The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD
Total Articles:
14
Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.
Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.
|
|
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the following:
"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67
| Joseph Smith stated the following:
"For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent, obey the Gospel, and do right from this day forward. . . . Cain and his posterity must wear the mark, which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller’s soap every day, they cannot wash away God’s mark; The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were cursed with a skin of darkness … yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness, that not many generations shall pass away before they shall become a white and delightsome people; but it will take some time to accomplish this at best"
Source: The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 14, p. 418
| Plain and simple?
In June of 1978, the LDS-owned Deseret News newspaper printed an announcement by the LDS First Presidency stating that God, by revelation, would now allow all worthy male members in the LDS Church to receive the priesthood as well as "blessings of the temple." (Deseret News, 6/9/78, 1A). This "revelation," known as Official Declaration 2, can be found in printed form at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants.
To understand why this announcement was of such extreme importance, it is necessary to go back in time to what Mormons refer to as the pre-existence. According to LDS theology, the God of Mormonism, Elohim, resides near a star called Kolob where he lives with his many heavenly wives. Together they are producing millions upon millions of spirit children.
Mormon leaders have taught that aeons ago the time came to present a salvation plan for those of God's children who would eventually advance to a mortal state. Two of Elohim's sons, Jehovah (the pre-incarnate Christ) and Lucifer, presented their respective salvation plans for mortal man. According to LDS President Harold B. Lee: "…Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved without glory and honor of God. The plan of our Savior, Jehovah, was to give to each the right to choose for himself the course he would travel in earth life and all was to be done to the honor and glory of God our Heavenly Father" (Stand Ye In Holy Places, p.219).
When Lucifer's plan was rejected, he rebelled against his brother and father and persuaded a third of God's spirit children to join him. Led by Michael the archangel, the remaining spirit children of God would join in what is known as the war in heaven. Lucifer would lose and become known as Satan; his followers then became demons. Both would be cast out of heaven.
Unfortunately this battle had casualties of another sort. According to LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, some of those who fought on God's side "were more valiant than others…Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.). According to Brigham Young, it was Joseph Smith who classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young said that "Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'" (The Improvement Era, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105).
As a consequence of their lack of valiance, these spirit children of God would be banned from holding priesthood authority when they finally received their mortal bodies here on earth. This sanction would make it impossible for them to enjoy the blessings of exaltation. In other words, they would not be allowed to become Gods in eternity, nor would they have the ability to procreate in eternity.
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black" (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
Smith also stated that "there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less" (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
For these reasons, Bruce McConkie would write, "The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom…" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).
Joseph Fielding Smith stated, "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race" (The Way to Perfection, p.101). This comment is especially interesting since it was this same Joseph Fielding Smith who also said, "The Latter-day Saints have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an `inferior race'" (Answers to Gospel Questions 4:170).
The mark of a black skin would be of great importance to the LDS member for it would be the telltale sign as to who was and who was not qualified for celestial exaltation. In his book The Church and the Negro, Assistant church historian John Lund wrote, "It marked Cain as the father of the Negroid race. It also acted as a sign of protection for Cain and set his seed apart from the rest of Adam's children so there would be no intermarriage."
In a speech entitled Race Problems as they Affect the Church, LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen asked, and answered, the following hypothetical question: "If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?" (p.21.)
Brigham Young taught a much greater extreme. In a sermon given on March 8, 1863, Young stated, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, 10:110).
The Devil's Representative?
On two separate occasions, third LDS President John Taylor stated that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304).
The following year, Taylor reiterated his former comment when he said, "Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth" (Journal of Discourses 23:336).
It isn't difficult to understand why many would look upon the LDS Church as a racist organization. However, Latter-day Saints would reject such a notion since, in their minds, the leaders were merely reflecting what they erroneously thought was the will of God. Mormons laid the responsibility for this doctrine on God Himself, not the personal bigotry, either real or imagined, of any particular Latter-day Saint. For instance, Mark Peterson said, "When He [God] placed the mark on Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation" (Race Problems, p.15).
Mormons were taught that even though Blacks could never be exalted and become Gods, they could enter the celestial kingdom. In his Race Problems as they Affect the Church speech (p.17), Peterson said, "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection." Slavery revisited?
Forever Cursed?
Would those of African heritage be forever banned from holding the LDS Priesthood? Apparently not. LDS leaders did anticipate a day when the ban would eventually be lifted. However, such hopes did not support the change that came about in 1978. John Lund wrote, "There are two sublime stipulations that will have to be met before the Negroes will be allowed to possess the Priesthood, even if they are worthy... First, all of Adam's children will have to resurrect and secondly, the seed of Abel must first have an opportunity to possess the Priesthood" (The Church and The Negro, pp.109-110). As Lund noted, "These events will not occur until sometime after the millennium. It would be unwise to say Negroes will receive the Priesthood during their mortal existence."
Lund's comment is based on LDS precedent. On page 89 of his book he quotes a statement by the First Presidency that was given on August 17, 1951. That statement read, "The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'"
Notice Young made certain it was understood that only after "all the rest of the children" have received the priesthood that the curse be lifted. Lund wrote, "It is clearly stated in the above quotes that the Negroes must first pass through mortality before they may possess the Priesthood ('they will go down to death')" (p.47).
On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (Journal of Discourses 2:143).
President Wilford Woodruff noted in his journal that President Young said, "...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106).
Since the resurrection from the dead has not taken place, and the redemption of Abel's posterity has not come to fruition, it is apparent that the LDS Church was premature in its 1978 decision.
