The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,338 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
 | Joseph Smith's Arrest Record On Glass-Looking Charges And Hugh Nibley's Warnings If They're Real
Article Archived: Wednesday, Jul 23, 2008, at 12:30 PM
Stored Under Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson |  | |
. . . which they are.
In September 2005, the press reported that the arrest records of Joseph Smith from 1826 to 1830 had been rediscoverd and given to the Mormon Church:
"The documents include arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. . . . {t]he cases involved Smith's involvement in glass looking, or treasure seeking, and being a disorderly person.
"One of the documents includes a bill from then-South Bainbridge Justice Albert Neely to the county for services rendered. Included in the bill is a $2.68 charge for fees in examining the case of 'Joseph Smith, the glass looker.'"
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon...
What was particularly damning about these press revelations is that they further validated the devastating nature of the crimes that Smith committed--as, in fact, admitted by Mormonism's historically pre-eminent apologist and water carrier, Hugh Nibley.
In 1961, Nibley authored a book entitled "The Mythmakers," in which he ventured to boldly debunk assertions that Joseph Smith had committed, or had been arrested for, the crime of "glass-looking."
Nibley (in words he probably later wished he could retract) went so far as to declare that if, in fact, Smith was actually proven guilty of such nefarious activity, it would constitute the most damning blow that could be imagined to Smith's claim of divine prophetship.
As Jerald and Sandra Tanner note in their analysis, "Joseph Smith and Money Digging":
"In his book 'The Myth Makers' Dr. Hugh Nibley has written almost twenty pages in an attempt to discredit the 'Bainbridge court record.' On page 142 of Dr. Nibley's book we find this statement: '. . . [I]f this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.' Dr. Nibley's book also states that if the authenticity of the court record could be established it would be 'the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered.' (ibid.)"
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/chang...
Derick S. Hartshorn, in his work, "Bearing the Testimony of Truth," reviews the history of apologetic denials uttered by Mormonism's stoutest defenders--and then compares those desperate defenses to the actual evidence found--evidence that cuts Smith off at the knees.
Under the sub-section, "Guilty! Next Case!," Hartshorn exposes the serious nature of the charges against Smith and how they have plunged a dagger into the heart of Smith's claims to divine guidance:
"It was charged that Joseph Smith was accused and found guilt of parting a local farmer from his money in a less than honest scheme, commonly known as 'money-digging' or 'glass-looking.' It was reported to have been an activity that brought him rebuke from his soon-to-be father-in-law, Isaac Hale. It is also historically recorded that he was removed from membership in a local Methodist church because of the activity and trial results.
"Joseph Smith skims over the specific event leading to the trial in the 'Pearl of Great Price,' explaining that he was only a day worker for the man so engaged and not personally involved.
"Mormon writers have continually challenged its doubters to find the records (seemingly lost) and prove Joseph Smith a liar or stop the attacks. Mormon writer Hugh Nibley, the most prolific defender of the Mormon faith, used almost 20 pages in his book, 'The Mythmakers,' in an attempt to discredit this 'alleged' court trial. On page 142 we find:
"'. . . If this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith' and would be 'the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered.'
"Of course, when that was first published back in 1961, Dr. Nibley undoubtedly felt that after 130 years no such record would turn up in 1971. Once again, the actual evidence, which the Mormon Church had denied ever existed came to light in 1971. You can read about how it was discovered as well as the relevance of other historical documents of that time that Joseph used a 'seer' stone to find money, etc. in the 54-page brochure 'Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials.'
"One might wonder why this should be cause for concern among investigators of Mormonism. The fact is the up to then, the Mormon Leaders had denied that there WAS such a trial. Indeed, they claim that the story of Joseph’s arrest was a 'fabrication of unknown authorship and never in a court record at all.'
"The charge that Joseph was known to hunt treasure with 'peep' or 'seer' stones, etc., was serious enough that Mormon scholar Francis W. Kirkham stated that if the court record could be found, it would show that the Mormon Church was false:
"'Careful study of all facts regarding this alleged confession of Joseph Smith in a court of law that he had used a seer stone to find hidden treasure for purposes of fraud, must come to the conclusion that no such record was ever made, and therefore, is not in existence . . .
"'If any evidence had been in existence that Joseph Smith had used a seer stone for fraud and deception, and especially had he made this confession in a court of law as early as 1826, or four years before the Book of Mormon was printed, and this confession was in a court record, it would have been impossible for him to have organized the restored Church.'
