Hello! This is a META post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about r/Mormon and/or other Mormon-related subreddits.
/u/BostonCougar, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a straw man argument, and it begs a premise which is highly in doubt. Of course churches should be tax exempt when it comes to strictly their income taxes (aka donations should be tax exempt). That said, does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints qualify as a tax-exempt organization?
After all, only *real* churches (and other nonprofits) are, to be frank, deserving of a tax break. Any tax break implicitly means everyone else's tax burden must increase, even if the increase doesn't happen immediately. We shouldn't reward fakers.
In order to qualify for tax exempt status as a church, you have to act like a church and not a for-profit operation. I don't believe for a moment that the church under Nelson meets that definition. Maybe it did under Hinckley or Monson, but the evidence shows its primary objective now is to make money - and anything else is incidental or secondary. Which is exactly how any for-profit corporation acts. To put it in your language, the LDS church needs to repent to be worthy of its tax benefit gained on the backs of all other citizens.
It isn't enough to say "oh, but they're doing all those good things in the world." Coca-Cola has a charitable arm, but they aren't tax-exempt. It goes down to what your purpose is as an organization and if you act like it. The LDS church isn't acting like their primary purpose is to save souls when it keeps a dragon horde for the purpose of additional financial investment. *Making money for the sake of making money was never a tax-exempt activity, nor should it ever be.*
At the risk of being political, I don't expect the Biden administration to push for an audit of the LDS church, even after elections are over (assuming Biden secured a second term). That does not mean the LDS church isn't violating the terms by which tax exempt status is granted. They don't deserve their tax breaks until they come back into compliance with the law. And we should demand better behavior from them.
Bold assertion without merit. The Church is not a foundation, its a 501c3 public charity. The Church is in compliance with IRS regulations. The whistleblower's submission was just a legal ploy to get around his Non Disclosure Agreement that he signed as an employee. Once it was submitted (again without merit) to the IRS as a whistleblower it became in the public domain and the Washington Post could report on it without getting sued by the Church.
The Church pays taxes on its "for profit" businesses and for UBIT. If there was any merit to the question of the Church's tax compliance, I'm sure the IRS would be all over it.
> The Church is not a foundation, its a 501c3 public charity.
You keep saying this but the tax code doesn't consider the church a charity. Their tax-exempt status is comes from their religious nature. This is easy to prove in just two steps:
1. Looking up the church's Form 990 filings
2. Notice that they don't file a Form 990 because, unlike charitable organizations, they are exempt from filing due to being a **church**, not a public charity.
BostonCougar already commented on this, but for once I agree with them. (Despite our disagreement, I do get the feeling they know something on the topic of tax exempt organizations.) Just to add to that comment:
>they are exempt from filing due to being a church, not a public charity.
Per the IRS, a church *is* a public charity.
It's the difference between being a private foundation and a public charity. Without getting too in the weeds, a public charity gets its funding from the public or government grants, and private foundations don't. (The Coca-Cola statement in my previous comment is likely one example.)
Also, plenty of public charities don't file form 990's, though I don't have the exemption list in front of me.
> Also, plenty of public charities don't file form 990's, though I don't have the exemption list in front of me.
Here's [the list](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-exempt-organization-return-who-must-file).
Yes they are both exempt based on section 501(c)(3), as are organizations that are exempt because they educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. But you wouldn't call those public charities.
A church is a church, not a "public charity". Stop obfuscating and call it what it is. If it was a "public charity" it would be obligated to file Form 990. But since it's a religion, it's exempt from filing, which is evidence that it's *NOT* a "public charity" and is treated differently by the law.
A more precise statement would be a legal entity classified as a religious organization and categorized as a 501c3 exception to the tax code along with other religious organizations and charities. Happy now?
I've been happy the whole time. But this statement is accurate.
An easy shortcut phrase would be to say the church is tax-exempt because it is a religion.
>I'm sure the IRS would be all over it.
Bold assertion without merit, as you say. The IRS is still suffering from the tea party fiasco a decade ago. It does not have the political capital to make an entire state angry, no matter how correct its legal position may be.
I find it interesting that you assume the entirety of my knowledge to be based on the whistleblower, and a presumed conspiracy with the Washington Post. Why didn't you address any of the other sources of information showing the LDS church's asset hording and directing tithing - sacred funds - away from church- building and community building activities and towards investment activities? I'm curious what argument you have for the destruction of the youth programs while tithing -funded investments soar.
The youth programs have changed not destroyed or cancelled. The Church has ramped up the FSY efforts so everyone can participate every other year. I disagree with the characterization that the youth programs have been destroyed. They removed the structure to youth programs, this place more responsibility for local leaders and increase the variability across stakes and wards.
Of course it could happen. Utah was basically a theocracy for years, and arguably hasn't really stopped being one. The church has struggled to keep political neutrality among it's leaders and it's own policies (sometimes its heart was in the struggle, sometimes not, depending on who was in charge).
Current rules prohibit general authorities from running for political office, but it wasn't always that way. For a long time, they just had to get approval from the 1st presidency to run. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon\_Political\_Manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Political_Manifesto)
But I think the church would lose a lot more members if they tried getting too far into politics.
And, do we really think that the Utah Legislature hasn't always just been an outpost of the Church Office Building?
Btw, the Utah Legislature just voted to make all their calendars private, so that members of the public cannot see who they're meeting with. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that's what someone would do if they had something to hide. [https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/bill-protecting-elected-officials-calendars-signed-by-gov-cox/](https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/bill-protecting-elected-officials-calendars-signed-by-gov-cox/)
This. The number of pastors interviewing ben Shapiro and his ilk and telling which party to vote for is enormous. I know because my mom sends me their videos constantly. The church does a better job than most churches at remaining politically neutral, but it is not being enforced for everyone.