Contradicting Past Prophets and LDS Scripture
In Declaration 2, Spencer Kimball stated that past prophets of the LDS Church had promised that at some time the ban would be lifted and that God, by revelation, had shown him that the day has come. This statement is certainly misleading. As previously mentioned, past prophets had said the time would not come until after the resurrection, not 1978! Kimball's declaration contradicts both past LDS leaders and the Standard Works.
David O. McKay, Mormonism's ninth president, said, "I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26)." This LDS passage reads, "Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood." The obvious question is this: If LDS Scripture supports a curse upon the Seed of Cain, didn't lifting the curse violate LDS Scripture?
An article in the January 1969 Improvement Era magazine (p.13) quotes then-Apostle Harold B. Lee. He stated, "If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man's own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true." Lee would become president of the LDS Church on July 7, 1972. Lee's statement raises another obvious question: Since the Book of Abraham had been used to justify not giving the Blacks the Priesthood, doesn't the 1978 decision show that this reversal is 'not true'? Since the lifting of the ban contradicted LDS scripture, it seems that the membership should not have voted to sustain this decision on September 30, 1978.
A great majority of Latter-day Saints simply attributed this to "Latter-day Revelation" and questioned it no further; however, the timing for such a change is certainly suspect. In my opinion the fiasco in Brazil was one of the strongest reasons why the ban was lifted. In anticipation of the opening of its new temple in Sao Paulo, the LDS Church was ordaining hundreds of Brazilians to its priesthood. Did the LDS Church ignore Brazilian history? Between 1538 and Brazil's abolition of slavery in 1888, about five million African slaves were brought to that country. Through mixed marriages, Mulattos make up a substantial portion of the Brazilian population. How would the LDS Church possibly know whether or not those being ordained were qualified? With the dedication of this temple only a few months away, it would seem imperative that the church either lift the ban or face the possibility of a public relations nightmare.
The fact that Blacks were being punished for something they couldn't even remember doing makes this doctrine even more offensive. However, while lifting the ban may have put the LDS Church in a more positive light socially, it demonstrated once more the instability of its doctrines and the fickleness of its God. The decision made in 1978 also demonstrates that the LDS people will accept just about anything their leaders tell them. When it comes to accountability, the leadership of the LDS Church answers to no one. Latter-day Saints may respond by saying their leaders are accountable to God, but what does this really mean when they are allowed to make decisions that contradict what Mormons have historically considered to be God's unchanging will?
To be sure, the LDS curse upon the Blacks had no biblical justification. This teaching most certainly reflects the social upbringing and bigotry of Mormonism's early leaders rather than the will of the Christian God. The message of the New Testament proclaims that a person's past has no bearing on what he can receive from our gracious God. The Bible declares that God will not hold past transgressions against those who come to Him by faith. (Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 31:34; Romans 4:5-7, 23; Hebrews. 8:12).
Declaration 2 definitely leaves us with reasons to question the validity of the LDS Church. One, there was no biblical reason for the discrimination in the first place; and two, there was no precedent according to Mormonism to lift it.
| Introduction: Almost Down for the Count—The Mormon Church’s Brush with a Federal Knock-Out Punch Over Its Anti-Black Doctrine
What are to be made of reports that, circa 1978, the Mormon Church was in danger of losing its federal tax-exempt status due to its racially-discriminatory policies targeted against Blacks?
Predictably, true-believing Mormons have never been willing to admit that their Church was at one time dangerously on the IRS ropes, close to being stripped of its tax-exempt status, due to its anti-Black doctrine--and barely managed to dance away from a federal government knock-out only by abandoning its officially-sanctioned bigotry.
GONG!!
There's the final bell.
Time to examine the scorecard.
_____
The Official Mormon Cult Claim: Alleged Threats of Federal Tax-Exempt Revocation Had Absolutely Nothing To Do with Black Men Belatedly Getting the Priesthood
Speaking for the Mormon Church’s Public Affairs Department in response to accusations about its suspicious reversal of its long-standing anti-Black priesthood doctrine, LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen flatly denied that the Church’s decision to grant priesthood authority to Black men was in any way related to fear of losing federal tax exempt status.
With a straight white face, Olsen asserted:
”It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood.
“We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law.
"In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.”
(Bruce L. Olsen, “Distorted History,” in "Public Forum," Salt Lake Tribune, 5 April 2001)
http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml
_____
Other Mormon apologists have similarly denied that the LDS Church was pressured into rescinding its anti-Black priesthood doctrine by federal officials holding the sword of tax exemption revocation over its head.
Darrick Evenson, for instance, solemnly testified:
”There was really very little external pressure on the Church after 1976 regarding [the Blacks and the priesthood] issue.
“The Church has been very open as to what inspired the Brethren to ask the LORD for a rescinding of the Priesthood ban.
"They claim it was not external or internal pressure, but rather the exceeding faith of the Negro and Mulatto Saints, which inspired them to petition the LORD.” (original emphasis)
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q16.htm
_____
Color It Contrary: The Case of Mormon U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee
Reacting to Mormon mouthpiece Olsen’s dubious claims, Gary Anderson, writingin a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, countered:
"I was quite surprised by LDS PR man Bruce Olsen's attack . . . regarding the Mormon Church's motivations for abandoning its anti-Black doctrine . . . .
“His bold assault is particularly amazing in light of the fact that history ‘distortion’ and ‘invention’ have been trademarks of Mormonism since its inception. Of course, the risk in Mr. Olsen's gallant tossing of the gauntlet is that someone might just pick it up.
