Tag Archives: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

“One of these two Mormons could be our next president…the other is Jon Huntsman.”

In the arena of both “funny” and “perhaps too true,” The Colbert Report had a segment on Mormons. Click on the picture below to watch it.

A few highlights to watch for:


Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Mitt Romney and “the Mormon Question.”

Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Image via Wikipedia

The “Mormon” question. [sigh] Who hasn’t heard it yet?

Can a Mormon be elected president?

I can’t get into a conversation about politics and the 2012 campaign for the White House without Mitt Romney coming up. This includes conversations with your average voters and political insiders, family and friends, Democrats and Republicans alike. (Why, yes, I do live in Utah…why do you ask?)

My in-laws ask about what I think Mitt’s chances are while munching on cupcakes after the baby blessing. While in D.C. last week, GOP party insiders and legislators from at least three different states  swapped reasons why they think that, short of a major scandal, Mitt’s got the nomination all but in the bag. The man is getting a lot of attention (right now), and there are few who think he can’t pull it off. Continue reading

When the LDS Church shows up for a press conference, does it jeopardize tax exempt status?

I’m expecting an Utah paper editorial separation of church and state any day now. I’d bet dollars for donuts that it’ll be in the Salt Lake Tribune, too. The Deseret News just doesn’t roll that way.

Yesterday, the LDS Church openly supported Governor Herbert’s signing of HB 116 by sending Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to the ceremony. While many detractors will argue that the Church regularly engages in political activity, citing the Proposition 8 battle in California, it is actually quite rare for the LDS Church to openly engage in politics. Typically, the LDS Church prefers to work in the background, if at all, when it feels the need to support or oppose legislation. (I do not believe that the Church has supported, in recent memory or indeed the last century, any candidates for public office).

When it does engage, actively or otherwise, it is usually because the cause aligns with what LDS Church leadership believe is in the interests of the Church membership. In California and Proposition 8, it was defense of the institution of traditional marriage. In Utah and HB116, it was the family.

Proponents of the bill were grateful for the LDS Church’s support. Sen. Stuart Reid, R-Ogden, told the Tribune that

There is no question that the Utah Compact, with the church’s endorsement, made a significant difference to me and others in the Legislature who helped craft immigration legislation. It provided the inspiration for our efforts to negotiate and compromise, enabling us to create principle-based legislation the majority of the Legislature eventually supported.

Paul Mero, Director of the Sutherland Institute, speculated that if Utah had been in legislative session right after the Arizona law passed last year, we would have seen an Arizona style enforcement law passed here.

But this is not about immigration. This is about the LDS Church’s involvement in the issue. Almost immediately after the press conference featuring Bishop Burton, questions began to arise, on Twitter and Facebook: did the LDS Church cross the line? Can it engage without forfeiting its tax exempt status?

It’s an issue that comes up every few years, at least here in Utah. Uniquely in this country, Utah is dominated by members of the LDS faith. No other state is so religiously homogeneous and few faiths, with perhaps the exception of Catholicism, place such a value on following the guidance of church leadership. They believe that they are lead by a prophet and apostles that are, like the ancient Christian church, called directly by God and are in communication with Him. With that kind of faith, every action taken by LDS Church officialdom is given that much more credence than might otherwise be granted. As is often said in Sunday School–usually about gospel doctrine, not religions–“when the Prophet speaks, the discussion is over.”

The Salt Lake City LDS Temple in the heart of downtown Salt Lake, with the state capitol up the hill behind it.

So what happens when a prophet speaks about politics? Although it was only Bishop Burton at the signing, and not a declaration from the LDS Church’s current prophet and president, Thomas S. Monson, it was a clear signal about where the LDS Church stands on immigration, and it will change the political discourse in the state, if it has not already.

Legally, the LDS Church is not permitted to support of a candidates for public office under any circumstances. The LDS Church is a tax exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. The IRS website states that such organizations cannot participate in support of a candidate for public office without risking tax exempt status.

The law, however,  is more lenient with regards to lobbying, which in this case would be what the LDS Church did for HB116. Again, the IRS website on lobbying for 501(c)(3) organizations:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).  A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

At what point does “some lobbying” become “too much lobbying” and risk loss of tax-exempt status? What is a “substantial part” of its activities? The IRS explains that the “substantial part” test looks at

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

So were the LDS Church’s efforts a “substantial part of its overall activities” or not?

Previous to Bishop Burton’s appearance at the signing, the LDS Church’s support has been minimal. The LDS Church did support the Utah Compact, the guiding principles upon which the bill was written, but actually avoid public appearance or direct support when it was announced. There are allegations that Bill Evans and John Taylor spent a significant amount of time at the Capitol during the last ten days of the session; however, the presence of two lobbyists looking out for the LDS Church’s interest is hardly a substantial part of the LDS Church’s efforts. As Curt Bentley noted on Twitter

With tens of thousands of missionaries world-wide, millions of members, a laity priesthood, farms, dairies, canneries, and charities, the work of two lobbyists is hardly substantial.