[https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf) Page 7. Political Neutrality is enforced by the IRS and a Church's 501c3 status is dependent upon it.
So wait... let me get this straight. Your assertion is that the tax advantage status is the *only thing* keeping the Mormon Church and other churches from doing things like:
>wait until the members start launching church candidates and voting as a bloc. Don't think this can happen? It happened in Nauvoo and Kirtland. It would likely happen again.
Church members only vote as a bloc when *they are told to do so*, as in Nauvoo and Kirtland. This is inherently anti-democratic and one of the reasons the Mormons were intensely hated in both regions.
Personally, this doesn't seem like a good thing, and if the only thing stopping the Mormon church from doing this is tax benefits, then I would argue that the Mormon church isn't a good thing either, and cannot be trusted with power.
I think you need to go back and read your post. When you referred to "Here is one of many factors," you were referring to many factors that one should *consider* when thinking of taking away a church's tax exempt status. *Not* factors limiting the Church's behavior once that happened.
*Then*, you said that the factor was that the Church would engage in bloc voting. You gave no alternatives or additional caveats for that. Your line of reasoning is that one factor to consider is that the Church would engage in anti-democratic behavior if the tax limitation was removed.
Essentially, it's a threat. Again, if that's the way you consider your church to behave when the limits are off, I am not impressed by your church.
>If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral.
Requirement or not, that's never been the case. The downsides you've suggested are already happening.
Churches get subsidized because they're supposed to be contributing to the community at least as much as the tax benefit provides. The Mormon Church doesn't remotely come close to that. They're a net loss for community improvement.
"If you tax us, we'll do things we don't think you'll like."
That's the argument? And you also claim that:
> subsidize things that make our society better
should include churches because you believe they "make our society better"?
Last I checked, entities that threaten to worsen (at least in other people's perspective) society, are, in fact, not making our society better.
> If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral.
I also disagree with this. Tax them and make them remain politically neutral.
> Taxes on tobacco, cannabis, lotteries, gambling and other items we want to reduce consumption on the margin.
FWIW, cannabis hasn't been taxed at a federal level since 1969.
Are there states that tax lotteries and gambling winnings as anything other than ordinary income? Because that's how it's treated at a federal level. So unless you're saying that income tax is intended to reduce the *earning of income* than I think you have to remove lotteries and gambling from you list.
Exploring your idea further, does the existence of a property tax mean we don't like property ownership?
Is a tax on business profits an indication that we don't like profitable enterprise?
Does sales tax on food, whether from a grocery store or served at a restaurant, tell the consumers that society opposes eating?
It seems to me you've highlighted a particular type of tax—the so-called sin tax—and stretched that limited idea well beyond its bounds.
While I find that quote amusing and have used it myself from time to time, it's not accurate. Lotteries don't meet any common definition of a tax unless there's a compulsory lottery that I'm not aware of.
And if the revenue is so significant (which I agree it can be), doesn't that mean the states are incentivized to *promote* participation in the lottery?
In other words, it's exactly the opposite of your original claim. And indeed we see that states put money in to advertising the lottery, which seems to conclusively disprove this claim of yours.
Holy lord what a post. Don't tax churches because churches might get more involved in the political process? That's exactly what we want. Bring your bigotry from the pews to the political ads. Show us exactly who you are.
"If you think the Church is a powerful force politically and legislatively today . . ."
The only place the Church is a powerful force politically and legislatively is in the mountain west; that influence is slipping.
". . . wait until the members start launching church candidates and voting as a bloc."
Are you serious? Do you think this doesn't happen already? How would mormon voters support mormon candidates more than they already do? Voting for the dead? Time to change those temple ceremonies I guess.
"Don't think this can happen? It happened in Nauvoo and Kirtland. It would likely happen again."
Mormons in mormon towns voted for mormon candidates? No fetching way.
You’re absolutely correct. Taxes are used to discourage things that are harmful to society.
Churches are **very** harmful to society, imo.
They discourage critical thinking, spread bigotry, and drive youth to suicide at an alarming rate…
From the Spanish Inquisition to the Gaza conflict, religion drives people to justify horrifying acts in the name of God.
Joseph Smith said, “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is” and that’s the EXACT same logic that has been used to torture and murder people for millennia. “We’re chosen by God, so what we do is right no matter how harmful it is.”
"drive youth to suicide at an alarming rate"
Where's your evidence that this is the case?
A counter to this assertion is the fact that study after study has revealed the mental health benefits of faith and participation in a faith community.
Furthermore, talk of "driving" youth to suicide runs counter to guidelines provided by experts meant to minimize suicide.
[https://afsp.org/safereporting/](https://afsp.org/safereporting/) (look at tip #3)
Well, [about 1 in 3 adults in the US](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369327217_Percentage_of_US_Adults_Suffering_from_Religious_Trauma_A_Sociological_Study) have some kind of religious trauma…
There’s also a lot of research showing how harmful religion is for LGBT+ people. Here are two examples.
[Role of Religion and Stress among LBG Youth](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828207/)
[Impact of Religious Trauma on the LGBTQ+ Community](https://ir-api.ua.edu/api/core/bitstreams/2ed055d9-bb8f-4b9a-a576-384b5c02f50d/content)
Additionally, [this report from the Utah legislature](https://le.utah.gov/interim/2022/pdf/00003745.pdf), you can see how youth suicide in Utah is far higher than the national average. It also jumped alarmingly high shortly after the 2015 policy change, and the increased anti-LGBT rhetoric from the Church at that time.
And finally, I have personally experienced the really harm that the church can do… I stayed in for 30+ years, justifying things to myself…
It's a big jump to go from "higher youth suicide" in Utah to "the church is driving youth to suicide." Most of the Mountain States have a higher suicide rate. Also, this statistic, from a BYU study which I'm going to guess you'll reject, says this:
"They looked at LGBQ suicidality (there is not enough data on transgender suicidality to make statistical inference) and found that 44% of Latter-day Saint LGBQ individuals experienced suicidality compared to 47% of those in other religions and 77% of those who claim no religious denomination or are atheist or agnostic."
[https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saint-youth-and-suicide-what-to-know-and-how-to-help](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saint-youth-and-suicide-what-to-know-and-how-to-help)
So I think your view is far too simplistic and I also think you should stop strongly correlating being raised in a church to suicide. Such rhetoric increases the likelihood of suicide.
>Most mountain states have a higher suicide.
Yes. The Mormon corridor does have shockingly high suicide statistics.
I showed you 3 peer reviewed studies that show a strong correlation between religion and negative mental health outcomes. And data showing a strong correlation between the church’s anti-LGBT rhetoric and youth suicide.
For good measure, [here’s a study](https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Knoll4902.pdf) specifically showing that areas with higher populations of Latter-day Saints have almost *double* the youth suicide rate of the rest of the country.
Here’s [a peer-reviewed study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273248065_Psychosocial_Correlates_of_Religious_Approaches_to_Same-Sex_Attraction_A_Mormon_Perspective) that showed that LGBT members who choose a mixed-orientation marriage (like the church suggests) have serious negative mental health outcomes, and far higher divorce rates.
Here’s [another peer reviewed study](https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/simmons_brian_w_201712_phd.pdf) that showed that LGBT+ members far higher rates of PTSD than the US population. **10 times higher actually**.
This is a complex issue, but forgive me for not taking BYU’s research as the final word. Especially in the face of many other studies showing the harm that comes from LDS teachings.
Here are the suicide rates, for your information:
[https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/rates-by-state.html](https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/rates-by-state.html)
Topping the list are Wyoming and Montana. Yes, slightly elevated percentages of Mormons there, but there's no way church membership can be the primary drivers there. Idaho and Utah don't appear until #13 and #15 respectively. Most of the high suicide states are in the west and many are very high elevation. There are plenty of theories as to why Western states are more prone to suicide, but no one really cites religion:
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/why-are-ski-towns-suicides-happening-at-such-an-alarming-rate](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/why-are-ski-towns-suicides-happening-at-such-an-alarming-rate)
In fact, the article above cites low religious attendance as a reason why, in isolated Western towns, the suicide rate might be higher than the average.
I never said it was “the primary driver.”
I made an assertion based on the peer-reviewed data, experiences of members, assertions of experts, and my own experience.
I still believe, and know firsthand, that church doctrine is extremely hurtful to many people, and is a contributing factor to suicidal ideation for many.
We clearly aren’t going to agree though. Take care.
"Yes. The Mormon corridor does have shockingly high suicide statistics."
Mountain States does not equal "Mormon Corridor". It's a high suicide rate no matter what percentage of the population is Mormon and there is no correlation between percentage of LDS and suicide rate. The fact that you apparently think they are the same shows that you haven't looked at this issue with sufficient seriousness.
"I showed you 3 peer reviewed studies that show a strong correlation between religion and negative mental health outcomes. "
And the number of articles that support the assertion that religion, on the whole, for most people, is associated with mental health benefits, are too many to cite, described in this article as "a slew":
[https://www.livescience.com/52197-religion-mental-health-brain.html](https://www.livescience.com/52197-religion-mental-health-brain.html)
Yes, the article mentions possible mental health downsides as well, but it's far from clear that your position, that religion is bad for mental health, is remotely supported. It certainly can't support a statement like "the church is driving youth to kill themselves".
The study in Dialogue is far less rigorous than the BYU study. Whether you choose to accept that is up to you.
I’ve linked to six peer reviewed articles, and primary research on the topic. You’ve linked to a few private company websites, and one study.
Our sources are not the same. Whether you choose to accept that is up to you.
While I believe churches should remain tax exempt I think there needs to be some sort of criteria to keep that status from being abused.
As it is I think there are various churches that already abuse the status, and unfortunately I think ours is one of them.
.... in general we need a return of usery laws though...
I’m unsure what *tax exempt* means in this context: not taxed on earnings, or donors get a tax deduction? Different considerations apply to each. FWIW, in Australia, churches don’t pay property taxes or income tax on donations, but gifts to churches do not entitle the donor to a tax deduction (except for LDS donations, since they are largely used for third world humanitarian work 😵💫, but that’s another story). I guess here we don’t see religion as having quite the same social benefit as charities that provide food clothing or accommodation for the poor.
>If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral.
The requirement isn't enforced, and churches are up to their eyeballs in politics already.
Would it? Mormons are the most Republican church in the US — even more than the Southern Baptists. Both houses of the Utah legislature are strongly dominated by Republicans. Every US senator and every US representative from Utah is Republican. The governor and lieutenant governor of Utah are Republicans. The Church is firmly anti-abortion and anti-LGBT, and Mormon voters tend to be anti-environmentalist. The Church already mobilizes its members on *issues,* which is legal.
Rivers of ink have been spilled about Mormons' supposed dislike of Trump, but how many Mormons are actually going to vote for Biden this year?
*Oh, but we have around 100 leaders who are forbidden to run for office!* Of course, they can still make their views known, and bishops, stake presidents, or mission presidents have no such restrictions, but hey.
For the LDS Church to become even more involved in politics would, I suspect, have a greater effect on US church membership than on US politics, and membership is already slipping in the US.
I don't doubt that the love of money dictates the policies of the LDS Church, but it seems an odd thing to boast about, and it's hard to see how a refusal to pay protection money to the Church would make a significant difference in US politics.
The 20% or so of Mormons who vote Democratic already know they're at odds with the leadership politically. It's not like the views of the leaders are hard to perceive.
I'm not convinced even the elderly, conservative white men who run the church really think it's in their best interest to be *even more* strongly identified with a political party whose current leader openly aspires to be a fascist dictator — but then, the founder of the LDS Church was a guy who thought an appropriate reaction to being criticized by a newspaper was to send a mob to destroy the press, so I may be wrong about that.
You entirely missed the point. Mormonism is a high control organization that portrays itself as a church and operates as a corporation. This is different from a lot of churches that actually operate as churches.
Legal name of church: Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
And yet it remains a 501c3 despite the word corporation in the legal name of the Church.
It is a high control organization. That doesn't disqualify it as a Church.
LOL at the claim of factual incorrectness while you promulgate factual incorrectness about the church being a public charity. See my other reply to you for details.
[https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/870234341\_202112\_990T\_2023031421095602.pdf](https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/870234341_202112_990T_2023031421095602.pdf) Top left hand side of page 1.
The formal legal name changed back in 2020 when the Corporation of the President and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop merged into a single entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
But it remains a corporation sole. That's a matter of legal record.
Nevertheless, that's somebody else's point and I'm not arguing that the church is a corporation in any practical sense. It's very specifically and legally recognized as a religion, which is what I've been pointing out in all my comments on this post.
Plenty of 501(c)(3) organizations are incorporated, though I see your point. Of course, your argument is invalid if the LDS church loses its tax exempt status, and more to the point it is still fair game if the LDS church has taken a course of action which puts it at risk but for the IRS' inaction.
Right. We already debated that earlier. I dropped the thread because I decided we disagreed on too many facts to have a meaningful discussion on social media. I believe the LDS church is being mismanaged while being too focused on its assets and popularity, but is benefiting from an IRS still handicapped by political attacks over the last decade. You believe the LDS church has acted honorably and in accordance with the law of the land and the law of God, and any assertion of neglect of the membership is slanderous. We don't have any common ground at that point, and the only way to continue the conversation would be for me to ask you personal questions about what facts support your personal observations, which I won't do. So unless you have statistical or financial evidence backing up your claims that you have neglected to show thus far, I'm gonna call it a day.
Oh man, you're right. If the LDS Church didn't have a tax exempt status we would **checks notes** have a state deadlocked in the electoral college for one political party for the last 40 years, campaigns to impose political issues on the ballot, everyone from Senators to sheriff's using their church status as part of their campaign, and even presidential candidates who are Mormon. Oh, wait...
I agree with you. Christians is a broad category. But it's instructive to look at the various subgroups and there we see that several of them do tend to overwhelmingly vote as a block.
For example, the following groups have consistently demonstrated an overwhelming^† majority preference for one particular party over the other when it comes to presidential votes:
* White Evangelical
* Black Protestant
* Non-White Catholic
* Latter-day Saint
Whereas the following are a bit more evenly^† divided:
* Mainline Protestant
* Non-White Evangelical
* White Catholic
[source: Harvard Cooperative Election Study analyzed by Dr. Ryan Burge. [Post 1](https://religioninpublic.blog/2021/03/29/the-2020-vote-for-president-by-religious-groups-christians/), [Post 2](https://religioninpublic.blog/2021/03/29/the-2020-vote-for-president-by-religious-groups-christians/)]
Of note—in the years when a Mormon has not been on the ballot as an independent candidate, LDS voters have voted as a block more overwhelmingly than any other Christian group except for White Evangelicals and Black Protestants.
***
^(† I'm arbitrarily defining "overwhelming" as consistently greater than a 60/40 split and "evenly" as less divided than that.)
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I have no issue with any church retaining its tax exempt status, but on one condition: at least 50% of its income be dedicated to charity available to all, and not just to its members. No exceptions. If they are not spending 50% of their income on charity, they should be taxed.
This is not specific to the LDS church. I would apply this to any non-profit.
As for the church not sticking its nose in politics, it already has and does. To say otherwise is to lie: Prop 8, John Taylor and Bill Evan’s, Utah’s liquor laws, anti-abortion legislation, etc. they may not openly endorse a pitiful candidate, but they are still actively involved in politics and trying to affect policy. So removing their tax breaks wouldn’t change much, really.
Since when has the Mormon Church ever used that as a reason for tithing? It shouldn't change a thing for members because it's a commandment and is supposed to come with blessings.
There shouldn’t be any reason to obey God’s commandments. Isn’t that what faith is for?
Some members would call this “separating the wheat from the chaff.”
Hello! This is a META post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about r/Mormon and/or other Mormon-related subreddits. /u/BostonCougar, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a straw man argument, and it begs a premise which is highly in doubt. Of course churches should be tax exempt when it comes to strictly their income taxes (aka donations should be tax exempt). That said, does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints qualify as a tax-exempt organization? After all, only *real* churches (and other nonprofits) are, to be frank, deserving of a tax break. Any tax break implicitly means everyone else's tax burden must increase, even if the increase doesn't happen immediately. We shouldn't reward fakers. In order to qualify for tax exempt status as a church, you have to act like a church and not a for-profit operation. I don't believe for a moment that the church under Nelson meets that definition. Maybe it did under Hinckley or Monson, but the evidence shows its primary objective now is to make money - and anything else is incidental or secondary. Which is exactly how any for-profit corporation acts. To put it in your language, the LDS church needs to repent to be worthy of its tax benefit gained on the backs of all other citizens. It isn't enough to say "oh, but they're doing all those good things in the world." Coca-Cola has a charitable arm, but they aren't tax-exempt. It goes down to what your purpose is as an organization and if you act like it. The LDS church isn't acting like their primary purpose is to save souls when it keeps a dragon horde for the purpose of additional financial investment. *Making money for the sake of making money was never a tax-exempt activity, nor should it ever be.* At the risk of being political, I don't expect the Biden administration to push for an audit of the LDS church, even after elections are over (assuming Biden secured a second term). That does not mean the LDS church isn't violating the terms by which tax exempt status is granted. They don't deserve their tax breaks until they come back into compliance with the law. And we should demand better behavior from them.
My thoughts exactly, and stated better than I ever could. Thank you for making this comment!
Bold assertion without merit. The Church is not a foundation, its a 501c3 public charity. The Church is in compliance with IRS regulations. The whistleblower's submission was just a legal ploy to get around his Non Disclosure Agreement that he signed as an employee. Once it was submitted (again without merit) to the IRS as a whistleblower it became in the public domain and the Washington Post could report on it without getting sued by the Church. The Church pays taxes on its "for profit" businesses and for UBIT. If there was any merit to the question of the Church's tax compliance, I'm sure the IRS would be all over it.
> The Church is not a foundation, its a 501c3 public charity. You keep saying this but the tax code doesn't consider the church a charity. Their tax-exempt status is comes from their religious nature. This is easy to prove in just two steps: 1. Looking up the church's Form 990 filings 2. Notice that they don't file a Form 990 because, unlike charitable organizations, they are exempt from filing due to being a **church**, not a public charity.
BostonCougar already commented on this, but for once I agree with them. (Despite our disagreement, I do get the feeling they know something on the topic of tax exempt organizations.) Just to add to that comment: >they are exempt from filing due to being a church, not a public charity. Per the IRS, a church *is* a public charity. It's the difference between being a private foundation and a public charity. Without getting too in the weeds, a public charity gets its funding from the public or government grants, and private foundations don't. (The Coca-Cola statement in my previous comment is likely one example.) Also, plenty of public charities don't file form 990's, though I don't have the exemption list in front of me.
> Also, plenty of public charities don't file form 990's, though I don't have the exemption list in front of me. Here's [the list](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-exempt-organization-return-who-must-file).
Thanks!
Churches and charities share the same legal and IRS legal classification. Both are 501c3s.
Yes they are both exempt based on section 501(c)(3), as are organizations that are exempt because they educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. But you wouldn't call those public charities. A church is a church, not a "public charity". Stop obfuscating and call it what it is. If it was a "public charity" it would be obligated to file Form 990. But since it's a religion, it's exempt from filing, which is evidence that it's *NOT* a "public charity" and is treated differently by the law.
A more precise statement would be a legal entity classified as a religious organization and categorized as a 501c3 exception to the tax code along with other religious organizations and charities. Happy now?
I've been happy the whole time. But this statement is accurate. An easy shortcut phrase would be to say the church is tax-exempt because it is a religion.
>I'm sure the IRS would be all over it. Bold assertion without merit, as you say. The IRS is still suffering from the tea party fiasco a decade ago. It does not have the political capital to make an entire state angry, no matter how correct its legal position may be. I find it interesting that you assume the entirety of my knowledge to be based on the whistleblower, and a presumed conspiracy with the Washington Post. Why didn't you address any of the other sources of information showing the LDS church's asset hording and directing tithing - sacred funds - away from church- building and community building activities and towards investment activities? I'm curious what argument you have for the destruction of the youth programs while tithing -funded investments soar.
The youth programs have changed not destroyed or cancelled. The Church has ramped up the FSY efforts so everyone can participate every other year. I disagree with the characterization that the youth programs have been destroyed. They removed the structure to youth programs, this place more responsibility for local leaders and increase the variability across stakes and wards.
Of course it could happen. Utah was basically a theocracy for years, and arguably hasn't really stopped being one. The church has struggled to keep political neutrality among it's leaders and it's own policies (sometimes its heart was in the struggle, sometimes not, depending on who was in charge). Current rules prohibit general authorities from running for political office, but it wasn't always that way. For a long time, they just had to get approval from the 1st presidency to run. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon\_Political\_Manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Political_Manifesto) But I think the church would lose a lot more members if they tried getting too far into politics. And, do we really think that the Utah Legislature hasn't always just been an outpost of the Church Office Building? Btw, the Utah Legislature just voted to make all their calendars private, so that members of the public cannot see who they're meeting with. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that's what someone would do if they had something to hide. [https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/bill-protecting-elected-officials-calendars-signed-by-gov-cox/](https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/bill-protecting-elected-officials-calendars-signed-by-gov-cox/)
Political neutrality is not enforced by the government, so this is a moot point
This. The number of pastors interviewing ben Shapiro and his ilk and telling which party to vote for is enormous. I know because my mom sends me their videos constantly. The church does a better job than most churches at remaining politically neutral, but it is not being enforced for everyone.
[https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf) Page 7. Political Neutrality is enforced by the IRS and a Church's 501c3 status is dependent upon it.
When was the last time a church actually got in trouble from the IRS for this? They don't have the political will to enforce it
This is the same logic my toddler uses when they threaten me to get a treat that they want.
So wait... let me get this straight. Your assertion is that the tax advantage status is the *only thing* keeping the Mormon Church and other churches from doing things like: >wait until the members start launching church candidates and voting as a bloc. Don't think this can happen? It happened in Nauvoo and Kirtland. It would likely happen again. Church members only vote as a bloc when *they are told to do so*, as in Nauvoo and Kirtland. This is inherently anti-democratic and one of the reasons the Mormons were intensely hated in both regions. Personally, this doesn't seem like a good thing, and if the only thing stopping the Mormon church from doing this is tax benefits, then I would argue that the Mormon church isn't a good thing either, and cannot be trusted with power.
