39 replies to this topic

[Aquilifer]

I've seen the accusation thrown out on the internet, especially in this "Mormon Moment" we seem to be enjoying, that the true reason for rescinding the Priesthood Ban was that the Carter Administration was leaning on the IRS to revoke the Church's tax exempt status on the grounds of its racist policies.  This accusation is usually tied to an implication that the Church simply molds its doctrines to politically-motivated situations, and/or that we're still just a bunch of closet racists who changed our public tune out in our greed to hoard what would otherwise be taxed.

I've never seen a source for this accusation.  I'm neither a tax attorney nor an accountant, but I can't see how the IRS could possibly be justify such an action without some serious church/state separation issues.  Yes, I'm aware that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status during this time frame due to its policy of no interracial dating by students, but there's a difference between going after the tax exempt status of a private religious university versus an actual church (and SCOTUS explicitly based its decision on the interest of ending racial discrimination in education).  So if BYU had any discriminatory policies (and I'm not aware that it did), it would have been been in some trouble.  But the Church itself?

Long story short, does anyone know of any basis to this accusation, or is it up there with the "Church owns Pepsi" internet rumor?

[calmoriah]

For the specific claim:

http://en.fairmormon..._the_Priesthood

Quote

MormonThink says...
The Church has maintained that the 1978 revelation giving blacks the priesthood was not due to any form of public pressure but was simply God's will that blacks should not be given the priesthood until 1978. ..... In early 1978, the U.S. Department of Justice threatens to end the Church's tax-exempt status if it continues to "ban" black Mormons from its temples and priesthood; without such a tax-exempt-status the Church would lose billions of dollars every year. [note:MormonThink can neither confirm nor deny that this event happened but it is mentioned by many critics. This rumor has never been confirmed nor denied by former President Jimmy Carter, who refuses to comment on it according to someone that claims to have written JC numerous times. Also a poster on RFM stated "President Carter referenced his call in his latest book containing the day to day schedule of the President." Again, we at MormonThink cannot confirm or deny this statement.]

Some actual info
http://www.blacklds.org/history

Quote

IRS Denies Tax-Exempt Status to Some Private Schools
In July the IRS concluded, based upon a January ruling by the District Court for the District of Columbia, that it could “no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status to private schools which practice racial discrimination.” (IRS News Release, July 7, 1970) In a letter dated November 30, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in the earlier litigation, of this change in policy, “applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education.” (The decision was relative to discrimination in admissions, so would not have been applicable to private LDS schools, which had no discriminatory policies in place relative to admissions.)

Quote

Jimmy Carter’s Church Changes Policy on Black Members
After Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States, his church in Plains, Georgia, changed its policy concerning the admittance of black members after protests were made.

[Weston Krogstadt]

Aquilifer, on 27 June 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I've seen the accusation thrown out on the internet, especially in this "Mormon Moment" we seem to be enjoying, that the true reason for rescinding the Priesthood Ban was that the Carter Administration was leaning on the IRS to revoke the Church's tax exempt status on the grounds of its racist policies.  This accusation is usually tied to an implication that the Church simply molds its doctrines to politically-motivated situations, and/or that we're still just a bunch of closet racists who changed our public tune out in our greed to hoard what would otherwise be taxed.

I've never seen a source for this accusation.  I'm neither a tax attorney nor an accountant, but I can't see how the IRS could possibly be justify such an action without some serious church/state separation issues.  Yes, I'm aware that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status during this time frame due to its policy of no interracial dating by students, but there's a difference between going after the tax exempt status of a private religious university versus an actual church (and SCOTUS explicitly based its decision on the interest of ending racial discrimination in education).  So if BYU had any discriminatory policies (and I'm not aware that it did), it would have been been in some trouble.  But the Church itself?

Long story short, does anyone know of any basis to this accusation, or is it up there with the "Church owns Pepsi" internet rumor?

The church doesn't own Pepsi!?!

[Aquilifer]

Thanks.  Yet more unfounded internet rumor and speculation!     I just found whispers like this on exLDS sites and message boards.  Nothing substantial.

Weston Krogstadt, on 27 June 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

The church doesn't own Pepsi!?!

Regrettably...no.  Otherwise I'd demand a discount on Mountain Dew in exchange for my tithing!  

[CASteinman]

There was no such threat to the Church.  In fact, the decision that very year that took away Bob Jones Tax Exempt status very specifically said that the decision did NOT apply to Churches.  They went way out of their way in the decision to make that point clear.  Churches are considered protected.

[treehugger]

CASteinman, on 27 June 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

There was no such threat to the Church.  In fact, the decision that very year that took away Bob Jones Tax Exempt status very specifically said that the decision did NOT apply to Churches.  They went way out of their way in the decision to make that point clear.  Churches are considered protected.

What year?
and
What decision?

[treehugger]

Aquilifer, on 27 June 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I've seen the accusation thrown out on the internet, especially in this "Mormon Moment" we seem to be enjoying, that the true reason for rescinding the Priesthood Ban was that the Carter Administration was leaning on the IRS to revoke the Church's tax exempt status on the grounds of its racist policies.  This accusation is usually tied to an implication that the Church simply molds its doctrines to politically-motivated situations, and/or that we're still just a bunch of closet racists who changed our public tune out in our greed to hoard what would otherwise be taxed.

I've never seen a source for this accusation.  I'm neither a tax attorney nor an accountant, but I can't see how the IRS could possibly be justify such an action without some serious church/state separation issues.  Yes, I'm aware that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status during this time frame due to its policy of no interracial dating by students, but there's a difference between going after the tax exempt status of a private religious university versus an actual church (and SCOTUS explicitly based its decision on the interest of ending racial discrimination in education).  So if BYU had any discriminatory policies (and I'm not aware that it did), it would have been been in some trouble.  But the Church itself?

