Quantcast
Utah

New TV commercial calls for leaks about potential Mormon tax fraud

Comments

Return To Article
  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 13, 2017 8:41 p.m.

    @Ranch

    "@Riverton Cougar;

    First you have to prove that 'god' exists before you can invoke 'god's laws'."

    I must have missed the part of the Constitution where a religion had to "prove" that it's the one true religion in order to have a Constitutional right to speak out on moral issues. Is that right next to the gay marriage clause?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 13, 2017 12:30 p.m.

    @summarizerer;

    1) You're forgetting Prop-8 & Amendment 3 (not to mention all the other states that the LDS church got involved in).
    2) You're also forgetting that immediately after the "compromise" bill, Utah's legislators passed a second bill that gutted some of the compromise.

  • summarizerer Berryville, VA
    Jan. 13, 2017 11:42 a.m.

    @Ranch

    "You have part of your comment right, equality IS a moral issue. Trying to keep others from being treated equally is immoral."

    I guess your forgetting the Utah compromise.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 13, 2017 11:11 a.m.

    mhenshaw said:

    "That's the beauty of conducting one's affairs honestly and honorably."

    --- You mean like setting up front-groups to do your dirty work so that your church wouldn't appear as the major force of an activity? That is honest and honorable? Not even.

    @Riverton Cougar;

    First you have to prove that "god" exists before you can invoke "god's laws".

    @Yar;

    Is it wrong when your influence on the government is to take away someone's rights?

    @summarizer;

    You have part of your comment right, equality IS a moral issue. Trying to keep others from being treated equally is immoral.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 13, 2017 10:47 a.m.

    This dude just wants his 15 minutes of fame because he disagrees with the church. He's had it, now it is time for him to go away back into obscurity.

    As far as I'm concerned, the church's finances are none of my business and none of his, and none of yours. There is no need for transparency. As long as we have righteous men that oversee what is done, I have absolutely no problem with how the church operates.

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Jan. 12, 2017 9:44 a.m.

    "The comment is a hypothetical situation to illustrate the power the church has over members. In no way was it meant to be a representation of an event in reality."

    But the hypothetical doesn't happen in reality--that's the point. Indeed, if anything, Reid's example illustrates the opposite--that the Church doesn't conduct "witch hunts" on politicians who don't vote "their" way.

    Back in 1933, the Church strongly opposed ratification of the 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition. The 36th state to ratify the amendment...the one that tipped the balance for ratification into the Constitution, was.......Utah (December 5, 1933).

    And Utah's Mormon population in 1933 was a lot higher than 62%. Shouldn't the Church have "won" by a landslide? So much for "power" over members.....

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 12, 2017 8:16 a.m.

    >>Undue influence from a small percentage of people.

    Utah is 62% Mormon. How is 62% a "small percentage"?

    >>They do not have the right to affect legal policy for the entire state...

    Sure they do. They have the same right to speak their minds as you do. It's really no different from a political or special interest leader saying, "this is a bad bill" and then everyone who's a member of that party or special interest group turns against the bill. That's what critics don't seem to grasp. For lobbying purposes, churches are really just another kind of special interest group.

    >>That is constitutional law...

    No, it's not. The Constitution says that the government may not create official state religions or mandate any set of explicitly religious beliefs; and, contrary to your assertion, the First Amendment guarantees that religious believers can participate in public debates about legislative proposals that would violate their conscience. The Founders were protecting religious expression from government, not the reverse. Else why would the US Senate have a chaplain and start each day's session with prayer?

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    Jan. 12, 2017 7:17 a.m.

    By their countenance ye shall know them.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 12, 2017 6:22 a.m.

    Life would be oh so much easier if we lowered our tax rates and removed any and every tax exemption.

    Non profit status is abused by so many it should be done away with

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:49 p.m.

    Ironically, this action will likely create MORE protection for religious speech.
     
