1978 And The Irs

[Thinking]

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.

Here is the quote again.

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."

[thesometimesaint]

Thinking:

Again BYU did not discriminate in its admission policies on the basis of race. So it's a total non issue.

[mrmandias]

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?

Was that temple recommend requirement in place in the 70s? I thought it wasn't around until later.

[Calm]

Was that temple recommend requirement in place in the 70s? I thought it wasn't around until later.

When did it become standard for older unmarried women to start receiving endowments? I would assume the temple recommend issue would have been a potential problem for single LDS women prior to that time as well if the temple recommend was a requirement. My thinking was it was in the 80s because of a particular great aunt having the opportunity.

Edited June 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[phaedrus ut]

Here is a important side note. When the Bob Jones v. United States case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1982 Rex Lee, then Solicitor General of the United States, recused himself from the case because of a conflict. Rex stated that he had "once represented the Mormon church when faced with a problem like Bob Jones and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest had taken himself off the case."(The Tenth Jusitice: The Soclicitor General and the Rule of Law by Lincoln Caplan, 1987)

Lets look at the time line.

• 1970 The IRS mails a letter regarding racial discrimination to non-profit private educational institutions. Presumably this would include Bob Jones, BYU, Ricks, and many others.....
  
• Somewhere between 1970-1978 Rex Lee argues on behalf of the church retaining it's tax exempt status despite racial discrimination.
  
• 1978 the issue become irrelevant because of OD2.
  
• 1982 Solicitor General Rex Lee recuses himself from Bob Jones V. United States
  
• 1983 Bob Jones University loses its Supreme Court Case.
  

Phaedrus

[Aquilifer]

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.)

Precisely. The Church fought for 11 years after the SCOTUS decision before finally conceding defeat on polygamy. The accusation that the Ban recission is connected to the IRS would have us believe that the Church preemptively acted 5 years before the Bob Jones decision. I don't think the latter is consistent with the former, nor is consistent with the Church's willingness to litigate its position on religious exemption grounds all the way to SCOTUS in Corp of Presiding Bishop of the COJCLDS v. Amos. Nor has it backed down from its position on gay marriage despite the increasing inevitability that gay marriage will be legalized on the federal level in the next decade. So on that level, I think that the argument of correlation between Bob Jones and the Priesthood Ban is flimsy.

Here is the quote again.

Quote

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."

But again, there's been no actual evidence suggested to show that: 1) BYU had instituted racially discriminatory policies like Bob Jones; 2) BYU was one of the private religious schools notified by the IRS that the Government was changing its policy; or 3) even assuming BYU had such racially discriminatory policies, that the IRS could reach beyond BYU to threaten its governing religious institution. What I'm trying to get at is some actual evidence.

Racial beliefs aren't enough to threaten tax status. Racially discriminatory actions or policy are. The idea that the IRS could pursue BYU simply on the basis that some, most, or all its students believed in a racial priesthood ban on the part of its sponsoring institution is patently ridiculous. It puts the government in the position of judging religious beliefs and punishing those considered anathema to society, effectively blowing the Establishment Clause out of the water. BYU would have needed actual discriminatory policies in place to put it alongside BJU.

I'm very open to conceding that BYU would been in the same boat as BJU if it can be shown that the former had racially discriminatory policies. [Again, not arguing it didn't, I just haven't seen evidence to the contrary] But even if it did, I don't see how the Church itself could have been targeted. The policy specifically applied to educational institutions. The eventual court ruling in the BJU case didn't do anything to broaden the ruling to religious institutions themselves, explicitly stating that the ruling only applied to "religious schools -- not [to] churches or other purely religious institutions." The LDS Church is a distinct organization from BYU. BYU could lose its tax exempt status without the Church losing it as well. Therefore, the accusation that the Church lifted the ban in anticipation of losing its tax exempt status is extremely flimsy if the argument uses of the BJU litigation as its basis.

Here is a important side note. When the Bob Jones v. United States case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1982 Rex Lee, then Solicitor General of the United States, recused himself from the case because of a conflict. Rex stated that he had "once represented the Mormon church when faced with a problem like Bob Jones and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest had taken himself off the case."(The Tenth Jusitice: The Soclicitor General and the Rule of Law by Lincoln Caplan, 1987)

Lets look at the time line.

• 1970 The IRS mails a letter regarding racial discrimination to non-profit private educational institutions. Presumably this would include Bob Jones, BYU, Ricks, and many others.....
  
• Somewhere between 1970-1978 Rex Lee argues on behalf of the church retaining it's tax exempt status despite racial discrimination.
  
• 1978 the issue become irrelevant because of OD2.
  