“For example, it didn't take much investigation to discover that in 1981 the Solicitor General of the United States, Rex Lee, a Mormon, recused himself from a case against Bob Jones University.
“In that case, the U.S. government was threatening to revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because of its racist policy of prohibiting interracial dating.
"When asked why he took himself off the case, Mr. Lee explained that previously when representing the Mormon church in a similar case, he had argued that the church should retain its tax-exempt status despite its racist policies and felt conflicted from arguing an opposing view in the Bob Jones case. (see, The Tenth Justice, [by] Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 . . . p. 293).
“If the [Mormon] Church's tax-exempt status was never threatened by the U.S. government because of its racist policies, why was Mr. Lee making such an argument, presumably in an era before 1978?
“Given Lee's explanation, Olsen's ‘categorical’ assertion that federal tax law was never a motivating factor in the church's 1978 change in racial policy rings disingenuous. One thing true history teaches us is that secrecy breeds dishonesty.
“It's fairly easy for Mr. Olsen to hide behind the tightly secured vaults in the Church Office Building and demand proof. If he was a true knight, he would throw open the doors to the vault and invite inquiring minds in to examine the minutes of meetings held by church leaders in the months and days leading up to the 'revelation,' so we might decide for ourselves the Church's actual motivation for the change.
"What's that you say, Mr. Olsen? Salamander got your tongue?"
(Gary Anderson, Springfield, Virginia, letter to the editor, Salt Lake Tribune, 22 April 2001)
http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/
_____
In the book to which Anderson refers, author Caplan notes, in fact, that U.S. Solicitor General/Mormon Lee (who would eventually become president of BYU) recused himself from the case of Bob Jones v. IRS, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools which practice racial discrimination could be constitutionally stripped of federal tax exempt protection.
Lee, writes Caplan, bowed out of the case because Lee had previously petitioned the IRS for tax exempt refuge in behalf of the racially-discrimnatory Mormon Church. Lee, noted Caplan, begged off because, given his previous advocacy for the color-bound Mormons, he now considered it improper for him to argue in behalf of the IRS against color-bound Bob Jones University.
From Caplan’s book:
”Rex Lee . . . who had been sworn in as Solicitor General seven months before [the Bob Jones brief was filed in 1982], had once represented the Mormon Church when it faced a problem like Bob Jones's and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had taken himself off the case.” (p. 50)
“In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other Blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race . . .
"By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of Blacks attending the school was less than a dozen, making the ratio of whites to blacks about 550 to one.
“From the vantage point of the Solicitor General's office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.” (P. 53)
As one unpersuaded skeptic points out regarding the Mormon Church’s unpersuasive denials over its threatened tax-exempt status:
”If the IRS had never threatened the LDS church's tax exempt status, why was Lee arguing over it and race with the IRS on the Church's behalf?”
Another understandable doubter observed:
"The only thing he [Olsen] stated is that the Church never was 'threatened' by the Government, NOT that the Church wasn't worried that such a thing *could* happen and was watching court rulings [like the one that was occurring in Wisconsin] to see if they could continue discriminating against [Black] members.
"Yes, it is possible to lose tax-exempt status for discrimination--Bob Jones University lost it once for its interracial dating policy."
http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml
_____
An Insider Source Within the Mormon Church Confirmed That Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Helped Drive LDS, Inc. to Abandon Its Anti-Black Priesthood Ban
Writing in their article, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner recount what they discovered concerning the Mormon Church’s tax-driven disavowal of its racist teachings:
”. . . [W]e . . . learned from a source within the [Mormon] Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States.
“In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination.
“The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of their doctrine of discrimination against Blacks. . . .
“[I]t may very well have been the ‘straw that broke the camel's back.’
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” The Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 41, December 1979)
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/black_2.htm
_____
A Reported Warning to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball from U.S. President Jimmy Carter
According to one source, amid mounting pressures for the Mormons to join the 20th century, the Chief Executive of the United States did some arm twisting of his own.
”Kimball's announcement [reversing the LDS anti-Black priesthood ban] coincided with events which were adversely affecting the Mormon Church.
“For a period of time immediately prior to Kimball's declaration, several major universities, had announced that until such time as the Mormon Church reversed its policy of racial discrimination, they would no longer take part in athletic events in which BYU participated.
“More importantly though, approximately two weeks prior to Kimball's surprising declaration, President Jimmy Carter had phoned Kimball and informed him that the IRS was seriously considering removing the Mormon Church's tax exempt status unless changes were made in their policy of discrimination.”
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/txtmormon3.htm
_____
Not-So-Secret Combinations: Consumer Boycotts, Vacation Detours, NAACP Lawsuits, ACLU Threats, Advice from Paid Professional Consultants--and Pressure from the IRS
At the time the Mormon Church relented and reversed its anti-Black doctrine, societal and governmental forces were converging to bring it to its wobbly white and delightsome knees:
” . . . [A]nti-Mormons urged for boycotts of recordings of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the cancellation of vacations to Utah.
“The NAACP initiated several lawsuits against Mormon Boy Scout troops, charging that Church policy was foisting racism on minority Scouts. . . . “
“Several professional consulting firms which the Church had previously hired for other matters suggested to Church leaders that they reconsider the status of Blacks in the Mormon Church as part of a major overhaul of church policy. . . .”
“Worst of all, the IRS suggested that the racial policies of the Mormon Church might justify a suspension of its tax-exempt status.”
