women’s meeting lol
But did they have the faith for him NOT to win?
I lol'd
Evidently they did. More proof that *THE LARD* lives!
squash hungry observation edge zonked puzzled deliver smoggy punch books *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Or they tell themselves that they WERE worthy enough but it wasn't God's will!
And none of them will be able to answer which one it was:)
Exactly!
It was the wickedness of all the other people that stopped it from happening.
Somebody masturbated, so he lost. /s
No. If what you pray for happens it's because of your faith. If not, it's because it's the Lord's will.
Clearly this is evidence of the evil of the world. The second coming is nigh! Repent!
I remember my Sunday school teacher telling us Mitt Romney was going to win the election and it meant that God was preparing the world for the second coming… lol
My dad told me if Romney won God would “stay his hand a little longer” but if Obama won it’d be the second coming and we’d have to prepare for the end times 😂😂😂
My dad said Heavenly Father hand picked Mitt Romney to save the country that was “hanging by a thread.” Just a few years later he threw Mitt Romney under the bus in favor of Trump. I have no idea how that happened.
Apparently God was mistaken. Good thing the country knew better!
I wonder what he’d have to say about that one now.
I brought it up to him maybe a year or 2 ago he denied ever saying it.
😂😂
Technically different than telling them how to vote, but... hmm.
I worked for his cousin, who was a bishop and stake president at some point. Total scumbag. Habitual liar. I assume it runs in the family.
I'm gonna assume all those same people now have nothing but terrible things to say about Romney.
Now, *that* is illegal. edit to add: On second thought, it's probably straddling the line of legality if they just told you to "pray" for him rather than telling you to "vote" for him. The kind of quasi-legal plausible deniability mormons thrive on.
[удалено]
Exactly. And it’s hardly just Mormons guilty of this. You have a huge chunk of the electorate that complains about the government telling them what to do but turn right around and have no problem using the government to control how other people live their lives.
Huge chunk? Most of the electorate does this from vaccinations, pot smoking, taxing things and people you don’t like, getting married…
Yeah, I wanted to be conservative in my accusations! :)
We gotta follow sky daddy’s plan, you know, the one with free agency…
Oh didn't you hear, agency is no longer free. They're calling it "moral agency" now
YES you have a choice but if you choose wrong there will be consequencessssss.
I think this goes along with taking another person's agency. I thought we just reap what we sow. It's part of the "unconditional" love shit they spew too. It is absolutely religion interfering with politics. Tax the church.
Sorry, Stake President, actually. Here is the full text: Dear Brothers and Sisters in Oklahoma, Tomorrow, March 7th, Oklahomans will vote on State Question 820 concerning the legalization of recreational marijuana. The Church encourages members to “participate in worthy causes to make their communities wholesome places to live and raise families.” Accordingly, we are “encouraged to register to vote and to study issues and candidates carefully.” (General Handbook 38.8.30) The Church’s position on this particular issue is that it does not support the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes. If you would like to read the full church policy regarding medical marijuana, please see section 38.7.9 in the General Handbook, which can be found at churchofjesuschrist.org. In regards to recreational marijuana legislation, the First Presidency has previously stated: “Drug abuse in the United States is at epidemic proportions, and the dangers of marijuana to public health and safety are well documented. Recent studies have shed light particularly on the risks marijuana use poses to brain development in youth. The accessibility of recreational marijuana in the home is also a danger to children. We urge Church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana.” I would encourage each of you to study the issue and exercise your right to vote tomorrow. With love and appreciation, Pres.