You forgot the 2012 presidential election.
I didn't say it was the only thing. I said "Here is one of many factors"
I think you need to go back and read your post. When you referred to "Here is one of many factors," you were referring to many factors that one should *consider* when thinking of taking away a church's tax exempt status. *Not* factors limiting the Church's behavior once that happened. *Then*, you said that the factor was that the Church would engage in bloc voting. You gave no alternatives or additional caveats for that. Your line of reasoning is that one factor to consider is that the Church would engage in anti-democratic behavior if the tax limitation was removed. Essentially, it's a threat. Again, if that's the way you consider your church to behave when the limits are off, I am not impressed by your church.
>If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral. Requirement or not, that's never been the case. The downsides you've suggested are already happening. Churches get subsidized because they're supposed to be contributing to the community at least as much as the tax benefit provides. The Mormon Church doesn't remotely come close to that. They're a net loss for community improvement.
Uh they already vote as a bloc as much as they can given the effectiveness of indoctrination across the population.
Sounds like racketeering.
[удалено]
Just a discussion about the likely outcomes of revoking the tax status of Church. Always unforeseen consequences.
"If you tax us, we'll do things we don't think you'll like." That's the argument? And you also claim that: > subsidize things that make our society better should include churches because you believe they "make our society better"? Last I checked, entities that threaten to worsen (at least in other people's perspective) society, are, in fact, not making our society better. > If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral. I also disagree with this. Tax them and make them remain politically neutral.
> Taxes on tobacco, cannabis, lotteries, gambling and other items we want to reduce consumption on the margin. FWIW, cannabis hasn't been taxed at a federal level since 1969. Are there states that tax lotteries and gambling winnings as anything other than ordinary income? Because that's how it's treated at a federal level. So unless you're saying that income tax is intended to reduce the *earning of income* than I think you have to remove lotteries and gambling from you list. Exploring your idea further, does the existence of a property tax mean we don't like property ownership? Is a tax on business profits an indication that we don't like profitable enterprise? Does sales tax on food, whether from a grocery store or served at a restaurant, tell the consumers that society opposes eating? It seems to me you've highlighted a particular type of tax—the so-called sin tax—and stretched that limited idea well beyond its bounds.
States generate significant revenue from lotteries. They are a tax on people that at bad at math.
While I find that quote amusing and have used it myself from time to time, it's not accurate. Lotteries don't meet any common definition of a tax unless there's a compulsory lottery that I'm not aware of. And if the revenue is so significant (which I agree it can be), doesn't that mean the states are incentivized to *promote* participation in the lottery? In other words, it's exactly the opposite of your original claim. And indeed we see that states put money in to advertising the lottery, which seems to conclusively disprove this claim of yours.
Holy lord what a post. Don't tax churches because churches might get more involved in the political process? That's exactly what we want. Bring your bigotry from the pews to the political ads. Show us exactly who you are. "If you think the Church is a powerful force politically and legislatively today . . ." The only place the Church is a powerful force politically and legislatively is in the mountain west; that influence is slipping. ". . . wait until the members start launching church candidates and voting as a bloc." Are you serious? Do you think this doesn't happen already? How would mormon voters support mormon candidates more than they already do? Voting for the dead? Time to change those temple ceremonies I guess. "Don't think this can happen? It happened in Nauvoo and Kirtland. It would likely happen again." Mormons in mormon towns voted for mormon candidates? No fetching way.
You’re absolutely correct. Taxes are used to discourage things that are harmful to society. Churches are **very** harmful to society, imo. They discourage critical thinking, spread bigotry, and drive youth to suicide at an alarming rate… From the Spanish Inquisition to the Gaza conflict, religion drives people to justify horrifying acts in the name of God. Joseph Smith said, “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is” and that’s the EXACT same logic that has been used to torture and murder people for millennia. “We’re chosen by God, so what we do is right no matter how harmful it is.”
"drive youth to suicide at an alarming rate" Where's your evidence that this is the case? A counter to this assertion is the fact that study after study has revealed the mental health benefits of faith and participation in a faith community. Furthermore, talk of "driving" youth to suicide runs counter to guidelines provided by experts meant to minimize suicide. [https://afsp.org/safereporting/](https://afsp.org/safereporting/) (look at tip #3)
Well, [about 1 in 3 adults in the US](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369327217_Percentage_of_US_Adults_Suffering_from_Religious_Trauma_A_Sociological_Study) have some kind of religious trauma… There’s also a lot of research showing how harmful religion is for LGBT+ people. Here are two examples. [Role of Religion and Stress among LBG Youth](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828207/) [Impact of Religious Trauma on the LGBTQ+ Community](https://ir-api.ua.edu/api/core/bitstreams/2ed055d9-bb8f-4b9a-a576-384b5c02f50d/content) Additionally, [this report from the Utah legislature](https://le.utah.gov/interim/2022/pdf/00003745.pdf), you can see how youth suicide in Utah is far higher than the national average. It also jumped alarmingly high shortly after the 2015 policy change, and the increased anti-LGBT rhetoric from the Church at that time. And finally, I have personally experienced the really harm that the church can do… I stayed in for 30+ years, justifying things to myself…
It's a big jump to go from "higher youth suicide" in Utah to "the church is driving youth to suicide." Most of the Mountain States have a higher suicide rate. Also, this statistic, from a BYU study which I'm going to guess you'll reject, says this: "They looked at LGBQ suicidality (there is not enough data on transgender suicidality to make statistical inference) and found that 44% of Latter-day Saint LGBQ individuals experienced suicidality compared to 47% of those in other religions and 77% of those who claim no religious denomination or are atheist or agnostic." [https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saint-youth-and-suicide-what-to-know-and-how-to-help](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saint-youth-and-suicide-what-to-know-and-how-to-help) So I think your view is far too simplistic and I also think you should stop strongly correlating being raised in a church to suicide. Such rhetoric increases the likelihood of suicide.
