The utter hypocrisy of BYU astounds me almost beyond words. In the Davies case, eschewing the words of Christ they cast the first public stone and then used the event to gain national notoriety. Notoriety that came though pundits who really have no clue as to the subversive, manipulative, snitch, police state that exists at BYU. The BYU honor code in practice has been exposed by hard irrefutable statistics to be applied unevenly along racial lines.

I understand that Davies intends to continue to play the muse in this charade. In doing so he does himself and his race a discredit. My respect for him is diminished somewhat as he allows himself to continue to be used as a pawn in the pretense.

I defend the deadspin article for what it is. It's methodology was clearly defined and disclosed, the numbers are reported at face value. I found the interviews with former BYU athletes, especially those with front row seats to said events, to be very illuminating and useful in interpreting the cited stats. This is even more the case since it is impossible to know all the variables that have contributed to the numbers. In this case passive observation is really the only research methodology available and so represents the highest and best practice.

Why is it that Mr. Davies or Darron Smith can even "hold the priesthood" today? I will tell you why. A convenient revelation received after the "holy spirit" was prompted to stop being formally racist by the threat of loosing tax exempt status at BYU. Search out all things and hold fast to that which is true. I'm glad the Mormon leadership was finally able to right this wrong. It's just a shame they could not have been honest and admitted it had been a man made mistake all along, brought about by common beliefs and practices at the time the policies were implemented. Instead they blasphemously blamed their former racism on God and pretended that He'd changed his mind.

There were a number of pragmatic reasons. It had become socially unacceptable to continue racist practices. The IRS under the Carter Administration had threated BYU and perhaps even the Church itself for loss of tax status due to racial discrimination, it was a high profile story in news media outlets at the time and also involved a SCOTUS decision regarding tax status and racism at Bob Jones University. Like the Mormons, BJU also changed their racist policies. The temple was just opening in Brasil and they found out a large portion of the population were black and virtually impossible to determine that they might have some mixed blood. The BSA had been under extreme pressure for allowing the LDS to sponsor troops which could not have "colored" patrol leaders. But in the end, I think they were just embarrassed that the Mormon God was one of the last institutional racist on the block.

Old habits die hard.

RE: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51665292-78/code-byu-honor-athletes.html.csp?page=1

"loosing tax exempt status at BYU'... Oh really?

what (Federal?) taxes would BYU <and other similar universities> be Subject to?

Income tax? as a religious institution, wouldn't they be EXEMPT? As the WHOLE Church (and other churces are) is?

Property tax? I don't think the Feds have ANY PROPERTY TAX!

Sales tax? THERE IS NO FEDERAL SALES TAX!

(other?)

gimmie a Break here, Pilgrim...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 12:55PM by guynoirprivateeye.

Bob Jones University is a private Baptist university. This is part of something I wrote in 2005. As is explained below, institutions of higher learning are not religious organizations per se.

"The Government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs."

The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation.

On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could "no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination." IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not "treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170]." Ibid. 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. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232.


BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.

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.

The Government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=574



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 01:08PM by Jim Huston.

understood that the problem was that BYU would not be eligible for its students to receive Federal financial aid. Trust me, that would have decimated BYU.

So... you're saying that BYU couldn't have 'continued to discriminate', Right?

I then ask: a) Did they discriminate? Did BYU disriminate IN ADMISSIONS, other ?

b) was that (claimed) discrimination related to tscc's denial of the Penishood to blacks?

I agree with one of your ideas: 'Old habits die hard'

But Im also still 'stuck' in the Facts: the letter(s) you cited had references to / were Dated (about) 1970 , Correct?

was there still this same pressure as of 1978 ON BYU?


to my mind's eye... 'Most' of the pressure of the civil rights movement on-against the LDS church was past, at least prior to 1978.
If I'm wrong on THAT, I'll admit it (documentation?)

I live near Seattle (a hot-bed of activism); the 'Big' anti-BYU deal here was adjunct to a gymnastics meet early in 1970, and a basketball game in March, 1970...