    In an vengeful act during the 1960's, LBJ passed legislation punishing non-profits for engaging in political activity - because he didn't like them opposing him.   Religious groups were swept in with that "non-profit" status, despite the First Amendment.  In the half a century since, no-one has really ever driven the challenge to the Supreme Court - despite the fact that politically correct religious groups engage in politics all the time and secular so-called non-profits often have entirely political wings.
     
    So it would be a good thing to challenge the free speech status of religious groups - I would expect that even the infamous RBG would have to concede that using the tax code to control speech, and override the First Amendmen, is not a good thing.
     
    First Amendment, yes: bitterness because someone dares to have a different opinion, no

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:18 p.m.

    Funny how those who are demanding the LDS Church stay out of political influence in Utah are often the same people, as a result of the MormonLeaks documents, demanding the LDS Church open its financial books to everyone, including them. They're also demanding the right to influence church doctrine and practice from who can baptized LDS to who can receive the priesthood to what should and should not be done in LDS temples.

    In other words, their message is, "Do as we say, not as we do."

    And for those who demand the LDS Church stay out of politics because of the separation of church and state, does that include all churches or just the churches you disagree with politically?

    When churches like the Unitarian Church openly oppose the death penalty and school vouchers while vocally supporting stricter environmental laws and higher pay for fast food workers, is that a violation of the separation of church and state, or is that simply more of, "Do as we say, not as we do."

    I think I know the answer already.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 5:09 p.m.

    "Your point? The church still has the ability to control vast political power with their religious influence. Hence why they should not be allowed to speak out on politics. They have every right to read their little letters from the pulpit, but they do not get to broadcast that to the people, who do not prescribe to their ideology."

    But they should and do have a right to speak on moral issues, which sometimes crosses over into political issues. They also have a mission to preach the gospel to all the world. They also believe that the prophet is not just a prophet for "them", but is the Lord's mouthpiece who speaks on His behalf to everyone. Moral decay affects whole societies, so they have every right to speak out when it comes to moral issues, at least according to our Constitution.

    To take away that right because it could influence people is ridiculous. It's an attempt to silence someone who disagrees with you.

  • Creeper51 Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 3:42 p.m.

    Observator

    The comment is a hypothetical situation to illustrate the power the church has over members. In no way was it meant to be a representation of an event in reality.

    Your point? The church still has the ability to control vast political power with their religious influence. Hence why they should not be allowed to speak out on politics. They have every right to read their little letters from the pulpit, but they do not get to broadcast that to the people, who do not prescribe to their ideology.

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Jan. 11, 2017 3:02 p.m.

    @Multi

    "So a legislator who really believes in the consequences of disfellowship, and excommunication is he not a more easily controlled by threats of punishment from the church? So can he advocate for the non-believers, and those who want rights for homosexuals, as loudly as he normally would?"

    Sen. Harry Reid, recently retired Democratic Senator from Nevada, argued for and supported legislation on same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and other political stances in opposition to LDS political views. He is also a member in good standing of the LDS Church, and this paper published a story on his missionary work with a good friend in Washington, DC, ("Spiritual journey leads 3-term U.S. senator to LDS Church," Apr 20, 2015, Deseret News) where he spoke at the baptism.

    Your claims of excommunication threats from Salt Lake are both unfounded and refuted. If you don't have evidence for the claim, you shouldn't make it.

  • Creeper51 Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 2:59 p.m.

    Riverton Coug

    My point exactly, a high ranking legislator with oodles of power, can be brought under the heel of the church leadership, due to his belief in their message.

    Which means it can be very easy, to violate people's rights, off of the mere idea of offense.

    "I don't like gay marriage, so I'm going to legislate against their right of pursuit of happiness." "I'll get my buddy in the government to pass laws, and legislation that allows people to discriminate with no legal repercussions."

    Not good, not in a system that of government that attempts to balance everything out.

  • Creeper51 Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 2:52 p.m.

    Yar

    The church doesn't pay the fee to play in politics. They sacrificed their ability to speak on a public stage when they decided they didn't want to pay taxes.

    Just think about how much influence the church has? 15 million individual who can be told exactly what to think, and say. That is amazing, but at the same time, can be easily abused by the totalitarian system it represents.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 2:43 p.m.

