-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/flashack-mormons-give-500000-of-total.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
As one of the LDS mouthpieces said, It's our job to be political...
You may use Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form, to report an abusive transaction involving an exempt organization. To send a written complaint by mail, send to the following address:
IRS
EO Classification
MC 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
In addition, the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis maintains a hotline that can be used to provide information about abusive tax shelters.
by Deconstructor:
We've all heard today's LDS Church leaders blaming the fall of the Roman empire and the decline of civilization on Homosexuality. Here's just a sampling of Mormon Prophets making this claim:
"This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39
"Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family."
- Apostle James E. Faust, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Liahona, Nov. 1995, Page 3.
But this is the same argument that inspired Mormon Prophets have used against good-old heterosexual monogamy!
See here what the Lord said through His prophets from the Mormon Church pulpit:
"It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her."
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202
"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128
"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227
"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862
"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,..."
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195
"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations."
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291
"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22
"Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. "
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262
Will history look back and see today's Mormon prophets to be just as ignorant, bigoted and self-serving as Mormon prophets of the 19th Century?"
http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html
Civil Unions vs Civil Marriage.
taken from the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
(who argued the Massachusetts case)
Talking Points
What's the difference?
Framing the conversation: What's really at stake?
First, let's be clear. This discussion is about substance - not symbols. The human stakes are enormous. This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples.
Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities-not about any religious rite of marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set its own rules about who can marry and on what terms.
Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental discrimination has no place.
Let's compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution.
What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other's side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.
What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and in California in 2003. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage."
What are some of the limitations of civil unions?
Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:
-Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil
unions themselves.
-Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.
-Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.
-Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.
-Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal
penalties.
-Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex couples?
Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples? Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages. Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union" is an essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.
Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in
principle.
First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.
Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly minted "civil unions."
Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry (rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair. Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil marriage.
Civil Marriage & Freedom of Religion
A myth: A major myth about ending discrimination in civil marriage is that it will somehow compel religious faiths to change their doctrine or practices about who they marry. This is flatly incorrect. We have freedom of religion in this country. When a court or legislature ends discrimination in civil (governmental) marriage, there is no compulsory impact on any faith. Each faith is-and will remain-free to define its own requirements for its marriage rite: who, what, when, where and why.
Some people say marriage is a sacrament. And it is for some religious faiths. But the government is not in the sacrament business. The only "marriage" to which the couples in the Massachusetts case are seeking access is civil/governmental marriage. Governmental marriage already exists side by side with each faith's different rules for their religious rite of marriage. Nothing can change that.
Two Types of Marriages
Though people may think about marriage in different ways, there are only two types of marriage - either civil or religious. In some ceremonies, both are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage. However, to receive the legal protections of marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures.
Civil Marriage
Any couple can have a civil marriage if they meet the government's requirements. Right now, the requirements in Massachusetts are that the partners be adults, pass a blood test, and not be already married or closely related. Most of us also think about marriage as a public commitment of love and support by adult couples. The government does, too, and uses the commitment of marriage as a gateway to hundreds of legal protections, responsibilities and benefits established by the state, and over 1000 by the federal government. Ever since the founding of this country, states have regulated who may enter into a marriage and under what conditions.
Religious Rite of Marriage
Only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can have a religious marriage. Religions have complete autonomy in deciding which marriages they will consecrate; they do whatever suits their faith tradition. Some religions will not marry people who were divorced, or people of different faiths, even though these same people could have a civil marriage. Every religious community always has the
right to perform or not perform any marriage rite it deems appropriate, regardless of the partners' sex. Religious marriages do not convey legal rights or responsibilities.
Freedom of Religion
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's right to freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The founders of American government made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice.
In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil
marriage.
As a result of American freedom of religion, each faith can independently answer the question of whether they wish gay and lesbian couples to marry within their religious tradition, and this will remain true no matter what the government does with regard to civil marriage "
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Thousands of protesters are angry about California's ban on gay marriage -- and so are the stars. Many celebrities grieved the passing of Proposition 8 in California this week. Some -- such as Wanda Sykes, Rose McGowan and Lance Bass -- attended a Wednesday protest criticizing the state's gay marriage ban. Others -- like Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Madonna and Melissa Etheridge -- vented their frustrations online, on TV, and onstage.
Blocks away from the Thursday rally of more than 2,000 gay-rights advocates outside the gates of a Mormon temple, several stars -- including James Cromwell, Patricia Clarkson, Anjelica Huston and Sean Penn -- said they supported the protesters while walking the red carpet at the BAFTA L.A. Brittania Awards at Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel. ''I think it might be an idea to go out and join them shortly,'' Penn said. ''It was a shameful decision that was made.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Gay-Mar...
