-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_moksha]

Retaliation against Mormon anti-discrimination activists

There were some LDS church members who protested against the church's discriminatory practices. Two LDS church members, Douglas A. Wallace and Byron Merchant, were excommunicated by the LDS church (1976 and 1977 respectively) after criticizing the church's discrimatory practices.

Through the advent of modern technology, the BYU Satellite laser could instantly melt the chains (and Byron) after binding himself to the Temple gates while protesting. It is therefor incumbent upon future protesters to wear highly reflective clothing.

[_subgenius]

the truth of Prop8 was that the citizens were allowed to vote and they did. Then a post-fact admitted homosexual judge (since retired and in an associated lawsuit) decides that people voting in accordance with their own constitution can't be correct.

If, hypothetically, a heterosexual judge had ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional, would you feel that he or she did so solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation? Why or why not?

Hypothetically, no, because he had no personal gain with his decision. Now if he was discovered to be a Stake President and had ruled Prop 8 was constitutional would you have objected?

Is it your learned opinion that the citizens of a state can repeal the 14th Amendment by popular referendum?

nope.

What if the people of California voted by popular referendum that Mormons cannot marry each other? What would be the appropriate way to address "people voting in accordance with their own constitution" in such a situation?

absurd question. However, due process is typically the response. However, if an evangelical-anti-mormon judge upheld the referendum on a constitutionally allowable appeal/challenge to said referendum then i believe an inquiry would be appropriate.

ETA:

....and this issue is still very much legally alive in California. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/12 ... 8-20110912
inevitably, imho, this case will head to the Supreme Court, and that does not look so good for the LGBT.

The article to which you linked is about the very significant problem of whether the private opponents of same-sex marriage have standing to appeal the district court's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The State of California's official refusal to defend Prop 8 in a federal circuit court, and the issue of whether private appellants have standing to do so, is not a strong indication of the "issue is still very much legally alive in California." Your comment and the link you chose to provide is more suggestive of you Googling "Prop 8" to look for a recent article about it, regardless of what the article said.

Sure it is, because of they are found in "standing" the decision may overturned in appeal. Additionally the relevance of the judge being sued for his blatantly bias ruling will have an impact.

infer what you will, it seems to be your habit. However, the legal merit being decided is significant, should you think it is not, if allowed it will likely be the demise of Prop 8.

You humble opinion does not appear to be particularly informed as to what does or does not look good vis-à-vis 14th Amendment jurisprudence and sexual orientation.

and conversely you are entitled to your opinion, just be honest about signifying its occurrence.
it seems that someone would have noticed if the 14th was being so drastically violated and the discussion would be over.....seems that is not the case. The "theory" that sexual orientation as matter for qualification for marriage licensure has yet be proven and likely will not be proven without evidence that LGBT is an immutable condition or a great deal more political power (a great great deal more). The difficulty with the former is that the overwhelming evidence of science and basic principles of evolution illustrate that if LGBT is an immutable condition, it is surely a defect. As a defect there has been no evidence, aside from a good decorator and great showtunes, that there is any social virtue in that characteristic. Now Freud had proposed that homosexuality was a natural stage in normal sexual development, but an adult homosexual represented a retardation in said development. Again, what is society's interest in promoting LGBT through the social reward of marriage?
The problems with the latter are quite obvious, look what happens when the Republicans/Democrats are the ones with overwhelming political power....ugh.

[_Darth J]

If, hypothetically, a heterosexual judge had ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional, would you feel that he or she did so solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation? Why or why not?

Hypothetically, no, because he had no personal gain with his decision.

Then what is the factual basis for your assertion that the judge's sexual orientation, standing alone, was the basis for a conflict of interest? Surely you are aware that not all homosexuals are in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriage, or care whether it is recognized.

Now if he was discovered to be a Stake President and had ruled Prop 8 was constitutional would you have objected

What you meant to say, whether you realize it or not, was would I infer a conflict of interest from that? Yes, I would. I would also infer a conflict of interest if the judge had been associated with a group campaigning against Prop 8.

