Hey, babe!
You know what, you're right. I agree with what you're saying and it makes sense but I'm interested to know if the tax exemption status of the church affects your position or reasoning? I mean, on one hand your railing against the government's over reaching tentacles while on the other you don't even mention the churches tax status. If we're being intellectually honest, one can't mention one without the other...right?
Also, what are your views regarding community? I mean, making a child an apostate of their church/ community is rather draconian don't you think? Last I knew, children for the most part don't get to choose their parents.
OK. I'll swing on this pitch.
One criticism I do have about the LDS Church is the "corporate" character, and the 501(c)3 tax status that I've been sorta suspicious about in regards to the influence government requirements have on Church decisions/business/doctrines. I don't pay a tithe to the Church because I object to their business character, so I'm not a proper "advocate" for the Church policy on that point. One of my great-uncles, however, was a primary mover and shaker back in the fifties and sixties in organizing and strengthening the Church finances, though, so I'm tainted genetically with the sins of success.
I pass by some large Church-owned ranches, dairies, chicken farms and such quite often. Behind the industrial plant I used to be a wage slave for, the whole mountain was LDS church property, a winter grazing range. . . it was a low line of hills about like the Burbank hills where "Hollywood" is. Just some juniper and a lot of grass. It's where the crickets live on wet years before they come into the fields of non-tithe payers.
Actually, I made my ranch a non-profit dedicated to the Lord, but I did not apply for the tax exemption.
My reason for taking exception from the modern LDS Church ownership of productive lands and businesses is the same reason Josepth Smith told the first LDS Presiding Bishop he'd go the Hell for if he didn't stop doing that. Edward Partridge had the notion that properties consecrated to Lord should be owned, as in the deed/title vested in the Church. But Josepth Smith said the Bishop should distribute those consecrated properties to those who could make good stewardships of them, and that the title should be vested in the "steward" they are given to, so that his children can inherit title.
donations that are given to support needy members/neighbors,and to maintain the worship facilities should be like all other church property used for strictly religious facilities, which is tax-exempt, just like public libraries and schools and soup kitchens.
However, I expect Colton to come in saying all the businesses the Church has interests in do pay taxes. My point is the original agrarian community idea Joseph Smith had, which unlike the Catholic Church and some other major religious organizations, made a point of not accumulating inordinate income property with the result that otherwise honorable and industrious people were reduced to being mere peasants/wage slaves/employees on the face of the planet God gave us.
I favor a community with a strong middle class. And one where people take care of those who need help sometimes. A community that respect property rights and other fundamental rights such as the right to have strong, even differing beliefs. A community where differing beliefs do not correlate with prejudicial harassment or inequities under employment and other legal factors like insurance and benefits accorded to domestic partners or their children.
Technically, a non-member is not considered an apostate because of who his/her parents are, or what their commitments are in the domicile. Unlike Catholics, who consider an unbaptized child in danger of severe denial of ordinary privileges in the afterlife, virtually without hope, LDS folks consider that the child will be welcomed into the arms of Jesus just like any other child, regardless of whatever problems the parents may have.
So if I were a bishop or stake president under the current policy, and a child of such parents came to me to ask for permission to be baptized, I would carefully consider the request. I would go to the home and discuss it with the parents. I would explain that my interpretation of the policy is that it is intended to settle the nerves and sensitivities of those who feel the Church is being railroaded into changing a basic concept of the faith. . . that marriage as a religious institution, if not as a legal relation, is for the union of a man and woman with the commitment towards procreation in the eternal family pattern and example of our Heavenly Father and Mother. If those parents could just say they have no agenda to change the LDS belief, and child could say he understands the distinction and will respect the ward members in their belief, I'd give him the recommend for baptism. The only justification for this is that baptism is a covenant to accept Christ and keep the commandments of the faith. If anyone doesn't intend to keep the commandments as understood from the Bible and other canonical works, I'd suggest just don't do the baptism in the first place.
In the LDS faith, while there is a premium on living the gospel in this life, it is generally understood that the time of probation extends clear down to the final judgment, where the Ancient of Days qwill sit and everyone will come forth to be judged. We love everybody, and hope that everybody will come around to understanding the commandments of God and living by them.
Personally, I teach my children to be respectful to others and treat others kindly maybe especially if they are different from us in some way. Being that sort of person is our only claim to being an influence for the better in this world.
I drive by that rainbow church in Hollywood sometimes. Nice touch. Just wish people understood what it really means.
All that said, The LDS Church joined the World Council of Churches in the early twentieth century, almost a hundred years ago. Measures were taken to conform the doctrine somewhat to make it cohere more generally to the ideas of the WCC. As you may know, one of the precepts included in that today is the notion that while we may have different churches, we should not be so rude as to imply that ours is the "right" church.
I find that to be troubling, because what it boils down to in the long run is that people are going to try to be all smiles and goodwill while a new synthesis emerges where only one certain set of beliefs will be tolerated. Sorta like reducing religious freedom to a string of franchises all serving the exact same beliefs, like McDonald's hamburgers.
Religious freedom in a community implies a commitment to tolerance of differences in belief, and respecting people who believe differently. I understand LGBT folks believe differently from me, and I give them the same respect I hope they could give me.
