Submission to secular authority.

[Neil Rucker]

This may be true as well. One thing is for sure: they definitely want to revoke our tax exempt status!

[/quote]


501 c3's are unlawful as defined in the Bill of Rights. Why do churches need the IRS to grant them rights which they already had? Why do the power that be want the freedom of speech in churches silenced?

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Rincon]

So John Taylor, Wilford Woodrruff, George Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, etc, etc, etc were all wrong? The Founders were wrong? Alexander Doniphan was wrong? Daniel was wrong? The three Hebrews were wrong?

And General Moroni.

[natasha]

This may be true as well. One thing is for sure: they definitely want to revoke our tax exempt status!

501 c3's are unlawful as defined in the Bill of Rights. Why do churches need the IRS to grant them rights which they already had? Why do the power that be want the freedom of speech in churches silenced?

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

___________________

I'm beginning to think that we all might need to look a little further into the tax exempt status history. First of all, churches DO NOT have to apply for tax exempt status. The 501(c)3 is for the following:

"A vast number of organizations qualify for nonprofit status under the various definitions. Nonprofit organizations include churches, soup kitchens, charities, political associations, business leagues, fraternities, sororities, sports leagues, colleges and universities, hospitals, museums, television stations, symphonies, and public interest law firms."

Perhaps the Church had to file in order to get 501(c)3 on some of its' auxillaries.

[tribrac]

I get a chuckle out of the folks who are quick to remind us the church does not need 501.3.c.4568.ii tax excempt status becuase the Constituition or Bill of Rights protects the church.

They are absolutley right, but since when has the Constitution or the BoRights ever stood in the way of the US gvmnt? How much less likely is the gvmnt to follow the rules when it is strapped for cash, wanting to effect social change and supported by a vocal majority?

[Mahonri]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6001 ... t-tax.html

this is why they are 501c3

[natasha]

I still think that the 501(c)3 deal was to cover auxillaries...things like BYU, D.I., etc. & etc. Main bodies of churches have always been tax exempt and contributions to them have been a deductible item. At least...that is what I have been told by a Church lawyer who lived in my Ward.

[Mahonri]

That is a very safe/PC stance Natasha, I wonder why the PR department stated something a little more controversial?

[shadow]

I wonder why the PR department stated something a little more controversial?

What did they state?

[Mahonri]

it's in the link above. Don't go by my word (which you always contradict anyway) check it out for yourself

[LittleLion]

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

DnC 98:4 7

These verses are Jesus Christ himself speaking, he is the ultimate living Oracle. Christ is saying here, any law of man, that is more or less than the constitutional law, will cometh of evil, period. You deal with man how you would like because that is your agency to do so, knowing that as long as your obeying God's law's and keeping the covenants that you have made with your God nothing else matters, least of all mans laws.

I don't really understand all this back and forth in this thread about this prophet vs that prophet whether alive or dead. Fact is, no prophet of God has contradicted God or any other prophet of God. If you choose to believe one Prophet is saying something different than another prophet, on the same subject, your not understand the context of the communication.

It's easy to see that if our forefathers had obeyed the king of England, America would never have been as God intended it to be. Our forefathers chose not to obey the laws of the land and God helped them fight tyranny at its highest and most influential levels. Am I saying that we should fight tyranny as our forefathers did? Not at all. All I am saying is that the possibility exists and is highly likely, that we will have to protect ourselves from tyranny and disobey the laws of the land at some point in the future. If you doubt this then you doubt God himself, you do not understand history or what the prophets of God have said on this subject.

There are people all over the US and the world for that matter, that are forming there own governments and are throwing off the tyrannical governments that say they own them and the fruits of their labors. They are doing it peacefully and without malice, as matter of fact. No government owns you or the fruits of your labor and no prophet has said this nor will any prophet of God say it. If you choose of your own free will, not to be part and parcel to a governments laws, this is no way should subject you to the violence of said government, as long as you obey the laws of God.

