BYU under investigate by US Government

[Scott Lloyd]

[Deleted] 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Just now, T-Shirt said:

Irrelevant

Your compassion is overwhelming.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Color me...skeptical.

Skeptical about what?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Skeptical about what?

That your speculation is anything more than a convenient way to explain away an unfortunate series of events

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

That's not accurate.  The policy is the same for everyone.  Everyone is allowed to date, hold hands with and kiss members of the opposite sex.  No one is allowed to engage in these activities with members of the same sex.

It seems to me this reasoning could be used by an insurance company to deny coverage for diabetes supplies by claiming they treat all their customers the same, no one is allowed to claim diabetes supplies. 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My question is: can the Church ever be threatened with its existence as long as the keys are among the Twelve and First Presidency, and as long as there is a country in the world that allows them to incorporate, no matter the doctrine? Those members living in far-flung areas and reduced resources still have the essential benefits of those keys.

Those same keys existed when the Edmunds Tucker Act disincorporated the Church and seized property.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Fether said:

That’s what I say and that’s what I hear everyone else say… but I’m reality I have no idea how saints viewed blacks and priesthood before the ban was lifted. 
 

Did they see the ban the same way we see the LGBTQ issue?

Most orthodox-believing members wanted the ban lifted — by revelation and prophecy in the Lord’s own due time. I don’t see the same sentiment today among that category of believers with regard to repealing the law of chastity. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’ve already drug me much farther into this than I’m willing to go. You’re on your own. Good luck dealing with the moderation team. 

You're probably correct.  I'll delete that specific item.  Perhaps you would be so forgiving as to delete it from your reply post.

Edited January 20, 2022 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

That your speculation is anything more than a convenient way to explain away an unfortunate series of events

I did say "Not necessarily." But what are the unfortunate series of events that do not contribute to far more beneficial series of events?

Are not the keys are still active upon the earth, Zion being prepared, and the Second Coming coming, whether you take that as a fact or a religious belief?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Most orthodox-believing members wanted the ban lifted — by revelation and prophecy in the Lord’s own due time. I don’t see the same sentiment today among that category of believers with regard to repealing the law of chastity. 

I don't either.  Which is why I don't think public opinion or cultural pressure will be the deciding factor.
I think it will be threat of legal repercussion. 

[MrShorty]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why?  Why should God prefer to make the change before it's necessary rather than waiting until people's agency has been exercised and the consequence of choices come into play?  

I can't answer for @ttribe, and I really don't want to sidetrack this down the priesthood and temple ban rabbit hole, but this is a big part of my own discomfort with the priesthood and temple ban. In short, what good is prophetic leadership if some of the stickiest moral issues are going to be decided correctly by broader society many years before the Church? Godless SCOTUS seemed to be more receptive to the "forced segregation by race is bad" 24 years before God's chosen prophets and apostles could come to the same conclusion. In hindsight, it seems like one's moral compass would be better served listening to secular voices in broader American culture on this particular issue than in listening to the leaders of the Church. I don't know why God should prefer to wait for change to come about rather than prompting his leaders to anticipate morally superior changes. I'm not convinced that God would prefer to wait. Perhaps God was incredibly frustrated that His apostles and Church members (in the aggregate) were not listening to Him? I really don't know.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You're probably correct.  I'll delete that specific item.  Perhaps you would be so forgiving as to delete it from your reply post.

Done. Reply post deleted. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

To allow his people to devote their time and energies to actually building the kingdom rather than dealing with government bureaucrats and law enforcement?  To actually lead the way in the world on important moral issues like racism? By your logic, there seems to be little to no need for prophecy.

You seem to be saying that prophets should exist to be social justice warriors and to ensure that the church never does anything that society disagrees with.  Using society as the measuring stick for what God wants is pretty frightening. 

Prophets mainly exist to testify of Christ and call people to repentance.  There's still plenty of need for that and always will be.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did say "Not necessarily." But what are the unfortunate series of events that do not contribute to far more beneficial series of events?

Are not the keys are still active upon the earth, Zion being prepared, and the Second Coming coming, whether you take that as a fact or a religious belief?

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but I am no longer a believer in those things.

Edited January 20, 2022 by ttribe

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Those same keys existed when the Edmunds Tucker Act disincorporated the Church and seized property.