So, in the present case, the allegations against the Church retaining its tax exempt status will probably fail. When a church provides guidance to its members, whether lead by a prophet or by a pope, it may indeed present some internal conflict for those who do not agree with it but who ascribe to its faith. However, church’s aren’t founded to make people feel good about themselves–their purpose is to help them become better people. If that means they have to be more compassionate about their fellowmen–including those who were not born here or do not have a legal status here–then churches should, and ought, to do that.

On the other hand, whether the law will survive federal constitutional review is an entirely different question. On that, Democratic state Senator Ross Romero may have the right stance.

The Utah Compact on Immigration

If you care about immigration, an interesting thing happened a couple days ago. Some of Utah‘s leaders–religious, political, and secular–joined together to propose an a set of principles on to guid the immigration reform discussion. It is seen as an alternative to recent proposals such as those passed in Arizona and proposed for Utah by Utah state Rep. Steven Sandstrom.

Labeled a “Declaration of Five Principles to Guide Utah’s Immigration Discussion,” the document lays out simple and clear parameters for keeping the policy discussion on immigration both moral and constitutional policy. In full, it states:

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries—not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.

LAW ENFORCEMENT We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.

FAMILIES Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.

ECONOMY Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.

A FREE SOCIETY Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

Unsurprisingly, Representative Stephen Sandstrom was not sanguine when he heard about it, especially since one of the supporters, though not a signer, was the LDS Church, local to Salt Lake City, and a political behemoth in Utah politics in the few rare circumstances where it decides to weigh in (more than 80 percent of Utah lawmakers are LDS, and more than 60 percent of the state’s population is LDS). Sandstrom did not sound like he was going to back down, however unhappy he was about the LDS Church’s position.

“I kind of wish I’d been given more of a heads-up because it is taking aim at the bill I’m doing,” Sandstrom lamented Thursday. “My other thought was that I thought the church’s no-position was the best way to go and to let this be the purview of government.”

Among the other signers were former Govs. Olene Walker and Norm Bangerter, Salt Lake Chamber President Lane Beattie and Paul Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, as well as current attorney general Mark Shurtleff. I compact is available for signing online, and it expands upon the list of notables who support the Compact, including former US Senator Jake Garn, former US Representative Jim Hansen, Salt Lake County Councilman Joe Hatch, and Mayor Peter Corroon.

What does this mean for immigration proposals in the 2011 legislative session? Because of the broad support behind the Compact, as well as the weight of the LDS Church, immigration is about to get more interesting. This takes the issue out of a squarely partisan playing field and puts individuals into a position where they must consider why they support immigration reform. The nut at the heart of the Compact is three-fold–1) immigration policy should be moral; 2) immigration is the federal government’s purview, not the states’; and 3) immigration policy should be made on principles that have made America great–the free market and a free society.

One of the interesting effects of the Compact is that it defuses a lot of the anger mongering that the right has seen used to stir-up the base. Because of the moral, and religious, authority of the LDS Church, Utah Mormon conservatives will find themselves in the position of rethinking how they view immigration policy and the basis for those positions.

Last, I think it important to note that this does not mean that immigration should not be reformed. It’s clear as the statutory language in the Kurzban Immigration Law Sourcebook sitting on my desk is unclear that immigration needs reform. My hope is that the reform that comes, when it finally comes, does more good than harm.

Related articles

Polygamists in the news; Kingstons running for office

Polygamy is a unique aspect of Utah’s history, a piece the past that many wish they could just run away from, especially the Mormons, if just because of the mockery that it seems to draw from those only loosely familiar with how it fits into their history and doctrine. These days, in contrast to what shows like “Big Love” and the new reality show “Sister Wives” seem to indicate, the practice of polygamy is, in addition to illegal, a practice conducted by a segment of the population that many consider to be stuck in the past, religious fanatics without association with the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and often abusive or repressive of women.

Then there are those who just don’t care.  Live and let live, they say.

Meanwhile, it just makes Utah, and Mormons, look weird, and anyone who has been to Utah or knows any Mormons can attest that neither Utah nor Mormons are very wierd.

And so we get to the point: Paul Rolly, the local gumshoe with the Salt Lake Tribune, noted that several of the GOP’s candidates for the state legislature happen to have some very close ties to the Kingstons, a polygamist clan in the Salt Lake Valley.