    @Multi

    The Church only has as much influence over an individual legislator as that individual allows. When the Church speaks out on a moral issue (which we've established is completely legal), while that can put an individual with conflicting views in a situation, it does not force them to act one way or another.

    If the individual feels that supporting a bill that the Church has opposed for moral reasons could cause disciplinary action from the Church, then that individual has to decide which belief (his/her personal belief on the issue or his/her religious belief with the Church) is more valuable. That individual might use that reflection re-evaluate his/her standing on the issue, or on the Church (people have left the Church because it conflicted with their political views too often).

    Either way, the Church can't do anything to that individual. If individuals allow a Church's stance on a moral issue to change their political leanings, then that is because they value their religious beliefs more than their political beliefs; they'd rather be on the correct side with their God than on the political spectrum.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 11, 2017 2:19 p.m.

    Opposing gay marriage was the morally right thing to do even if it brought some criticism to the church. Not only is gay marriage is in conflict with the scriptures but it is also biologically unnatural because the human species has evolved into an exclusive heterosexual, pair-bonding species. The more we deviate from that natural biological and social structure, the more problems our society has.

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 2:01 p.m.

    Nead

    The separation of Church, and State. Neither group is to have undue influence over the other.

    Now let's look at the influence the church has over LDS legislators. Does the church have the ability to call a court of love, on say a legislator who is vocal about homosexuality? We'll use that example for fun is all.

    So a legislator who really believes in the consequences of disfellowship, and excommunication is he not a more easily controlled by threats of punishment from the church? So can he advocate for the non-believers, and those who want rights for homosexuals, as loudly as he normally would?

    Or can he be silenced with the threat of excommunication? You decide.

    Now again why is the church using lobbyists during legislative sessions to have private meetings with legislators? Those men, and women are to represent us all, and every word said in those meetings should be recorded for public scrutiny.

    The church has political influence that it is not allowed to have, and the fact that Madsen's bill being shut down over night is evidence of its political influence.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 1:55 p.m.

    To skeptic:

    If I had seen you advocating for oversight of organizations you agree with as well as those you oppose, I still would have disagreed, but would have found your argument more compelling.

    No, your purpose is transparent. You want to reduce the influence of the church in public dialogue because you disagree with the church's positions. I get it. But it's a dangerous argument. Your using Ether 8:13 as an analogy to the LDS church is just plain reckless. The church does enormous good, and your trying to tarnish it with the corruption label with allusions to murderous oaths and acts? Sad. I get your bias. I just believe that your efforts are misguided and wrong.

    To Multi - re: "but the leadership of the church is not allowed to use its clout to disaffect others." The church has every right to assert its position and values, publicly, and it should! If voters don't like their representatives to consider the LDS church's position on legislation, they should vote for different representatives. The church is just one of many voices and perspectives in the conversation.

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 1:45 p.m.

    Who let the dogs out of the Great and Spacious Building?

  • summarizer Midvale, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 1:08 p.m.

    @Diego De La Vega

    "I hope that President-elect Donald Trump, once he is president, removes the Johnson Amendment to the IRS code regarding religious organizations' rights to speak out on important issues facing the community."

    Your understanding of the Johnson Amendment is flawed...

    Quoting from a recent article from the Christian Post...

    "Let's be honest about this. The Johnson Amendment, as wrong as it is, is quite limited in its scope, primarily prohibiting "certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates."

    It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against political corruption.

    It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against LGBT activism.

    It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against abortion.

    It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against a host of other moral and cultural issues.."

  • Diego De La Vega South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 12:49 p.m.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a right to speak out on any public issue that affects the moral climate of the community. Even the ACLU has sided with the Church on its right to comment on important issues. Just because the LDS Church takes a position that you disagree with, doesn't mean that IRS guidelines regarding tax-exempt status have been violated. However, this latest controversy proves the adage: "You can leave the LDS Church , but you can't leave it alone." I hope that President-elect Donald Trump, once he is president, removes the Johnson Amendment to the IRS code regarding religious organizations' rights to speak out on important issues facing the community.