Yes, and that was then; the Church may well allow disincorporation (in the USA) and the seizure of American property today (as in, "careful what you wish for!"). I gave a couple of extreme examples of how bad things can get and yet we still have our ordinances intact.

@smac97 @Kenngo1969 Question for the lawyers, what firewalls does the Church have to protect other assets under such a circumstance?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

You seem to be saying that prophets should exist to be social justice warriors and to ensure that the church never does anything that society disagrees with.  Using society as the measuring stick for what God wants is pretty frightening. 

Prophets mainly exist to testify of Christ and call people to repentance.  There's still plenty of need for that and always will be.

Then why claim any revelation for any administrative matters at all?  Seriously.

[CV75]

Just now, ttribe said:

Perhaps you hadn't notice, but I am no longer a believer in those things.

I'll take note about your being skeptical of the religion or religion in general, but still, in principle (there are secular applications), I do not believe you are all that skeptical. Part of establishing a healthy skepticism is to adopt another paradigm, even temporarily, for the sake of exploration or even conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't either.  Which is why I don't think public opinion or cultural pressure will be the deciding factor.
I think it will be threat of legal repercussion. 

I think there comes a point, whether by outside coercion, internal apostasy or in some other way, that the Church would be altered so drastically that it would lose its very identity and character as the restored Church of Jesus Christ. At that point, it wouldn’t matter if we were allowed to keep our temples, because the Church as we know it would have been corrupted to the point of destruction. In effect, the priesthood would have again been taken from the earth. And we know from prophecy that won’t happen. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I can't answer for @ttribe, and I really don't want to sidetrack this down the priesthood and temple ban rabbit hole, but this is a big part of my own discomfort with the priesthood and temple ban. In short, what good is prophetic leadership if some of the stickiest moral issues are going to be decided correctly by broader society many years before the Church? Godless SCOTUS seemed to be more receptive to the "forced segregation by race is bad" 24 years before God's chosen prophets and apostles could come to the same conclusion. In hindsight, it seems like one's moral compass would be better served listening to secular voices in broader American culture on this particular issue than in listening to the leaders of the Church. I don't know why God should prefer to wait for change to come about rather than prompting his leaders to anticipate morally superior changes. I'm not convinced that God would prefer to wait. Perhaps God was incredibly frustrated that His apostles and Church members (in the aggregate) were not listening to Him? I really don't know.

I don't know either.  I always think of when one of the apostles (was it Uchtdorf?  Holland?) said how annoying it must be to God to only have imperfect people to work with.  Yeah, it must be such a pain sometimes.  Especially when we are like toddlers compared to Him, and yet have so much power to hurt and destroy.

I remember reading about how Pres. McKay really wanted to end the ban and prayed toward that end, and believed that he was told "no".  There are probably a lot of different reasons why, once it was instituted, God might care about the timing of ending it.  I wouldn't feel good trying to guess them outloud, though I have some personal ideas.

For myself, I've had to re-evaluate my beliefs on what a prophet of God is and does and why God provides them.  

[cinepro]

34 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

That's not accurate.  The policy is the same for everyone.  Everyone is allowed to date, hold hands with and kiss members of the opposite sex.  No one is allowed to engage in these activities with members of the same sex.

I suspect that's the problem. If the only distinction is that it's people of the same sex doing it, that's discrimination (according to the Justice Department).

I know analogies between race and sexual orientation are fraught, but it's like saying "discrimination laws aren't wrong because they apply to everyone equally. Even white people couldn't sit at segregated lunch counters if they had black skin. It's not our fault some people have white skin and others have black skin."

But I'm sure if this progresses, the Church will have the best legal defense possible, so we'll see.

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Then why claim any revelation for any administrative matters at all?  Seriously.

Because they have that, too, even though the Lord allows a good degree of latitude to do their best while His grace covers such decisions in the long run. The same as with us. The trick, I think, is to discern what is essential from good, better and best  when push comes to shove.

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems to me this reasoning could be used by an insurance company to deny coverage for diabetes supplies by claiming they treat all their customers the same, no one is allowed to claim diabetes supplies. 

Insurance companies have a long history of excluding certain medical conditions.  That is why my fourth son was born at home.  Our insurance didn't cover pregnancy at the time and home birth was cheaper.