Side Note: BYU/tscc DID A HORRIBLE PR JOB... they blamed the civil rights protests on....(ready?) COMMUNISTS! Addresses by Benson & Wilkenson were (IMHO) counter-productive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 05:58PM by guynoirprivateeye.

The Bob Jones case was decided in 1983. The discrimination at Bob Jones was not allowing the dating of a black athlete and a white coed, not admissions. Read the case and learn something. You are obviously not old enough to know. I was in South America on my mission in 1978. I attended the temple dedication and was a temple officiator when the Sao Paulo temple opened. I received my Masters of Accounting in 1982.

Here is a little more of the paper I wrote

In 1969 Hugh B. Brown actively lobbied to allow blacks to receive the priesthood. This was supported by a majority of the apostles. They formed a “special committee was to report on the Negro situation”. The change was approved while Harold B. Lee was absent. Upon his return he rejected the decision and persuaded the quorum to rescind the vote. The reaffirmation of the restriction was a collaborative effort of Neal A. Maxwell, Gordon B. Hinkley and G. Homer Durham. (Michael D. Quinn – Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power p. 14)

For decades Spencer W. Kimball had been troubled about this race restriction. (ibid p. 15) . At the cornerstone-laying ceremony for the Brazilian temple 9 March 1977, Kimball privately told Helvecio Martins to prepare himself to receive the priesthood. He pointedly asked if Martins “understood the implications of what President Kimball had said”.(ibid p.16)

On March 23, 1978 he began discussing the matter with his counselors. Kimball met privately with individual apostles who expressed their “individual thoughts” about his suggested end to the priesthood ban. (ibid)

After discussing this in several temple meetings and private discussions, Kimball wrote a statement…. And presented it to his counselors on 30 May. He then asked his counselors and apostles to “fast and pray”……at their temple meeting on 1 June. At the temple council that day “the feeling was unanimous”…. (ibid)

On 7 June 1978 Kimball informed his counselors that “through inspiration he had decided to lift the restrictions on priesthood.” In the meantime he had asked three apostles (including Boyd K Packer) to prepare “suggested wording for the public announcement of the decision. (ibid)

A letter written to LeGrand Richards on September 11, 1978 corroborates this reason. Chris Vlachos wrote to LeGrand Richards confirming the content of explanations he had been given concerning the revelation. LeGrand Richards acknowledged the letter and in part said “It wouldn’t please me if you were using the information I gave you when you were here in my office for public purposes. I gave it to you for your own information, and that is where I would like to see it remain.”

Here is an excerpt from the letter LeGrand Richards was confirming:

One of the most interesting items which you mentioned was that the whole situation was basically provoked by the Brazilian temple—that is, the Mormon Church has had a great difficulty obtaining Priesthood leadership among the South American membership; and now with this new temple, a large proportion of those who have contributed money and work to build it would not be able to use it unless the Church changed its stand with regard to giving the Priesthood to Blacks.

I believe that you also mentioned President Kimball as having called each of the Twelve Apostles individually into his office to hear their personal feelings with regard to this issue. While President Kimball was basically in favor of giving the Priesthood to Blacks, didn’t he ask each of you to prepare some references for and against the proposal as found in the scriptures? (quotes taken from photostatic copies of the letters found in SI Banister – For Any Latter-day Saint)

The decision was monetary without a doubt. It was also very political. The Mormon Church could easily lose face. The Mormon Church had spent over 50 Million on a complex in what was one of the countries producing the most baptisms. It was the new South American distribution center for all materials. It was also the new regional church offices.

The Mormon Church views temples as profit centers. When a temple is built, they have an identifiable increase in all revenue from the area, and specifically tithing. (Ostling – Mormon America)

There were not enough people with verified ancestry to run the temple, let alone be patrons. Even with the change, missionaries were taken from the field and trained as temple officiators and veil workers to man the temple for the first month it was open.

As far as dates, the revelation was made June 1978 and the temple dedication was October 1978. Initial training of workers was held in September. Very tight time frames by Morg standards.