  • NEAD SLC, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 12:35 p.m.

    @Multi

    "This is a breach of separation of church, and state."

    What, exactly, is the law you're referencing that requires separation of church and state to the extent that religious organizations aren't allowed to have any influence on state actions? I think you probably have misunderstood the establishment clause of the Constitution.

    Based on some of your earlier comments ("For example, why is it legal for the church leadership to run advocates into public officials disseminating the churches wishes? That is nothing but a breach of the first amendment."), I suspect that you also don't fully understand the 1st Amendment.

  • summarizer Midvale, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 12:11 p.m.

    @Impartial7

    "That was shortsighted.."

    Eternity is shortsighted?

    Turned a lot of people away from Mormonism?

    You'd better have a lot of numbers to back that up when making statements like that.

    @65TossPowerTrap

    "the LDS Church should steer clear of political/moral campaigns such as Prop 8."

    So the Church should keep its mouth shut when it comes to large moral issues in society?

    @Skeptic

    "..the LDS church is special in that if is a quasi state religion and institution. Ergo there needs to be an independent authority for oversight and public reporting of the Mormon church activities including finances."

    Because you don't like how Mormons generally like other Mormons?

    Are you going to demand the same oversight over Jews and other religious groups that also may favor those of their same religion?

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 11:11 a.m.

    Yar

    The bill had the votes to pass, till the church said they didn't like the bill, and they supported Vickers cut down version.

    With nothing else happening around that time, it was only the church that could have influenced the acceptance of that bill.

    Not to mention the several lobbyists the church uses to speak directly with legislators.

    This is a breach of separation of church, and state.

  • Facts are friendly Sandy, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 11:01 a.m.

    It this dude is wrong with bogus information, I hope the Church sues him for fraud and deception. The dude lives his life with an ax to grind. What a miserable life!

    I pity him actually. I doubt that on his death bed he says "I should have spent more time trying to damage the LDS Church?"

    Go play with your grand kids, bro. Life is too short.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:49 a.m.

    @Multi

    Yeah I did straw man your argument. Probably should've read carefully.

    But here's something I don't get. Why shouldn't religious organizations have any influence on politics? All groups influence its own members, religious or not. And like I mentioned before, a non-religious group can have as much influence as a religious group to a number of people, which can encourage those members to take action on something. All the church did was encourage its members to get involved on matters. For all I know, the members felt impressed to do something and did it accordingly.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:25 a.m.

    @carman - Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 9:09 a.m.

    Perhaps, a closer study and examination of Ether, 8 :13 etal, may help you better understand the significant danger of censorship and secrecy.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:25 a.m.

    @carman - Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 9:09 a.m.

    Perhaps, a closer study and examination of Ether, 8 :13 etal, may help you better understand the significant danger of censorship and secrecy.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:07 a.m.

    @Multi

    How do you know that the church was entire reason the bill failed? There could be other sources that did it. Even if they did cause it all to fall apart, why should that be a good reason to keep religion off of politics? That's just one incident. The same thing can happen for another bill because of a non-religious group's influence. Government is for everyone to enjoy, not just non-religious folk.

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 10:07 a.m.

    Yar

    You straw manned my argument, if you read the post again you'll see where I said, that the individual members have a right to vote, or politic however they like, just not the leadership of the church, or the church itself.

    For example, why is it legal for the church leadership to run advocates into public officials disseminating the churches wishes? That is nothing but a breach of the first amendment. Non-religious people are not a tax exempt organization. The church, and its leadership are. The blessing of tax exemption come with a few rules, which means the organization cannot favor political candidates, or certain bills. If they are violating these rules, which the church has been caught doing. They are to lose their tax exemption.

    Again you as a member of the church have every right to be involved in politics, but the church organization does not.

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 9:54 a.m.

    Carman

    You don't understand the ideas of power, and influence.

    Back to my example, Madsen has a perfectly workable bill which will take care of the medical needs of a disaffected portion of our population. The LDS Church's leadership comes out in opposition to the bill, and all of a sudden a bill that will do more good than harm, gets canned.