"Later, in the same book, Mr. Kirkham states:
"'. . . [I]f a court record could be identified, and if it contained a confession by Joseph Smith which revealed him to be a poor, ignorant, deluded, and superstitious person unable himself to write a book of any consequence, and whose Church could not endure because it attracted only similar persons of low mentality if such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him. . . . How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been superstitious fraud which the pages from a book declared he confessed to be? . . . '
"Well, in spite of 140 years of silence, the records did surface. Rev. Wesley Walters discovered the documents in the basement of the Chenango County, New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y. in 1971. The records, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that Joseph Smith was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of "glass-looking." It is not a matter of debate, opinion or religious preference. It is a proven historical fact.
"Initially Mormons denied that Joseph ever participated in 'money-digging' activities, saying that would invalidate his claim as a prophet. Now that indisputable evidence confirms that Joseph was a convicted 'money- digger' Mormons have taken a 'so what' attitude. At least one says, now that the evidence proves that Joseph was a 'money-digger' that it really doesn’t matter. (What could a BYU professor say?) Mormon scholar Marvin Hill says:
"'There may be little doubt now, as I have indicated elsewhere, that Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 on a charge, not exactly clear, associated with money digging.' [Fawn] Brodie’s thesis that the prophet grew from necromancer to prophet assumes that the two were mutually exclusive, that if Smith were a money-digger he could not have been religiously sincere.
'This does not necessarily follow. Many believers active in their churches, were money-diggers in New England and western New York in this period. Few contemporaries regard these money-diggers as irreligious, only implying so if their religious views seemed too radical . . . For the historian interested in Joseph Smith the man, it does not seem incongruous for him to have hunted for treasure with a seer stone and then to use with full faith to receive revelations from the Lord.'
"Marvin Hill’s appraisal of the treasure seeking activities make it appear that contemporaries of Joseph Smith treated this enterprise with a casual air. One such contemporary that was closer to Joseph than most, could hardly disguise his disdain. This was Isaac Hale, father of the girl that Joseph would later elope with. In an affidavit signed by Hale and published in the Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, Joseph’s father-in-law said:
"'I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called ‘money diggers’; and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by what means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure.
"'Smith and his father, with several other money-diggers boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards. Young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length asked my consent to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused . . . [H]e was a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve. . . . Smith stated to me, that he had given up what he called "glass-looking," and that he expected to work hard for a living . . .
"'Soon after this, I was informed that they had brought a wonderful book of plates down with them . . . The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods.'"
http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/...
| I do not know what, precisely, happiness is. There have been times when I was happy, and times when I was miserable. In short, I am human. I guess one is about as happy as one decides to be.
What bothered me as a young person was the Mormon claim of "real happiness."
I believed it was a real thing, and that one could reach a state of cosmic happiness. As I was told, "If we obey the commandments, and follow the brethren, we will find true and everlasting happiness." I love "Mormonspeak," and the Mormon description of "everlasting happiness" is full of it.
Just like a testimony, I set out to find "everlasting happiness." It was never easy for me, because I could not "obey the commandments" as I was expected to do. I was a kid, after all, and life had temptations.
I tried, several times, to quit swearing. Never could do it. I thought that would lead to happiness.
I also tried to avoid masturbation, thinking "dirty thoughts," and all other forms of sin. I tried. Did not achieve perfection. I did feel a lot of guilt, frustration, and fear. I also became seriously depressed, and needed treatment at one time.
Still, I just knew that happiness was out there. It had to be. I heard about it endlessly----from my mother, church "leaders," and teachers. What I failed to notice is that none of them seemed all that goddam happy, and that included such people as Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and my family members, who had a lot of problems---some caused by Mormonism.
I remember being temporarily happy when I was called on my mission. Surely, surely, this would open the door. I was about to dedicate two years of my life to the "Lord's service," and I would be surrounded by people with the same goal, dedicated to bringing souls into the gospel. Saving souls is pretty heady stuff.
Well, that did not turn out as expected. Anyone who has been on a mission knows what its actually like. You get a huge dose of Mormon reality, a cough inducing, mind spinning, ass kicking dose of Mormon reality. You find out Mormons are mean, petty, jealous, aggressive, and vicious. You learn what really matters in the Mormon world---its goals, not souls.
I came home, married in the temple (not a very happy event) and tried to "live the gospel." Didn't work. But I grew up, and started to think. I realized that a person is as happy as they make themselves. There are no magic answers, and there is no freedom from life's vicissitudes. Mormons suffer the same problems as anyone else---illness, the death of a child, depression, job losses, financial worries, and the joyous agony that comes from raising kids.
