The 1978 Revelation (official Declaration-2)

[why me]

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."

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?

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.

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

I am afraid Pahoran that your posts will get short shift from the critics. What you are saying does not want to be heard. The same happened to scott gordon and his post. Logic is not in operation at times when a critics thought process is concerned. They the critic wish to make a point and regardless of the member comeback, the comeback will usually come up short in the critic mind.

Perhaps the critic posters are somewhat playing with you. You make sense to me as did scott.

[Pahoran]

What part of this don't you understand?

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

[phaedrus ut]

In 1981 when Rex Lee(fmr Pres. of BYU) was Solicitor General of the United States the case against Bob Jones University's tax exempt status came up. Rex Lee recused himself from a case stating that 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, Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, page 51, note 2 on page 293)

If the tax-exempt status for the church was never an issue why would Rex Lee say he had made the very same arguement when representing the church?

Phaedrus

[Pahoran]

In 1981 when Rex Lee(fmr Pres. of BYU) was Solicitor General of the United States the case against Bob Jones University's tax exempt status came up. Rex Lee recused himself from a case stating that 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, Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, page 51, note 2 on page 293)

If the tax-exempt status for the church was never an issue why would Rex Lee say he had made the very same arguement when representing the church?

Phaedrus

From what you have told us, it appears that it was a settled issue by the time the BJU case came along--note the past participle. From your synopsis, I would hazard a guess that Lee felt that the defense could potentially embarrass the prosecution by trying to cite the former case as a precedent.

Regards,

Pahoran

[phaedrus ut]

From what you have told us, it appears that it was a settled issue by the time the BJU case came along--note the past participle. From your synopsis, I would hazard a guess that Lee felt that the defense could potentially embarrass the prosecution by trying to cite the former case as a precedent.

From the language it does seem be speaking of a settled matter. Considering that the Church didn't have "racist policies" in 1981. However it also does imply that the church's tax exempt status was at question at one time because Lee argued on behalf of the church in the matter. Whether the case was settled on its own merits or the issue became irrelevant because of the 1978 revelation I don't know.

Phaedrus

[smac97]

Thinking,

I have heard many times that the Lord does things in "His own due time." Was the lifting of the priesthood ban done in the Lord's own due time, or were outside influences involved?

And these two options are necessarily mutually exclusive...why?

Is there a record of a revelation which disqualifies blacks from being ordained to the priesthood?

Not to my knowledge. I'll defer to others more knowledgable that I am on that point.

Was the "priesthood ban" ever presented at General Conference and accepted unanimously?

Not to my knowledge. I'll defer to others more knowledgable that I am on that point, too.

I still remember 1978, the year I graduated from Jr. High School. Spencer W. Kimball announced that he had received a revelation which extended priesthood blessings to all worthy males. Being a teenager and naive to what was really going on in the world, I never heard about the legal issues which the Church faced as a result of its policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood.

So you can, I assume, present evidence that these "legal issues" were in the offing, right?

Let's have 'em.

Civil Rights Act?

Okay, I'll play. Please explain what part of the Civil Rights Act was violated by the LDS Church's priesthood restrictions.

Chapter and verse, please.

Section 501c of the IRS Code?

Same request as above.

Of course the Church denies any outside influence,

It does? References, please.

but it was in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status because 501c forbade discrimination based on race.

References, please.

You've made a lot of assertions without evidence, Thinking. Time to pony up.

Lachoneus: Really? Please show me where section 501c says that. Section 501c Thanks.

My apologies. 501c just lists what kind of groups may qualify for tax exempt status.

So you're citing statutes without even being aware of their actual content.

Is that right?

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

CFR.

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.

CFR.

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

It lost its tax-exempt status because it had race-based admissions policies.

To my knowledge, BYU has never had race-based admissions policies. If I am in error, please correct me (with references, of course).

As a private school, BYU would have received this letter, so it would be impossible for the Church to not follow this case.

Utter bilge. BYU is not the Church. The Church is not BYU.

And neither of them were affected by the BJU case.

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

Do you have any evidence that they were?

Do you have any evidence that they, having been made aware of the case, did anything in response to it?

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

[Deborah]

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!

It was never a question of racial equality. The Priesthood is a separate issue and has been from the beginning when various groups throughout time were not allowed to hold certain Priesthood offices.

[Corky Wallace]

Deborah:

It was never a question of racial equality. The Priesthood is a separate issue and has been from the beginning when various groups throughout time were not allowed to hold certain Priesthood offices.

Is this supposed to be a serious answer?

If institution X has a policy that explicitly restricts people of ethnic group Y, how can that be viewed as anything other than racial discrimination?

[RayR]

A couple of thoughts from a newbie.

Firstly on the subject of timing of ordinations of Prophets etc and common consent. The point raised a page or two back is erronious. Appointment to the First Presidency is not dependent on a "vote" of the congrgeation. These days the First Presidency is reorganised as soon as is practical after the passing of the previous prophet,

From this year's priesthood manual:

"1973, December 26

President Harold B. Lee dies.

1973, December 30

Becomes President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with President N. Eldon Tanner as First Counselor and President Marion G. Romney as Second Counselor in the First Presidency. "

Similarly with President Hinckley,

"Consequently, on Sunday, March 12, President Gordon B. Hinckley, as President of the Twelve, called a meeting of Quorum members, each of whom individually holds in trust all of the keys of the priesthood of God on earth. They met to reorganize the First Presidency. They then ordained and set apart President Gordon B. Hinckley as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Thomas S. Monson acting as voice.:" April 1995 Ensign

The vote of the solemn assembly is a ratification of the preceding ordination not an authourisation. It binds the membership to actually sustain the Prophet by their actions as much as it ratifies his calling.

So, thats my first point.

Secondly, with respect to the litigation involving Rex Lee prior to his role as Solicitor General. There is an assumption in the question that he was defending the Church against the IRS. However it is equally possible, if not probable, that Brother Lee was defending the Church against a vexatious suit brought by any number of digruntled opponents of the Church. Such suits are not an uncommon method of disrupting the life of the church and as with most vexatious suits are brought not with any true foundation in law but with the intent of a) gaining publicity and disrupting the church. That there never was a ruling against the Church in respect to its taxation status would seem obvious.

Finally on a personal note. As one living in a country containing many people of colour though few of African descent, the overwhelming response to the announcment of this revelation was one of joy that finally everyone was eligible for the priesthood and temple blessings.

[Thinking]

In the absence of any "direct" evidence (memo, video clip, etc.), I must concede there is no proof that the LDS Church caved in to political pressure with respect to the negro and the priesthood. Actually, I should have expected the response that I got because even though there was political pressure in 1890, the Church maintains that it was a revelation and not the government which directed the polygamy ban.

The articles I found which quoted an inside source kept the identity of the source secret. Since it's impossible to question an anonymous source, there's no way to prove the veracity of the source's claim. So we can all leave this discussion with differing opinions.

I believe, however, that one of my original questions was never fully answered.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in Godâ??s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

Which "prophets" made these promises, and what are the references?

[J Green]

In the absence of any "direct" evidence (memo, video clip, etc.), I must concede there is no proof that the LDS Church caved in to political pressure with respect to the negro and the priesthood. Actually, I should have expected the response that I got because even though there was political pressure in 1890, the Church maintains that it was a revelation and not the government which directed the polygamy ban.