However, that does not change your failure to indicate any basis for the assertion that the mere fact of the judge's sexual preference means that he was biased.

Is it your learned opinion that the citizens of a state can repeal the 14th Amendment by popular referendum?

nope.

So you will agree with me that the supremacy clause means that the 14th Amendment Trump's California state law in matters of civil rights.

What if the people of California voted by popular referendum that Mormons cannot marry each other? What would be the appropriate way to address "people voting in accordance with their own constitution" in such a situation?

absurd question. However, due process is typically the response. However, if an evangelical-anti-mormon judge upheld the referendum on a constitutionally allowable appeal/challenge to said referendum then i believe an inquiry would be appropriate.

Your have failed to explain why this is an absurd question, and "due process" is not a self-executing concept. You are also providing another false analogy, because you have not shown how a judge's sexual orientation, standing alone, makes him biased any more than heterosexuality would make a judge biased in favor of Prop 8.

I wonder why a court challenge to a popular referendum would be appropriate when it affects a group you favor, but not when it is a group that you disfavor.

The article to which you linked is about the very significant problem of whether the private opponents of same-sex marriage have standing to appeal the district court's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
The State of California's official refusal to defend Prop 8 in a federal circuit court, and the issue of whether private appellants have standing to do so, is not a strong indication of the "issue is still very much legally alive in California." Your comment and the link you chose to provide is more suggestive of you Googling "Prop 8" to look for a recent article about it, regardless of what the article said.

Sure it is, because of they are found in "standing" the decision may overturned in appeal. Additionally the relevance of the judge being sued for his blatantly bias ruling will have an impact.

And if they are not found to have standing, that is the end of the appeal. And the decision may not be overturned on appeal, even if standing is found (which is a significant "if").

The existence of an undecided lawsuit is irrelevant to a pending appeal. An appellate court reviews the substance of a trial court's decision, not question-begging conclusory statements (you have not shown what the supposed blatant bias is, beyond the unsupported assertion that the judge's sexual orientation alone somehow makes him biased).

infer what you will, it seems to be your habit.

I supported every single claim I made about 14th Amendment jurisprudence. You are simply regurgitating talking points, and doing so only semi-coherently. And you are confusing an inference with an assumption.

However, the legal merit being decided is significant, should you think it is not, if allowed it will likely be the demise of Prop 8.

The demise of Prop 8 has already been decided. The appellants, who have yet to establish their standing on appeal, are seeking to resurrect it. To do so, they will have to provide evidence from the record as to how the government has a rational basis for excluding homosexuals from marriage---something the defendants failed to do at trial. An appellate court does not hear new evidence; it reviews what happened at a trial.

Perhaps you could cite the specific evidence presented at trial that proved such a rational basis exists.

You humble opinion does not appear to be particularly informed as to what does or does not look good vis-à-vis 14th Amendment jurisprudence and sexual orientation.

and conversely you are entitled to your opinion, just be honest about signifying its occurrence.

I have provided support for my opinion. You have provided argument by assertion and word salad.

it seems that someone would have noticed if the 14th was being so drastically violated and the discussion would be over.....seems that is not the case.

I already cited two U.S. Supreme Court cases indicating that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates equal protection, and the outcome of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the trial court also establishes that equal protection was violated by Prop 8.

Not only are your assertions unsupported, they are contrary to reality.

The "theory" that sexual orientation as matter for qualification for marriage licensure has yet be proven and likely will not be proven without evidence that LGBT is an immutable condition or a great deal more political power (a great great deal more). The difficulty with the former is that the overwhelming evidence of science and basic principles of evolution illustrate that if LGBT is an immutable condition, it is surely a defect. As a defect there has been no evidence, aside from a good decorator and great showtunes, that there is any social virtue in that characteristic. Now Freud had proposed that homosexuality was a natural stage in normal sexual development, but an adult homosexual represented a retardation in said development. Again, what is society's interest in promoting LGBT through the social reward of marriage?
The problems with the latter are quite obvious, look what happens when the Republicans/Democrats are the ones with overwhelming political power....ugh.