Mormons have no magic answers. And the amount of anti-depressant use by Mormons shows there is no cosmic happiness floating around. You have to make it for yourself.
| I don’t get angry very often anymore. Back when I came to realize that my entire belief system was based on fabricated scripture, fabricated events, and plagiarized beliefs, I was devastated, so devastated that I became angry at the LDS church.
How could it have sold me hopes of exaltation with my family on such feeble material?
Now days, I don’t get very upset about having believed in silly things like a boy who found hidden gold plates and translated them into English, or having believed that the same boy saw all sorts of special things like God, Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, et al. I don’t even get angry about having believed that the temple was a sacred place when it fact it isn’t much more than a cheap knock off of Masonic rituals combined with some Old Testament creation myths.
After all, most humans believe silly things of some sort or another. The silly things I believed were just Mormon silly things. And if my former friends and family want to believe those silly things, that’s okay with me – it’s their decision, or is it?
What gets me angry still is that the Mormon church actively engages in activities to stop its own people from knowing that they believe in silly things.
Most Mormons don’t really know that Smith was a real treasurer hunter using a rock in the hat technique before he got his start in the prophet business.
Most Mormons don’t know that Smith used the treasure hunting “rock in the hat technique” to translate the gold plates.
Most Mormons don’t know that Smith didn’t even pretend to have the plates in his presence during the “translation” process.
Most Mormons don’t know that Smith offered different “first vision” stories, each getting bolder and more grandiose with each telling and that the version accepted as official and “true” by today’s Mormons was penned until 1838.
Most Mormons don’t know that Smith once taught as official doctrine a Trinitarian view concept of deity, including that god was a spirit.
Most Mormons don’t know that the papyri Smith claimed was written upon and by Abraham and translated by Smith as been located and determined to be something entirely different and of much more recent date.
Most Mormons don’t know that Emanuel Swedenborg envisioned concepts of celestial marriage and three degrees of glory prior to Smith teaching similar beliefs.
Most Mormons don’t know that Smith denied practicing polygamy publicly and even went so far as ordering the destruction of William Law’s press in an attempt to suppress [public knowledge] of his polygamous relationships.
Most Mormons don’t know of Smith’s Kirkland Bank fiasco and the false claims he made as to valuation and how Smith skipped town in order to escape investor lawsuits.
Most Mormons don’t know that their predecessors in Missouri instigated threats of exterminating their own enemies prior to the state’s actions
Most Mormons don’t realize that celestial marriage was plural marriage.
Most Mormons don’t realize that prior to the 1930’s, the Word of Wisdom wasn’t a large part of being a Mormon.
Most Mormons don’t know that Joseph Smith was “married” to at least thirty-three women, at least ten of whom were currently marriage to other living men, and some of Smith’s “wives” were teenagers as young as fourteen years old.
Why don’t Mormons know these things?
The LDS Church uses various methods of deception and pressure to ensure members are kept from learning critical information about the church.
The church actively requires that teachers only use church-authorized material to learn and teach from.
The church doesn’t include the above information in its publications.
The church infers that if a member reads or learns of information listed above, these “lies” are from the enemies of the church in league with the Adversary.
The church teaches that it has always had enemies who have attacked it with “untruths.”
The church fosters and promotes a persecution complex to explain the motives of its critics.
Apologists for the church maintain that since must of this information is old, it has been dealt with previously.
The church disciplines scholars and others who research and publish information above, thus “discrediting” the historian to Mormons and creating an atmosphere of fear in reading such material.
The church destroys or alters it past histories and publications. (I recall in the 1990’s the church required that every previous handbook or policy book be gathered as it unveiled new procedure books. My old stake president told me the stake was required to physically destroy the old material).
The church characterizes those who learn unsanctioned truths and decide to disbelieve as evil apostates having committed serious sin.
Why does the church do this?
If members had access to information critical of church beliefs and history many would leave the church.
The church’s first interest is in self-preservation. To preserve itself it must manage information critical of it. And when good members are kept from exploring a balanced view of their own beliefs and history, they are more likely to remain loyal to the institution.
This ACTIVE and INTENTIONAL course of withholding critical information by the LDS church still angers me. If people want to believe silly things, that is their right. But Mormonism’s effort to suppress inconvenient truths is dishonest and unfair to decent people.
| When I was a kid, I heard people say " I know the church is true, and I know it beyond a shadow of a doubt." My parents both said the same thing.