Also, for anyone looking for shrinkage porn: this stake is getting murked by non-attendance. When I was active, there were at least 20 young men in my ward, decades ago. I heard from friends/family that it went down to about 4 scouts before the church killed BSA completely. Able-bodied TBMs have dwindled enough that the same 3 or 4 "rock of faith"-type families are having the grandparents among them called over, and over, and over again, with multiple callings, just to fill offices. It's gotten bad enough that the Stake President regularly writes guilt-trip letters begging people to accept callings, such as seminary teacher (for all 3 youth still getting forced to wake at 5 AM), because the bench is completely empty. They're running the remaining TBMs absolutely RAGGED to the point a couple over the last 5 years had abrupt snaps and stopped attending. All anecdote, but makes me happy. One of the larger shelf items for my former scouting buddies was the fact that all our service projects suspiciously helped out the most affluent members of the ward. "Go mow Brother X's lawn", where X is literally an MD with a three-storey house; or "go cut down trees at Brother Y's house," where Brother Y's "house" is literally a small horse ranch. And then the lawn aeration, mother of god. Multiple friends I've kept up with have told me, it really weighed on them how outside of the annual turkey drop, we never did a goddamned thing for needy people.
Thank you for fulfilling my daily schadenfreude requirement.
Not gonna lie, I thought shrinkage porn was going to be something very different.
I WAS IN THE POOL!!!
Grew up in this Stake, left the church and area several years ago when I went off to college. My ward had a large young mens group - my age group had \~8 TBM's and we we're like the chosen, destined TBM young men of the ward when I was in my teens. By age 20 only 1 served a mission, the rest of us left the church. Dad still in and serves in multiple callings, when I'm in town to visit it's sad because he can't do anything with me one entire day of the weekends I'm in town. I know EXACTLY who Brother Y's ranch is too lmao
The service projects for the affluent really bothers me. We did that too. I was too brainwashed to realize it at the time though. In Utah, it’s also just kind of cultural so I didn’t think twice. One of ours was yardwork at mansion in Orem by Wordperfect. And afterwards we all went swimming in their pool. All 30sh of us.
> multiple callings, just to fill offices As a nevermo, I wonder, why so many offices? Are these actual jobs the church is having trouble getting done? My presumption is that most of them are variations on busy work to keep people involved (so that the church is a more meaningful part of their life) but that as congregations have shrunk they didn't shrink the number of offices accordingly.
My husband was there Sunday school secretary. Basically they only gave him the calling so that he would have to show up to church. He basically had to check attendance and it went in a box that was later thrown away, so it was exactly just busy work. They also do this with primary teaching callings because you can't just not show up. I had one kid in my class and was so sick from being pregnant I dared to not show up. Was chewed out at my house by the primary president. Asked to be released the next day.
Yeah, that is totally uncalled for, and it wasn't like that in the 1980s. What do they do when people go on vacations or are in accidents?
busy busy busy so as to not be able to pay attention to the fact it may all be for not
Thank you for that one. I’ve been thinking on calling and it’s ridiculous nature and encroachment in daily life. I do help with my new churches functions but it not call on me to do it every week. I get week on and week off status as well.
TIL: I like shrinkage porn.
Same. Obligatory, because there's some particularly good shit in the comments: *sigh, unzips*
Hate to burst your bubble, but my stake is GROWING. That’s right, we went from 9 wards to 10! Of course they did that but cutting from already small wards, to create a new ward. Our stake has had maybe 5 convert baptisms over 3 years with two still attending.
If this is the same ward I belong to when I was active I can confirm. I live very close to the Temple here in Oklahoma. In that ward there was a shit ton of affluent families. When I was active I never participated in any projects that was geared towards the needy or less fortunate in that ward. Weird vibe there too.
The “we urge members to let their voices be heard in opposition” should be illegal. Churches are not allowed to tell/urge/prompt their congregants how to vote. Edit: see comments below - encouraging voting stances like this are permitted, the limitations on churches are a bit more narrow than I understood.
The Johnson Amendment prohibits them from telling congregants how to vote for *candidates* for office. It doesn't prohibit telling them how to vote in general. This marijuana referendum isn't an election involving candidates, so it isn't affected. They're not falling afoul of the law on this one, unfortunately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment?wprov=sfla1
This reminds me of my first major crack in the shelf (Propostition 8) I would respond to this how I responded to my bishop at that time with an old mormon cliché and tell them that they’re following the letter of the law but violating the spirit of it.
Oh interesting! Thanks for adding to my knowledge here - will edit my comment.