Notwithstanding your unintelligible rambling here, you have avoided responding to my previous post about what the legal definition of marriage is. You are also digging yourself in even deeper in proving that you do not understand the issue you purport to address. I already conceded that I am not claiming homosexuals to be a suspect class, so your continuing reference to the search for a single genetic cause for same-sex attraction is irrelevant.

And by the way, in the United States, a person's entitlement to the same civil rights as everyone else is not based on your subjective evaluation of his or her "social value."

The law in every U.S. jurisdiction already sanctions marriages that have no social utility (sterile people getting married, post-menopausal women getting married, people getting married but deciding not to have children). The only legal basis for denying same-sex marriage, according to marriage as it actually is in law (instead of in the homilies from your church) is the tautology of "marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what the law says."

Based on the actual, legal parameters of marriage, what is the rational, non-religious basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples?

[_Darth J]

subgenius----

Here is the official site from the U.S. district court for the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. It also links to the video and documentary evidence.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

Perhaps you could click around there and then explain how the judge's ruling was so obviously, glaringly biased, and the specific reasons why the outcome was wrong.

[_subgenius]

No, that is not obvious. Your assertion is contrary to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

i misspoke. i should have been specific and stated "LGBT marriage issues", i retract the error.

But what is highly questionable is whether DOMA is constitutional under the 10th Amendment.

"highly" is arguable, but i agree with questionable.

Except that I never compared sexual orientation to ethnicity. I implicitly conceded that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. Your failure to recognize that in your response unwittingly proves quite clearly that you do not understand the issue you are purporting to address, even though you think you do. You never would have started talking about the search for a "gay gene" if you knew what you were talking about enough to realize that I am not making a suspect classification argument.

your link above provides a great quote on this subject of "classification":
the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. (emphasis mine)

And people who know what they are talking about do not consider sexual orientation to be a "choice" in the way that you are implying.

arguable, many people who also "know" what they are talking about consider it to be a choice. Your notion is speculative and you propose it to be factual. from your own link
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."
I have seen only evidence that suggests that LGBT is choice and is not immutable.

A "gay gene" is not a silver bullet, legally speaking, because genes alone are not determinative in identity, which may be changeable to some extent, but is much more complex than simply a "choice." The finding of a gay gene is unnecessary to a finding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates equal protection; neither the Lawrence court nor the Romer court had any evidence of a gay gene in front of them.

Because neither case ruling was about homosexuality per se.

Did that make sense to you when you typed it? Have you considered having another person review what you write before you post it?

nope, just post 'em like you do.

What precisely is the social value of allowing a man and a woman in their 70's to get married, when they are unable to have children? How about the social value of allowing sterile men and women to marry each other?

you would throw the baby out with the bath water. The institution is promoted and reinforced by the perpetuation of the "typical". For example, a newly married couple is more often than not asked, eventually, "when will you have kids?".....the social norm is to assume that married couples will have children, it is in the interest of very survival (see Skinner v Oklahoma). Yes, there are sterile couples, couples who decide otherwise, etc...however, they still socially promote the relationship that is valuable to the perpetuation of the society. This also is supported by the overwhelming evidence that all things being equal, a happily married man and woman provide the best environment for children, especially their natural children. This relationship is socially the most virtuous and thus is the standard put forth. And consequently it is the relationship that is rewarded by society through the extension of benefits accorded to those who qualify for a marriage license.

You must remember that marriage is not a "right",

Yes, it is.
ehem. agreed. your case citation is about the legality of preventing a marriage "solely" based on race (immutable). i had hoped you would pick up the Skinner v Oklahoma citation which reads it as one of the "basic civil rights of man"........ehem......"fundamental to our very existence and survival".

Under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state cannot deny equal protection of law to its citizens, nor life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Once a state defines marriage, a liberty and a property interest attaches. The government cannot arbitrarily deprive people of that liberty/property right, nor deny equal access for its residents to the liberty/property interest the state has created.