I took seminary in the ninth grade, and there discovered the promise in the "Book of Mormon." I was told if I read the book and prayed with sincerity, and great fervor, I would get an answer.
Fair enough. I tried it. I found the "Book of Mormon" to be terrible reading, and I read a lot for a young kid. I knew good writing, and I felt the "Book of Mormon" was rather poorly written. But I tried. Oh Lord, I tried.
I read and prayed, read and prayed, and read and prayed. No answer. I tried again. No answer.
I read the "Book of Mormon, " entire, my first year at BYU. Everyone had to take the "Book of Mormon" class. I read the awful book, and found many things in it that annoyed me. Some of it seemed utterly ridiculous. The Jaredite submarines, Samuel the Lamanite, and the conversion of Alma the Younger seemed pretty darned far fetched. But I just assumed it had to be true. Hell, everyone I had grown up around assured me of "its truthfulness."
I went on a mission, and tried to have a "testimony." I got up and said "I know this church is true." During my first testimony meeting as a junior companion, I made a huge mistake. I was homesick, depressed, and struggling. I sat through the testimony meeting, and listened to the other missionaries. I assumed it was optional. I did not get up.
The Zone Leader said, "Would you like to bear your testimony, Elder Louie." I said "No," and did not get up.
Dear God, what a mistake. I heard about it for months. In never could live it down. I heard one old missionary snarl "Now they are sending them to us with no testimony." Probably true, because none of us had a testimony.
My Mission President decided that we all needed to put "more feeling" into our testimonies. I gather he kind of envied some of the Baptists, who can get quite carried away.
Well, when the testimonies started, the AP got up, and put on one hell of a show. He cried, sobbed, poured sweat, and walked around the room like Jimmy Swaggart confessing his various acts of fornication. My hell, it was alarming. It was all show, and it was pathetic. I heard one missionary say "Phony bastard." Others said "He is sucking up." It made me ill.
When the AP sat down, the Mission President patted him, and said, "That was beautiful." No, it was not. It was sickening, a total fraud and put on by an ass kissing kid who deserved a smack in the chops.
Eventually, I came to an epiphany about testimonies. I had a companion who was a good guy. He was from California, and loved surfing. He was not all that thrilled about being a missionary. His was an admirably relaxed approach to life.
One night, as we worked our way home, he said the most obviously true thing I ever heard as a Mormon. He said "We call our hope and faith knowledge, even though it isn't."
There it was, in all its glory. That is what a testimony is----calling hope and faith knowledge. It was so obvious , I was too blind to see it. I had believed that a testimony was real, that I would get magic confirmation.
No magic confirmation exists. Its all a put on, a concept designed to make people surrender doubt, and call their hope "knowledge."
I never tried to get a testimony again. If the church is true, after all, why do so many have to struggle, pray, try, humiliate themselves, and deny reality to accept it? When they get up and say "I know," they are saying "I hope." Get them hungry enough, and they will say even more. But in the end, its just hope, and nothing more.
| As I left the Mormon church, I lost friends and meaningful relationships with family members. The reason was that I no longer shared once common beliefs. The separation was painful for me and them.
Yet, I suspect we still retain many shared values:
Family
Hard Work
Honesty
Integrity
Kindness
Compassion
So with such good and common values, why do so many of us, and our Mormon families and friends, have difficulties when we leave the Mormon church? My best guess is case of changed priorities.
Families
In the LDS church, we were taught that “families were forever” and the most important responsibility we had. This was the value. But my personal experience was that the LDS church took me away from my family frequently. I spent nearly eight hours at church on Sundays, and as many as ten to fifteen away from my wife and children with church related weekly activities. So the real priority wasn’t family, it was church.
Now, I see Mormon neighbors going to LDS church meetings as I play with my kids in the yard. Instead of church meetings I spend nights at home with my family. Now my priority of family and value of family coincide.
But my extended family struggle with their relationships with me because of different views of their beliefs. For them, it appears that their priority is their church.
Hard work
In the church, I worked hard at my job. I still work hard. Yet, for several years as a Mormon, I left work twice a week to work in the nearby LDS temple as a temple worker. Once or twice a year we shut down our office for “Days of Thanksgiving” temple attendance. Other members were strongly encouraged to take vacation or personal days to attend the temple.
Again, my work was important as a Mormon, but the LDS church expected that it come first in any conflict.