(Lorraine Hewlett, “The Second Great Accomodation,” board, 17 June 2004)
http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/
_____
Mike Schreib, pastor of the Pionner Baptist Bible Church in Ontario, California, in an article entitled, “Mormonism: A Religion for Dumb White People,” further lays out the legal hurdles facing a beseiged Mormon Church in danger of taking a haymaker tax hit to the chin:
”In early 1978, the Mormon Church found itself suffering from a massive news media campaign criticizing their attitudes towards blacks and nonwhites. Allegations of discrimination and racism by such groups as the NAACP and ACLU were directed against the LDS Church, and rightly so.
"The Mormon leadership began to sweat.
“If things progressed badly for them, they feared losing large numbers of their members who saw the Church as a White supremacist haven, and were willing to tell the media about it.
"Even worse, they feared losing their federal tax exempt status from the IRS; a loss that would have devastated their financial empire.
“THE SOLUTION[:]
“On June 8, 1978, Mormon President and prophet, Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world a new “Official Declaration” from the Lord.
"Suddenly, he claimed, “...all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR COLOR.” (original emphasis)
http://www.believers.net/english/belief/mormon/mormon.htm
_____
Another skeptic of the Mormon Church’s true motivations in jettisoning its anti-Black doctrine notes that when Kimball announced his “revelation:”
”No indication was given if that ‘revelation’ was prompted by the Church accountants who showed the hierarchy what the tax bill would be and strongly suggested that a revelation would be forthcoming.”
http://prophetsplace.typepad.com/testimony/2005/week37/
_____
The cult monitoring group, “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance” offers a broad overview of the increasing governmental pressures being brought to bear on the Mormon Church to abandon its racist doctrines and practices toward Blacks:
”More federal political pressure was felt by the [Mormon] Church in the 1970s over the Church's institutionalized racism.
"The Pearl of Great Price limited the advancement within the Church by Blacks or by persons with Black ancestors. (Higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, etc.). . . .
“The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened [the] LDS's tax exempt status.
"There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against Afro-Americans.
"Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with Brigham Young University.
"Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of Church businesses and of Utah tourism.
"The Church received a new revelation from God in [June] 1978 . . . which abolished racism within the Church. “
http://www.xploreheartlinks.com/latterdaysaints.htm
Hallelujah!
____
Conclusion: Saving Mormonism's Tax-Exempt Bacon with a Touch of Revelation
The California-based Christian Research Institute Journal sums up the LDS Church’s financially-footed flip-flop on its anti-Black doctrine, in the coldest of cold cash terms.
Writes Latayne C. Scott in “Mormonism and the Question of Truth:”
”LDS leaders . . . perceived threats in both the outcome of a recent court case on racial discrimination and in the possibility of an IRS review of the Church's tax-exempt status.
“So, in a tersely-worded statement (a far cry from earlier revelations, which began with 'Thus saith the Lord') the Church announced that Blacks were suddenly eligible for the priesthood it had denied them for almost 150 years.”
http://www.douknow.net/mormonstruth.htm
_____
Praise the Lord and pass the tax exemption.
| In The Beginning
>In 1969 Hugh B. Brown actively lobbied to allow blacks to receive the priesthood. This was supported by a majority of the apostles. They formed a “special committee was to report on the Negro situation”. The change was approved while Harold B. Lee was absent. Upon his return he rejected the decision and persuaded the quorum to rescind the vote. The reaffirmation of the restriction was a collaborative effort of Neal A. Maxwell, Gordon B. Hinkley and G. Homer Durham. (Michael D. Quinn – Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power p. 14)
The Temple
>For decades Spencer W. Kimball had been troubled about this race restriction. (ibid p. 15) . At the cornerstone-laying ceremony for the Brazilian temple 9 March 1977, Kimball privately told Helvecio Martins to prepare himself to receive the priesthood. He pointedly asked if Martins “understood the implications of what President Kimball had said”.(ibid p.16)
>On March 23, 1978 he began discussing the matter with his counselors. Kimball met privately with individual apostles who expressed their “individual thoughts” about his suggested end to the priesthood ban. (ibid)
>After discussing this in several temple meetings and private discussions, Kimball wrote a statement…. And presented it to his counselors on 30 May. He then asked his counselors and apostles to “fast and pray”……at their temple meeting on 1 June. At the temple council that day “the feeling was unanimous”…. (ibid)
>On 7 June 1978 Kimball informed his counselors that “through inspiration he had decided to lift the restrictions on priesthood.” In the meantime he had asked three apostles (including Boyd K Packer) to prepare “suggested wording for the public announcement of the decision. (ibid)
A letter written to LeGrand Richards on September 11, 1978 corroborates this reason. Chris Vlachos wrote to LeGrand Richards confirming the content of explanations he had been given concerning the revelation. LeGrand Richards acknowledged the letter and in part said “It wouldn’t please me if you were using the information I gave you when you were here in my office for public purposes. I gave it to you for your own information, and that is where I would like to see it remain.”
Here is an excerpt from the letter LeGrand Richards was confirming:
>One of the most interesting items which you mentioned was that the whole situation was basically provoked by the Brazilian temple—that is, the Mormon Church has had a great difficulty obtaining Priesthood leadership among the South American membership; and now with this new temple, a large proportion of those who have contributed money and work to build it would not be able to use it unless the Church changed its stand with regard to giving the Priesthood to Blacks.
>I believe that you also mentioned President Kimball as having called each of the Twelve Apostles individually into his office to hear their personal feelings with regard to this issue. While President Kimball was basically in favor of giving the Priesthood to Blacks, didn’t he ask each of you to prepare some references for and against the proposal as found in the scriptures? (quotes taken from photostatic copies of the letters found in SI Banister – For Any Latter-day Saint)
The Money
The decision was monetary without a doubt. It was also very political. The Mormon Church could easily lose face. The Mormon Church had spent over 50 Million on a complex in what was one of the countries producing the most baptisms. It was the new South American distribution center for all materials. It was also the new regional church offices.