Then there is the issue of the tax exempt status. First you must understand that educational nonprofits are treated differently than religious nonprofits. Here is an explanation of how religious nonprofits are treated.



In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation. They can attack women's freedom to obtain an abortion. They can advocate that special rights be reserved for heterosexuals, and not extended to gays and lesbians, including the right to marry. Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and everyone else are free to engage in hate speech against women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, and other groups. A pastor in Texas recently called on the U.S. Army to round up and execute area Wiccans with napalm. The tax exempt status of his church was not threatened. Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar "hot" religious topics, from spanking children to the death penalty and physician assisted suicide. They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. In the words of the IRS regulations: "no substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." Unfortunately, the term "substantial" is not defined precisely in the service's regulations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chu_poli.htm

<i>Das Racis!</i>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

enjoy

the Bob Jones USSC decision ('83) wasn't an influence on the Morg decision to allow blacks the Penishood.

BTW, there's a Personal story for me/a roommate/GBH.

GBH was in Seattle for a SConf. many, many yrs ago (pre '78).
I had a roommate from Mexico. He claimed that after being ordained, he learned thru genelogy that he had (ready?) Black ancestors....

the 'policy' had Always Been (yadda yadda) 'One Drop of black blood disqualifies a person (male, that is) from p.hood.

So; I was in said s.conf.; I walked up to Gord & told him about this, including the roommates name (not sure I should have done that!)

A short time later, the 'policy' was (drum roll) CHANGED!

GO FIGURE!

Initial letters went out concerning Bob Jones in the early to mid 1970's. Read the case and comments. It most certainly was a part of the decision. If the Mormon Church had not resolved the case before the final decision, they would have IMMEDIATELY lost their tax exemption, as did Bob Jones University. The fact that it took 13 years to work its way through the courts is not of consequence.

As I stated, I was in Brazil in 1978. We were instructed not to teach or have any dealings with anyone who had "the juice." If anyone in the extended family appeared to have Black influence, they were not to be taught. That changed from one day to the next. To place my age and dating a little closer, I was 23 when I left on a mission. I was supporting myself and had to raise the money.

You know, I have proven these points enough times that I don't need to do it again. Your arguments are not worth my time. I don't have patience for someone who "knows" they are right without any research. I have done the research and was there when it happened.

As far as Seattle being a "hot bed", I left Everett Washington in 1973. I know better.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 08:36PM by Jim Huston.

"This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation."

BTW, R U an atty? If yes, that would give your 'argument' / reasoning some cred, wouldn't it?

I really don't think I 'Disagree' so much as I have a slightly different perspective on this... and BTW, Seattle has a Much Different culture than Everett!
U of W
heavily into the arts
lots of gays, more % of blacks, asians.

LOTS of differences!

I also made a point of the WACKY opposition (at least Excuses, rheortic) in tscc against blacks, integration, etc. that seemed common in tscc (Benson/ John Birch society, etc.)

How much Pressure there was on tscc is kind of a fanciful - subjective quantity, isn't it? My point (agree or not) is that the 'Main Thrust' of the civil rights Storm had passed by tscc by 1978.... Again, that's also subjective.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 08:56PM by guynoirprivateeye.

Jim, thanks for your comments and clarifications. It's interesting to me to note that even though I was present at the time, understood the culture and the events that were occurring and even though I read the news reports of the tax issues at BYU; I still bought it hook line and sinker as a "marvelous revelation from on high". Years later looking back I can only marvel at what faithful members are able to swallow without so much as a flicker of doubt or skeptical thought.

this is a board for Discussion, NOT for arrogance...

Guynoir, just some insight from my point of view. Jim and I were present during the events, I attended BYU in the late 70's and Jim has obviously done a lot of research. We were and are on the front lines of the culture in Utah. We know a little bit about the topics of which we write.

You don't have the same grasp of the culture but thrive in a different environment. You were not at BYU or in Utah at the time, did not read the news reports in the SL Tribune, and yet you speak emphatically as if you perfectly understand the issue. Your very first post scoffed at the notion that LDS racism had any potential effect on BYU's tax exempt status. You were entirely wrong, and yet from an uninformed position you continue to make emphatic yet incorrect statements of fact. Some people would call that arrogance.

Jim has been patient with you all day, going out of his way to provide detailed and supported explanation for you, and yet you continue to make comments as if you are not grasping any part of it. I think he is telling you that he's tired of beating his head against the wall for no reason.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 10:03PM by SLDrone.

SLDrone - I was posting on the board here some years ago when you first posting here. I have the greatest respect for you and your history. Mine is not incredibly different. I am sorry if I stepped on the points you were trying to make in any way.

guynoirprivateeye - as far as I am concerned you still have the Mormon problem of needing to be right in the face of hard evidence. Be happy in what you have chosen, because it is what your life will be. I suggest you learn and move beyond that.

O.K.; what statement of mine was incorrect?

and, to put it into context, what % of the BYU financial picture would this tax situation impact?

are you saying that BYU would have to pay Income Tax? (Did or does ANY church-supported university?)

I see that BJones (if I read the decision correctly) had to pay unemployment insurance taxes.. but Really: how big an impact would that be? certainly not more than .... say... 5% of expenses, would it?

and.... since LDS/BYU finances are SECRET... We'll NEVER REALLY KNOW how big any contemplated financial impact would be, do we?

refusal to discuss something is Arrogant when a poster just snaps back 'I don't have time for you', isn't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 09:45PM by guynoirprivateeye.

He snapped back because he has already carefully, clearly and extensively addressed each of your questions in the information already provided. It appears that you either aren't reading his answers, or that you don't understand them.

Have a nice evening and Happy Spring Equinox to you! :)

Can't speak for the BYZoo (remember Zoobies? I was a student 1977-1980) student body in general, but I know that losing my FEDERALLY FUNDED GI Bill would have meant that I went to the University of Nebraska instead of BYU. Then I could have regaled fellow students with my tale of government persecution for my faith. I have to agree with SLDrone. I can't believe that I swallowed all that hook, line and sinker.

I haven't done the amount of research you have, Jim Huston, but I have finally done enought that I know how deceitful and full of lies that church is. Only took me forty years.

Guy Noir, learn something. Don't try to flip out cute questions and then intellectually insult the person who has done the research and study. If you don't believe him, then refute his points one by one, as he has obligingly provided his sources.

which STATEMENTS of mine were erroneous?

Questions (I had some) Aren't 'Wrong'!

I ASKED: which taxes would be effected/have to be Paid? (asked before the unemployment tax detail was explained)

Look Again: I referred to Sales Tax, Income Tax, & property tax...

would either of those (federal) be effected? Still Unanswered!
I didn't say or imply that those were the only taxes!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2011 09:57PM by guynoirprivateeye.

What you are talking about is minor consequences. The loss of tax deductions to donors is a major consequence, as is loss of federal education grants. The main reason for nonprofit status is the collection of money affording a charitable deduction to the donor. Income tax and local property tax are immaterial in comparison to the loss of donations.

it was my impression that TSCC would lose it Tax exemption due to not allowing black folk to hold the priesthood.... and that if they would not allow them the priesthood... they would lose the exempt status.... and if that happened BYU would be in real financial trouble..... just scuttlebutt .... k thanks for playing! :)
well i found this... aint gospel...but close!! :)

Thursday, Feb 9, 2006, at 01:27 AM
Opening The Windows Of Tax Exemption Through Black Priesthood Power
Posted By Steve Benson
BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD -Guid- ↑
Almost Down for the Count—The Mormon Church’s Brush with a Federal Knock-Out Punch Over Its Anti-Black Doctrine

What are to be made of reports that, circa 1978, the Mormon Church was in danger of losing its federal tax-exempt status due to its racially-discriminatory policies targeted against Blacks?