Long story short, does anyone know of any basis to this accusation, or is it up there with the "Church owns Pepsi" internet rumor?

This all make for a nice argument for those who hasten to follow conspiracies - the concept boils down to simple math 1 + ??? = 2. Some demand that Occam's razor controls and therefore the missing part of the solution is 1. However, the missing part could be various combinations. Given the Occams mindset, conspirators have little qualms with saying that the public new that Bob Jones was under suit, and it did not look good for them in 1978, so therefore, the LDS Church Leadership was worried and acted before the Church received a revocation letter.

[calmoriah]

treehugger, on 27 June 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

What year?
and
What decision?

See my post.

[calmoriah]

treehugger, on 27 June 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Given the Occams mindset, conspirators have little qualms with saying that the public new that Bob Jones was under suit, and it did not look good for them in 1978, so therefore, the LDS Church Leadership was worried and acted before the Church received a revocation letter.

Well, if one is using Occam's razor then wouldn't one take into account that the Bob Jones situation was not the same as the LDS?

[treehugger]

calmoriah, on 27 June 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

See my post.

Does either one of the links you provide address CAsteinman claim?

[calmoriah]

Nope, just pointing toward it so you can take the info you asked about and run with it as far as you want.

[treehugger]

calmoriah, on 27 June 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Nope, just pointing toward it so you can take the info you asked about and run with it as far as you want.

I figured it would not be worth the effort to visit those links, thank you for the confirmation.

[calmoriah]

Not for any additional information about those specific issues as I copied all they said about them and simply meant the links as citations, but if you haven't visited blacklds.org I would encourage you to do so.  It is a wonderful site.

Edited by calmoriah, 27 June 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[Thinking]

The following quotes are excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court Case, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES

http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=461&invol=574

Bob Jones University had lost its tax-exempt status in 1976 and was appealing to the U.S Supreme Court.

Quote

Until 1970, the Internal Revenue Service granted tax-exempt status to private schools, without regard to their racial admissions policies, under section 501.c.3 of the Internal Revenue Code...

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...

Thereafter, in July, 1970, the IRS concluded that it could "no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status...to private schools which practice racial discrimination."...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."

As a private school, BYU would have received this letter.

Quote

On January 19, 1976, the IRS officially revoked the University's tax exempt status...

Do you  think that the brethren were paying attention when BJU lost its tax-exempt status?

This is the part that shows that the Church (or part of it) could fall into more than one category.

Quote

Bob Jones University also argues that the IRS policy should not apply to it, because it is entitled to exemption under section 501.c.3 as a "religious" organization, rather than as an "educational" institution. The record in this case leaves no doubt, however, that Bob Jones University is both an educational institution and a religious institution.

[CASteinman]

treehugger, on 27 June 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

What year?
and
What decision?

My mistake.  I thought it was the same year.  It was 1976 not 1978 as I thought.  But I was referring to the Church's decision to provide the Priesthood to all worthy male members.

[calmoriah]

Thinking, on 27 June 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

As a private school, BYU would have received this letter.

What racial discrimination did BYU practice?  What school policy was specific to race?

[Pahoran]

Thinking, on 27 June 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

The following quotes are excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court Case, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES

http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=461&invol=574

Bob Jones University had lost its tax-exempt status in 1976 and was appealing to the U.S Supreme Court.

As a private school, BYU would have received this letter.

And in what way did BYU "practice racial discrimination," whether in its admission policy or otherwise, and what relationship, if any, did or could the Priesthood ban have had to anything the Y was doing?

Thinking, on 27 June 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Do you  think that the brethren were paying attention when BJU lost its tax-exempt status?

This is the part that shows that the Church (or part of it) could fall into more than one category.

No, it doesn't.  It shows that BJU wasn't able to use its religious connections to shield it from its obligations as a school.

I'm sure you called yourself "Thinking" for a reason.  When do you plan to start applying some?

Regards,
Pahoran

You are out of the thread.

[treehugger]

CASteinman, on 27 June 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

My mistake.  I thought it was the same year.  It was 1976 not 1978 as I thought.  But I was referring to the Church's decision to provide the Priesthood to all worthy male members.

As a matter of legal history, a District court did uphold the revocation of Bob Jones tax exemption in 1978. The United States Supreme Court did not rule on the matter till the 80's, and in that ruling the Court addressed the issue from a general view of tax exemption and not from a educational institution v. a strictly religious institution.

Though I certainly hope, a court somewhere has made the distinction between Churches (generic term) and Schools/Colleges/Universities. I fear the time is not far distant when the reasoning from Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) will be used to revoke tax exemption of Formal Religious organizations.

Edited by treehugger, 27 June 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

I'd say it's an open question whether the IRS could have constitutionally revoked a church's excempt status on the basis of racial discrimination. But I  think it is absolutely clear based on the historical record that this is not why the LDS Church actually changed its policy. And even if the IRS could have revoked the tax exempt status of a church, it probably wouldn't have. The IRS doesn't historically like to mess with churches, even if they flagrantly violate the rules.

[Thinking]

Pahoran, on 27 June 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

And in what way did BYU "practice racial discrimination," whether in its admission policy or otherwise, and what relationship, if any, did or could the Priesthood ban have had to anything the Y was doing?

Pahoran, on 27 June 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

It shows that BJU wasn't able to use its religious connections to shield it from its obligations as a school.

Exactly. Don’t connections run both ways?

The IRS changed its policy in 1970, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the BYU/LDS Church relationship was not identical to BJU v. US, there was a racial element that the IRS could have used to try to change its policy again.

Edited by Thinking, 28 June 2012 - 07:05 AM.