The Mormon Church views temples as profit centers. When a temple is built, they have an identifiable increase in all revenue from the area, and specifically tithing. (Ostling – Mormon America)
There were not enough people with verified ancestry to run the temple, let alone be patrons. Even with the change, missionaries were taken from the field and trained as temple officiators and veil workers to man the temple for the first month it was open. (from personal experience - I was one of the missionaries - verifying proof upon request)
As far as dates, the revelation was made June 1978 and the temple dedication was October 1978. Initial training of workers was held in September. Very tight time frames by Morg standards.
Tax Exemption
Then there is the issue of the tax exempt status. First you must understand that educational nonprofits are treated differently than religious nonprofits. Here is an explanation of how religious nonprofits are treated. (I hold a CPA in the state of Utah and a Masters in Accounting-I will verify this to anyone who cares to email me)
>In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation. They can attack women's freedom to obtain an abortion. They can advocate that special rights be reserved for heterosexuals, and not extended to gays and lesbians, including the right to marry. Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and everyone else are free to engage in hate speech against women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, and other groups. A pastor in Texas recently called on the U.S. Army to round up and execute area Wiccans with napalm. The tax exempt status of his church was not threatened. Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar "hot" religious topics, from spanking children to the death penalty and physician assisted suicide. They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. In the words of the IRS regulations: "no substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." Unfortunately, the term "substantial" is not defined precisely in the service's regulations.
BYU - Ricks - CCH
The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation.
>On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could "no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination." IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not "treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170]." Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, "applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232.
BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.
>On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code. The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination.
>The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above "charitable" concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3). Pp. 592-596.
>The Government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574
Rex Lee recused himself from the case. It has been stated that he did this because he had been previously involved in a discrimination case involving the Mormon Church. I have looked for further information about this, but have not been able to find any. If anyone has information about original source information, please let me know. He had been the dean of the BYU Law School which was one of the schools that would have been affected by the Bob Jones decision. That also would have been a reason to recuse himself. In 1986-87 Rex Lee did argue the CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) case and did not feel it was a conflict.
Other Religious Nonprofits
Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3) Here are a couple of groups that are registered Corporate Soles in the state of Washington and recieving federal tax exempt status. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.
>Harrie A. Schmidt Jr., state chairman of the Populist Party, which is run nationally by Ku Klux Klan leader Kim Badynski.
>Glen Stoll, a Populist Party member who also is involved in the Embassy of Heaven, an anti-government religious organization based in Sublimity, Ore. Stoll was the leader of the Liaison Group, which called for militia members across the Northwest to assist Whatcom County constitutionalist Donald Ellwanger in a 1995 standoff with the IRS.
>Doyal Gudgel, also active in the Liaison Group, but best known for organizing events in Seattle for David Irving, a British man who denies the Holocaust happened.
>Despite huge holes in the secretary of state's database, Lunsford was able to spot about 50 corporation soles associated with white supremacists, militiamen, constitutionalists or people who deny the Holocaust. He discovered some supporters of the Christian Identity, anti-government group Posse Comitatus had set up "soles" as early as 1979.
http://www.skeptictank.org/corpsoul.htm
These are other nonprofits registered for religious purposes:
>The Creativity Movement (TCM) is a non-Christian, non-profit, religious organization, with their head office in Illinois. Creativity, based on the eternal laws of nature. Their prime objective is: "The survival, expansion and advancement of the white race."
>They regard themselves as being motivated by a love for the white race. This implies extreme hatred of non-white races. They are overwhelmingly hate-filled towards Jews, African-Americans, and other non-whites. They hate homosexual behavior. However their concern in this area appears to be muted in comparison to other white-supremacist organizations.
>The Heritage Preservation Association (HPA) is a nonprofit membership group whose purpose is to "fight political correctness and cultural bigotry against the South." To that end, the HPA declared "Total War" last January on those who allegedly attack Southern heritage, focusing especially on the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference because of those groups’ opposition to the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina. Over the last three years, the HPA has worked closely with the white supremacist League of the South to stage pro-Confederate flag rallies and similar events, and in 1999 HPA President P. Charles Lunsford joined the League.
>The NAAWP, like David Duke, has tried to hide its hate, but its racist and anti-Semitic views, like those of its founder, are evident. NAAWP News, the group's newsletter, has regularly published articles with titles like "Anti-Semitism is normal for people seeking to control their own destiny"; "Jewish control of the media is the single most dangerous threat to Christianity," and "Why most Negroes are criminals."
| Almost Down for the Count—The Mormon Church’s Brush with a Federal Knock-Out Punch Over Its Anti-Black Doctrine
What are to be made of reports that, circa 1978, the Mormon Church was in danger of losing its federal tax-exempt status due to its racially-discriminatory
policies targeted against Blacks?
Predictably, true-believing Mormons have never been willing to admit that their Church was at one time had its back against the Internal Revenue Service ropes, where it was close to being stripped of its tax-exempt status due to its anti-Black doctrine--and barely managed to dance away from a federal government knock-out only by abandoning its officially-sanctioned bigotry.
GONG!!
There's the final bell.
Time to examine the scorecard.