Many of the revelations recorded in scripture (both ancient and modern) are the result of prophets querying the Lord about current pressures from their time period. What characterized these servants of the Lord in any age was their willingness to follow the Lord's direction for their unique circumstance, no matter the consequence. In some cases, the answer was to stand firm, in others to leave, and still in others to modify a practice due to the influence. However this case may fit into the picture, I still feel you are trying to cherry-pick instances that would characterize the Church's actions as always typifying the latter to demonstrate that it is not revelation that guides their actions but the winds of social pressure. This is disengenuous because it consciuosly ignores the other patterns in scripture (ancient and modern) and church history where they either stood firm (giving their very lives) or just simply picked up and left (time and again), also based on revelation about the same kinds of social/outside pressure. Someone who looks at a multi-colored mosaic and ignores the reds and greens, focusing like a pit bull on the orange as representative of the whole picture would usually be ignored. By overlooking the other patterns that are just as strong, you have fallen into the same error, which ranks somewhere between getting involved in a land war in Asia and crossing a Sicilian when death is on the line.

I believe, however, that one of my original questions was never fully answered.

Which "prophets" made these promises, and what are the references?

I think Elder McConkie's talk on the subject here gives some of these references for you, including both ancient and modern prophets.

Regards

[koakaipo]

1)In the absence of any "direct" evidence (memo, video clip, etc.), I must concede there is no proof that the LDS Church caved in to political pressure with respect to the negro and the priesthood. Actually, I should have expected the response that I got because even though there was political pressure in 1890, the Church maintains that it was a revelation and not the government which directed the polygamy ban.

I believe, however, that one of my original questions was never fully answered.

2)Which "prophets" made these promises, and what are the references?

1) How people process the revelation is all over the map though in the church. Some see the initiation of the ban as not inspired, but the need to lift as inspired. Some think both the initiation and lifting was inspired. Thos two different takes lead to very different implications. I gave a link earlier in this thread regarding looking at events with-IN the Mormon community that make it clear that you don't have to take a completely cynical view on the lifting. And that's because events leading up to the lifting starting prior to the civil rights movement in full effect were already coming into play. I think if you are interested in u nderstanding how the ban lift came about from a non-inspired perspective, it helps to see the different events going on both outside and within the community, then look at the timing, to see which influences seem to have been given precedence.

2) I think this is referencing Brigham Young who saw an eventual ban lifting, but on a timeline that people imageind to be be waaaay down the road.....

[cdowis]

Of course the Church denies any outside influence, but it was in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status because 501c forbade discrimination based on race.

I assume you can give us the exact citation. For example, women are not allowed the priesthood. Is our tax exempt status "threatened"?

I will find it "interesting" if you are unable to answer my question.

[TAK]

I assume you can give us the exact citation. For example, women are not allowed the priesthood. Is our tax exempt status "threatened"?I will find it "interesting" if you are unable to answer my question.

One day it might.. Keep in mind a tax exempt organization has been granted a privilege not right of exemption which can be revoked by any Federal, State or Local authority that maintains a jurisdiction over church activities or properties if it deems the entity unworthy of the exemption. Had the policies regarding the exclusion of blacks continued today I suspect many of those exemptions particularly on the state and local level would be revoked. One day it may extend to women.

What do you think the LDS Church will do at that point if it does risk losing its tax exemption ?

[SlackTime]

One day it might.. Keep in mind a tax exempt organization has been granted a privilege not right of exemption which can be revoked by any Federal, State or Local authority that maintains a jurisdiction over church activities or properties if it deems the entity unworthy of the exemption. Had the policies regarding the exclusion of blacks continued today I suspect many of those exemptions particularly on the state and local level would be revoked. One day it may extend to women.

What do you think the LDS Church will do at that point if it does risk losing its tax exemption ?

Obviously it will shut down our priesthood run bars and other enterprises. Or maybe it will start forcing us to pay taxes on all the money in donations our priesthood quorums collect.

-SlackTime

[Thinking]

For example, women are not allowed the priesthood. Is our tax exempt status "threatened"?

I will find it "interesting" if you are unable to answer my question.

I already discussed this.

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.

Again, this is only if the IRS decided to classify the priesthood as a club within the organization.

This was my 500th post!

The leaders are Zakuska (nearly 12,000) and Charity (over 11,300). If I contine at my current rate (1.4 posts per day), I will need over 23 years to get to 12,000. I'll be retired by then!