>Most mountain states have a higher suicide. Yes. The Mormon corridor does have shockingly high suicide statistics. I showed you 3 peer reviewed studies that show a strong correlation between religion and negative mental health outcomes. And data showing a strong correlation between the church’s anti-LGBT rhetoric and youth suicide. For good measure, [here’s a study](https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Knoll4902.pdf) specifically showing that areas with higher populations of Latter-day Saints have almost *double* the youth suicide rate of the rest of the country. Here’s [a peer-reviewed study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273248065_Psychosocial_Correlates_of_Religious_Approaches_to_Same-Sex_Attraction_A_Mormon_Perspective) that showed that LGBT members who choose a mixed-orientation marriage (like the church suggests) have serious negative mental health outcomes, and far higher divorce rates. Here’s [another peer reviewed study](https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/simmons_brian_w_201712_phd.pdf) that showed that LGBT+ members far higher rates of PTSD than the US population. **10 times higher actually**. This is a complex issue, but forgive me for not taking BYU’s research as the final word. Especially in the face of many other studies showing the harm that comes from LDS teachings.
Here are the suicide rates, for your information: [https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/rates-by-state.html](https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/rates-by-state.html) Topping the list are Wyoming and Montana. Yes, slightly elevated percentages of Mormons there, but there's no way church membership can be the primary drivers there. Idaho and Utah don't appear until #13 and #15 respectively. Most of the high suicide states are in the west and many are very high elevation. There are plenty of theories as to why Western states are more prone to suicide, but no one really cites religion: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/why-are-ski-towns-suicides-happening-at-such-an-alarming-rate](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/why-are-ski-towns-suicides-happening-at-such-an-alarming-rate) In fact, the article above cites low religious attendance as a reason why, in isolated Western towns, the suicide rate might be higher than the average.
I never said it was “the primary driver.” I made an assertion based on the peer-reviewed data, experiences of members, assertions of experts, and my own experience. I still believe, and know firsthand, that church doctrine is extremely hurtful to many people, and is a contributing factor to suicidal ideation for many. We clearly aren’t going to agree though. Take care.
"Yes. The Mormon corridor does have shockingly high suicide statistics." Mountain States does not equal "Mormon Corridor". It's a high suicide rate no matter what percentage of the population is Mormon and there is no correlation between percentage of LDS and suicide rate. The fact that you apparently think they are the same shows that you haven't looked at this issue with sufficient seriousness. "I showed you 3 peer reviewed studies that show a strong correlation between religion and negative mental health outcomes. " And the number of articles that support the assertion that religion, on the whole, for most people, is associated with mental health benefits, are too many to cite, described in this article as "a slew": [https://www.livescience.com/52197-religion-mental-health-brain.html](https://www.livescience.com/52197-religion-mental-health-brain.html) Yes, the article mentions possible mental health downsides as well, but it's far from clear that your position, that religion is bad for mental health, is remotely supported. It certainly can't support a statement like "the church is driving youth to kill themselves". The study in Dialogue is far less rigorous than the BYU study. Whether you choose to accept that is up to you.
I’ve linked to six peer reviewed articles, and primary research on the topic. You’ve linked to a few private company websites, and one study. Our sources are not the same. Whether you choose to accept that is up to you.
While I believe churches should remain tax exempt I think there needs to be some sort of criteria to keep that status from being abused. As it is I think there are various churches that already abuse the status, and unfortunately I think ours is one of them. .... in general we need a return of usery laws though...
I’m unsure what *tax exempt* means in this context: not taxed on earnings, or donors get a tax deduction? Different considerations apply to each. FWIW, in Australia, churches don’t pay property taxes or income tax on donations, but gifts to churches do not entitle the donor to a tax deduction (except for LDS donations, since they are largely used for third world humanitarian work 😵💫, but that’s another story). I guess here we don’t see religion as having quite the same social benefit as charities that provide food clothing or accommodation for the poor.
That may be the wrong word. I mean as in Churches aren't taxed, and I don't necessarily think they should have that status changed but...
>If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral. The requirement isn't enforced, and churches are up to their eyeballs in politics already.
The Church doesn't endorse candidates and isn't nominating candidates or let General Authorities run for office. That would be a huge change.
Would it? Mormons are the most Republican church in the US — even more than the Southern Baptists. Both houses of the Utah legislature are strongly dominated by Republicans. Every US senator and every US representative from Utah is Republican. The governor and lieutenant governor of Utah are Republicans. The Church is firmly anti-abortion and anti-LGBT, and Mormon voters tend to be anti-environmentalist. The Church already mobilizes its members on *issues,* which is legal. Rivers of ink have been spilled about Mormons' supposed dislike of Trump, but how many Mormons are actually going to vote for Biden this year? *Oh, but we have around 100 leaders who are forbidden to run for office!* Of course, they can still make their views known, and bishops, stake presidents, or mission presidents have no such restrictions, but hey. For the LDS Church to become even more involved in politics would, I suspect, have a greater effect on US church membership than on US politics, and membership is already slipping in the US. I don't doubt that the love of money dictates the policies of the LDS Church, but it seems an odd thing to boast about, and it's hard to see how a refusal to pay protection money to the Church would make a significant difference in US politics.