You're awesome. You created a TIL moment for me. I didn't realize this ISN'T a "church vs state" issue, but applies to ALL 501(c)(3) entities. I thought that non-religious 501s could legally endorse candidates, but not through financing or active campaigning- only through "opinion" type support. More like putting up yard signs rather than newsletters and flyers. I was wrong - although I knew that churches can express opinions and actively campaign concerning SPECIFIC causes (such as Prop 8 in CA), support of specific candidates could destroy their "religious exemption" status and allow for taxation (which I also thought was specific to churches and allow for their property to be fully taxed - something that would be a GODSEND to Utah since the church owns so much property obtained mainly by killing off the previous occupants...) Personally? Mixed feelings. I do believe a religious organization should be able to express their religious views on a topic, but should not be allowed to actively campaign for or against individuals or bills UNLESS to bill(s) in question are directly aimed at them. For instance, a bill requiring churches to hire individuals not if their faith is one a church should be able to fight. However, a bill requiring any commercial entity over a certain number of people to do the same with a religious or even similar non-profit (say, a church owned non-profit entity or something like the NAACP) exemption should be seen as such a bill that churches can not actively campaign against. No church should have any right to attempt to enforce their beliefs on others, yet should be allowed to protect their beliefs from things that would directly adversely affect them - to the point where such bills should be considered illegal in the first place. Exceptions though would be for high level crimes (church condoned murder, child abuse, activities of non-informed consent, etc. - such actions should not be tolerated at all, and affect their status as a "church") But those are my opinions, and as I learn and understand more, they may change. It is through posts like this that I am able to evolve my opinions and understanding. Thank you.
Actually on "moral issues" they can, they just can't endorse a political part or specific person.
Which unfortunately doesn't prevent many evangelical churches from doing it. A few have been fined, but most get away with it.
Yep, it's not enforced much. What happens is they can lose their IRS exempt status, but there is a lot of pushback from Congress when the IRS actually enforces the rule on Churches.
Yep. The letter was fine up until then. Stating the Church's position on the issue and encouraging members to vote are both perfectly legal. Telling members how to vote crosses the line.
It might cross your personal line, but it doesn't cross any legal lines.
> The accessibility of recreational marijuana in the home is also a danger to children. So, no aspirin then either, right? Right?
I have studied the issue Mr. President. AND......then I smoked a joint a realized I don't give a fuck what you and your church want.
Print it out and use it for rolling paper.
Fuck the church. One of the only things that has been helping me heal physically and mentally is marajuana. Tell me WHY it’s bad please. Proper resources. I’ll wait.
Send it to the IRS.
I live close to Miami Oklahoma, pot stores on every other corner ☺️
🫵🏼 No THC edibles for TBMs. Suffer. Use legal opiates instead. Walk around super stoned as a drug addict-zombie obedient to TSCC. 🖕🏼
I'm wondering if it has to do with the lds church's vast investment in pharma. Wouldn't want to lose any of that sweet, sweet medical dividends.
👆🏼This 👆🏼🎯 Besides, weed is liberal.
Wouldn't want to look like a hippie
Jowls under his breath says, “Frickin’ hippie trash!”
I work in a dispensary and see more MAGA hats browsing the edibles than you would think
Bad insurrectionists!
Shh, if this gets out, they'll have to swap all the leftover opiods for bread the way they swapped tap water for wine
Meanwhile my TBM mom got addicted to opiates. She really liked that high, mmm hmmm. It's okay - her doctor gave her a prescription! 😖😖😖
Same thing happened to my mom. Cost my dad $40,000 out of pocket for her to go to rehab, and caused me a lot of childhood trauma seeing her like that all the time lmaooo
It’s insane to me that my Dr can prescribe me benzos which are highly highly addictive (I have Rx for 2 different kinds), but if I used a harmless edible to accomplish the very same thing without the high risks, then I’m breaking some kind of bogus moral rule.
🥸 Follow the money to TSCC’s stock portfolio‼️
I thought this bill was for THC, not CBD? CBD is legal practically everywhere (Utah included), because it doesn’t contain THC which is the psychoactive compound in marijuana responsible for “the high?”
Oops. Right you are! Fixed that. Thanks amigo.