_____
The Official Mormon Cult Claim: Alleged Threats of Federal Tax-Exempt Revocation Had Absolutely Nothing To Do with Black Men Belatedly Getting the Priesthood
Speaking for the Mormon Church’s Public Affairs Department in response to accusations about its suspicious reversal of its long-standing anti-Black priesthood doctrine, LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen flatly denied that the Church’s decision to grant priesthood authority to Black men was in any way related
to fear of losing federal tax exempt status.
With a straight face, Olsen asserted:
”It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood.
“We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law.
"In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.”
(Bruce L. Olsen, “Distorted History,” in "Public Forum," Salt Lake Tribune, 5 April 2001)
http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml
_____
(Interestingly enough, a former missionary who served under Olsen-- when the latter was his mission president--made the following observation about both the Mormon Church’s decision to reverse course on Black priesthood and Olsen:
”If it was tax considerations and liberal Jimmy Carter that made the Church abandon institutionalized racism, I can understand why the Church is now so Republican.
”[By the way,] Bruce Olsen was my [mission president] and is a great guy. He does have an impossible job representing the Church on PR issues. Like a Tobacco executive in charge of expounding on the health benefits of tobacco, he has his work cut out for him.”
(“Interesting stuff,” RfM post by “activejackmormon,” 7 February 2006)
_____
Other Mormon apologists have also emphatically denied that the LDS Church was pressured into rescinding its anti-Black
priesthood doctrine by federal officials holding the sword of tax exemption revocation over its white and delightsome head.
Darrick Evenson, for instance, solemnly testified:
”There was really very little external pressure on the Church after 1976 regarding [the Blacks and the priesthood] issue.
“The Church has been very open as to what inspired the Brethren to ask the LORD for a rescinding of the Priesthood ban.
"They claim it was not external or internal pressure, but rather the exceeding faith of the Negro and Mulatto Saints, which inspired them to petition the LORD.” (original emphasis)
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q16.htm
____
Color It Contrary: The Case of Mormon U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee
Reacting to Mormon mouthpiece Olsen’s dubious claims, Gary Anderson, in a letter to the editor of
the Salt Lake Tribune, countered:
"I was quite surprised by LDS PR man Bruce Olsen's attack . . . regarding the Mormon Church's motivations for abandoning its anti-Black doctrine . . . .
“His bold assault is particularly amazing in light of the fact that history ‘distortion’ and ‘invention’ have been trademarks of Mormonism since its inception. Of course, the risk in Mr. Olsen's gallant tossing of the gauntlet is that someone might just pick it up.
“For example, it didn't take much investigation to discover that in 1981 the Solicitor General of the United States, Rex Lee, a Mormon, recused himself from a case against Bob Jones University.
“In that case, the U.S. government was threatening to revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because of its racist policy of prohibiting interracial dating.
"When asked why he took himself off the case, Mr. Lee explained that previously when representing the Mormon church in a similar case, he had
argued that the church should retain its tax-exempt status despite its racist policies and felt conflicted from arguing an opposing view in the Bob Jones case. (see, The Tenth Justice, [by] Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 . . . p. 293).
“If the [Mormon] Church's tax-exempt status was never threatened by the U.S. government because of its racist policies, why was Mr. Lee making such an argument, presumably in an era before 1978?
“Given Lee's explanation, Olsen's ‘categorical’ assertion that federal tax law was never a motivating factor in the church's 1978 change in racial policy rings disingenuous. One thing true history teaches us is that secrecy breeds dishonesty.
“It's fairly easy for Mr. Olsen to hide behind the tightly secured vaults in the Church Office Building and demand proof. If he was a true knight, he would throw open the doors to the vault and invite inquiring minds in to examine the minutes of meetings held by church leaders in the
months and days leading up to the 'revelation,' so we might decide for ourselves the Church's actual motivation for the change.
"What's that you say, Mr. Olsen? Salamander got your tongue?"
(Gary Anderson, Springfield, Virginia, letter to the editor, Salt Lake Tribune, 22 April 2001)
http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/
_____
In the book to which Anderson refers, author Caplan notes, in fact, that U.S. Solicitor General/Mormon Lee (who would eventually become president of BYU) recused himself from the case of Bob Jones v. IRS, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools which practice racial discrimination could be constitutionally stripped of federal tax exempt protection.
Lee, writes Caplan, bowed out of the case because Lee had previously petitioned the IRS for tax exempt refuge in behalf of the racially-discrimnatory
Mormon Church.
Lee, noted Caplan, begged off because, given his previous advocacy for the color-bound Mormons, he now considered it improper for him to argue in behalf of the IRS against color-bound Bob Jones University.
From Caplan’s book:
”Rex Lee . . . who had been sworn in as Solicitor General seven months before [the Bob Jones brief was filed in 1982], had once represented the Mormon Church when it faced a problem like Bob Jones's and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had taken himself off the case.” (p. 50)
“In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other Blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race . . .
"By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of Blacks attending the school was less than a dozen,
making the ratio of whites to blacks about 550 to one.
“From the vantage point of the Solicitor General's office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.” (p. 53)
As one unpersuaded skeptic points out regarding the Mormon Church’s unpersuasive denials over its threatened tax-exempt status:
”If the IRS had never threatened the LDS Church's tax exempt status, why was Lee arguing over it and race with the IRS on the Church's behalf?”
Another understandable doubter observed:
"The only thing he [Olsen] stated is that the Church never was 'threatened' by the Government, NOT that the Church wasn't worried that such a thing *could* happen and was watching court rulings [like the one that was occurring in Wisconsin] to see if they could continue discriminating against [Black] members.
"Yes, it is possible to lose tax-exempt status for discrimination--Bob Jones University lost it once for its
interracial dating policy."
http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml
_____
It should be pointed out here that although Lee recused himself from the Bob Jones case, the reasons why he did so are not universally agreed upon.