Honesty and Integrity
Honesty and integrity matter to me and my Mormon friends and family. Yet, as I made that journey of discovery, faithful friends and family members refused to discuss previously unknown information regarding the Mormon church. Mostly I was told that they didn’t want to discuss information.
What I discovered is that honesty and integrity take a back seat when Mormons are confronted with critical information.
Many who leave the LDS church have had similar experiences with spouses and parents. They simply refuse to discuss Mormon problems. Their value may be honesty, but the priority is their Mormon church, not understanding.
Kindness and Compassion
I still see my Mormon family and friends as kind people.
When I was a Mormon I tried to be kind to others as well. But it was a manipulative kindness. Perhaps through my kindness, I thought, these people could see the goodness the LDS church had “given” me. My kindness, although genuine, was tainted with a hope and desire to draw attention to my faith.
Now, I just get to be kind for kindness sake. Since leaving the Mormon church, I have met my neighbors and become friends with them, something I never had time for before. They are really good people. I am glad that the kindness share now isn’t a proselytizing effort.
The value is kindness, but too often for Mormons, the priority is to be kind as a ‘good example’ for the church.
Mormons are famous for “taking care of their own.” As a Mormon, I showed compassion by paying “Welfare.” From these funds, I could trust the Mormon church leaders to help others. I visited the Humanitarian Center in Salt Lake and show tons of used clothing being sorted and shipped. We saw a video of an Idaho potato farmer showing improved growing techniques to an Eastern European farmers.
(We were warned going in by sister missionaries that we would need tissues. It wasn’t that moving and I thought the before of the missionaries was to induce a teary atmosphere).
Others who aren’t Mormon donate money to organizations who give beyond organizational boundaries. They donate time and effort at places like Habitat for Humanity or food kitchens, schools, community centers, etc.
Mormons boast about their “Bishop Storehouses” and welfare system. Others just give.
Mormons and others share the common value of compassion, but too frequently, Mormons’s priority is to take care of their own or to show off their church.
Conclusion
Although Mormons sincerely have shared values as other, I have discovered that in every instant the priority is the LDS church. I was constantly taught in church that I was supposed to have my priorities in the right place- and I understood that always meant the Mormon church.
| I know everyone is speculating about my excommunication, and thinking there must be more to the story that I am not telling. Well I am the only one who can ever openly say what went on in the court that day, but I will say this, and say it by swearing on the Bible and everything that is good and holy on this planet: There was NO talk of ANY form of personal transgression AT ALL during my disciplinary council. The "other" charges that Frank Davie casually broke confidence and slyly shared with the Associated Press to create this assumption was simply that I do not honor my priesthood (by not attending church meetings) and do not honor my temple covenants (by choosing to remove the sacred garment.) The entire meeting was about the calendar, and after I spoke, all the questions that were asked by the council ALL had to do with the calendar. Just for the record, my reasons for leaving the church had nothing to do with transgression. Quite frankly, I was sick and tired of the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the members and I never felt like I was a fit in the "country club." I never felt I could trust LDS people, therefore I decided to leave the fellowship, but I never left my faith. I will say, that since doing this calendar, I have met the best LDS guys ever. These men are top class, and I respect and honor them.
Now the Church did try very hard to try to find a moral transgression by spying on me so they could excommunicate me for that instead of having to embarrass themselves by excommunicating me over the calendar. After initially meeting with me in my home about the calendar, a few weeks later Frank Davie requested to meet with me one-on-one to discuss some "personal matters." I have attached the email correspondence below so you can read just how this unfolded.
After refusing to meet with Mr. Davie several times as he would never tell me what the "personal matter" was, he finally agreed to tell me over the phone. He flat out asked me if I was living with my (female) coworker, and if we were having sex!!!! I was speechless. Not only do I not live with her, the closest we have ever come to sex is when she has shared her sex life with me. We are really good friends, and that is about it. I asked him where he got this information, and he said he could not share that with me, just simply that it had been brought to his attention. I work out of my home, and she comes and goes from my house all the time, so I could only imagine they had been spying on me, especially when he would not share the source. He went on to ask me if I had been involved in any inappropriate relations with anyone of the opposite sex. He was digging, and it was obvious. This was the third time I have been falsely accused of erroneous transgressions, and then of course being denied to know the sourceof the inaccurate information. That is why, when I received my summons for a disciplinary court, I went to the press. The back story has never been published, which has in turn created much speculation.