Agreed. That is why the restriction for the freedom to marry among the LGBT has been supported. The key point in Loving was that there was no legitimate overriding purpose other than "race" (immutable).

that is why a license is required and only granted to those who qualify. Blind people don't get driver's licenses either nor do we allow a father to marry his daughter.

That is a false analogy, because there is a rational basis for each of your examples. Neither having children, nor having the ability to have children, is a requirement of marriage in any jurisdiction of the United States. In Utah, first cousins may get married specifically because they cannot have children.[/quote]
it may be exaggerated but it is not false. the point is that the freedom to marry is restricted...and incestuous marriages have long been known to produce defective children, which relates marriage to children even though it is not an expressed legal requirement for license it is implied and even dependent on legal notions of "legitimate / illegitimate".

Utah Code s. 30-1-1

(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.

What is the social value of allowing first cousins who cannot reproduce to marry each other?

i would gather that it would serve to protect family assets. i can't presume to know the motivations of the Utah legislature. More importantly why are first cousins between the age 55 and 65 out of luck?

I regret to inform you that (1) the 1st Amendment does not speak to religious discrimination, and (2) the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states. The 14th Amendment is what makes the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states (under the incorporation doctrine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution
the 1st amendment most certainly does, its the free exercise clause. how else could you intepret
" ..a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional." - Wisconsin v. Yoder

Despite your assertion that "the argument of the 14th is played, and not played well," the Supreme Court has in fact held that equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans; Lawrence v. Texas).

and yet LGBT still can't be married in 33 states, by constitution.

By the way, I appreciate the word salad and uninformed talking points you bring to the board while dropping hints about how much smarter you are than everyone else. It is a masterful demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

thank you, and from you a better example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%8 ... i_syndrome i have yet to see.

[_Darth J]

No, that is not obvious. Your assertion is contrary to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

i misspoke. i should have been specific and stated "LGBT marriage issues", i retract the error.

But that issue also has not been in front of the Supreme Court yet. Discrimination based on sexual orientation has.

But what is highly questionable is whether DOMA is constitutional under the 10th Amendment.

"highly" is arguable, but i agree with questionable.

No, when courts have already ruled against it on that basis, it is no longer speculation how courts are going to treat the issue.

Except that I never compared sexual orientation to ethnicity. I implicitly conceded that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. Your failure to recognize that in your response unwittingly proves quite clearly that you do not understand the issue you are purporting to address, even though you think you do. You never would have started talking about the search for a "gay gene" if you knew what you were talking about enough to realize that I am not making a suspect classification argument.

your link above provides a great quote on this subject of "classification":
the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. (emphasis mine)

You obviously do not understand the rational basis test.

And the Supreme Court has already held that marriage is a fundamental right.

And people who know what they are talking about do not consider sexual orientation to be a "choice" in the way that you are implying.

arguable, many people who also "know" what they are talking about consider it to be a choice. Your notion is speculative and you propose it to be factual. from your own link
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."
I have seen only evidence that suggests that LGBT is choice and is not immutable.

I wonder where that evidence might be found. It won't be found from the APA, from whom you cherry-pick an isolated statement but leave out this:

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

A "gay gene" is not a silver bullet, legally speaking, because genes alone are not determinative in identity, which may be changeable to some extent, but is much more complex than simply a "choice." The finding of a gay gene is unnecessary to a finding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates equal protection; neither the Lawrence court nor the Romer court had any evidence of a gay gene in front of them.

Because neither case ruling was about homosexuality per se.

Nor is the rational basis argument about same-sex marriage about homosexuality per se. Suspect classification is not what I am saying. You are continually responding to an argument that I am not making, otherwise known as a straw man.

Did that make sense to you when you typed it? Have you considered having another person review what you write before you post it?

nope, just post 'em like you do.

What exactly did it mean that I regard discrimination like clothing or whatever?

