A friend I know said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status. I asked for a source. None was provided, but I was assured it existed.
I would like anyone to produce a document or affidavit that a Government agency or employee exerted pressure, by way of threatening to remove the tax exempt status of the Church.
I didn't think such a thing existed. I've created this post so that there is a forum for her or others reply's.
Big UP!
Lamanite
P.S. The image above is of one of my heroes, Darius Gray. Google him if interested in an amazing story.
6 comments:
In my examination of this matter I would argue that the Brazilian temple was much bigger than any government issue.
I am not sure why the government at that point would be pressuring the church. Most of the real heat on the church came at the end 60s and early 70s when the there were many protests.
Brazil had been an issue since McKay's presidency. (see Prince, Rise of Modern Mormonism). Even though the Brazil Temple was an issue that needed attention, Pres. Kimball assured everyone that he planned no "changes". ("Lengthen your stride: Presidency of Spencer Kimball by Edward Kimball", I'll find you a page number)
I agree though that the US Government posed no threat either real or perceived; and that the Civil Rights movement had indeed gone the way of the dodo.
Now someone could make a case for feminism and the Priesthood. That may fit the time line.
Big UP!
Lamanite
On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code. The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination.
The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above "charitable" concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3). Pp. 592-596.
Rex Lee had been the dean of the BYU Law School. Rex Lee did argue the CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) case and did not feel it was a conflict.
Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3) Here are a couple of groups that are registered Corporate Soles in the state of Washington and receiving federal tax exempt status. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.
The statement by LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen only addressed the Church as a religious organization. He was not addressing the related issue of the Mormon owned schools.
”It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson . . . claims that the federal government threatened the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the Church's position regarding Blacks and the priesthood.
“We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law.
The Church was not threatened directly, however their wholly owned schools were threatened. The financial ramifications in conjunction with the possible political embarrassment made an untenable situation. I wonder if it was engineered it part by SWK.
Dark Sparks,
Although your post is well researched, it never connects the dots, i.e. Government action equals Church response.
In my opinion your entire post is based on presuppositions, and towards the end admits that there was never direct pressure from the Government or the IRS.
Moreover, one cannot reasonably conclude that if the Church was indeed concerned about the "possible" financial repercussions as a result of Mississippi jurisprudence in 1971; that it took them (The Brethren) 7 yrs to come to a point of action in 1978. Unlikely.
Bottom line for me is that there many "red herrings" but no "Smoking gun" in your argument.
Big UP
Lamanite
Hi Lamanite,
Believe as you will. I am okay with that. My daughter may have exaggerated my "proof" in response to something you had conversed about. I am satisfied that it makes complete sense from just circumstantial evidence that the church was reacting to government pressure.
When all else fails, we can ask God if it is NOT true and no doubt he will confirm that.
Peace
"When all else fails, we can ask God if it is NOT true and no doubt he will confirm that."
In the Apologetic and Scholastic realm, our individual spirituality and/or sacred experience, or lack thereof does not often come into play.
I liked your response. I'm creating one more post that you may be interested in responding to. I relates to Freemasonry and the Endowment.
Big UP!
Lamanite
Post a Comment