Is what's happening in Federal gov't going to effect tscc?

Is it going to effect the status quo in Utah & the IMW?

again, this isn't intended as a political question or subject!

I think that Trump is trying very hard to gain favor with the mormon people. He said during his campaign that he loves the mormons. He had the Tabernacle Chior play at his innaguration. Unlike most politicians, you can believe that he is telling the truth as he sees it. His words prove that if he wanted to, he would have no problem declaring all mormons as rapists and drug dealers if that is what he thought, regardless of what anyone thought about what he said. So what you see with him is really what you get.

The only way that I think his policies might affect mormonism is that he and the church leaders in Salt Lake differ greatly on the issue of immigration. The church generally has no regard for the laws of the land when it comes to immigration. They see immigration violations the same as getting a speeding ticket. Illegal immigrents who are otherwise worthy can still get a temple recommend. So the question is: is the mormon church a sanctuary church? I don't think the Federal government is willing to ask that question considering that there are much bigger battles to fight and no need to waste resources where you're less likely to win and are more likely to alienate a group that Trump is courting. Some members of spanish speaking wards may dissappear as a result of deportation. Mormon missionaries may start having a tough time getting in to some countries if those countries reciprocate with restrictions on who can enter their country. But that's probably the only affect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2017 04:46AM by azsteve.

Agree that he is trying to gain favor with mormons. Though that more or less invalidates the rest of that paragraph.

It will be interesting to see how the immigration question plays out. I'm doubtful he will knock heads with mormon leaders over it for the reasons you state.

But more to the point, he has stated repeatedly that he plans to "destroy" the Johnson Amendment. If I understand correctly, repeal of the Johnson Amendment would allow tax-exempt entities to directly support, campaign for and fund political candidates. This would have profound effects on TSCC and the political scene of the IMW.

Most people's political leanings are based on their deep beliefs. This is true whether one's deep beliefs are grounded in a particular religion or not. To the extent one's beliefs are grounded in a specific religious tradition, that grounding naturally carries through into politic belief and action, but it isn't necessarily advantaged over competing religious belief or non-religious beliefs. In areas where there is an overwhelming majority of religious belief, it is not surprising that those beliefs are reflected in local politics.

But if the Johnson Amendment is repealed, TSCC (and other churches) will not only have a political voice via the influence they wield over members, they will also be able to directly fund and campaign for candidates. Additionally, I suspect members would prefer make an unlimited tax deductible donation to their church to support their chosen candidate rather than make a limited, taxable individual donation.

I haven't heard LDS leadership indicate their feelings about the Johnson Amendment specifically, but they have been rumbles about feeling like religious liberty is currently under attack.

The Trump Administration is geared towards reducing Federal power, which would filter down to the states. I think we can expect that the Bureau of Land Management, EPA, and other agencies will apply a lighter hand on Federal lands, Also, the new Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is open to returning Federal lands to the states--outright. Congresspersonman Jason Chavez (R-UT) introduced, then pulled, legislation for this.

There and up and down sides to the Federal government relinquishing lands. States and counties can benefit from their closer knowledge and oversight, but this opens up the possibility (likelihood) of inside players working things to their advantage. Like Harry Reid, the LDS church is expert at the inside play and the long gamL.

I wonder if Chavez was pressured to withdraw his bill.

Trump may, or may not, try to reverse Obama's designation of Gold Butte and Bear's Ears as national monuments, very popular with Blue State liberals, not so much with local residents. Whatever he does (or not) should indicate which way he goes on control of Federal lands.

I heard that he was going to do away with tax exemption for religious organisations since compliance with tax exemption laws limits what can be preached from the pulpit, ie politics.

This cancellation of tax exemption would hit big religious organisations with large property portfolios harder than the smaller outfits with little land or other holdings. I would imagine that trump, being in the making money business, would have realised that churches behaving like holding companies have an unfair advantage over full tax paying organisations, and other 'charitable organisations' are really a front for collecting donations to pay large salaries to it's directors, without creating much charitable 'action'.

Of course, removing an unofficial gagging order could lead to certain congregations being accused of preaching hate, but that could be dealt with through other existing laws, or through loss of congregants.

Would removing tax exempt status from religious and charitable organisations bring much extra tax revenue into the economy?

Perhaps, but not every tax exempt organization, religious or otherwise, it's like the Mormon church or operates like the Mormon church. Some of them do good work, and need their tax exempt status in order to operate and fund their existence. Think about the kinds of faith-based organizations that run hospitals or clinics or give Healthcare to the needy or help out with things like housing. A good example that I could think of in Utah is the Fourth Street Clinic, right across the street from Pioneer Park. Thousands of people come in there every year and get completely free healthcare and free prescriptions. When I lived in Utah, it was a godsend two most of the folks I lived with, because most of them did not have health insurance, and were in that age range where they couldn't benefit from their parents health insurance if they even had any, and we're nowhere near old enough to benefit a from something like Medicare, and and their problems were not serious enough to qualify for something like Medicaid. For all I know the Fourth Street Clinic is completely funded through private donations, and I'm not exactly well versed on how a nonprofit organizations work, but if that organization had to pay taxes to the government for the donations they got, I'm sure that would make it a lot harder, or even impossible to treat all of those Indigent and homeless people for free. I'm pretty sure the motto of the place was ' healthcare for the homeless.'

Do organizations like the Church of Scientology or the Mormon Church deserves their tax-exempt status? Probably not. I certainly don't think they should. They use their donations to line the pockets of their leaders or, especially in the case of their Church, Bill malls, make purchases of huge swabs of lands, and other various commercial Enterprises. I don't really see how it's very religious or nonprofit and nature to build a multi-billion-dollar mall. But you have to remember that there are a lot of good non-profit organizations that do deserve their tax-exempt status. And a lot of them do employ people that make pretty modest salaries. Again, when I lived in Utah, the place I stay that was a treatment center that was a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, and I knew for a fact that the therapist there, who were eminently qualified and all had at least master's degrees, made much less money than if they worked in private practice or as clinicians in other settings. It was pretty obvious no one was there to get rich. And a huge chunk of their funding came from the state of Utah, at least for several decades, until they became JACO approved and a lot of their funding came from private insurance and Medicaid and they were no longer beholden to the qualifications and requirements that the state of Utah required them to enforce in order to get that state money. Sorry if that was a tangent.

If the government needs more tax dollars, they can start by increasing the tax rate for people who make Millions per year, or changing the tax structure for capital gains, or closing the loopholes that make it so huge corporations end up paying less in taxes than they ethically should.

This fixed tax rate nonsense that Trump was going on about during the election was absolute horseshit. I can't remember exactly what it was, something like 12%, 24%, and 32%, something like that. I think I might have even been lower. If I made millions of dollars, or had some huge financial windfall, yeah, I might be irritated if I had to pay 40 or 50% of that money in tax, but that's the breaks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2017 08:05AM by midwestanon.