    That influence from an institution is not OK in a society that is for everybody. Undue influence from a small percentage of people.

    The fact that they allow people to speak their mind is inconsequential, because they cannot stop people from doing so, but they, as a religious institution, do not have the right to affect legal policy for the entire state, as they currently do. That is constitutional law, the members are free to vote, or politic however they wish, but the leadership of the church is not allowed to use its clout to disaffect others.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 9:49 a.m.

    @Rumoris

    And have non-religious people tell us what beliefs we can or can't have. I don't think so.

    If that were true, then non-religious people ought to lose their rights to influence government, too. Would that be fair for you or me? No way! People shouldn't lose their right to influence the government just because they follow a religion or don't follow a religion. This is a fallacy, my friend. A fallacy that can backfire for everyone.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 9:09 a.m.

    To skeptic:

    re: "While all the major large churches are non-profit tax exempt international corporations the LDS church is special in that if is a quasi state religion and institution. Ergo there needs to be an independent authority for oversight and public reporting of the Mormon church activities ..."

    Hmmm. Nice try, but a fail. Like all critics, you advocate control over those who's views you oppose in an attempt to hush their voice in the conversation. The LDS church has done exactly the opposite, defending the right of its critics to voice their opinions, including yours. In fact, the very site that you posted this comment on is owned and operated by the LDS church. They not only advocate an open dialogue, they facilitate it by expending valuable resources to allow folks like you to express your opinion. You should be reciprocal and defend their right to a role in the dialogue. As we have seen, there is no such thing as "independent authority for oversight". As soon as you try to police free speech, it is no longer free.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 9:00 a.m.

    Oh Fred. I pity you for all the time and money you continually waste on a false and vain cause. One of those days, you will realize there are better ways to use your time then waste it on attacking religion.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 8:37 a.m.

    "This is due to the church not leaving others alone. I doubt there are many church leaders that want to be gay married. So don't. But, they poked their nose into other peoples wishes & rights. This would have never been an issue if they left others alone."

    If you want to say that publicly stating what God's laws are is "not leaving others alone", then I guess you're right. Their mission (one of the three) is to teach the gospel to the world. If you want to call that "not leaving others alone", then ok.

    But as others have pointed out, claiming this wouldn't be an issue if the Church left others alone is not true, as history has proven.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2017 8:30 a.m.

    While all the major large churches are non-profit tax exempt international corporations the LDS church is special in that if is a quasi state religion and institution. Ergo there needs to be an independent authority for oversight and public reporting of the Mormon church activities including finances.

  • blackattack Orem, UT
    Jan. 11, 2017 7:45 a.m.

    This man needs to realize that free speech and freedom of religion is good for everyone. If they seek to strip tax exemption status for The LDS church For exercising free speech in politics, it would only be fair that an LGBT group lose their tax exemption for political involvement.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 11, 2017 5:49 a.m.

    >>This would have never been an issue if they left others alone.

    History disagrees, I'm afraid. The Church has faced enemies unwilling to leave it alone since the day it was organized (and before, if you think about it). This man is not the first to seek some way to hurt the Church and he will certainly not be the last. If he and others can't find anything damaging in the Church's finances, they'll look for something else, making mountains out of molehills wherever they can.

    The Church has nothing to fear from this. That's the beauty of conducting one's affairs honestly and honorably.

  • KJR Alpine, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 8:33 p.m.

    People that are conniving and duplicitous generally think that others must also be conniving and duplicitous. Having done international legal work for the Church I know that it not only insist on absolute compliance, but generally on being very conservative about it. We were told on occasion to be good citizens and not press our legal rights -- even over condemnation of Church property at much less than fair value.

  • Irowco Henderson, NV
    Jan. 10, 2017 8:23 p.m.

    Although these individuals articulate tax policy concerns, it would be important for critics to understand the actual law regarding non-profit entities (which includes universities, unions, certain health care organizations, etc.).

    Many don’t understand that a church in the U.S. is subject to unrelated business income tax, employee taxes, private inurement penalties, and other excise taxes. For example, a university frequently has to pay income tax on t-shirt revenues from its bookstores even if the t-shirt references the university.