Please, educate us.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/...
Both supporters and opponents will argue about whether the courts are the appropriate venue for resolving these issues. Traditionally, a key role for the courts has been to protect minority interests against the whims of the majority. One of the especially painful ironies of the Proposition 8 vote is the fact that historically oppressed minorities -- including blacks, Mormons and Catholics -- were among the measure's strongest supporters.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinio...
http://www.lds.net/blog/view/id_5997/title_clai...
Does the Church just pass money to various "independent" families who, in turn, funnel it to where the group mind wants it???
It pisses me off that all that money, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent against us could have fed so many, clothed so many, provided health care for those that cannot afford to see a Dr. and yet they want to spend it denying a group of people access to equal rights.
They are disgusting in their choice of causes to support.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/8/9258/09436
but essentially there:
legal route to get it overturned - anyone know the chances?
legal routes to take tax exempt status from LDS
Civil action against the LDS and their supporters - hitting the Marriott's worldwide would seem obvious
Guerrilla action against LDS for 'usurping CA law' - - or at least make them so much the core of ridicule that Mitt Romney loses all hope of running in 2012
put out ads now that show them to be the bigots that they are (not hard when they practise polygamy and paedophilia)
take the high road and speak out for universal civil rights
and finally - find a way to enshrine in law that civil unions having the same weight as marriage are a basic civil right.
We are just their latest victims.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm
Speaking of idiotic teachings, did you all know about the Moroni? This from Wiki:
"Moroni - according to the Book of Mormon, was the last Nephite prophet and military commander who lived in North America in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Moroni claimed that he had seen and spoken to Jesus face to face and that he had been shown extensive visions of the future. Speaking directly to modern-day readers of the Book of Mormon, Moroni writes, "Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing. . . .Upon completion of the record, written on golden plates, Moroni presumably buried the plates in a stone box in a hill in what is now Wayne County, New York. A 12-meter granite and bronze monument to Moroni now stands on this hill, which is commonly called Cumorah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroni_(prophet)
Uh, Jesus was pals with a military commander? 4th-5th century in North America? These people are so detached from reality. Also, we need to publicize the 'magical mystery underwear.'
Or, are the gold plates kind of like Unicorns, always talked about but never really seen?
The KKK also prides itself on its "charitable" work, btw...
I will fight the Mormon Cult at each and every turn.
We've taken several road trips in the West and while Utah is a stunningly beautiful state, we NEVER spend any money there except on gas, and only if we know we won't make it across the border into CO, NV, AZ, WY.
can i say that?
if not how about fellate my appendage!
She's another supremacist that believes that tyranny is perfectly fine as long as it is masked in a "religious" context.
"Shame on you! You are all making yourselfs look like the bad ones!"
No, shame on YOU! You are giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. That makes you a traitor. Some of us support the United States of America; you support those dedicated to the destruction of the UNited Sates of America. Which is worthy of shame? One who stands with the Founding Fathers and all those dedicating to perfecting the nation they created? Or one who stands with Brigam Young, Joseph Smith, and all those dedicated to creating a theocratic totalitarian state, ie you?
Compare this:
"This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39
to this:
"It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her."
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202
See more at http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/homosexual_r...
I've been reading a lot about Mormons since the vote. I'd always known their religious foundation was wacky - golden tablets, "seer" stones, magic underpants - but the more I uncover, the stranger and more outlandish the trappings of their sect appear.
"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," "At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."
Utah is the land of the scam. They have more call center boiler rooms than anywhere in the country. They are taught that stealing money, ripping people off is FINE as long as they tithe.
Get a qood quant researcher to calculate the mormon church receipts related to fraud. How much U.S. taxpayer money flows into church coffers.
I've stayed at Marriotts in the past (work-related travel), and pay-per-view porn movies were always available there.
We should just wait a few decades and pretend they won't continue campaigns of deception?
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Former-Ca...
Can anyone say "partnership of thieves?"
That comes right from Form 13909. People across America need to file this form with the IRS. I'm not a tax-attorney though.
You ate up every piece of deception issued in those Mormon-paid ads and did exactly what the Church wanted.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. After all, you are a right wingnut - and the Right always believes in sticking it's nose into someone else's constitutional rights - and demanding they be removed without any more cause than a choice to believe in an imaginary fearmonger in the sky.
It isn't our fault that you chose to live in fear of others. And yet we didn't violate your individual rights by referendum - yet.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm
Interesting.