If violence is brought upon you by the government, because the government sees you as a threat to their dominion, you have a right, under God, to protect your life, liberty and property. God or any prophet of God has ever said any different. But if you choose through your own agency to be part and parcel in a government. You have no choice but to obey it's man made laws and be subject not only to that governments punishments, but also to Gods law and punishments as well.

No person, or group of people, no matter what title, linage, power, law or authority they espouse, have the right to force you to give them the fruits of your labor and to make you subject to them by the mere fact you were born anywhere on this earth, God or any prophet of God has ever said this is the case. It is up to you to obey the laws of God and especially the two first great commandments, and after that...

I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

DnC 98:8

[AussieOi]

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

DnC 98:4 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

Hi LL, hope you are well

here's a thought

Was repealing Polygamy a constitutional act?
Did the constitution give the legislature the right to make a law in regards to defining marriage?

but yes, this thread is so simple in regards to your scripture you quoted. many a time i read comments here and simply refer it back to that D&C.

CHH/ Wiik would eat this thread alive if he were bothered anymore

[Mahonri]

Yes, OI. However, those on the other side deny the D&C and say that current Church leaders are teaching something new.

There worship of the living Pope blinds them to what is really being taught and has been taught since the beginning of time.

CHH could/would have torn them apart, but like KSL, the forum is going for a "more civil" approach now

[shadow]

it's in the link above. Don't go by my word (which you always contradict anyway) check it out for yourself

I read it but I didn't see anything about a 501c3. If I understand correctly, and I might not, a donation to a church can be a deduction even if the church isn't a 501c3. In the article the church encouraged the state keep the deduction, but does that have anything to do with being a 501c3po?
Even if a charitable donation has to be to a 501c3 to be a deduction, I don't see anything in the article that says anything about changing the 501c3 status. In fact, the concern was with the state government, not the federal government.
I'm just trying to connect the dots, not be controversial .

[Mahonri]

fair enough Shadow. Yes, to be tax deductible you have to be a 501c3 or other similarly designated.

The connection was the Church was opposed to something that would effect the deductibility of donations to it, and therefore would not change their status that would have the same effect.

[shadow]

CHH could/would have torn them apart, but like KSL, the forum is going for a "more civil" approach now

I'm sure that was a jab at me, but if you go back you'll see that CHH and I saw eye to eye on most things. Yes, I am for a more civil approach, but I bet if you looked at your life you probably are too, maybe not with your words on this site but with your actions in your "real" life . Words without the action just seem so hypocritical does it not?? But I don't know, maybe you have quit filing taxes, became self employed (because you certainly can't be employed and not pay those SS taxes) without a TIN and don't have a drivers license or register your car. Maybe you don't have a social security number, same with your kids. Obviously you got married without a marriage license right? What have you done to put your words in action and "defy" the government? You're not just a tough talker are you? Do you honestly spend all your time in court like CHH? Or are you in prison? Which one is it? Because if one of the above doesn't describe your life then you are probably not really in "defiance" are you? How do you "defy" the government more than I do?

[Mahonri]

CHH could/would have torn them apart, but like KSL, the forum is going for a "more civil" approach now

I'm sure that was a jab at me, but if you go back you'll see that CHH and I saw eye to eye on most things. Yes, I am for a more civil approach, but I bet if you looked at your life you probably are too, maybe not with your words on this site but with your actions in your "real" life . Words without the action just seem so hypocritical does it not?? But I don't know, maybe you have quit filing taxes, became self employed (because you certainly can't be employed and not pay those SS taxes) without a TIN and don't have a drivers license or register your car. Maybe you don't have a social security number, same with your kids. Obviously you got married without a marriage license right? What have you done to put your words in action and "defy" the government? You're not just a tough talker are you? Do you honestly spend all your time in court like CHH? Or are you in prison? Which one is it? Because if one of the above doesn't describe your life then you are probably not really in "defiance" are you? How do you "defy" the government more than I do?