    Most relevant is the fact that there is no tax exemption for non-passive business investments and thus a church (or other non-profit) is often subject to the double-taxation that applies to a corporation and its shareholders.

    As to those wishing to exclude churches from commenting on public policy: I would hope that most individuals would not want to adopt a policy that would have outlawed or excluded the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church, and other religious organizations from the civil rights movement and seeking basic, humane treatment for their members.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 8:06 p.m.

    To: Red Corvette

    re: "The church needs to be reined in for its corporate and political activities."

    I see a lot of comments on these boards from people who make many more comments each day about their pet causes, including bashing the LDS church, than the LDS church does. Should these people's voices be squelched as well?

    Hint: Be careful what you wish for. When the thought police get involved and start picking who's viewpoints are reasonable and valid, someone who thought they had free speech rights may end up muzzled. Free-speech is free-speech. And even organizations we may not agree with need their right to participate in the public discourse protected. You should be fighting for the LDS church's right to share their viewpoint. It's good for freedom, for free speech and democracy. Even if you disagree with them.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    Jan. 10, 2017 8:05 p.m.

    Like cancer, the spirit of contention, and turmoil, is spreading.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 7:55 p.m.

    In the 1800's, we were told, "you need money to have a voice" and so a poor faithful, spirited, energetic religion, run from state to state, dealt with the realities and accepted poverty as a way of life; now, nearly, 200 years later, and much blessings later, thanks to prosperity and thanks to the gospel keeping its Old Testament covenant of unity in the community and tithing and helping the poor overcome their TV and other bad addictions, the Bernie Sanders crowd now, is pulling the carpet from under society, and saying, "if you have money, you need to apologize and be sued and fined." Religion is always under attack, first by lack of money (and early America loved money too much and art too little) , now, the attack is due to happiness and blessings.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    Jan. 10, 2017 7:49 p.m.

    Fred Karger and his supporters are upset because the LDS Church has enough nerve to disagree with them, and to exercise its constitutional right to express its position publicly.

    It's funny how they seem to have no such objection to the involvement by liberal religious bodies (such as the Unitarians, United Church of Christ, or Episcopalians) in the No on 8 Campaign. As a Mormon and former Unitarian, I find this laughable, not to mention blatantly hypocritical.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 10, 2017 7:36 p.m.

    You're just telling on yourself Fred......

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 7:22 p.m.

    @OremParent;

    "People can leave the church but they can't leave the church alone. "

    This is due to the church not leaving others alone. I doubt there are many church leaders that want to be gay married. So don't. But, they poked their nose into other peoples wishes & rights. This would have never been an issue if they left others alone.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 10, 2017 7:19 p.m.

    I am thinking the last paragraph which goes into the taxes the Church pays on its for-profit institutions was meant to have more lead up.

    I wish people like Karger were not allowed to spew 100% falsehoods. The real illustrations here is how onerous campaign finance laws are. When they lead to low-level enforcements that mean $5000+ in fines, they are really designed to keep people from engaging in the election process and a violation of the free speech component of the 1st amendment.

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 7:06 p.m.

    @blackattack, it's in their nature. Once they get the spirit of revenge and hate, they just can't walk away. That's the sad yet interesting part. It has been that way since 1820 and so no surprise. If they want to throw away their time and money and just get more frustrated, that is their privilege. It's obvious these issues are eating them inside and have been for a long time. Earlier is was the equal right's amendment; before that it was blacks and the priesthood, even earlier it was polygamy. It's always been something and after this settles down it will be something else, probably pornography next. The Church is just fine and will continue to be, in spite of local and national detractors. The Olympics were a huge success in Salt Lake and Mitt's runs for the White House didn't embarrass or hurt the Church one bit. Life goes on.....

  • bamafone Salem, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 6:52 p.m.

    An axe to grind.

  • dpal Provo, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 6:47 p.m.

    You got to feel sorry for a man who expends his time and effort, not to mention money, in trying to attack a religious institution which gives millions of dollars every year to humanitarian causes. What a waste!

