WatchDog wrote:

The Keeper wrote:

I implore the church to not be so foolish as to "render unto Caesar that which only belongs to God."

The government's incorporated churches, wearing an IRS 501(c)(3) muzzle, had better render unto their master, Caesar!


They, like Cheney, when the law gets it their way, simply ignore it.

In the church's case, it seems obvious that their 501(c) means far less to them than they have expressed over the years.

I have previously posted the essence of a letter given to many of our state legislators this winter. It goes like this:

"The Alliance for Unity today announced its unanimous opposition to HB 224, a proposal currently before the Utah legislature. The proposal would repeal current [state] laws permitting undocumented students [read illegal aliens] ... to pay in-state tuition at an institution of higher education in the State...."

{See my previous posts for the rest of the signatures.}

This letter was signed by none other than General Authority, M. Russell Ballard. No one need try and and tell me that when a GA signs a letter like this that he is not getting into politics or representing the church in a big way. Does anyone still believe the church is politically neutral? Anyone? We all know that ANYTIME a GA signs something, that he almost certainly does so as a representative of the church and likely the First Presidency as well.

We have been told repeatedly, to behave in a manner that is above question. Our church leaders seem to have missed their own message! Many of us, as local leaders, have been told over and over, to not speak for the church in regard to political issues in that it might risk their 501(c) status AND that the church was supposed to remain poliltically neutral. Obviously, that is not entirely true.

Isn't it time that we started asking the right questions - and expecting the same behavior from our general authorities as they ask of us?

In the threads today regarding the present issue, there was a suggestion to withhold financial support...That sounds like an excellent idea for any that are willing to do so. We also need to stand up when it comes time to speak with our bishops and let them know exactly why we are no longer contributing whatever we have in the past.

It is high time that we started calling a spade a spade and stopped hiding behind a rock in regard to the church's support of illegal immigration. It is painfully obvious that they have little regard for their 501(c) status, or for our Scriptures that clearly state that we all should follow the law. Shouldn't these scriptures apply to our leaders as well as to ourselves? It certainly seems logical.

Obviously "The Brethren" at Temple Square are in bed with the globalist crowd in an attempt to bring about a North American Union, along with cronies Hatch, Cannon and Bennett, and will not be held to 501(c)(3). If this is their idea of "saving the Constitution," now "hanging by a thread," then no thank you! As always, the stupid sheep will accept a lame explanation that their god changed his mind once again.

It has long been known that the LDS church is in bed with politicians. That is not news. The LDS church is very business oriented and is a party to big business in this country. Businesses are the main supporters of politicians. I am sure that if you look up the church affiliated businesses you will find their support of politicians.

The LDS church use this religious status to evaded paying taxes. That is not a secret. Look at the property that they have that they don't pay taxes on. Yet they also have ties and affiliations with numerous businesses, that do have income.

The LDS church has legal loop holes that aid them in this very well. The question is. Is this the letter of the law or the spirit of the Law? The law of the universe is that what goes around comes around. So the question is, what will happen next?

I do not think that this is a good choice for BYU. I am very disappointed in BYU. This is not the fist time that I have felt this way and I am sure that it will not be the last.
I am not surprised, in many ways.
Out of all of the wonderful people that could provide a very inspirational event for this college. I am stunned that they scraped the bottom of the barrel. I would not think that this is a very motivational speaker for such an event. Definitely not a good example for BYU's students in any measure.

it's too late, the rest of the world, at least the smart ones, already think that the LDS Church is a front for American imperialism/colonialism.  Look at it through someone else's eyes; Christ comes to America, the "one true Church" in America?  Send your money to Vatican City, USA (aka SLC)?  There is already a perception problem.  But good luck with that.

mindurpsnqs wrote:

This is interesting. How does a person revere the First Presidency as "affirmed prophets, seers and revelators for all the people of the earth", then turn around and criticize their actions? I guess to him they are prophets in title only.
I find it interesting how Prophets, seers and revelators can climb into bed with a modern gadianton!!! 8)

wrz wrote:

WatchDog wrote:


I have previously posted the essence of a letter given to many of our state legislators this winter. It goes like this:

"The Alliance for Unity today announced its unanimous opposition to HB 224, a proposal currently before the Utah legislature. The proposal would repeal current [state] laws permitting undocumented students [read illegal aliens] ... to pay in-state tuition at an institution of higher education in the State...."

{See my previous posts for the rest of the signatures.}

This letter was signed by none other than General Authority, M. Russell Ballard. No one need try and and tell me that when a GA signs a letter like this that he is not getting into politics or representing the church in a big way.

If Mr. Ballard signed something he did it as a private citizen. Even people with important positions in religious organizations are private citizens as well. Their citizenship has not be canceled.

We all know that ANYTIME a GA signs something, that he almost certainly does so as a representative of the church and likely the First Presidency as well.

Bullschit! Just because you may believe that way does not make it a fact.
So what you are saying is do as I say not as I do?

wrz wrote:

WatchDog wrote:


I have previously posted the essence of a letter given to many of our state legislators this winter. It goes like this:

"The Alliance for Unity today announced its unanimous opposition to HB 224, a proposal currently before the Utah legislature. The proposal would repeal current [state] laws permitting undocumented students [read illegal aliens] ... to pay in-state tuition at an institution of higher education in the State...."

{See my previous posts for the rest of the signatures.}

This letter was signed by none other than General Authority, M. Russell Ballard. No one need try and and tell me that when a GA signs a letter like this that he is not getting into politics or representing the church in a big way.

If Mr. Ballard signed something he did it as a private citizen. Even people with important positions in religious organizations are private citizens as well. Their citizenship has not be canceled.

We all know that ANYTIME a GA signs something, that he almost certainly does so as a representative of the church and likely the First Presidency as well.

Bullschit! Just because you may believe that way does not make it a fact.


Except that he signed it as follows:

{His signature was hand written, the remaining two lines were typewritten}

As follows:

M. Russell Ballard
Elder M. Russell Ballard
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


If one signs this way, they are representing the organization. Russell Ballard did not sign this letter. Elder M. Russell Ballard, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did.

If he was not representing the organization, he should have left off BOTH the word Elder, as well as the title of the organization. When one signs the way he did, they are speaking for the organization. This is the accepted way to differentiate between a personal signature and a business signature. This has been the case since forever.

It WAS NOT a personal signature, AND that is why I am willing to say that he signed the letter, not on a personal basis, which he certainly has the right to do, but as a representative of the organization. Which again, is in my opinion, a conflict with both the 501(c) status that the church presently holds, as well as a direct violation of our scripture - that he is supposed to be following.

Besides, as we sustain them ALL to be prophets, seers, and revealators, shouldn't they all be on the same page? I submit that they are. That being the case, his signature says it all - for all fifteen of them, doesn't it? It is a sad but enlightening situation.