As one contributor on the RfM board has noted:
”It has been stated that he did this because he had been previously involved in a discrimination case involving the Mormon Church. . . .
“He [Lee] had been the dean of the BYU Law School which was one of the schools that would have been affected by the Bob Jones decision. That also would have been a reason to recuse himself. In 1986-87 Rex Lee did argue the CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 [1987] case and did not feel it was a conflict.”
(“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,”
nao_crer@yahoo.com, 8 February 2006; and idem, “Re: We do the best we can with the sources currently available,” RfM post, 8 February 2006)
_____
The Issue of Tax-Exempt Status, As Applied to the Mormon Church
In order to understand what was at stake for the Mormon Church in regard to possibly losing its tax-exempt status due to its racial bias against Black men, it is important to understand what kind of tax-exempt protection the LDS Church enjoyed.
Again, reference is made to the same poster most recently quoted. This observer also identifies himself as “hold[ing] a CPA in the state of Utah and a Masters in Accounting,” adding that he received his CPA “in 1981, which is in the same time frame [as the Mormon Church reversal of its anti-Black priesthood doctrine].”
He further observes that “[t]he IRS law concerning non-profit organizations has not substantially changed since the inception.”
He then goes on to explain how
educational non-profit organizations and religious non-profit organizations “are treated differently:”
”In the U.S., the . . . IRS grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit.
“Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation . . . The tax exempt status of [their churches is] not threatened [by doing so].
“Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar ‘hot’ religious topics . . .
“They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation.
“In the words of the IRS regulations:’No substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’
Unfortunately, the term ‘substantial’ is not defined precisely in the Service's regulations.”
(“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” 8 February 2006; and idem, “Corporate Soles—IRS & Bob Jones University,” RfM post, 8 February 2006)
_____
The Mormon Church Had Good Reason to Fear Revocation of Its Federal Tax-Exempt Status, in Light of the Bob Jones Decision
The LDS Church which, as a tax-exempt organization, practiced notorious racial discrimination against Blacks, was most likely notified of the Jones decision by the federal government and would have undoubtedly become concerned about losing its tax-exempt status.
As one contributor observed:
”A lot of tax-exempt organizations were worried during the Bob Jones case about losing their exempt status over discriminatory policies, according to my statutory law professor. . . .
“The Supreme Court decided the Bob Jones case
in the ‘80s, at which point the federal government (under Reagan) was no longer behind the IRS's interpretation of ‘charitable organization’ defined as excluding those promoting bad public policies, like racism, but Bob Jones still lost in the Court.
“The controversy started years before when the IRS sent Bob Jones a notice that they were no longer tax exempt. Whether the Mormon Church received such a notice from the IRS, they would have been well aware of the situation with Bob Jones long before the Supreme Court case, as most non-profits apparently were.”
(“Aphrodite,” RfM post, 7 February 2005)
_____
Indeed, in all probability the Mormon Church was notified by the federal government of the potential ramifications it faced in the wake of the Jones decision:
“The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the U.S. vs. Bob Jones University.
“This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH
[Church College of Hawaii] and other U.S. Mormon-owned schools.
“These schools are organized under separate non-profit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. . . . [T]he Bob Jones University case was directed at educational non-profits. This would have affected the [Mormon Church], but not the core corporation.”
Why, and how, would this have affected the Mormon Church? The answer lies in the tax-exempt status of its privately-owned schools:
”Based on court documents, BYU, CCH, and Ricks were probably notified . . . [since] [t]his affected educational 501(c)(3) organizations.”
How the Bob Jones case, specifically, would have impacted BYU is explained as follows:
”The Bob Jones case was concerning a university and discrimination by the university. BYU is a separate 501(c)(3) corporation and there was a risk of losing its tax exempt status for the same reason
as in the Bob Jones case.
“BYU received government research funds and participated in sporting events governed by the Amature Sports Act. It is an educational non-profit rather than a religious non-profit.”
”Religious organizations are allowed to discriminate. There are early rulings on this, but in 1987 the Mormon Church was directly involved in such a case. In CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), it was affirmed that a religious organizations can discriminate in hiring under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
”Religions have always been able to limit their membership to any group. There are many examples of religious organizations that limit their membership. . . .
”Religions could always do whatever they want as long as they were not taking public money.”
Not only is the Mormon Church a registered 501 (c)(3) organization, it is a racially discriminatory one.
For racist organizations such as
the Mormon Church:
Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3). . . . The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.”
Just how the Bob Jones ruling affected private schools like BYU was made clear in a federal court ruling that denied tax-exempt status to private schools.
These rulings undoubtedly would have given the racially-discriminatory Mormon Church serious pause about its own standing before the federal government on the matter of continued tax-exemption protection:
“On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race.( Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 [1970]).
“Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS
concluded that it could ‘no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.’ ( IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-83, p. A235).
“At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not ‘treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].’ (Ibid) By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, ‘applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education.’” (emphasis added)" (See id., at A232).
“BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.”
Why the Mormon Church, burdened as it was with its anti-Black priesthood doctrine, would have been concerned about losing its federal tax-exempt status was made abundantly clear in the district court’s ruling:
“On June 30, 1971, the three-judge
District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge (Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 [1971]). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code.
“The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination.
”The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education
is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3).( pp. 592-596).