  • blackattack Orem, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 6:30 p.m.

    I don't know how one could be happy spending that much time, money, and energy to feed a vengeful spirit.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 5:14 p.m.

    I appreciate that the LDS Church speaks out on moral issues, as it has the right to do so. Preaching, teaching, expounding, and the practice of one's religion is a protected right in the US. But because some people believe or live contrary to those teachings, they want to hurt the messenger.

    Regardless, religions should have the right to speak out on social and moral issues inasmuch as those issue may morally affect the world in which we live.

    Secular groups should not be trying to silence religious groups.

  • Orem Parent Orem, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 4:54 p.m.

    People can leave the church but they can't leave the church alone.

    Sad.

  • Red Corvette St George, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 4:22 p.m.

    Although it is a pipe dream, it is one that many share. The church needs to be reined in for its corporate and political activities.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 4:12 p.m.

    The LDS church did not give any money to fight against Proposition 8. Members of the Church did so, but that was their personal choice. Also, religions have the right to express their opinions to the members of any church. It's call 'Free Speech.'

  • Common Sense Guy Richfield, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 4:08 p.m.

    Aired during the Simpsons, Law & Order, & the Basketball game between Utah and UCLA. So who is he targeting? Non profit organizations all have an agenda, left & right. Or in some cases right & wrong. Sounds like sour grapes to me on his part! Which is ironic, because it has gone all his way! So I agree it is a pipe dream, and it will likely strengthen the churches support, because of the attack. Remember what doesn't kill you makes you stronger!

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 4:01 p.m.

    Desperation and bitterness.

  • jpc53 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 3:56 p.m.

    Please just report the news. Leaving the editorializing and defense of the Church's actions to the editorial page writers. Better yet, let the Church speak for themselves. They've done a pretty good job so far.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 3:32 p.m.

    Groups such as this only go after those with views that are opposed to their own views. This is done to muzzle their opposition and remove those with different opinions from the public dialogue on the issues that these groups support.

    These groups are simply trying to stifle free speech and shut down opposition to their causes. And they are willing to stoop to encouraging people to steal private property (e.g. commit crimes and ethical violations) to further their cause.

  • Rumoris Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 3:26 p.m.

    The church needs to get into its own chapels, and never leave that sphere. There should be no advocates going to, and from legislative offices, and church headquarters.

    I don't really care about their finances, but the political influence the church has, not the members, but the church and leadership themselves, is to much.

    Remember when Sen Madsen had a really good medical marijuana bill, and it had the support in the Senate to pass? Well that was till the LDS leadership said they didn't like it, and over night the bill was nuked.

    That is not a good thing, and the church should learn its place in a secular society.

  • Robroy Murray, utah
    Jan. 10, 2017 3:21 p.m.

    Fred, Fred, Fred. You're wasting your money. Stop the bigotry and hate and donate your money to help the homeless.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 2:47 p.m.

    Wow. Nothing better to do with your time and money than to desperately reach out to try and find a needle in a haystack - one in which everyone familiar with the haystack will tell you no needle has ever been dropped ? Really? This kind of attack coming from "Californians Against Hate?" Dude - change the name - it's really "Californians Against Supporters of Traditional Marriage." It's quite apparent you aren't against hate.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Jan. 10, 2017 2:41 p.m.

    I think this guy is a fraud; however, I also think the LDS Church should steer clear of political/moral campaigns such as Prop 8.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 2:37 p.m.

    I know that this guy will get vilified for this program. But, the LDS church brought this upon themselves for funding and supporting Prop 8. That was shortsighted and turned a lot of people away from mormonism.

  • jbejar West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 2:36 p.m.

    I see the tax exemption of the LDS Church no different from organizations such as the NFL. They were up until recently a non-profit organizations. Many non-profit organizations exist and provide benefits that we all recognize do good in the society. Some though may seem questionable why they do not pay taxes. I already pay taxes on all income I receive, why should tithing donated to the church be taxed again?? This seems like an attempt to destroy religion, and make it much harder for the church to send missionaries around the world.