Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 232 posts

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#201

Post by ok_dad »

aliasxneo wrote: post #166
ok_dad wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally wouldn't mind eliminating every religious organization, since religion is not any specific organization, but rather a personal belief system and a way to live your own life. Large groups of people (the execs that run the orgs) deriving income and wealth from that personal experience is demented. Christians and others shouldn't be afraid of their religion being destroyed, just the corrupt organizations th…

I agree, but I also think Christians have precedence to be afraid of government persecution. So, it's a fine line that our forefathers tried to draw.

Christian and many other individuals have been persecuted in the past, but it isn't persecuting an organization by punishing them for breaking the law or acting in contravention to it unless that law is specifically targeted towards them. In this case, it seems there was a "slap on the wrist" punishment, but no true accountability for their actions.

It is pointless to even argue for the straw-man that "Christians in America need to fear persecution" since that is not the case, even the tiniest bit, in today's America.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#202

Post by tombert »

bigtex wrote: post #59
tombert wrote: post #24

Nearly every Baptist church/preacher I have seen explicitly endorsed Donald Trump in 2020, and calls Joe Biden an election thief (or one of a dozen other conspiracies). My understanding is that this is in direct violation of their tax-free status [1]. Maybe we should actually start enforcing this. [1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics EDIT: I couldn't remember the name of the thing that sta…

I assume this also applies to the churches who had Raphel Warnock on stage and told the congregants to vote for him. FYI, he is a democrat.

I think it's bad when any church specifically endorses or opposes any candidate, Democrat, Republican, Communist, or anything in between.

This is also what the law says if they want to keep their tax-free filing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

It would be impossible to draw the line at "politics", because of course basically everything can be considered "political". If they want to endorse a specific candidate, that's fine, but then they should pay taxes like the rest of us.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#203

Post by tombert »

akira2501 wrote: post #145
tombert wrote: post #24

Nearly every Baptist church/preacher I have seen explicitly endorsed Donald Trump in 2020, and calls Joe Biden an election thief (or one of a dozen other conspiracies). My understanding is that this is in direct violation of their tax-free status [1]. Maybe we should actually start enforcing this. [1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics EDIT: I couldn't remember the name of the thing that sta…

Are you suggesting that they used church funds or facilities to provide that endorsement, or that they arranged a specific service for the sole purpose of providing that endorsement? There's a massive difference between an individual putting forth an opinion, and them using an organization to specifically promote that opinion.

I don't know much about the inner personal finances of Kenneth Copeland and his church, but at least during the sermons he very explicitly endorsed Trump and opposed Biden.

If Kenneth Copeland just had a "Trump 2020" sign on his front yard, then of course that shouldn't affect their 501c3 filing, but this was during sermons, during church hours.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#204

Post by ok_dad »

dqpb wrote: post #185
japhib wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a logical conclusion. It's like saying, if Jeff Bezos is really so rich, why are Amazon warehouse employees not paid better? He must actually be poor and can only afford to pay people low salaries.

Employees are forced to accept a bad deal due to asymmetrical market dynamics. Without the job they would be worse off until they find a replacement. The person with the money (Bezos) has all the power. Not so with church members. If they stopped attending they would have more money. They are the ones with the power. So why would a grown adult willfully hand over their money to an organization that already has all th…

> Not so with church members. If they stopped attending they would have more money. They are the ones with the power. So why would a grown adult willfully hand over their money to an organization that already has all the money it could possibly need?

When people leave a church, it often comes with a cost, and that cost is too great to bear for many people who rely on family and friends and other social relationships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Mormon

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#205

Post by dbrueck »

not_your_mentat wrote: post #198
dbrueck wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another perspective: https://www.thetabernaclechoir.org/about/choir/history/histo...

So, they sing for morally bankrupt presidents who are looking for religious legitimacy.

"The Choir’s participation in these events is not an implied support of party affiliations or politics, but rather a demonstration of its support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power."

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#206

Post by dbrueck »

ok_dad wrote: post #201
aliasxneo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I also think Christians have precedence to be afraid of government persecution. So, it's a fine line that our forefathers tried to draw.

Christian and many other individuals have been persecuted in the past, but it isn't persecuting an organization by punishing them for breaking the law or acting in contravention to it unless that law is specifically targeted towards them. In this case, it seems there was a "slap on the wrist" punishment, but no true accountability for their actions. It is pointless to even argue for the straw-man that "Christians in…

I'm not the OP, but the slap on the wrist punishment seems appropriate for the violation. See VLM's comment about the form in question, for example, but the summary of events is basically:

SEC: Hey, the way you're filing those forms looks sneaky, don't do that.

church: k

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#207

Post by not_your_mentat »

dbrueck wrote: post #205
not_your_mentat wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, they sing for morally bankrupt presidents who are looking for religious legitimacy.

"The Choir’s participation in these events is not an implied support of party affiliations or politics, but rather a demonstration of its support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power."

Dude, I live in Springville. We had a regional conference in which a GA explicitly told people that not getting what you wanted in an election was not grounds for insurrection. You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#208

Post by sclarisse »

tedajax wrote: post #66
sclarisse wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and, 2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If you want to amend the Constitution that’s another matter.

That seems like an extremely daft interpretation of what taxation is.

Tell that to Chief Justice John Marshall (McCulloch v Maryland, 1819.)

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#209

Post by dbrueck »

not_your_mentat wrote: post #207
dbrueck wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Choir’s participation in these events is not an implied support of party affiliations or politics, but rather a demonstration of its support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power."

Dude, I live in Springville. We had a regional conference in which a GA explicitly told people that not getting what you wanted in an election was not grounds for insurrection. You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise.

> Dude, I live in Springville.

Hey, neighbor, me too!

> You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, but how come what they think trumps (see what I did there, haha) what I think - why does their wacky opinion count for more than mine? Or even better, doesn't the organization's official stance count for something? I mean, the church also told people to get vaccinated, but the fact that some number of them didn't doesn't lead us to conclude that the church is anti-vaccine, does it?

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#210

Post by runamok »

tptacek wrote: post #70
shadowgovt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually a settlement, not a fine, which is probably pinned closer to the "This is the amount we think we'd have to pay lawyers to argue the case" value than the "This is how much we would owe if we were found guilty of breaking the law" value.

Right, either way, I'm looking for an intuition about how much an infraction like this should cost. Presumably, the settlement also includes the LDS church's consent to start filing reliable 13F's. I'm not saying I think 5MM is the right number; I'm just saying I have no intuition for what the number should be, and the rationale I see on the thread seems to be "they're big". If I get pulled over in a Bentley with an…

Switzerland actually DOES fine you more if you have the money and break the law. https://www.hotcars.com/heres-why-a-dude-in-sweden-received-...

Traffic fines are often considered regressive because a rich person can laugh at a few hundred dollars whereas a poor person suddenly can't afford rent.

So yeah, perhaps some fines should scale to ones means, otherwise it won't deter bad behavior.

Post reply on HN