We knew that when we got the insurance and planned our lives accordingly.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and that was then; the Church may well allow disincorporation (in the USA) and the seizure of American property today (as in, "careful what you wish for!"). I gave a couple of extreme examples of how bad things can get and yet we still have our ordinances intact.

@smac97 @Kenngo1969 Question for the lawyers, what firewalls does the Church have to protect other assets under such a circumstance?

I don't know all the particulars.  Last May I wrote a surface-level review of the Church's corporate structure:

Quote

There have been three tax-exempt corporations:

• 1) "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the "COP").  Per Wikipedia, the COP was created in 1923 and "manage{s} money and church donations" for the Church.
• 2) "The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the "CBP").  Per Wikipedia, the CBP was created in 1916 and its function is to "acquire, hold, and dispose of real property."
• 3) "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." was, per Wikipedia, "incorporated in 1997 to hold the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property."

Meanwhile, the Church itself is (or, until very recently, was) an "an unincorporated religious association."

The damage was done to a building, which is considered real property, which is apparently owned by the CBP.

Here is the corporate entry for the CBP per Utah state records:

Quote

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Update this Business

Entity Number: 11371958-0151
Company Type: DBA
Address: 50 E NORTH TEMPLE 2WW Salt Lake City, UT 84150
State of Origin:
Registered Agent: CORPORATE AGENT SERVICES, LLC
Registered Agent Address:
36 S STATE ST STE 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
View Management Team

Status: Active

Purchase Certificate of Existence

Status: Active  as of 07/08/2019
Renew By: 07/31/2022
Status Description: Current
The "Current" status represents that a renewal has been filed, within the most recent renewal period, with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code.
Employment Verification: Not Registered with Verify Utah

History

View Filed Documents

Registration Date: 07/08/2019
Last Renewed: N/A

Additional Information

NAICS Code: 8131 NAICS Title: 8131-Religious Organizations

It looks like this was registered in 2019, whereas the article in Wikipedia says it was incorporated in 1916.  I can't find any such Utah corporation, but I did find this information:

Quote

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

• Connected to 2 addresses
•  Incorporated: 11-JUL-1916 
•  Registered in: Cayman Islands
•  Linked countries: Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic

•  Data from: Paradise Papers - Appleby
•  Agent: Appleby
•  Appleby data is current through 2014
•  Search in 
•  Got a tip? Help ICIJ investigate: contact us or leak to us securely

The CPB was incorporated in 1916 in the Cayman Islands?  That would be pretty interesting if true.

I wonder if the CPB previously existed from 1916 to 2019 as a corporation formed in the Caymans, and thereafter was re-formed in 2019 as a Utah tax-exempt "8131" corporation.

See also this entry from Dun & Bradstreet:

Quote

Year Started: 1916 Incorporated: 1916

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Using society as the measuring stick for what God wants is pretty frightening. 

I said I didn't want to keep going down the priesthood and temple ban rabbit hole, but.... well maybe one more post.

I find it interesting that the Church's Race and the Priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining why the segregated priesthood policy was a natural consequence of the broader racial attitudes of 19th century America. I am currently in the middle of Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and I see the same thing being said there. The LDS Church under Brigham Young (whether God approved or not is difficult to say) used society as the measuring stick for what God wanted. As I noted above, this then gets extra complicated in my mind because that same broader society was years ahead of the Church is correcting practices that grew out of those beliefs.

ETA: To try and bring this back to BYU being investigated for its treatment of homoromantic behaviors, this is a big part of why I question the Church's entire stance on LGBT issues. With respect to race, it seems that we had a hard time discerning which of society's attitudes towards race were good and which were evil, and we also had a hard time discerning which of the Church's beliefs were good and which were not in line with God's true will. If we had so much difficulty spanning years and generations on that issue, how can we be sure that we are not committing the same kinds of discernment mistakes now with respect to LGBT issues?

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by MrShorty

[blueglass]

A hypothetical here.  If a revelation on the equality of blacks had never come in 1978 and a ban against black families and mixed-race dating was still in effect today 2022 and the church declared this racial position based on strongly held religious principles - could the feds overturn any of byus title ix exemptions?  

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by blueglass