Internet Tax

jvquarterback wrote:
No. The issue is whether a person who refuses to file a tax return is honest. Nothing you have cited indicates it is dishonest not to file a tax return.

Except for the part where President Hinckley addresses it under the topic of honesty.....:bug:



Again--I've provided authority to back up what I've said. You've provided vague ramblings and philosophy.



As for your assertion about polygamy being a case of waiting until the government comes, again all you are trying to do it muddy the waters with an inapposite comparison. But all you've done here is further disprove your own point while proving your ignorance of yet another topic. You might want to reacquaint yourself with the history of the Church and polygamy in re: the anti-polygamy laws before you start pretending to know the history.



The first anti-bigamy act was the Morrill Act. This purported to ban bigamy and polygamy and limit churches in the territories to $50K in assets. Did the Church ignore the Morrill Act? Yes. But why did they ignore it? Because Brigham Young secured assurances from Abraham Lincoln that Lincoln agreed the Act was unconstitutional and that Lincoln would not enforce it. I don't think we have that with tax returns.....



The Edmunds Act punished polygamy and bigamy regardless of when it happened. Those who were married or cohabited before the law was passed were prosecuted for the offense. The Church was active in fighting to overturn the act either in the political arena or in the courts, and this fight culminated in Reynolds v. United States--more about that later.



The final anti-polygamy act was the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which didn't criminalize polygamy, but merely added penalties to the Edmunds Act, ended the Corporation of the Church, replaced judges, etc.



In Reynolds v. United States--the seminal polygamy case that led to the manifesto. Reynolds, at the request of the First Presidency presented himself to the federal government to be prosecuted and to test the Constitutionality of the polygamy/bigamy acts.



In sum, you seem to have it perfectly backwards. The Church was active in fighting the anti-polygamy statutes in the courts and in the political arena. I also don't believe there was an official church policy to turn yourself in for polygamy, other than Reynolds who was asked to do so, but there is an official church policy to file your tax returns. Instead, the official church policy was, until after Reynolds v. US, to continue in polygamy.



I don't see what you hope to gain in comparing filing tax returns (where the church policy is to comply), and polygamy (where the church policy was to not comply until after the church tested the constitutionality of it) as some argument in favor of ignoring church policy.



Are you seriously suggesting that a past time in history where the church had an official policy and practice of continuing a practice and fighting it in the political and judicial arenas is somehow justification for someone to ignore church policy today and not file a tax return???? You might as well join a polygamist sect if you still want to make that argument.

As I pointed out a couple posts ago, President Hinckley uses the same wording as President Woodruff regarding what the courts finding constitutional and the church's recommendation that we follow laws found constitutional by the courts (which was the reason for bringing up polygamy). Once again neither President Woodruff nor President Hinckley assert the court's decision is an accurate reflection of what is in fact constitutional.



For some reason that doesn't seem to be getting through to you. There is nothing philosophical about that, just a direct reading of President Hinckley's words, which for some reason, you think say something they don't.



To spell it out for you: there is a distinction between what the courts say is constitutional and what actually is constitutional. Therefore a man may be honest and ignore unjust laws, even though opposition to those laws disqualify him from holding certain offices in the church and may disqualify him from obtaining a temple recommend.



I just want to confirm that you believe President Hinckley is saying all people who disobey a law held constitutional by the courts, are dishonest. Is that correct?



I suppose we'll just have to wait to ask him. But I find it difficult to believe he would think that is the case with the Dutch who saved Jews from the Nazi camps or Mahatma Ghandi.



Just because I choose to qualify for church leadership positions does not mean I will call those who don't dishonest.



FYI church members were ignoring the anti-bigamy laws of Illinois long before they ignored the federal statutes (both of which are unconstitutional and an affront to the inalienable right to religious liberty regardless of what any court has found).

Let's make this easy. You cite the church handbook, "Church members who refuse to file a tax return ... may be ineligible for a temple recommend."



If the member may be ineligible, they may be eligible. If they are eligible they may be honest.



So your original post starting if are an honest utahn is false.

jv- Thanks for moving the goalposts again. I'm a big fan of how you keep redefining what the issue is in different ways.



Again, I've provided authority for my position. You've provided verbal diarrhea. I'll come back when you have something to support your philosophical meanderings other than naked "reason."

We'll make it easier for you. You're a tool who doesn't believe that anything you do is wrong. You wrest everything to comport to justify your action. That is a dangerous slope you tread. One that you would be wise to abandon and people would wise not to follow.

Jv has proven why I have come to the belief that Libertariansim is nearly as evil as Communism. Lots of philosophy of men mingled with very little scripture.

jvquarterback wrote:
Let's make this easy. You cite the church handbook, "Church members who refuse to file a tax return ... may be ineligible for a temple recommend."

You conveniently omitted the part about "are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church."

If the member may be ineligible, they may be eligible. If they are eligible they may be honest.

That argument is what you call a "false dichotomy"--the fallacious argument that only one of two items may be true. Your premise that eligible = honest doesn't hold water. Does each and every act of dishonesty eliminate someone from holding a temple recommend? I happen to know a few people who struggle with honesty, but they are open about it with their bishop and stake presidency and continue to attend the temple as they work through it. The fact that a bishop or stake president uses their discernment to permit a penitent person who has committed dishonest acts to continue to hold a recommend is not a declaration that their acts were not dishonest.

So your original post starting if are an honest utahn is false.

I'll stick with President Hinckley and his declaration that "obedience to law, when that law has been declared constitutional," is part of honesty. The requirement to file a tax return was upheld as constitutional in United States v. Sullivan.