For those who can access the Salt Lake Tribune site, there is a (fairly long) article on the history of the various corporate incarnations of the church and why it kept changing.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/06/01/lds-corp-church-longs/

Apparently, the Corporation of the President and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop have now been merged into an entity officially called The Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.


"Church officials recently wrapped up a corporate merger they had announced in 2019, when the well-known “Corporation of the Presiding Bishop” — used for decades to manage nonecclesiastical real estate and other holdings — was renamed “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

As 2020 closed, another long-standing church entity, its Corporation of the President, which governed temples and other sacred buildings, merged into the renamed corporation as of Dec. 31. The Corporation of the President has now ceased to exist, according to filings at the Utah Department of Commerce, the state’s keeper of corporate records."

Am I to understand that the Corporate Sole got sold to the company store?

My understanding is that it is still a corporation sole, but that they changed the name and combined the prevous two.

But I could be wrong.

From the article about the history of the corporation sole:

"Utah became a state in 1896 and, by then, the church’s legal counselors had found a new way for holding church property and conducting other affairs with fewer legal glitches: a corporation sole — inspired, it turns out, by Catholic hierarchy.

Created in Utah in 1901, it’s the equivalent of an office taking legal form — say, a monarch or archbishop — but one that only has a single occupant. In this way, Oman explained, “the corporation sole is distinct from the natural person who occupies the office, and it thus persists when that person dies or when a new person takes office.”

Still, the Utah-based faith has relied on the odd “corporation sole” in several forms as an enduring corporate instrument for governing its vast land and financial holdings. But even that arrangement — with a sort of legal version of current President Russell M. Nelson officially at its helm — continues to be tweaked."

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I to understand that the Corporate Sole got
> sold to the company store?

Saint Peter don’t you call be cuz I can’t go. I’m a little short for tithing settlement.

It's a common mistake, but EOD is not St. Peter but rather St. Petri. He helps things. . . grow.

I thought we'd straightened that out the other day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2021 01:52AM by Lot's Wife.

But when he gets “tight,” it is, I fear, more in the English sense than the American!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I to understand that the Corporate Sole [- and soul -] got sold to the company store?


Yep... (by the bad company of mislead Mormon misleaders).

Correction: "... Latter-day Saints". Another church owns the capital D version. Really.

>Apparently, the Corporation of the President and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop have now been merged into an entity officially called The Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

True. The article used the correct spelling. The mistake is all mine.

And still another moronicPriesthood offshoot legally owns "The Church of Jesus Christ".

That is the name MoronicPriesthood Central in SLC tells people to use - pretty dishonest of them.

Why would the church produce this article?

Because the revelation of the Ensign Peak and other financial assets pissed people off. This is an attempt to make the membership believe the church is not hiding things from them.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [Everything Mormonism does is] an attempt to make the membership believe the church is not hiding things from them.

Mormonism wants to be THIS: The Hellbent Invisible 'Church'!

HIDE EVERYTHING!
Especially "the 'truth'"-

Until Jesus Christ himself or someone who really does represent him can give me a reasonable explanation as to why the "MORMON CHURCH" was allowed for several decades to ruin the lives and happiness of so many people, I am going to keep any version of that organization in the "CULT" category as far as I am concerned, indefinitely.

When I receive a written apology from them on the official church letterhead for several past actions and policies, then I'll start taking the church's repentance for their past wrong-doings seriously. Since that's never going to happen, they're just going to remain a cult for at least as long as I am alive. Congratulations Mormon Church (or whatever you are calling yourself these days), you've made a lot of money and hardened many of your previously-most-loyal followers against you.

their reply always is
"I don't apologyze I don't explain"

Hmmm.Just wondering azsteve, if you served a mission in the US?

Probably bad optics and PR with this: The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

They needed to be a little more subtle in the organization.

As a side note, a few years ago I was trying to by a domain name with the word "latter-daySaints" and several variations of that. I could not buy one. I spoke to a few companies about why I could not buy a domain like that (I was trying to buy thecorpofthepresidentofthechurchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints and I tried a ton of variations of it. they clamped down on anything that could make for great parody.

I'm at a loss as to why the members keep throwing large sums of money at this church. It seems to me that the church could run comfortably for many years solely off of the interest on its current investments.

I'd like to see the day when the U.S. puts requirements on churches to which members are allowed to write off their donations on their taxes. I feel that there should be minimum requirements in place for complete financial transparency, and for a percentage of donations (above a certain amount) earmarked for charitable efforts that benefit the entire community. However I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

The idea of taxing churches is a complicated one. Part of the reluctance is that churches are frequently assigned the role of charitable institutions, but they are also expected, by the members, to provide "intangible spiritual benefits". If the church were ever sued, they could provide millions of witnesses who will swear that the church does just that. So do we waive tax liabilities for institutions that provide these spiritual benefits? And who gets to decide if those witnesses are telling the truth?

If I were a church I would never even claim to provide charitable care, because I don't think that has anything to do with the rationale behind a church. The church is there to provide spiritual experiences. Elimination of poverty is only peripheral to that, and can be handled quite well through secular means. Thoughts?

This whole issue can be classified as a "long con" it is a never ending slave causing mind control game.
If I can make you fear something I can control you. That is the M.O. of organized religion. period period period

Long con, short con...

But they absolutely, positively guarantee you that ghawd will confirm what they've been telling you, just as soon as you die.

            ...go ahead, prove them wrong...

If the "original" church was anything like modern TSCC, the Last Supper would have been written off as a corporate expense...

Hahahahha... Mary probably had a catering business, and had exclusive catering rights to all Jesus' events. I'll bet she turned the water into wine, was ready to go with the 5 loaves and fishes. I think it was called Smoke and Mirrors Catering.

I thought it was called "The Last Board Meeting".


Judas was just voting his shares differently, and Peter could not make up his mind. He was not crazy about the idea of becoming Christian CEO and thought some how Jesus would retain the position.