What precisely is the social value of allowing a man and a woman in their 70's to get married, when they are unable to have children? How about the social value of allowing sterile men and women to marry each other?

you would throw the baby out with the bath water.

I am talking about extending marriage, not eliminating it.

The institution is promoted and reinforced by the perpetuation of the "typical". For example, a newly married couple is more often than not asked, eventually, "when will you have kids?".....the social norm is to assume that married couples will have children, it is in the interest of very survival (see Skinner v Oklahoma). Yes, there are sterile couples, couples who decide otherwise, etc...however, they still socially promote the relationship that is valuable to the perpetuation of the society.

They are doing nothing to perpetuate society, and there is no reason for society to care about their purported symbolic relationship.

This also is supported by the overwhelming evidence that all things being equal, a happily married man and woman provide the best environment for children, especially their natural children.

Nope.


"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... usted-kids

This relationship is socially the most virtuous and thus is the standard put forth. And consequently it is the relationship that is rewarded by society through the extension of benefits accorded to those who qualify for a marriage license.

In other words, you are relying on a combination of unproven assertions, religious value judgments, and a tautology. That does not add up to a rational basis for law in the real world.

You must remember that marriage is not a "right",

Yes, it is.

ehem. agreed. your case citation is about the legality of preventing a marriage "solely" based on race (immutable). i had hoped you would pick up the Skinner v Oklahoma citation which reads it as one of the "basic civil rights of man"........ehem......"fundamental to our very existence and survival".

I have a great idea. Instead of quote mining, let's look at what Skinner v. Oklahoma actually said. Skinner was about a statute that allowed the state to have a person sterilized as a criminal penalty. The quote, in context, is

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."

316 U.S. 541.

The context of what the Supreme Court was saying is that forced sterilization may become an existential threat to certain races or types of people.

Procreation is not a necessary element of marriage in any jurisdiction in the United States. Marriage is not a necessary element of procreation. They are different things that may overlap, but the law does not require them to. The same-sex marriage issue is about positive law, not about your religious precepts as to what marriage ideally is ordained of God to be.

Under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state cannot deny equal protection of law to its citizens, nor life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Once a state defines marriage, a liberty and a property interest attaches. The government cannot arbitrarily deprive people of that liberty/property right, nor deny equal access for its residents to the liberty/property interest the state has created.

Agreed. That is why the restriction for the freedom to marry among the LGBT has been supported. The key point in Loving was that there was no legitimate overriding purpose other than "race" (immutable).

Has been supported by whom? By popular vote? Should we put the civil rights of Mormons up for popular vote? Courts addressing same-sex marriage on a constitutional basis, state or federal, have not supported the arbitrary restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples when there is nothing in the legal definition of marriage that requires people to be of the opposite sex.

that is why a license is required and only granted to those who qualify. Blind people don't get driver's licenses either nor do we allow a father to marry his daughter.

That is a false analogy, because there is a rational basis for each of your examples. Neither having children, nor having the ability to have children, is a requirement of marriage in any jurisdiction of the United States. In Utah, first cousins may get married specifically because they cannot have children.

it may be exaggerated but it is not false. the point is that the freedom to marry is restricted...and incestuous marriages have long been known to produce defective children, which relates marriage to children even though it is not an expressed legal requirement for license it is implied and even dependent on legal notions of "legitimate / illegitimate".

That has nothing to do with childless marriages. Yes, freedom to marry is restricted, and the argument that is going right past you is that it is restricted on an arbitrary basis.

Utah Code s. 30-1-1

(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.

What is the social value of allowing first cousins who cannot reproduce to marry each other?

i would gather that it would serve to protect family assets. i can't presume to know the motivations of the Utah legislature.

The legislature's motivation is only relevant when a statute is ambiguous. This one is not. It makes no sense for marriage between first cousins to be a vehicle to protect family assets, especially because if cousins get married, they can get divorced, which divides up those assets. Also, family assets would only become part of the marital estate if they were commingled; this statute does not address that. A trust is what people would do if preserving family assets were the intent.

