1978 And The Irs

[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?

[Calm]

For the specific claim:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Blacks_and_the_Priesthood

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

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.)

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Calm]

What year?

and

What decision?

See my post.

[Calm]

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]

See my post.

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

[Calm]

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

[treehugger]

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.

[Calm]

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 June 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

[Calm]

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

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

[Pahoran]

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?

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]

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 June 28, 2012 by treehugger

[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]

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?

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 June 28, 2012 by Thinking

[Cobalt-70]

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

The question I have is this: we know that normally, LDS BYU faculty are required to hold temple recommends. Prior to 1978, black men and women could not obtain temple recommends. Was there some special procedure in place for (possibly hypothetical) black LDS faculty of BYU, so that they could work at BYU without having a temple recommend? Maybe the issue never came up. Does anybody know when BYU hired its first black faculty member?

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

I was there in the mid 70's. I didn't have any black professors, and didn't know of any. That doesn't mean there weren't. I just didn't know of any.

[Aquilifer]

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.

Which is why I raised the case in the OP.

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

Would it have? What racially discriminatory policies did BYU itself practice? I'm not trying to be defensive, I genuinely don't know. There's a distinction between a university operated by a church with discriminatory beliefs, and a university that actually practices discrimination. I do know that you're arguing facts not in evidence if you state that BYU "would have" received the same letter BJU did, which is exactly why I raised the question. I'm trying to cut through the inferences, assumptions, and speculations I've seen on this to see if there's any actual evidence that the IRS was taking a look at the Church.

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

Perhaps. But SCOTUS didn't rule on it until 5 years after the Priesthood Ban ended, so any implicit causation isn't apparent to me. The Church isn't exactly known for preemptively changing the way it does things in the event things don't go its way in court (see Reynolds v. United States, employment cases, etc.)

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

That's the response to BJU's attempt to use its religious status as a shield, and certainly BYU would have had the same problem if the IRS had been after it (again, there's been no evidence of this provided so far). But it wouldn't have affected the Church itself. So the argument is, at best, that the Church removed the ban to avoid BYU losing its tax exemption, not to avoid loss of its own tax exemption. Is that true? Any evidence that this was a concern to the First Presidency? If so, was this enough of a threat to rethink the ban as a whole? My suspicion is that the Church would allow BYU to lose tax exempt status rather than allow external pressure to force a change.

[Thinking]

The Church isn't exactly known for preemptively changing the way it does things in the event things don't go its way in court (see Reynolds v. United States, employment cases, etc.)

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for…any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop?...I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done.(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

[thesometimesaint]

Thinking:

That was after all the legal wrangling was done.