- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Did you all know the London Temple is NOT tax exempt? The LDS church lost a court ruling in the UK in 2006 that went all the way to the House of Lords (UK equivalent to the Supreme Court). In the ruling, they wrote Quote:“…the Temple is not a place of “public religious worship” because it is not open to the public. It is not even open to all Mormons. The right of entry is reserved to members who have acquired a “recommend” from the bishop after demonstrating belief in Mormon doctrine, an appropriate way of life and payment of the required contribution to church funds. Such members are called Patrons and the rituals which take place in the Temple are exclusive to them. These facts are agreed.”
Notice the fact that members had to pay tithing to get in played a part in the ruling. I expect this will be brought up in the current case in the UKI didn’t realise. Does that mean the Temple has to pay taxes on all revenues from people staying at the accommodation centre or for hiring clothing? From what I can gather from the court documents, it looks like it is just property tax they are paying. Have just read through it. It’s a judgement on the Preston Temple (though the London one is also mentioned and seems to not be exempt either).
They’ve said, in the judgement, that only the stake centre is exempt (as a place of public worship). The Temple, MTC and Accommodation/Distribution centre are all not exempt.
Reading the judgement it’s a bit disturbing that the church would even try to make the other buildings exempt. They are clearly not a place of public worship. The temple is a place of worship, not public worship. The MTC is not remotely a place of public worship. It’s a training centre for missionaries.
I don’t agree with this at all. There are numerous parts of English cathedrals etc one can’t go into. A lot of English churches are locked
up most of the time too, partly because of thieves. Women are restricted from certain parts of religious buildings as well.
On the flipside – temple grounds are open to public during the day, and there is an open house before.
But! Scientology was recently deemed a religion in the UK, in relation
to marriage.
I actually thought I had read an account of the London Temple not being tax exempt long ago. Sorry I don’t have the reference, but as I recall similar arguments to this were made at the time the temple was built and there were comments from DOM. I believe the church lost and the London Temple has never actually been tax exempt. I actually fine with that line of thinking. While I do agree temples are places of worship, they are not places of public worship and are in fact quite exclusive. You’re right DJ. The link in the OP refers to a ruling on Preston temple (North England). In the ruling it makes reference to a 1960s ruling on London Temple that also made it exempt. Should we start charging Anglicans because they shut the vestry or Orthodox because we’re not allowed behind the iconostasis or Muslims because they won’t allow women into certain areas? Accomodation yes, shop yes, temple no IMHO.
Can we assume the church will pass the tax on to the members if it is significant? Up the price of the laundry, the clothing, etcetera? SilentDawning wrote:Can we assume the church will pass the tax on to the members if it is significant? Up the price of the laundry, the clothing, etcetera?
I would hope not. Those that attend the temple are already paying thier “dues” in multiple other ways.
This has been the situation for a long time. It’s not new. SamBee wrote:Should we start charging Anglicans because they shut the vestry or Orthodox because we’re not allowed behind the iconostasis or Muslims because they won’t allow women into certain areas?
Accomodation yes, shop yes, temple no IMHO.
Maybe. The point is that most members (and even non-members) of those organizations are allowed in most of the places and are permitted to openly worship there (yes, I am aware that very strict Muslims do not allow women in mosques at all). Beyond the little foyer and in some temples a small room off that area, only a very select few are allowed to enter, much less worship, and in the case of those not welcome they are politely asked to leave. I do think there is a distinction.
A lot of private schools in the UK are registered as charities, for some
reason, but I would like to see any member of the public try and gain
access to all areas within them.
There are of course good reasons why the public should not be allowed
access to areas of schools, but no good reason why what are effectively
educational businesses with no public benefit should be deemed
charities. The fruits of those schools like David Cameron are ruling the
UK right now, which is partly why it is such a mess.
The joke is that the English refer to private schools as “public
schools”!
I would contest that these “charities” are less beneficial than the temples. The temple grounds are open to the public, the temples themselves are occasionally given open houses (the schools also have open days now and then), and the baptistry and canteen areas of the temple are in fact not that hard to gain access to as a member.
The irony is that people spend far less money to get into the temple, on average, than they would to send their offspring to Eton College (Cameron’s old school), Gordonstoun (which is in Scotland, but effectively an English school – where the royals often go), Harrow (Winston Churchill’s old school) or even Fettes (another Scottish school – which produced Tony Blair – enough said) They’ll create political leaders, but not public benefit.
There is a very good breakdown of the case over on By Common Consent. The link is: http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/03/05/taxing-the-temple Key point:
The decision is not anti-Mormon in any way, and the Church’s response was straightforward and accepting of the decision.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.