Predictably, true-believing Mormons have never been willing to admit that their Church was at one time had its back against the Internal Revenue Service ropes, where it was close to being stripped of its tax-exempt status due to its anti-Black doctrine--and barely managed to dance away from a federal government knock-out only by abandoning its officially-sanctioned bigotry.

GONG!!

There's the final bell.

Time to examine the scorecard.
I dont have the backups to the claim of the church losing its status...but i am SURE SB does!! :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 10:43AM by bignevermo.

I'd be the first to admit there's some cultural cross-over between blacks/penishood and BYU practices in athletics...

Jim H says church & BYU are two separate legal entities. I don't think that cultural crossover would prompt the IRS to insist that LDS give phood to blacks on pain of loosing tax-exempt status at BYU(my opinion)... That would raise a chorus of protest, some from other churches fearing intrusion, wouldn't it?

As much confidence as I have in SB..His saying it doesn't make it so!

and last but not least...Was there ANY legal precedence for the IRS to intervene? (any prior supporting decisions or rulings on the scale we're talking about, Not just unemployment liability)?

These are nonprofits registered as religious organizations. The first three are Corporate Soles:

Harrie A. Schmidt Jr., state chairman of the Populist Party, which is run nationally by Ku Klux Klan leader Kim Badynski.

Glen Stoll, a Populist Party member who also is involved in the Embassy of Heaven, an anti-government religious organization based in Sublimity, Ore. Stoll was the leader of the Liaison Group, which called for militia members across the Northwest to assist Whatcom County constitutionalist Donald Ellwanger in a 1995 standoff with the IRS.

Doyal Gudgel, also active in the Liaison Group, but best known for organizing events in Seattle for David Irving, a British man who denies the Holocaust happened.

Despite huge holes in the secretary of state's(Washington State) database, Lunsford was able to spot about 50 corporation soles associated with white supremacists, militiamen, constitutionalists or people who deny the Holocaust. He discovered some supporters of the Christian Identity, anti-government group Posse Comitatus had set up "soles" as early as 1979.

The Creativity Movement (TCM) is a non-Christian, non-profit, religious organization, with their head office in Illinois. Creativity, based on the eternal laws of nature. Their prime objective is: "The survival, expansion and advancement of the white race."
They regard themselves as being motivated by a love for the white race. This implies extreme hatred of non-white races. They are overwhelmingly hate-filled towards Jews, African-Americans, and other non-whites. They hate homosexual behavior. However their concern in this area appears to be muted in comparison to other white-supremacist organizations.

The Heritage Preservation Association (HPA) is a nonprofit membership group whose purpose is to "fight political correctness and cultural bigotry against the South." To that end, the HPA declared "Total War" last January on those who allegedly attack Southern heritage, focusing especially on the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference because of those groups’ opposition to the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina. Over the last three years, the HPA has worked closely with the white supremacist League of the South to stage pro-Confederate flag rallies and similar events, and in 1999 HPA President P. Charles Lunsford joined the League.

The NAAWP, like David Duke, has tried to hide its hate, but its racist and anti-Semitic views, like those of its founder, are evident. NAAWP News, the group's newsletter, has regularly published articles with titles like "Anti-Semitism is normal for people seeking to control their own destiny"; "Jewish control of the media is the single most dangerous threat to Christianity," and "Why most Negroes are criminals."



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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 11:46AM by Jim Huston.

When I was at BYU I absolutely loved my 2 classes I had on this racism book. It's about a group of people who came from Jerusalem to the Americas around 600 BC. Some of them were wicked so God cursed them with dark skin and with that dark skin comes loathsomeness, drunkedness, and all sorts of vile natures. If only they had white skin then they'd be delightsome and wholesome. Does BYU still praise this wonderful book that's helped me become so bigoted, prejudicial and narrow-minded? Or do they condemn the book like all the other organizations and people out there who think that people should be treated equal and not judged by skin color?

ILRB:

ah ... are you forgetting?
appearances are Such a CONVENIENT way to categorize & classify others!

earrings
tattoos
white shirts
flip-flops

on and on...

all these things... save the 'bother' of getting to know the individual in question, Don't They?