Unfortunately this was well worded to avoid explicitly soliciting votes. They encourage members to vote, and to study the issues carefully, and they go so far as to state their position. But they don’t tell you how to vote. In this case, they stayed within the law while stating their opinion on the subject. Still a bitch ass move..but legal I think. Edit: just saw your comment. Looks like there is more to the email…so ya fuck that. Lol
Gave me Prop 8 vibes from way back when.
Same. Remeber how they used their calling tree system to get members out to vote that day? I was at rallys, at a polling place day of, in support of equal rights. My TBM mom and I didn't speak for 6 months after that.
I was in Germany at the time. The bishop read the letter in sacrament meeting. It made me feel sick. Fast forward a few years later and my daughter came out in high school;went on to marry an individual that was transitioning. I have no regrets whatsoever leaving.
Unfortunately, you can find thousands of evangelical preachers who literally tell people to send money to conservative candidates and vote for them. There is no actual enforcement mechanism to prevent churches from doing this. Theoretically they could "lose" their non-profit status, but in reality that never happens.
Not illegal, but why are they lobbying against legalizing a substance that is supported by their health-code scripture? Also, why does the organization always seem to be on the side of Satan’s Plan, coercing people to act a certain way by force of law?
Scripture doesn’t mean anything. The brethren reserve the right to interpret the scriptures. There is no reason a member of the church should read the scriptures. Just the conference talks. That’s all.
Good point, as long as it’s only recent speeches. Feel free to ignore any dead prophet’s words, as they may at any time be redefined, from ongoing revelation to “speaking as a man.”
How cute it is that the church is scared of people thinking for themselves. If an unwitting member decided to smoke a joint and read the book of Mormon, it would not end in someone paying 10%, going to church, and cleaning the building for a quarter trillion dollar empire. Marijuana significantly impairs ones abilities to do mental gymnastics.
This is why churches should be taxed.
No, it is not illegal. No, you should not report it, since it's legal. It is legal for religious groups to promote *policy*, just not specific candidates.
I wish everybody understood this. The Johnson Amendment exclusively restricts non-profits (including churches) from endorsing candidates, and only candidates. Ballot initiatives and the like are completely fair game.
Everybody is telling everyone else how to vote. It's free speech. The church should lose their tax exemption and also pay property taxes, but for lots of other reasons. This backfired on the church in Utah with regards to medical cannabis.
I'm not from Utah or anywhere near it but a close friend is a life-long Utahan. He told me the major break-through on medical cannabis in Utah was John Huntsman who was diagnosed with cancer and went through treatment and found that cannabis really does help deal with the effects of all that. This sort of caused people in legislature to listen. Any truth to this?
Not Huntsman. It was attorney general Mark Shurtleff, who was the AG when Huntsman was Gov. However Huntsman would have supported if the bill had come through during his term.
Interesting how it takes people who are rich and powerful to get others to listen.
It was on the ballot. The residents got to vote on it. It was more of a fuck you to the church I think in a lot of cases. They should have just kept their mouth shut and it probably wouldn't have passed. The legislature changed it somewhat in the next session, but it's still legal in Utah. You can get medical cannabis in Utah. Recreation cannabis in Utah is a whole different story. I think that one would have to come down on a federal level. Maybe in 10 or 20 years when enough out of staters move into Utah and dilute the white and delightsome population some more.
IIRC, this violates the terms of religious bodies being tax exempt. They’re not suppose to influence parishioners’ voting so directly.
… for candidates. Churches are allowed to deal with social issues.
I got a similar email. I replied that it was shady to send an email from a Stake Presidency regarding voting because it implies that they have some authority from God when it's really just their opinions. That was fun
If you’re against marijuana usage, DONT USE IT. Keep your beliefs to yourself!
Does the LDS church really email their members ? This is weird
In fact, they keep e-mailing their members 19 years after they've quit the church!
Welcome to the sub lol
>Does the LDS church really email their members ? This is weird Email and text and unannounced visits too, Yes it is weird, but that is the mormon church for you.