[T-Shirt]

I already discussed this.

Again, this is only if the IRS decided to classify the priesthood as a club within the organization.

So you are finally admitting that your whole argument was nothing but an empty bag of wind and based, solely, on your sensational, yet ignorant, hypothetical?

T-Shirt

[Thinking]

So you are finally admitting that your whole argument was nothing but an empty bag of wind and based, solely, on your sensational, yet ignorant, hypothetical?

I already discussed this.

The articles I found which quoted an inside source kept the identity of the source secret. Since it's impossible to question an anonymous source, there's no way to prove the veracity of the source's claim. So we can all leave this discussion with differing opinions.

When you are asked for references give them or leave the thread. That is how it works here. ~ Mods

[selek]

If I contine at my current rate (1.4 posts per day), I will need over 23 years to get to 12,000. I'll be retired by then!

And thus able to post with far greater frequency.

Hopefully, some of those posts will contain greater substance than this one!

[phaedrus ut]

One day it might.. Keep in mind a tax exempt organization has been granted a privilege not right of exemption which can be revoked by any Federal, State or Local authority that maintains a jurisdiction over church activities or properties if it deems the entity unworthy of the exemption. Had the policies regarding the exclusion of blacks continued today I suspect many of those exemptions particularly on the state and local level would be revoked. One day it may extend to women.

What do you think the LDS Church will do at that point if it does risk losing its tax exemption ?

I predict Official Declaration 3. A revelation has been received that women may be ordained to the priesthood but they are limited to what duties they can perform.

• They can perform priesthood blessings for the sick(I suspect they'd do a better job)
  
• They can bless and pass the sacrament (only if they bake fresh sacrament bread)
  
• Visiting teaching and home teaching duties will be combined for efficiencies
  

Phaedrus

[smac97]

Thinking

In the absence of any "direct" evidence (memo, video clip, etc.), I must concede there is no proof that the LDS Church caved in to political pressure with respect to the negro and the priesthood.

What indirect evidence to you have?

Actually, I should have expected the response that I got because even though there was political pressure in 1890, the Church maintains that it was a revelation and not the government which directed the polygamy ban.

CFR.

The articles I found which quoted an inside source kept the identity of the source secret. Since it's impossible to question an anonymous source, there's no way to prove the veracity of the source's claim. So we can all leave this discussion with differing opinions.

And any reasonable and sensible person should lend virtually no credibility to a third-hand anonymous online "source." Right?

I believe, however, that one of my original questions was never fully answered.

Well, there was Wilford Woodruff, quoted in a First Presidency Statement dated August 17, 1949:

"The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

And this comment from President McKay, quoted in a First Presidency letter dated December 15, 1969:

"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

The letter continues:

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

And this:

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

There are others. Do some research.

Meanwhile, the bulk of my CFRs have been ignored. Here they are again:

1. "Legal Issues" - You said:

I never heard about the legal issues which the Church faced as a result of its policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood.

What "legal issues" are you talking about?

2. Application of the Civil Rights Act - Please explain what part of the Civil Rights Act was violated by the LDS Church's priesthood restrictions.

3. "Outside influence" - You said:

Of course the Church denies any outside influence,

References, please.

4. Tax-exempt Status in Jeopardy - You said:

but it [the LDS Church] was in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status because 501c forbade discrimination based on race.

References, please.

5. "Social Club" - You said:

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

References, please.

6. "501(i) Category" - You said:

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.

References (or explanation), please.

7. Priesthood as a Taxable Entity - You said:

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.

References (or explanation), please.

8. Government-mandated Polygamy Ban - You said:

Actually, I should have expected the response that I got because even though there was political pressure in 1890, the Church maintains that it was a revelation and not the government which directed the polygamy ban.