Two Republican candidates for the Utah House who have deep ties to the Kingston clan say voters have nothing to worry about. They say they will be dedicated lawmakers independent of any family influence and work for the best interest of their constituents.

Two other candidates associated with the Kingstons filed as Republican challengers for the Legislature. But one withdrew before the Salt Lake County Republican Convention last spring and the other was eliminated at the convention.

In interest of full disclosure, I have never heard of the Kingstons, though I’m a Salt Lake Valley resident.  I have met one of the individuals at question, Nephi Robinson, and he seemed like a nice guy. He’s got three kids, works hard, and doesn’t seem to have an agenda. He wrote in a letter to the newspaper:

“My constituents can be confident that I will be transparent with them and involve them in the decision making process,” Robinson responded in an e-mail [to Rolly]. “My family affiliation won’t affect my judgment. I am a sixth-generation Utahn and a proud father of three. I am working hard to be a good provider and live the American Dream the way our founding fathers had intended. I know there are a lot of people who share that same ambition.”

The other candidate is Margarethe Peterson, who is challenging Carol Spackman Moss in Holladay:

“Yes, I have children married to Kingstons and I also have some wonderful grandchildren,” she said in an e-mail in response to [Rolly’s] questions. “I have worked at Standard Restaurant Equipment for many years where I have built a good reputation for myself with customers and co-workers alike.”

She added that, “In the event I should be elected, I will represent my community and their views and speak for the people I represent. I am running as a Republican to serve my district and my community because I believe in the values the Republican Party represents, which are values I have for myself as well. I have worked hard to gain a good reputation, and I’m sure the people I have associated with would agree with me in this. I care about this country, this state and the people in my district, which is why I’m running for office. I’m not running for money or political gain.”

Fair enough.  Both are running because they care about their country and the people in their district. So why the worry? If voters want to elect people with polygamist ties, as long as voters know, it is the voters prerogative to elect who they choose. Less than reputable people get elected all the time, and these individuals, other than their polygamist ties, are far from disreputable.

Rolly expands on his concerns, indicating why he thinks these candidates are newsworthy:

Dissidents who have left the Kingston clan, whose leaders are said to have dozens of wives, say the family exists in a tightly-controlled atmosphere, which is why questions about the candidates’ ability to be independent arose.

Who are these Kingstons, anyway? I did a Google search, and a few things stuck out:

  • Back in 1998, one article quoted a source saying that the Kingstons had business empire worth between $150 and $170 million, owning coal mines, vending machines, a fitness club, a school, and a restaurant equipment business, amongst other ventures
  • The Kingstons belong to a group that believes it was designated to continue polygamy when the LDS church ended the practice in the 1890s.  The Kingstons started the practice in the 1930s:

The Kingston family first embraced polygamy around 1931 when, according to author Max Anderson, Charles W. Kingston helped produce a pamphlet that contained a version of Lorin C. Woolley’s claims that former LDS Church President John Taylor had set aside a select group of men to carry on polygamy even as the church publicly disavowed the practice.

Charles W. Kingston’s oldest son, Charles Elden Kingston, embraced the ideas espoused in Mr. Woolley’s story and began practicing polygamy.  Charles Elden Kingston launched his own organization, the Davis County Cooperative Society, in 1935 after having a power struggle with other fundamentalist leaders.

The Society is still in existence today.

The Kingstons have crated a religious organization that mimics in name at least the LDS Church: The Latter-Day Church of Christ.  The clan is lead today by Charles E. Kingston’s son, Paul E. Kingston, who is said to have more than 30 wives.

[T]he result of that was all our subjects disappeared, our targets disappeared and we didn’t get the warrants served like we hoped to do,” said Shurtleff.

My conclusion? There’s a lot of rumor and aspersions cast their way, but not a ton of evidence.  There have been cases against certain members of the Kingston clan, but evidently the clan has been able to avoid too much scrutiny, which, I imagine, might be part of the reason for the distrust with which we view the group.

We’ve outlawed polygamy over a hundred years ago, stopped practicing it, and yet there are those who persist, believing it is their religious duty. When individuals with ties to the practice run for office, is it so strange that we look a little  closer than we might otherwise?

That said, I think it only fair that voters make their own assessment of Nephi and Margarethe.  There’s no reason that they should be responsible for their parents actions, but should be judged and evaluated on their own merits.

On that note, it should be observed that Kingstons do not appear to produce Republicans only. As Rolly reports:

Eric Freeman, son of Carl Kingston, one of the clan’s business leaders, filed to run in West Valley City’s House District 29 against Democratic incumbent Janice Fisher, but he was defeated in the convention.

Dana Jenkins, Carl Kingston’s nephew, filed to run against Democrat Pat Jones in Holladay’s Senate District 4, but he withdrew before the convention.

Related articles