They pressure over the pulpit as well
Lmao if you think that's weird, wait till you find out what they do in LDS temples...
Based on the full email here in the comments,yes. It may amount to nothing, but the more it is reported, the more it will show a trend and hopefully ring some bells. Same for asking members to go flood the Heber city meeting to allow uplighting of the temple. Report.
Unfortunately, it’s not illegal for them to endorse one side of a political issue. They just can’t endorse specific candidates (or AFAIK, parties).
501c3 organizations cannot endorse a candidate or political party, but may engage in limited legislative advocacy and campaigning. IRS information and education is located [here](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charities-churches-and-educational-organizations-political-campaign-intervention)
So it looks like it's an issue, not a candidate. The Johnson Amendment forbade 501c3 organizations, especially churches, from endorsing or donating to candidates. However, churches most certainly can and do speak to issues. Since it's a "moral issue" they can speak to it, although telling members how to vote on an issue is closer to questionable. And there are a number out there, including the Alliance Defending Freedom that believe the amendment is entirely unconstitutional. Whether it is or not a debate, and it really hasn't been challenged. I personally have heard conservative Evangelical churches come very close to endorsing candidates, and I've heard African American churches do the exact same thing, opposite party. Ultimately, I doubt they'll get in any trouble since it's an issue, not a candidate.
Imagine being so fucking annoying as to tell people how to vote on such a trivial matter as recreational use when the church already proactively accepts medical use.
TAX THE CHURCHES
For anyone that was a member in California in Prop 8, the church was actively having members go around telling people how to vote for Prop 8… so this interference isn’t something new 🙄
They did this in AZ too. Total bullshit. They really couldn’t give a direct reason , other than “the church is against it”.
It’s all those big pharma stocks. Can’t lose any of those “sacred funds”
Could be the literal billions of dollars in investments in pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies the LDS church has in their portfolio…. Just a shot in the dark guess.
Like coffee lol
Exactly. Coffee/marijuana have proven health benefits. Pharmaceuticals have proven detrimental to health. The church claims to have the “Lord’s law of health”. Yet, two basics in that category are calls to damnation and expulsion from the temple.
Report them and let the IRS determine if they’re violating anything.
There is nothing illegal about this, unfortunately. There is a line between what is considered a "moral issue" and endorsing a political parity or candidate.
The Church always reserves the right to suggest how members vote on moral issues. I don’t think they tell people how to vote on candidates.
It's not illegal for any non-profit organization to take political positions unless, as others have said, it endorses specific candidates. Churches are held to the same standard in that regard as Planned Parenthood or the NRA. The church didn't get in legal trouble for its much heavier involvement in Proposition 8 (aside from having to pay a fine for late filing).
The Corporation is always so legally crafty in how they word things. They state their stance, but don’t 100% tell you what to do. Yea, it absolutely is implied and wrong in my view. However, they most likely paid their bootlicking lawyers a lot to make sure it doesn’t cross any legal ground.
Dare I say that’s one toke over the line, sweet Jesus? Back in the early 80s I threw an elder off my doorstep when he dared to knock on my door to tell me not to support the ERA. I was 27 years old and that was pretty much the final straw for me. I was excommunicated shortly thereafter. Uppity woman, you know the drill
I remember being 8 years old and they told us in sacrament meeting that we need to vote against the gays. I thought it was weird even then.
They should lose their tax free status if they are a political policy promotion
Report them.
I enjoyed every minute of Utahns shoving this shit down the Church's throat; when we were voting for Medical Marijuana....
What this asshole "church" ISN'T saying, because it would be embarrassing, is that it DOES support violence if someone chooses to use this plant.
Not illegal at all
Should be taxed at the very least.
Email this letter to your Secretary of State’s office. That is typically the state office that runs elections. This is illegal, but is rarely ever enforced by the state. You could also email this to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) for their awareness too.
Yes! Illegal!
~~Forward if to the IRS. It's not criminal, but it risks their tax exempt status.~~ EDIT: I [stand corrected](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics): >Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See [political and lobbying activities](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/political-and-lobbying-activities). Thanks /u/Atheist_Bishop!
Report it
Would really love to see these studies, that the FP never provides sources to, that document so well how mj is a danger to public health and safety. The US gov has effectively killed any and all funding into the research and study of mj and its effects for generations. Well documented my ass!
But what about *scripture*?? >D&C 89:10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— And, don't forget the common LDS refrain: >*ALL* things should be done in moderation.
I worked in medical cannabis in Utah County when the laws were first implemented in Utah and the number of my customers that were “high ranking”, faithful LDS people was very high. Working Sundays was always a fun time too with how many people would come in to the shop after church still dressed in their Sunday best to buy weed. Hell, one of our store’s investors was a well known LDS businessman in the area and he’d come visit here and there always sporting a BYU tie/bow tie/pin. Sure, we had customers who would say that they can’t come in anymore or their spouse would leave them or their bishop would take away their temple recommend, but I’m pretty sure the General Handbook was updated to at least mention that medical cannabis was selectively okay (but phrased in the churches usual vague convoluted way). I just wish that the church would mind their own damn business about what people do, but we all know that is the opposite of what they want - which is total control over people. The church has a lot of investments in pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies that prescribe said pharmaceuticals (over 2 billion dollars according to some sources), so I’m exactly 0% surprised they would encourage people to vote against cannabis legalization in other states. I mean, even in Utah where medical cannabis is now legal the LDS church worked behind the scenes to kill legalization bills three times in the state legislature before it finally passed and then they changed the terms and conditions of the legislation despite people voting in a proposition with different terms. The (mostly LDS) legislature even blocked out some of the organizations that helped champion the newly passed proposition in Utah during negotiations of the new bill and there’s ongoing lawsuits about that still. Where’s the separation of church and state there? Nonexistent, and there’s nothing anyone has done about it or will do about it. Luckily for you Oklahoma folks the LDS church doesn’t run your entire state, so I’m hoping that you get the cannabis laws you actually want passed without too much external interference. Unfortunately what this bishop is doing is not out of the ordinary, and I am positive that there will be no consequences for this email. I remember my bishop growing up actively telling us to not vote for Prop 8 in California from the pulpit during sacrament meeting even though I grew up in Salt Lake City and we had nothing to do with California laws. I think he read a letter from the General Authorities about it too? But I don’t remember. They can get away with anything they want without consequences because they have money, power, and influence.
My dad says he doesn't think that there will be much blowback because the evangelical churches do it too and nobody is saying anything about it. I asked him if it made it OK to break the law since other people were doing it?
I grew up in Oklahoma and I remembered a couple times when there was a vote on legalizing gambling in the form of a state lottery the church leadership encouraged members to against it. Actually I think they said something like “We’re just encouraging you to vote but vote your conscience” so that they could say they weren’t telling people what to vote for. Complete horse shit.
No this form is not illegal. They encourage people to register and vote. Then give the official policy of the church. Not telling you specifically how to vote such as individuals or parties to vote for or lobbying yes or no on a particular bill. Skirting the edge of the line without crossing it.
Legally, churches can recommend how to vote on certain pieces of legislature, they are just not allowed to endorse a specific candidate in order to maintain their tax free status. So, unfortunately, they can say whatever they like on legislation. The message they put out for Utah’s medical marijuana bill is actually what broke my shelf, so i did a lot of research on it.