"A fear expressed variously by Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J. S. Mill. If the majority rules, what is to stop it from expropriating the minority, or from tyrannizing it in other ways by enforcing the majority's religion, language, or culture on the minority? Madison's answer in The Federalist is the best known. He argued that the United States must have a federal structure. Although one majority, left to itself, would try to tyrannize the local minority in one state or city and another majority, left to itself, would do the same in another, in a country as large and diverse as the United States there would not be one national majority which could tyrannize over a national minority. But if there was, the powers which the states retained would be a bulwark against it. The separation of powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary at federal level would be a further protection against majority tyranny.
Critics of Madison have pointed out that his formula gives no protection to minorities which do not form a local majority anywhere. In particular, the Madisonian constitution gave no effective protection to black Americans until the 1960s, largely because the states' rights which Madison thought it so important to protect were used by the white majorities in the Southern states to oppress the local black minorities."
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyranny-of-the-maj...
Thanks sister wife, but keep your "tyranny of the majority" in your cult.
That is only one reason why "religious" cults hate the equal protection clauses of Constitutions. But they certainly enjoy claiming they are entitled to special rights above the law. How many Catholic church residences were ever put on the child predator listings?
Isn't it wonderful that anyone can worship as they choose, as long as it adheres to manipulation by Mormon deceit and doctrine? Or that the people have the amazing power to express one's opinion (especially deceptively, but only when grounded in faux-religious doctrine) and to vote to REMOVE the constitutional rights of other citizens in an effort to force the government to adhere to the religious tyranny of a minority of churches?
When has the Mormon church, for example, fought for anyone's right to vote in this country - except to support the removal of rights of others?
A Democracy is sometimes supposed to defend the rights of the minorities over the will of the majority.
Got it?
Well dear friends, that's called FASCISM! Freedom of speech is the backbone of the US: people in favor of Prop 8 have the right to campaign for their belief without been threatened. The commentetors here are really loosing the sense of civility.
"In the last 4 1/2 years, more than 400 teenage boys have been excommunicated, many for seemingly minor infractions such as watching a movie or talking to a girl.
Former church members suspect something else is causing the banishment of young men. In a polygamous community, there are only so many women to go around. Older men don't want to compete with young men for wives. The boys have to go. "
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/...
and I'm not saying ALL mormons do this, but plenty of them do kick out young boys because there are only enough sister women "cows" to go around in a Mormon herd per one male "bull Mormon."
When I first saw one of those elephant seal colonies, I knew they reminded me of something... but I just couldn't put my finger on it!
And it's "losing", dear.
Why don't you educate yourself on the true meaning of fascism?
"1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Sounds like the Mormon Church more than the very diverse LGBT community to me, hon.
Like John said:
"The Mormon Church has a long history of trying to forcefully impose its will, its religion, on others. Over the next few weeks and months, we're going to educate America about those efforts."
You messed with the wrong LGBT family. Suck it up.
We were rude and it felt good. Several male-female couples got up and left but the wait staff couldn't stop laughing. Ya know?
It was Act Up Lite, I guess.
Of course, flowers, skin care, clean clothes, etc. are a lot easier on the liver!
Its time to start "The day without the gays" and go on strikes.
All your going to do is repulse people more than they already are.
And truth is something foreign to cults dependent upon manipulation and deception to keep the flock in line.
Tonight is another protest in San Francisco, tomorrow the big protest will be at their "temple" in Oakland. These asshole cultists will regret ever having fucked with my rights.
We should march on up to their little cult chamber in Pacific Heights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxnl7nDDHBo
http://www.mission.net/en/main_clothingneeds.html
Along with my very own name tag. I am going to have rainbows on it.
But protesters wearing magic underwear would be pretty Act Up-ish.
But I Googled and I guess they're considered pretty sacred.
Might be going over the line.
FINALLY someone who admits the truth.
It's really been about religious tyranny and power over others all along. Thanks. :-)
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/10/savage_love...
We need to confront that alliance of organizations in California - and in the future - every other state - but it is no longer about playing defense.
I think the California Alliance is being confronted in a big way right now. I keep getting e-mails from four organizations urging us to stick together.
I think the problem is a lack of outreach during the last two or three years into Black and Hispanic communities. It's not like everyone didn't know those would be difficult areas. The alliance organizations need Black and Hispanic staffers and celebrities to accompany them as they work in those communities.
So, I believe we need diplomatic and teaching skills in our outreach efforts.
In order to deliver this, we need a grass roots effort to which staff is responsible and accountable---whether or not the CA Supremes or US Supremes eventually solve our problems for us. It would be nice for everyone to have a positive stake in the outcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8&
Mormon cult indoctrination in action.
That home schooling does nothing for one's SAT scores, clearly.