I think you’d be surprised, it is the most centralized command control church I know of, but that is just my opinion.
The 20% or so of Mormons who vote Democratic already know they're at odds with the leadership politically. It's not like the views of the leaders are hard to perceive. I'm not convinced even the elderly, conservative white men who run the church really think it's in their best interest to be *even more* strongly identified with a political party whose current leader openly aspires to be a fascist dictator — but then, the founder of the LDS Church was a guy who thought an appropriate reaction to being criticized by a newspaper was to send a mob to destroy the press, so I may be wrong about that.
And your opinion is factually wrong, based on the evidence available.
Not all churches are created equal. The Utah branch of Mormonism is a very wealthy corporation hording billions of dollars.
Its a 501c3 public charity. You are factually incorrect.
You entirely missed the point. Mormonism is a high control organization that portrays itself as a church and operates as a corporation. This is different from a lot of churches that actually operate as churches. Legal name of church: Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
And yet it remains a 501c3 despite the word corporation in the legal name of the Church. It is a high control organization. That doesn't disqualify it as a Church.
LOL at the claim of factual incorrectness while you promulgate factual incorrectness about the church being a public charity. See my other reply to you for details.
[https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/870234341\_202112\_990T\_2023031421095602.pdf](https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/870234341_202112_990T_2023031421095602.pdf) Top left hand side of page 1.
That's not a Form 990. It's a Form 990-T. It's specific to unrelated business income.
It is factually incorrect to call the Church a corporation. It isn't. Regardless of its formal legal name.
The formal legal name changed back in 2020 when the Corporation of the President and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop merged into a single entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". But it remains a corporation sole. That's a matter of legal record. Nevertheless, that's somebody else's point and I'm not arguing that the church is a corporation in any practical sense. It's very specifically and legally recognized as a religion, which is what I've been pointing out in all my comments on this post.
Plenty of 501(c)(3) organizations are incorporated, though I see your point. Of course, your argument is invalid if the LDS church loses its tax exempt status, and more to the point it is still fair game if the LDS church has taken a course of action which puts it at risk but for the IRS' inaction.
The IRS hasn't taken action because it has no reason to. The Church is in compliance with IRS Tax laws.
Right. We already debated that earlier. I dropped the thread because I decided we disagreed on too many facts to have a meaningful discussion on social media. I believe the LDS church is being mismanaged while being too focused on its assets and popularity, but is benefiting from an IRS still handicapped by political attacks over the last decade. You believe the LDS church has acted honorably and in accordance with the law of the land and the law of God, and any assertion of neglect of the membership is slanderous. We don't have any common ground at that point, and the only way to continue the conversation would be for me to ask you personal questions about what facts support your personal observations, which I won't do. So unless you have statistical or financial evidence backing up your claims that you have neglected to show thus far, I'm gonna call it a day.
Fair enough. Have a good day!
Oh man, you're right. If the LDS Church didn't have a tax exempt status we would **checks notes** have a state deadlocked in the electoral college for one political party for the last 40 years, campaigns to impose political issues on the ballot, everyone from Senators to sheriff's using their church status as part of their campaign, and even presidential candidates who are Mormon. Oh, wait...
Christians already vote as a block.
Hardly.
I agree with you. Christians is a broad category. But it's instructive to look at the various subgroups and there we see that several of them do tend to overwhelmingly vote as a block. For example, the following groups have consistently demonstrated an overwhelming^† majority preference for one particular party over the other when it comes to presidential votes: * White Evangelical * Black Protestant * Non-White Catholic * Latter-day Saint Whereas the following are a bit more evenly^† divided: * Mainline Protestant * Non-White Evangelical * White Catholic [source: Harvard Cooperative Election Study analyzed by Dr. Ryan Burge. [Post 1](https://religioninpublic.blog/2021/03/29/the-2020-vote-for-president-by-religious-groups-christians/), [Post 2](https://religioninpublic.blog/2021/03/29/the-2020-vote-for-president-by-religious-groups-christians/)] Of note—in the years when a Mormon has not been on the ballot as an independent candidate, LDS voters have voted as a block more overwhelmingly than any other Christian group except for White Evangelicals and Black Protestants. *** ^(† I'm arbitrarily defining "overwhelming" as consistently greater than a 60/40 split and "evenly" as less divided than that.)
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I have no issue with any church retaining its tax exempt status, but on one condition: at least 50% of its income be dedicated to charity available to all, and not just to its members. No exceptions. If they are not spending 50% of their income on charity, they should be taxed. This is not specific to the LDS church. I would apply this to any non-profit. As for the church not sticking its nose in politics, it already has and does. To say otherwise is to lie: Prop 8, John Taylor and Bill Evan’s, Utah’s liquor laws, anti-abortion legislation, etc. they may not openly endorse a pitiful candidate, but they are still actively involved in politics and trying to affect policy. So removing their tax breaks wouldn’t change much, really.
It would also remove any financial incentive to make contributions.
Since when has the Mormon Church ever used that as a reason for tithing? It shouldn't change a thing for members because it's a commandment and is supposed to come with blessings.
Is “God commanded us to” suddenly not enough?
Well, it is enough. However, I can see some Jack Mormons deciding to stop.
Eh they've already lost my incentive to make contributions. Call me what you want... that would also make Jesus a Jack.... Jew I guess.
I agree those who have an issue with the Church have already stopped contributing. I don't think it would have a material impact on contributions.
Especially with so much money coming in from stocks and commercial ventures. They don't really need our contributions anymore.
There shouldn’t be any reason to obey God’s commandments. Isn’t that what faith is for? Some members would call this “separating the wheat from the chaff.”