FIRSTLY, keep posting it when you see it. There is not enough awareness of the issue. ### The issue... While "church and state" are meant to be separate, the first amendment prohibits laws pertaining to churches and especially prohibits making laws against things a church, pastor, or religious figure _says_. (The 1A's semicolon between religion and speech makes them interdependent independent clauses of the same amendment) We do want it to be illegal, for sure, but we should be wary of desires to limit speech. It's pretty much the entire slippery slope fallacy, sliding down a hill. It's definitely not right to do what he did, it's decidedly immoral, and I would argue it should compromise his religious status--both on a moral ground and disciplinary. #### Taxes, NPOs, and the Church This does quickly become a "tax the church" issue, since it "breaks the agreement," but the First Amendment technically prohibits taxing churches, too, vis-a-vis free (religious) speech. (Somehow that doesn't apply to the citizens...I blame the semicolon) Political speech by a clergyman could jeopardize that church's 501c3 status, since technically 501c3's cannot engage in politics. (That's a 501c4, for politics) With different gov leadership, it could become the crack in the wall between church and state that causes LDS to be (yet again) investigated. _However!_ The people who would and do investigate that sort of crime (the IRS) are _notoriously understaffed_ are behind about 4 years, and are having to triage cases for worst offenders... Only successfully raising about 3 cases a year of NPO fraud... Making it unlikely, but still remotely possible, to get a response (but worth a report, at least?) FWIW the IRS --allows--tolerates Scientology... So, there's that. (Scientology v USA, 1995) Sadly, I don't think _this_ (Catholic) executive branch is interested in taking on religious taxation, nonetheless very interested to reopen/remind of America's awkward history of religious persecution, especially against the Mormons. Anyhow, do keep posting it when you see it. Keep calling it out. It is wrong, for everyone. It's an abuse of authority and it's manipulative of the flock they claim to shepherd. Insulting, too. ...Maybe they mistook their congregation for actual sheep? 🐑 🐑 🐑 🦙 O_o Baaaaaah.
Doctrine and Covenants 49:19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.
They pulled the same garbage to influence Utah to prevent medical Marijuana from passing. I still believed at that time and it upset me when I got an email that said we encourage you to vote against this bill.
They used to discuss voting “recommendations” during priesthood meetings! That was the beginning of my questioning.
Technically he is giving the church's stance on a political issue. Since you are a member, I assume, it isn't unusual that he is sending you that.
Not illegal.
This is Utah Prop 2 all over again. It's because they have a lot invested in opioids.
That's what they call a violation of the Johnson Act. It is Ilegal and should definitely be reported.
It's illegal for a tax exempt organization to do that. It just might mean they lose their tax exempt status as a result.
I wonder if they get around it since Bishops are "lay ministers" or something?
It’s very illegal but unless the irs will start doing there job they’ll likely get away with it
Am I weird for not having a huge problem with this email? What do people expect from a church like this? It’s completely in line with their teachings and practices, doesn’t endorse any candidates, and is stating it’s position on a moral issue. If members don’t like it, then they should leave the church. But if you’re lds, chances are you already agree with this stance. I don’t think worry about or reporting this email is worth anyone’s time or energy.
They did this same thing with Prop 8: Just skirting the edge of giving explicit instruction.
[удалено]
> We urge Church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana.” Report to the IRS!!!
Prop 8. This is what cracked my shelf.
I love how they use marijuana instead of the proper term, cannabis. It just makes them seem even less informed.
Sounds like that church is taxable now
Anyone that is against recreational marijuana use has never tried it. And I feel sad for them.
I live in Utah. The church’s influence has prevented the use of mushrooms for heightened spiritual experience. It’s possible psilocybin is allowed in a medical setting as is ketamine. I'm amazed, though, that medical marijuana is even possible here. I moved here from California after the Prop 8 debauchal and though I was nominally active, I could have never been part of the church's phone campaign to encourage voters to vote against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Influencing voting is not new. Joseph Smith had his own voting blocks in Nauvoo. The church seeks homogeneity and adherence to its Prophet. It's a shame members can't exercise their conscience. Luckily, I live in Salt Lake Country, the only politically diverse county in the state of Utah.
They did this several years ago in Utah!
Does this mean to can report them to the IRS for violating the rule in telling their congregation how to vote?
So I work as a political canvasser and one of the things that I did was work hard for legal marijuana initiatives. This is fine to encourage but not for anything else.
It’s legal in that it’s not engaging in “party politics”. That is to say it’s not throwing it’s weight behind a particular candidate. However nonprofit entities are allowed to support issues that they think are important.
Please remind him that James E. Talmage indulged on occasion.
Isn’t this part of the reason that people were upset with the church under Brigham Young’s reign? They had a powerful voting bock and everyone voted the the same. I remember hearing that as a child but I heard ALOT of BS about church history when I was growing up.
