LDS Church uses charitable donations to support Prop 1 battle in Idaho

[Marcus]

I think someone is missing the point by suggesting there are only two options for understanding the situation, both requiring a belief in god. A third option is that there is no god.

Here is a real and recent case

It didn't take long for doctors to see that something was amiss with Rebecca Crozier's pregnancy.

At her eight-week ultrasound in 2025, they mentioned a possible neural tube defect, she said, but after some research, she thought it was something that could be managed or treated.

"If it was a fixable problem, I was ready to quit my job and full-time care for a disabled child," said Crozier, who is now 27. "That was something that we were prepared to do."

In the time between the two ultrasounds, she had a dream that she was carrying a baby girl, and she and her husband named her Haven.

The couple lived in eastern Idaho at the time, and drove two hours to the Boise area to see the maternal-fetal medicine specialists at St. Luke's, the state's largest health system. Now at 11 weeks' gestation, the specialists told her Haven had anencephaly, which occurs when the brain does not develop normally and the skull is left open, exposing brain tissue to amniotic fluid that causes the tissue to dissolve. It is a fatal condition.

She was missing a lot of brain tissue," Crozier recalled. "They were very clear that this baby will not go home with you. You will not take this baby home. This baby will die in the hospital if the baby survives that long."

In many states, even ones with abortion bans, Crozier would have had the option to terminate the pregnancy. But Idaho's near-total prohibition includes no exceptions for fatal anomalies. It's one of 11 states that do not have exceptions for anencephaly or other fatal anomalies.

Next Tuesday, Idahoans will vote to determine whether the state's near-total abortion ban should remain the law. Proposition 1, the title of the citizen-led ballot measure, would restore access to abortion until fetal viability, which was the state law before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022.

The LDS Church’s male leaders want people to vote against this woman having a choice, and is spending $1 million to try and ensure they enforce their opinion on this woman, who isn’t a Mormon. Ironically

The couple have family members who live in Utah. Crozier called clinics in Utah, where abortion is permitted up to 18 weeks, and got an appointment at a hospital within two weeks. Her mom flew in from California to be by her side.

Mg arguing that its just a vote is missing the point. The lds church is preaching its position, which it does not consider to be an opinion but rather, according to Mormons, the rule that all should live by. And I say "that all should live by" because if they only require Mormons to live by their law, they wouldn't care about the vote at all, they would just control their adherents.

[MG 2.0]

I think someone is missing the point by suggesting there are only two options for understanding the situation, both requiring a belief in god. A third option is that there is no god.

If I remember correctly that option would be included under option one of two that were actually laid out in the bill. I mentioned them earlier in the thread somewhere.

I also broached your "atheism" concern back on page two.

But yeah, if you want to throw a third option in for further clarification, that's fine. You ought to have your voice along with everyone else.


Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Mg arguing that its just a vote is missing the point. The lds church is preaching its position, which it does not consider to be an opinion but rather, according to Mormons, the rule that all should live by. And I say "that all should live by" because if they only require Mormons to live by their law, they wouldn't care about the vote at all, they would just control their adherents.

Exactly, Marcus. Nobody is questioning the Church’s constitutional right to advocate its beliefs. The question is whether its religious authority extends beyond those who voluntarily submit to it.

MG keeps explaining how the Church can exercise political influence. But he ignores the implications of using that influence to restrict the agency of people outside the faith.

I think there is a significant difference between persuading someone to live according to your religious convictions and using the power of the state to require it.

Heavens to Betsy, what would Moroni say?

Are we raising the Title of Liberty to defend freedom of conscience, or to ensure that everyone exercises that freedom according to our own religious convictions?

[MG 2.0]

Mg arguing that its just a vote is missing the point. The lds church is preaching its position, which it does not consider to be an opinion but rather, according to Mormons, the rule that all should live by. And I say "that all should live by" because if they only require Mormons to live by their law, they wouldn't care about the vote at all, they would just control their adherents.

Exactly, Marcus. Nobody is questioning the Church’s constitutional right to advocate its beliefs. The question is whether its religious authority extends beyond those who voluntarily submit to it.

No, it doesn’t. I think I’ve already said that in this country everyone has the right to vote their own conscience. The church would never take that right away.

This thread is rather superfluous. Vote your own mind and heart. Let others do the same. Let religious organizations speak their minds and exercise their freedom of assembly and voice.

Why are you fighting that?