”The government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest pp. 602-604).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574 "
This key information pointing, as it does, to the real vulnerablity Mormon Church-owned private schools faced with regard to having their tax-exempt status removed by the federal government because of the LDS Church's racially discriminatory practices was completely ignored by LDS spokesman Bruce Olsen. Worse still, Olsen grossly misrepresented the facts.
As Olsen's inartful dodging demonstrates, Mormon Church spokesmen are akin to diplomats, in that both are sent forth to lie in behalf of the organizations they represent:
"[Olsen's] . . . quote . . . was consistent with the [Mormon Church's] use of half truth. [His] statement . . . only addressed the Church as a religious organization. He was not addressing the related issue of the Mormon owned schools. [Again, quoting Olsen:]
"'It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood.
"'We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law.' [end quote]
"The [Mormon Church] was not threatened directly; however, their wholly-owned schools were threatened. The financial ramifications in conjunction with the possible political embarrassment made an untenable situation."
(“BYU (Edited),” RfM post by “nao crer,” 7 February 2006; “Educational nonprofits,” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; “What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; and idem, "I appreciate your thanks," RfM post, 9 February 2006)
_____ An Insider Source
Within the Mormon Church Confirmed That Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Helped Drive LDS, Inc. to Abandon Its Anti-Black Priesthood BanWriting in their article, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner recount what they discovered concerning the Mormon Church’s tax-driven disavowal of its racist teachings: ”. . . [W]e . . . learned from a source within the [Mormon] Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States.
“In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination.
“The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of
their doctrine of discrimination against Blacks. . . .
“[I]t may very well have been the ‘straw that broke the camel's back.’” (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” The Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 41, December 1979) http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/black_2.htm_____ A Reported Warning to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball from U.S. President Jimmy CarterAccording to one source, amid mounting pressures for the Mormons to join the 20th century, the Chief Executive of the United States did some arm twisting of his own. ”Kimball's announcement [reversing the LDS anti-Black priesthood ban] coincided with events which were adversely affecting the Mormon Church.
“For a period of time immediately prior to Kimball's declaration, several major universities, had
announced that until such time as the Mormon Church reversed its policy of racial discrimination, they would no longer take part in athletic events in which BYU participated.
“More importantly though, approximately two weeks prior to Kimball's surprising declaration, President Jimmy Carter had phoned Kimball and informed him that the IRS was seriously considering removing the Mormon Church's tax exempt status unless changes were made in their policy of discrimination.”http://www.unlimitedglory.org/txtmormon3.htm_____ Providing possible credence to the claim of a purported phone call from President Carter to President Kimball (in which the former allegedly warned the latter that the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status was in danger of being removed unless it jettisoned its racially discriminatory practice of banning Blacks from the priesthood), are
numerous indicators that a Carter-Kimball line of personal communication did, in fact, already exist around the time that the LDS Church revoked its anti-Black priesthood ban. One piece of tantalizing evidence indicating a close relationship between Carter and Kimball comes from Carter’s White House daily diary entry dated 11 March 1977, in which it is noted that Carter met with Kimball for 21 minutes, although the details of their discussion were not specified. http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/diary/1977/d031177t.pdf_____ A photograph of their White House encounter was actually captured on film. As one observer noted: ”According to the President Carter Library, President Kimball and Jimmy Carter met on 03/11/1977. [T]his would be in the right time frame.
“And a good search revealed the actual
photograph—at lds.org.
http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/images/presidents/SWK_JCarter_4018_14_tn.jpg ”(“According to the President Carter Library,” RfM post by “CLee the Anti-Mormon,” 8 February 2006) _____ Edward Kimball, in his biographical work, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, reports that President Kimball received a phone call from President Carter the same year of their White House meeting: ”In 1977, President Kimball and Marion G. Romney were attending a stake conference in Filmore, Utah. The White House telephone operator tracked President Kimball down and said that President Jimmy Carter wished to speak to him.
“Spencer was at the pulpit speaking, so President Romney took the call. President Carter was preparing to speak at a
Baptist convention about missionary work and asked many questions about the Mormon program: How many missionaries? What salary do they receive? How long do they serve? Where do they come from? Where are they sent? He complimented the Church on an inspired program and asked that he be sent additional information."http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/051110stride.html_____ Five months before the Mormon Church abandoned its priesthood prohibition against Black males, Carter was the invited guest of the LDS Church at a Salt Lake City event celebrating the family. Carter’s participation in those festivities are described on the Mormon Church’s official website: "On 27 January . . . (1978), President Jimmy Carter of the United States was invited by . . . [the Mormon] Church to the All-American Family Week held in Salt Lake City.
“After the meeting, President Carter said that attending the Family Week was a most pleasurable experience for him. He also praised the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for launching the welfare and community services programs. He remarked, ‘If these programmes can be extended to all states in the nation, my job as the president will be much easier.’”http://www.lds.org.hk/english/local_church_history/local_church_html/local_history_8.htm_____ When Kimball eventually announced the Mormon Church’s reversal of its anti-Black priesthood ban, Carter again contacted him, this time by written correspondence. According to the article, “The LDS Church and African-Americans: THE PRIESTHOOD BAN:” “Jimmy Carter, then-president of the United States, wrote President Kimball, ‘I welcome today
your announcement. . . . I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine. This announcement brings a healing spirit to the world and reminds all men and women that they are truly brothers and sisters.’”http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry.htm_____ In the Mormon publication, Meridian Magazine, under the headline, “Hallelujah! The 25th Anniversary of the Revelation on Priesthood,” Maurine Jensen Proctor reports that Carter made this contact with Kimball in order to relay his approval of the Mormon Church’s reversal on its racist ban relative to Black membership in the LDS prie | |