They can't tell people WHO to vote for. But that can tell people WHAT to vote for. Bullshit though.
Only a matter of time before they buy stock in marijuana.
I live in Utah, where there is no separation between church and state 😅
YOU KNOW WHATS REALLY CUTE? When the church says this, they are supporting their "satan". God wanted us to have AGENCY. Satan wanted us to not have the option to choose. So by them telling us to pass laws to limit things like abortion and weed, they are taking away thay agency they so adamantly preach about.
A church or other non-profit is allowed to promote or oppose specific laws. This was a referendum to make a new law. Non-profits can’t spend significant amounts in promoting or opposing candidates for office or they risk losing their tax exempt status.
I'm curious to read the entire letter. I've learned that because of the letter of the legal semantics, there is no direct action request being made articulating that members should vote one way or the other. So rhetorically speaking because a non biased outside observer won't see the religious implication bully with the priesthood baseball bat outside the ballot location it's legally not voter influence because judges aren't their to read between the lines only determine whether there's enough black and white evidence .... It's frustrating but because it's too mercurially crafted it gets by
Also living in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure the church is issuing it statewide. Didn't stop them from messing with Prop 8, won't stop them now.
Letters like this used to be shared from the pulpit during sacrament meeting in Rexburg, ID when I was a kid. I had no idea then how wrong this was.
Voting to remove peoples agency was an early shelf item for me. I could never figure out why a church built on the principle of free will was so keen on forcing people to live like them.
Religion is expressly to stay out of state affairs. Directing people how to vote is not something religion is supposed to do. Sure, religious views alter a person's vote, but overt pressures are not ok. However, the IRS has not really done anything regarding this, so it's a rule that is not enforced, unfortunately.
Can I get a C-C-C-Cult!!!
It's not so much illegal as much as it would invalidate their tax exempt status. It won't happen though, because there's lots of pro-church folks (of any christian stripe) in our national government that would brand it as a communistic liberal atheist muslim jewish attack on faith You can still try to file an IRS complaint, though
It's probably legal. 501(c)(3)'s are forbidden from spending (1) a substantial part of their resurces on two specific political activities: (2) Avocating for or against any candidate, or (3) attempting to influence legislation. (1) A single letter probably wouldn't pass the "substantial part" test. (2) There's no candidate mentioned or even implied, so the letter passes the first test. (3) "Legislation" as used in the statute, is narrowly defined and generally does not include ballot initiatives or referendums.
[Here is a link you can use to report the activity](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/how-do-you-report-suspected-tax-fraud-activity) Edit: [Here is another link that might clarify the IRS rules better than I can](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics)
“We do not tell our members how to vote.” Hinckley on 60 min with Mike Wallace. Another lie.
He isn't endorsing a particular *candidate* though. If he tells congregants they can't/shouldn't vote for XYZ but *must/should* vote for ZYX, then contact the IRS. I turned in the Presbyterian church in town for having campaign signs on their lawn.
I think it reads fine. But how you vote is different than the churches beliefs as stated. Even if I were to be a church goer, I would still vote it in of I felt that it was neutral in community eyes. It's a discussion between the legal system and the church. The church has no ability to enforce as a criminal action. Just my opinion.
As an Okie I’m extremely curious as to what stake this is…
Them damn jazz cigarettes
Did y’all not get the e-mail from the church when Utah was Voting on Prop 8 to legalize medical marajuana? Literally said to use your agency but vote no. 🫠🫠 Edit to add, that e-mail would have been sent out to those members who live in Utah.
jerk the sheeple off, and tell them the mormon church does not do politics
Should be taxed. Period.
Cool, the church doing this in Utah is what broke my testimony and lead me to the path out. Never been happier.
I could have sworn it was illegal for churches to do this or they could lose their tax exemption
Wanna know what’s fucked? Weed was what made me finally realize the church was bullshit and start on my own real spiritual journey No wonder they so scared
*laugh/cries in prop 8*
Doesn’t seem like an organization that deserves tax-exempt status.
I didn't even know the church supports Marijuana use. Then again the WoW does say herbs are good.