It’s interesting to me that this thread has gone on as long as it has. Are you trying your hand at voter intimidation? Against the LDS Church?

That would be unlawful.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Mg arguing that its just a vote is missing the point. The lds church is preaching its position, which it does not consider to be an opinion but rather, according to Mormons, the rule that all should live by. And I say "that all should live by" because if they only require Mormons to live by their law, they wouldn't care about the vote at all, they would just control their adherents.

Exactly, Marcus. Nobody is questioning the Church’s constitutional right to advocate its beliefs. The question is whether its religious authority extends beyond those who voluntarily submit to it.

MG keeps explaining how the Church can exercise political influence. But he ignores the implications of using that influence to restrict the agency of people outside the faith.

I think there is a significant difference between persuading someone to live according to your religious convictions and using the power of the state to require it.

Yes. The Church patriarchy isn't merely expressing an opinion, nor stating a belief, nor explaining a doctrine. The Church patriarchy is investing donated charitable funds into activism designed at swaying a vote in a way that will restrict the choices of pregnant women who are not Mormons. That’s the bottom line.

[Limnor]

Voter intimidation? My my, that seems a tad escalatory. Members of this board are simply exercising their right to freedom of speech.

I’m pleased there seems to be agreement on the board that the Church’s religious authority does not extend to those who have never accepted it.

But i think there are questions left unanswered. Questions like are there implications to a church that claims to champion individual agency seeking to employ the coercive power of the state to enforce its moral standards upon those outside its faith? Is this consistent with the principles the Church professes to uphold?

[Limnor]

Exactly, Marcus. Nobody is questioning the Church’s constitutional right to advocate its beliefs. The question is whether its religious authority extends beyond those who voluntarily submit to it.

MG keeps explaining how the Church can exercise political influence. But he ignores the implications of using that influence to restrict the agency of people outside the faith.

I think there is a significant difference between persuading someone to live according to your religious convictions and using the power of the state to require it.

Yes. The Church patriarchy isn't merely expressing an opinion, nor stating a belief, nor explaining a doctrine. The Church patriarchy is investing donated charitable funds into activism designed at swaying a vote in a way that will restrict the choices of pregnant women who are not Mormons. That’s the bottom line.

Question for the group: do members here believe religious institutions should be subject to the same financial disclosure and lobbying restrictions as other tax-exempt charitable organizations?

[I Have Questions]

Yes. The Church patriarchy isn't merely expressing an opinion, nor stating a belief, nor explaining a doctrine. The Church patriarchy is investing donated charitable funds into activism designed at swaying a vote in a way that will restrict the choices of pregnant women who are not Mormons. That’s the bottom line.

Question for the group: do members here believe religious institutions should be subject to the same financial disclosure and lobbying restrictions as other tax-exempt charitable organizations?

I cannot think of a good argument for religious institutions not to be subject to the same financial disclosure and lobbying restrictions as other tax-exempt charitable organizations.

[Rivendale]

God intentionally created world where gratuitous suffering must happen. Could he not have done it differently?

Open to ideas. Best go into detail on evolutionary biology and plate tectonics.

Regards,
MG

I can think of all kinds of ideas that would reduce suffering but that isn't my place. The real question resides in our own personal sense of least harm. You seem perfectly okay with following a god who's morals are often contradictory to your own. Why are you comfortable with a god commanding his prophet to collect wives and lie to his wife? Why are you comfortable with classifying deaths due to random natural disastors as collateral damage to preserve freewill? Why do you support a church who supports limited Healthcare to women under the guise of moral issues when it impacts people who disagree with the tenants of Mormonism?

[MG 2.0]

Open to ideas. Best go into detail on evolutionary biology and plate tectonics.

Regards,
MG

I can think of all kinds of ideas that would reduce suffering but that isn't my place. The real question resides in our own personal sense of least harm. You seem perfectly okay with following a god who's morals are often contradictory to your own. Why are you comfortable with a god commanding his prophet to collect wives and lie to his wife? Why are you comfortable with classifying deaths due to random natural disastors as collateral damage to preserve freewill? Why do you support a church who supports limited Healthcare to women under the guise of moral issues when it impacts people who disagree with the tenants of Mormonism?

I think there is room for discomfort on any one of these issues. I know I’ve had to look at them seriously and try and come to a place of resolution and possible understandings. I don’t claim to be the authority on how to deal with these things for any one other than myself.

It’s taken years and it’s not an overnight ‘one and done’ process.

Regards,
MG