More strawmen.

And is everything about you Shadow? I mean really, that was pretty vain to assume I was talking about you. Unlike your obsession with me, I hardly think of you until I see you peeing in everyones punch.

[AussieOi]

CHH could/would have torn them apart, but like KSL, the forum is going for a "more civil" approach now

I'm sure that was a jab at me,

my take is more about those who say we have to obey your leaders even when you dont like the law (or it is unconstitutional) and they give quotes by GAs saying we have to obey the law.

THAT. is the lie.

that D&C quote declares it too

[shadow]

More strawmen.

Actually it isn't a straw man at all, you're just calling it that because you don't practice what you preach . If you aren't putting your words into action then you're a hypocrite and are no different than the guy that hates the law but obeys it anyway, the "civil approach".

[shadow]

my take is more about those who say we have to obey your leaders even when you dont like the law (or it is unconstitutional) and they give quotes by GAs saying we have to obey the law.

THAT. is the lie.

that D&C quote declares it too

No one said you "have" to do anything, just that for now it might be the best approach.

[buffalo_girl]

Although it begins with a 'disclaimer' as 'not necessarily the position of the LDS Church', the following interview with Herbert Klopfer in regard to his 'emigration' from East Germany is instructive:

http://broadcast.lds.org/ldsradio/Conve ... __eng_.mp3

'Submission to secular authority' seems to be missing in this instance.

We need to be worthy of personal revelation and to be agile enough in our decision making processes to DO what the Lord guides us to DO.

Joseph & Mary were NOT submissive to secular authority. Nephi was NOT submissive to secular authority. Daniel in Babylon was NOT submissive to secular authority.

Each individual must depend on the Spirit to direct and guide.

[shadow]

We need to be worthy of personal revelation and to be agile enough in our decision making processes to DO what the Lord guides us to DO.
Each individual must depend on the Spirit to direct and guide.

That's key. We don't need to always be submissive, but it isn't wise to always defy either. You gave some examples of people who defied, there are just as many examples of people who submitted. The church submitted when we stopped practicing plural marriage for example. The book of Mosiah has a few examples of submitting too. The key is doing the Lords will.

[NoGreaterLove]

I think we all should just interpret the constitution however we see fit, ignore all of the other laws that came after the constitution and live the law according to our own conscience. That would work!

[Mahonri]

I think we all should just interpret the constitution however we see fit, ignore all of the other laws that came after the constitution and live the law according to our own conscience. That would work!

who made that argument?

[NoGreaterLove]

Who is going to be the mouthpiece who decides what is constitutional or not, so we know which laws to obey? Oh I know. Lets let you be the one. No, lets let Aussie, no how about? Oh well, lets just all do our own thing.
Hey I have an idea. Lets use the judicial branch and have supreme court judges do it. Wow that is an idea. You think it will work? The founding fathers thought so. Well lets do that then. But what happens when those judges are wicked? Well we will need to get them out by voting for the right people. What do we do when the majority of the people are wicked and vote for wicked people and we can not get them out? The Lord has commanded us to obey the laws and he will make the correction when he comes.
Wow. What an original idea!

[InfoWarrior82]

Who is going to be the mouthpiece who decides what is constitutional or not, so we know which laws to obey? Oh I know. Lets let you be the one. No, lets let Aussie, no how about? Oh well, lets just all do our own thing.
Hey I have an idea. Lets use the judicial branch and have supreme court judges do it. Wow that is an idea. You think it will work? The founding fathers thought so. Well lets do that then. But what happens when those judges are wicked? Well we will need to get them out by voting for the right people. What do we do when the majority of the people are wicked and vote for wicked people and we can not get them out? The Lord has commanded us to obey the laws and he will make the correction when he comes.
Wow. What an original idea!

A fourth grader can properly identify a law passed that contradicts the constitution. For now, let's vote in the representatives that represent the constitution.