This thread discusses the Content article: LDS Church sets up phone campaign for gay marriage initiative

Besides Clayton, the broadcast was to include M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, who are both members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, the church's second-highest governing body.

It's nice to see they're staying out of the political arena and, not try to influence legislation.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: LDS Church sets up phone campaign for gay marriage initiative

Besides Clayton, the broadcast was to include M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, who are both members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, the church's second-highest governing body.

It's nice to see they're staying out of the political arena and, not try to influence legislation.

Boy you can say that again...!!!

Perfect timing. There goes that tax exemption. Just what this country needs, a boost in taxes, works for me. Let the mormons pay for the multitude of offspring they bear. That will be putting their "Country First" for a change.

Maybe you guys should read the IRS rules before making assumptions.

Political neutrality does not prohibit churches from being involved with legislation. It only prohibits them from supporting candidates.

Well then, I think the mormon church should pony up it's "Country Frist" $$$$$ for no other reason than to help those in need. I wonder how many people could have been fed by the soft money floating around California trying to defeat an existing law? What happened to obeying the law of the land?

utocoman wrote:
Well then, I think the mormon church should pony up it's "Country Frist" $$$$$ for no other reason than to help those in need. I wonder how many people could have been fed by the soft money floating around California trying to defeat an existing law? What happened to obeying the law of the land?
Uh... that's what they are currently doing. Obeying the law of the land. What they are also doing is trying to get that law changed which is their and anybody else's Constitutional right to do so. Of course, that 'existing law' has only been in existence for a very short time. It was shoved down the California voters throats by an activist Court. But... there it is now and there is a process to have it overturned. So, do you deny Constitutional rights and procedures to others just because it disagrees with your philosophy?