• 1982 Solicitor General Rex Lee recuses himself from Bob Jones V. United States
  
• 1983 Bob Jones University loses its Supreme Court Case.
  

Phaedrus

That statement by Lee is more like what I'm looking for, and if anyone can shed more light on his statement and the context of the work he was involved with, I'd be interested. What work did he do? Who did he do it for? What were the grounds of his recusal. It definitely needs more details to use supporting evidence.

Assuming it's true, perhaps Lee's activities being on behalf of BYU rather than the Church itself, and that'd be an important distinction to draw. Lee was dean of the law school for much of the time, other than when he was an assistant US attorney general. He could have recused himself for something as simple as writing a legal opinion for the Church to analyze the potential impact of the IRS ruling on the Church, in which case a recusal is a completely neutral act from which we can't draw any conclusions. Similarly, the act of recusing himself from the Bob Jones case doesn't say anything about the hurdle between the IRS and the Church itself I've briefly outlined above.

[Calm]

there's been no actual evidence suggested to show that.......BYU was one of the private religious schools notified by the IRS that the Government was changing its policy

I read the below statement as saying all private schools in the US, not just those that could be affected by the policy, were notified. IOW, it was a standard 'form' letter mass mailed.

the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation

[Alan]

A related question.

Is there a difference between the church and The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[thesometimesaint]

Alan:

Yes. I'm a member of the Church but not The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[phaedrus ut]

That statement by Lee is more like what I'm looking for, and if anyone can shed more light on his statement and the context of the work he was involved with, I'd be interested. What work did he do? Who did he do it for? What were the grounds of his recusal. It definitely needs more details to use supporting evidence.

I don't know much about why Rex Lee recused himself from the case. It must have been a difficult decision because he was known to enjoy time in front of the court. For the non-legal world it would be like Michael Jordan deciding to sit out of a NBA Finals game.

Also, we know it wasn't the famous case he argued for the church's right to discriminate(Corp of the Pres. Bishop v. Amos) because that incident didn't occur until 1981 and didn't see a court until 1984. The various mentions I've seen all have said he was defending the church in a similar issue to Bob Jones not defending BYU specifically. Here are some more.

After the Court accepted the cases in September 1981, Deputy Solicitor General Lawrence Wallace, a veteran of the Office of Solicitor General (SG) since 1968, planned to continue the Carter administration position supporting the IRS policy. Solicitor General Rex Lee had recused himself because he had served as counsel in a similar case involving the Mormon Church, rendering Wallace the official decision-maker in the Bob Jones and Goldsboro appeals.(Johnson, Olati, "The Story of Bob Jones University v. United States: Race, Religion, and Congress’ Extraordinary Acquiescence" (2010). Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers)

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. (The Tenth Justice, Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 )

What ever the that Lee handled for the church it doesn't seem to have hit the public courts. However, it must have been important for Lee to get involved because Kirton & McConkie is the firm that serves as General Counsel to the church and Lee never worked there. The other heavy hitter I can recall the church hiring for an important case is Kenneth Starr(think Clinton and Lewinsky). The church hired Starr to advance their interests in the California same-sex marriage issue.

I suppose if someone was really interested they could start filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the relevant government agencies.

Phaedrus

Edited June 29, 2012 by phaedrus ut

[Bernard Gui]

Was that temple recommend requirement in place in the 70s? I thought it wasn't around until later.

I finished my MA in 1972. My advising professor was not LDS. No temple recommend. He did have

to agree to abide by standards set as condition of employment. There were other non-LDS professors

at the time. Nothing would prevent a qualified black academic from teaching at BYU. If they wanted to.

Bernard

Edited June 29, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards

By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos

16th August 1978

Church Office Building

(Recorded on Cassette)

http://www.lds-mormon.com/legrand_richards.shtml

Pretty interesting read.

[AddamS]

The church doesn't own Pepsi!?!

No Pepsi, Coke.

[Ron Beron]

I would think that it was less because of government intervention and more of the promptings of the spirit by Pres. Kimball. According to the book, Lengthen Your Stride, by Edward Kimball, President Kimball felt there was a great need to proselytize more fully into black Africa and Brazil without fear of violating church policy. In addition, a number of patriarchal blessings as well as other premonitions were being made that guaranteed priesthood blessings to black members most notably Helvecio Martins and his son Marcus. President Kimball addresses his feelings on this matter in his book, Faith Precedes the Miracle,

A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now receive the priesthood. Some members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith through authoritative baptism are heirs to the celestial kingdom along with men of all other races. And those who remain faithful to the end may expect that God may finally grant them all blessings they have merited through their righteousness. Such matters are in the Lord's hands. It is for us to extend our love to all.

[treehugger]

No Pepsi, Coke.

Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger