The 1978 Revelation (official Declaration-2)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thinkings analysis of the ban lift is found wanting in regards to tax exemption, etc.- else the Church will be forced to give all people the chance to hold the priesthood whenever they ask for it, no matter if they join the Church or not, according to the information Thinking has given us.

[erichard]

Maybe we should all vote on who the next prophet should be. And maybe if people were allowed to vote, Blacks would never have gotten the priesthood, considering racism etc., even though God was willing. That is why we have a prophet, and that is why things aren't done by common consent.

I came by my convictions honestly.

The D&C sets itself up as the LAW the church is to live by:

59 Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church;

-- D&C 42

The covenants that are taken in the Temples also places the D&C as the law of the church.

So, by that law:

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

D&C 26

When there is a new President of the church called is there not common consent voting BEFORE he is ordained?

Right, members do not use common consent to choose the President, or the words of the new revelation, etc etc-- but they still are given common consent BEFORE the matter is placed into effect.

See, the point is that God knows He is right, and He makes His will known, but He still gives the right of common consent to those who are expected to accept His will. (Be it new revelation, a person called to an office, or anything). Free agency is always fully respected by God.

But when men do things, claiming they are doing God's will but are not, then they expose themselves by NOT giving those affected the right of common consent BEFORE the matter is acted upon.

Richard

[Deborah]

In 1978... 1978!!!!!! people still had a problem with Blacks holding the priesthood. Many people left the Church because of that. They called President Kimball a "fallen prophet".

In 1978 the parts of the country still had a problem with blacks having equal rights. It wasn't quite as volatile time as the 60's but there was still a long way to go.

For myself I literally shouted for joy when I heard the revelation. I was very happy for those black members I knew who were so faithful.

[Lachoneus]

My understanding is that the Church is also considered a social club.

Your understanding is incorrect. The Church is a 501c(3) organization.

[Thinking]

I'm getting an education here in this thread, but I did find what I was looking for.

501.i.2

Prohibition of discrimination by certain social clubs...a club which in good faith limits its membership to the members of a particular religion in order to further the teachings or principles of that religion, and not to exclude individuals of a particular race or color.

The priesthood would be the club and note that it says nothing about gender, only race.

[jadams_4242]

[quote name=

Usually, posters here who have problems with the 'timing' of revelations only point to the lifting of the priesthood ban and the recinding of polygamy as 'proof' that revelations to prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not revelations but 'proof' that the Church has been nagged to death by the world.

In my opinion, the Lord will give revelations when He feels it is necessary. Based on His knowledge of the world and His saints and His plan for the overall redemption of as many of His children as possible. He knows how long trials and hardships need to be for each of us individually and all of us a whole.

OH My word! you said it very nicely!

[Pahoran]

I'm getting an education here in this thread, but I did find what I was looking for.

501.i.2

Prohibition of discrimination by certain social clubs...a club which in good faith limits its membership to the members of a particular religion in order to further the teachings or principles of that religion, and not to exclude individuals of a particular race or color.

The priesthood would be the club and note that it says nothing about gender, only race.

You are missing the point again, again. Section 501i refers only to "certain social clubs," i.e. those organisations described at 501c(7), which the Church, being a 501c(3) organisation, is not.

Do you persist in describing the Church and its key organisations as mere "social clubs" merely to provoke, or can you really not tell the difference?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

You are missing the point again, again. Section 501i refers only to "certain social clubs," i.e. those organisations described at 501c(7), which the Church, being a 501c(3) organisation, is not.

Pahoran, take a deep breath and understand that it's possible to fall into more than one category. For example, I am a husband, father, brother, son, friend, foe, Dodger fan, Laker fan, U.S. citizen, teacher, coach, etc. It's true that the Church is a 501c3 organization, but the priesthood is an organization within the church which could fall into the 501i category.

...a club which in good faith limits its membership to the members of a particular religion in order to further the teachings or principles of that religion, and not to exclude individuals of a particular race or color.

Do you persist in describing the Church and its key organisations as mere "social clubs" merely to provoke, or can you really not tell the difference?

I never used the word "mere" but was only trying to show how the statute could have been used by the government to pressure the Church to change its policy.

Now before you cry CFR, you know that the Church leaders often have private meetings with political leaders when they visit SLC. The content of those meetings is not released to the public. Do you think they are just talking about the weather?

[Lachoneus]

I'm getting an education here in this thread, but I did find what I was looking for.

501.i.2

Prohibition of discrimination by certain social clubs...a club which in good faith limits its membership to the members of a particular religion in order to further the teachings or principles of that religion, and not to exclude individuals of a particular race or color.

The priesthood would be the club and note that it says nothing about gender, only race.

Your education is seriously lacking.

Section 501(i) is entirely irrelevant to the Church's tax exempt status. The Church is a 501(c )(3) organization. Your argument that the Church was about to lose its tax exempt status in 1978 is entirely incorrect.

[Lachoneus]

. . . understand that it's possible to fall into more than one category. For example, I am a husband, father, brother, son, friend, foe, Dodger fan, Laker fan, U.S. citizen, teacher, coach, etc. It's true that the Church is a 501c3 organization, but the priesthood is an organization within the church which could fall into the 501i category.

It is obvious that you do not understand the first thing about tax law in the United States. An organization must apply for tax exempt status. The organization does so by submitting an application to be considered tax exempt under one of the 501(c ) categories. That the organization could be considered to be tax exempt under more than one category is irrelevant. What is relevant is which category does it claim for itself and does the IRS agree with that claim. The Church is a 501(c )(3) organization. That it might also be tax exempt under another category is entirely irrelevant. The Church has never applied for tax exempt status under 501(c )(7). The priesthood has never applied for tax exempt status under any category. Your argument makes no sense.

[Scott Gordon]

I have talked with some people who are in-the-know about the decision and what lead up to it. The tax exempt status, or pressure is simply a myth that won't die. By 1978, most people had simply given up on pressuring the church to make a change. In 1978, things were very quiet. rumors to the contrary are simply an urban legend.

Also, it is correct to say that the 501©7 laws had no influence on the church. It is a 501©3 organization.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, take a deep breath and understand that it's possible to fall into more than one category. For example, I am a husband, father, brother, son, friend, foe, Dodger fan, Laker fan, U.S. citizen, teacher, coach, etc. It's true that the Church is a 501c3 organization, but the priesthood is an organization within the church which could fall into the 501i category.

It's not a "social club." It isn't incorporated as any kind of "club." It has no income stream and holds no property to be taxed. It is not a body independent of the Church whose members just happen to be Latter-day Saints. It is an organic division of the Church itself.

I never used the word "mere" but was only trying to show how the statute could have been used by the government to pressure the Church to change its policy.

And as Lachoneus has explained, you were imagining something that has no basis in law.

Now before you cry CFR, you know that the Church leaders often have private meetings with political leaders when they visit SLC. The content of those meetings is not released to the public. Do you think they are just talking about the weather?

So the lack of evidence is evidence, is that it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

A new low for thought on this board occurred in this thread.

[Corky Wallace]

In a different thread a TBM poster derided humanism as being a decidedly inferior method of advancing morality (or words to that general effect).

On the issue at hand in this thread, it is a striking irony that revelation-based Mormonism was so far behind humanism.

For that matter, the Quakers & Mennonites were some 200 years ahead of the Lord's official church on earth in taking - and sticking with - very controversial public stances related to race in what would become the United States of America.

One curious phenomenon seen in this thread - and in informal conversations with many LDS - is an apparent celebration (sigh of relief?) that racial equality was now officially theologically supported by the Lord!

Better late than never - welcome to the party!

[Thinking]

The following quotes are excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court Case,

BOB JONES UNIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES

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

[Thinking]

The Lord often makes revelations based on the situation His people find themselves in.

- Noah comes to mind. The Lord wouldn't have to have had Noah prophesy about the Flood if the world wasn't ready for it.

- Moses and the whole process of leaving Egypt. If the Pharaoh had been a more righteous man, the plagues wouldn't have been necessary.

Let's see ... who else?

- Peter getting the "gospel to all Gentiles" revelation. Hmmm. Why did Jesus wait until *after* He was resurrected and assended into heaven to tell Peter this?

- How about Jonah who got one revelation and then was peeved because it didn't happen when the people repented? How could the Lord be so influenced by society?

None of these examples changed the doctrine of the Church.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

One curious phenomenon seen in this thread - and in informal conversations with many LDS - is an apparent celebration (sigh of relief?) that racial equality was now officially theologically supported by the Lord!

[...]

You're kidding right? It was always theologically supported by the L-rd. Do we really need to get into the scriptures (both Biblical and uniquely LDS)?

[LifeOnaPlate]

None of these examples changed the doctrine of the Church.

earlier: Do not preach to the Gentiles.

later: Preach to the Gentiles.

This is a comparable instance in church history. It demonstrates a procedural change.

Whether ot not speculation on the "why" is a matter of concern, that's up to you. Still, a parallel exists.

[Lachoneus]

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

[California]

In 1978 the parts of the country still had a problem with blacks having equal rights. It wasn't quite as volatile time as the 60's but there was still a long way to go.

For myself I literally shouted for joy when I heard the revelation. I was very happy for those black members I knew who were so faithful.

I see what you're saying, but there's no excuse for those who didn't "shout for joy". and that's my point exactly, it was the membership holding back progress, not God.

[TAK]

I have talked with some people who are in-the-know about the decision and what lead up to it. The tax exempt status, or pressure is simply a myth that won't die. By 1978, most people had simply given up on pressuring the church to make a change. In 1978, things were very quiet. rumors to the contrary are simply an urban legend.

Also, it is correct to say that the 501

[AndyOne]

"Of course, that did them no good because they were still limiting admission based on race ..."

Lachoneus - are you sure that's what they were doing?

[Thinking]

That the organization could be considered to be tax exempt under more than one category is irrelevant. What is relevant is which category does it claim for itself and does the IRS agree with that claim. The Church is a 501(c )(3) organization. That it might also be tax exempt under another category is entirely irrelevant. The Church has never applied for tax exempt status under 501(c )(7). The priesthood has never applied for tax exempt status under any category. Your argument makes no sense.

You argued yourself right out of the argument, and you call yourself a lawyer.

By your own argument, "what is relevant is which category does it claim for itself and does the IRS agree with that claim." Do you really want to keep your head in the sand and think that the brethren were going to wait to see if the IRS was going to go after the Church also?

You do know what a precedent is? The fact that the "priesthood" never applied for tax-exempt status by itself

would not stop the IRS from seeing the Church as the umbrella organization with all these other organizations beneath it.

Probably not. I was in law school at that time and remember discussing the matter with other law students and that someone wrote a law review article on the case, but I doubt the Brethren paid it much attention.

Yeah, you're probably correct. That fact that a religious institution just lost its tax-exempt status is definitely nothing.

Bob Jones claimed exempt status under 501(c )(3) as an educational organization. When that was challenged, they tried to argue that they were also a religious organization. Of course, that did them no good because they were still limiting admission based on race, something BYU does not do.

Again, think of the Church as an umbrella organization. The IRS was setting precedents by revoking tax-exempt status of religious organizations by reinterpreting the tax code. You do know what "reinterpret" means? Remember, "what is relevant is which category does it claim for itself and does the IRS agree with that claim."

[Pahoran]

You argued yourself right out of the argument, and you call yourself a lawyer.

By your own argument, "what is relevant is which category does it claim for itself and does the IRS agree with that claim." Do you really want to keep your head in the sand and think that the brethren were going to wait to see if the IRS was going to go after the Church also?

What grounds would the IRS have had to "go after the Church?" They were obliged to go after Bob Jones because of a court decision regarding universities and their admissions policies. The Church is not a university, and BYU never had a "racial admission policy."

You do know what a precedent is? The fact that the "priesthood" never applied for tax-exempt status by itself

would not stop the IRS from seeing the Church as the umbrella organization with all these other organizations beneath it.

Do you know what "tax" is? How do you tax something that (1) holds no property, (2) has no income, and (3) isn't even any kind of legal entity? There is simply no way to tax the Priesthood.

And do you know what a precedent is? Precedents established by statutory bodies become binding upon them. A church is a church is a church. How could the IRS legally "go after" the Church of Jesus Christ without being legally obligated to likewise "go after" a whole bunch of "black" churches, thus rattling a lot of PC cages?

Yeah, you're probably correct. That fact that a religious institution just lost its tax-exempt status is definitely nothing.

You really aren't very good at thinking, are you "thinking?" BJU was not a "religious institution." It was an educational institution that claimed a religious justification for what it was doing; but it had claimed, and was granted, tax exemption because it was an educational institution and nothing else.

I'm sure you'd love it if governments had that kind of power to interfere in religious institutions, but nobody who values freedom desires such a thing.

Again, think of the Church as an umbrella organization. The IRS was setting precedents by revoking tax-exempt status of religious organizations by reinterpreting the tax code. You do know what "reinterpret" means? Remember, "what is relevant is which category does it claim for itself and does the IRS agree with that claim."

Which has been settled. The IRS has agreed with the fact that the Church is, well, a church.

Which is such a no-brainer that even you should be able to get it.

"Umbrella organization" is a useless descriptor when discrete institutions such as BYU--which had no racially based admissions policy and no rules against interracial dating--file separate tax returns.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

You really aren't very good at thinking, are you "thinking?" BJU was not a "religious institution." It was an educational institution that claimed a religious justification for what it was doing; but it had claimed, and was granted, tax exemption because it was an educational institution and nothing else.

What part of this don't you understand?

Cut the condescension, Thinking.

And there have been a lot of CFRs in this thread, which you seem to be ignoring. If you make an empirically testable claim (such as the impact of the Civil Rights Act or the Tax Code on the LDS Church), you need to be prepared to support it. So start coughing up the evidence.

~Mods

Bob Jones University also argues that the IRS policy should not apply to it, because it is entitled to exemption under