More importantly why are first cousins between the age 55 and 65 out of luck?

That isn't more important, and the reason is because women presumably have passed menopause by that age.

I regret to inform you that (1) the 1st Amendment does not speak to religious discrimination, and (2) the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states. The 14th Amendment is what makes the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states (under the incorporation doctrine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution
the 1st amendment most certainly does, its the free exercise clause. how else could you intepret
" ..a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional." - Wisconsin v. Yoder

The free exercise clause is about the practice of religion, not discrimination against members of a religious denomination.

Despite your assertion that "the argument of the 14th is played, and not played well," the Supreme Court has in fact held that equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans; Lawrence v. Texas).

and yet LGBT still can't be married in 33 states, by constitution.

And yet slavery, Jim Crow laws, women being prohibited from voting, the Missouri extermination order against the Mormons, and other discriminatory laws have all been the law at one time.

Contrary to you assertion that LGBT cannot marry, there is no law anywhere that says gay people can't marry. The state constitutional provisions to which you refer all prohibit two people of the same sex from getting married. A gay man could still marry a gay woman. And since you previously acknowledged that the 14th Amendment Trump's state law, state constitutions saying whatever they want does not resolve the equal protection issue under federal constitutional law.

By the way, I appreciate the word salad and uninformed talking points you bring to the board while dropping hints about how much smarter you are than everyone else. It is a masterful demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

thank you, and from you a better example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%8 ... i_syndrome i have yet to see.

Anton–Babinski syndrome is about physical blindness. To the extent you are attempting to use this as a metaphor, you would have to have shown me something that I failed to see. You have not shown anyone anything.

[Guest]

-

[_UnicornMan]

The LDS Church has also lost its ability to convince those in society around them of their "official" version of history. Unfortunately for the LDS Church its ability to hide the truth from society is lost. The numbers the organization loses will only increase as the truth enters into public consciousness. The LDS Church has enough money and property to survive in the long-term however the Church will struggle to maintain the hold on its membership and the rate of growth will be diminished regardless of fictional membership numbers. As the truth about the LDS Church spreads they will feel the loss of tithing money, the loss of a committed membership willing to volunteer hours of free work in callings, cleaning church buildings and going on missions, the loss of people joining the LDS Church and the loss of respect and recognition by those in society. Changes to the tax status of organizations claiming to be religions but acting as corporations with commercial interests, in the future, appear to be inevitable. It is not feasible that LDS Church as it exists today will survive. Those spreading the truth about the LDS Church's claims are the cause of all this, the LDS Church and the Mormon apologists are simply an effect.

I was in a priesthood meeting two years ago. It was announced that the growth rate of the Church was declining in North America, so they were all over us to accelerate our member missionary efforts.

So, the Church was still growing, but that growth was trailing off. Personally, I hope we start shrinking for a while so the leaders above us can effect some sweeping changes that get rid of values that were popular in the 50's which still permeate our culture -- and also figure out how to make Church service/experiences less boring and tedious.

Whether it will come to what the quote above predicts, is an open question, but I do see that vision above as a real eventuality if we don't start changing the members' experience in the Church. Change comes VERY slowly in the Church, and there is nothing like a crisis to effect change.

Regarding the government cracking down on charitable organizations....I'm not sure if the Church is vulnerable in that respect. They keep the business interests separate from the Church interests, and are very rigid about keeping everything above board (based on the audits I've seen). I do think they have huge cash reserves -- that's why they won't open the books. Perhaps the government might start taxing money that comes in above a certain threshold. If that money is not speant on humanitarian causes, then it gets taxed.

I would actually welcome something like this as I find the Ward programs (the adult ones) are grossly underfunded. It's a strange dichotomy -- the Wards are the lifeblood of the financial health of the Church, yet so little of the funds go back to the Wards to improve their programs. The financial statements are public record in Canada, and the average Ward saw 5-12% of its gross donations come back to the Ward itself. That is pretty meagre in my view.