Contrary to your previous assertions, President Wilford Woodruff made it quite clear that the Manifesto was, to some extent, a response to societal opposition to the Church. It's all there in black and white, printed after the Manifesto in the LDS publication of the Doctrine and Covenants ("Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto"):

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursueâ??to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

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? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

So am I safe in giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were merely ignorant when you previously stated that "the Church maintains that it was a revelation and not the government which directed the polygamy ban?"

-Smac

[Pahoran]

Again, this is only if the IRS decided to classify the priesthood as a club within the organization.

You do realise, don't you, that this is incoherent? The Priesthood is not a legal entity that pays taxes, earns any taxable income or holds any taxable property. Thus, it simply cannot be singled out for tax attention. Nor is it a "social club," and it would be utterly dishonest and malicious for the IRS to pretend that it is.

And just as dishonest and malicious for anyone to suggest that they should.

"Social clubs" are 501(i) organisations that are registered as such. They are organised as corporations or trusts so that they may hold property, collect membership dues, and so forth. While you may choose to entertain yourself with happy daydreams about a tyrannical government pointing to a group of people who happen to sit in the same room during one hour of the block meeting and violently and arbitrarily declaring it a "club within the organization" in order to extort taxes out of it, I can't see such a thing happening in any ostensibly free society.

One last thought before I walk away from this ridiculous and utterly strained line of argument: if the Priesthood is a "club within the organization," then no less is the clergy of a black church a "club within the organization." Do you yet understand the nature of the precedent you keep fantasising about, or are you still clueless?

Regards,

Pahoran

[SlackTime]

You do realise, don't you, that this is incoherent? The Priesthood is not a legal entity that pays taxes, earns any taxable income or holds any taxable property. Thus, it simply cannot be singled out for tax attention. Nor is it a "social club," and it would be utterly dishonest and malicious for the IRS to pretend that it is.

I can't even see a reason why they would want to. Unlike say the "Knights of Columbus" our priesthood quorums own no properties, raise no monies, provide no services for money, don't even try to raise funds for charity (Unless of course you count friends of scouting ) What would the IRS get out of making the priesthood a seperate social club entity? How would they even threaten to hurt us with it? A tax on 0 (zero) is still zero.

-SlackTime

[J Green]

I can't even see a reason why they would want to. Unlike say the "Knights of Columbus" our priesthood quorums own no properties, raise no monies, provide no services for money, don't even try to raise funds for charity (Unless of course you count friends of scouting ) What would the IRS get out of making the priesthood a seperate social club entity? How would they even threaten to hurt us with it? A tax on 0 (zero) is still zero.

-SlackTime

You mean a High Priests Group with a $100-dollar budget and a yearly activity (maybe) doesn't constitute a "social club"? I don't want to be the one to wake the guys up in my quorum and break the news.

[smac97]

I can't even see a reason why they would want to.

It only makes sense if the interlocutor (this "Thinking" fellow) is actually hoping the IRS will take such action.

The only motivation for entertaining such a notion (outside of ignernt stupidity) is malice against the Church of Jesus Christ.

And I don't think Thinking is stupid.

Unlike say the "Knights of Columbus" our priesthood quorums own no properties, raise no monies, provide no services for money, don't even try to raise funds for charity (Unless of course you count friends of scouting ) What would the IRS get out of making the priesthood a seperate social club entity?

Nothing.

But what would enemies of our faith get out of it? Joy. Elation. Schadenfreude of the first order.

Simply put, this "Thinking" fellow isn't thinking about anything rational or remotely likely to happen. He is instead fantasizing about what he would like to happen: The U.S. government using its considerable power to disenfranchise or otherwise damage the LDS Church.

Ain't that right, "Thinking?"

How would they even threaten to hurt us with it? A tax on 0 (zero) is still zero.

Right. "Thinking" doesn't care about taxes. Or tax-exempt organizations. All he is thinking about is how to damage the Church of Christ.

Because the only other explanation for this absurd thread is that he's a blithering idiot. And I find that unlikely.

-Smac