Before my court started, I met with Mr. Davie in his office where he went over the proceedings of the court so I would know what to expect. Once again he asked me if I had been involved with my coworker and brought up a myspace message that I had written to her about being my hot sexy mama, or something flirtatious like that. So they were looking at my myspace friends to see what kind of comments I was leaving??!!! He also then asked me once again if I had any inappropriate relations with anyone else of the opposite sex. I then honestly and accurately answered. This was NEVER brought up in the council. Not even a hint of it. It was simply the two things I mentioned above, and the "inappropriate project" (AKA the Calender) that I was involved in
Here is email coorespondance as it unfolded over the past several weeks:
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 2:00 PM
To: Chad@
Subject: Missionary Calendars?
Brother Hardy,
Bishop Olds and I appreciated the opportunity we had to come to your home last April 15.
As you may recall, we discussed with you the publishing of the returned missionary calendar.
During our visit, I mentioned to you that the calendar was inappropriate and asked that you give careful consideration to terminate its publication. It simply does not represent the Church or Church missionaries in the right way.
You shared with Bishop and I that you would discuss this with your work partner.
I would welcome an opportunity to come to your home again or you may wish to visit with me otherwise to further discuss your decision.
Please give me a call at XXX-XXXX or answer to this email.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you,
President Davie
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Chad Hardy wrote:
Hi President Davie,
The Men on a Mission Calendar is owned by CMH Entertainment, LLC. I am not full owner of this company. This company is backed by financial investors that are invested in the publication and distribution of the calendars and other products it produces. The 2008 Men on a Mission Calendar was one of the top 10 best selling model calendars in the 2007 season. Its success is being followed up by the 2009 Calendar which has already been guaranteed distribution across the US for the 2008 buying season.
We are standing behind the project, its message and philanthropic purposes. Though we understand not everyone agrees with the project, the individual expressions of those involved have reshaped perceptions, removed walls, and shown an outpour of acceptance and tolerance around the world. Everyone involved has experienced the positive ripple effect of what this project has created. This project in no way is meant to demean, disrespect or misrepresent the LDS church fundamental beliefs. The project is based on individual models who at one time in their life served a full-time service mission. It was their choice to appear in the calendar and share their personal experiences and stories.
I understand and appreciate your personal concerns and thank you for your understanding of my decision to stand behind my project and business venture.
Best,
CHAD
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:24 AM
To: Chad Hardy
Subject: Re: Missionary Calendars?
Dear Brother Hardy,
Thank you for your response and explanation of why you are maintaining this calendar project.
I still need to visit with you one-on-one, regarding you personally of which I do not wish to share via email or over the phone. It is important that you and I have some time together.
I am available this Sunday, June after 9:00a, at the conclusion of early morning meetings.
Please give me a call as soon as possible as I will be looking forward to meeting with you.
You may call me directly at XXX-XXXX.
Thank you,
President Davie
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Chad Hardy wrote:
I appreciate your consideration; however your intentions at this point are unclear. I do not feel there is anything more I need to discuss. If you can clarify your intentions, or the purpose for wanting to meet with me, I will consider a meeting.
Thank you for the understanding.
Best,
CHAD HARDY
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Frank Davie wrote:
Brother Hardy,
Please give me a call and I will be pleased to discuss this matter with you, so as to clarify my reason for wanting to meet with you in person.
Thank you,
President Davie
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:54 AM
To: Chad Hardy
Subject: Re: Missionary Calendars?
Brother Hardy,
I would like to hear from you as soon as possible.
Time is moving along and we need to visit with each other even by phone.
Please give me a call at XXX-XXXX.
President Davie
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Chad Hardy wrote:
I have tried to call you a couple times and got no answer. What is the urgency?
Best,
CHAD
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@]
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:21 AM
To: Chad Hardy
Subject: Re: Missionary Calendars?
Brother Hardy,
I am on vacation and will be returning to the US, June 27.
For some reason, I have not received any of your calls or voice messages but that is OK as I still want to visit with you in person for what we need to talk about.
I again would be pleased to come to your home or you can meet me at the stake president's office. When I return, I will look forward to setting an appt. with you.
Sorry you keep you wondering what this is all about, however, it needs to be talked about between the two of us as it is quite personal.
Thank you,
President Davie
I THEN SPOKE TO MR. DAVIE ON THE PHONE AS OUTLINED ABOVE AND THEN RESPONDED WITH THIS EMAIL:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Chad Hardy wrote:
Hi President Davie,
I have been giving it some thought, and I no longer see a value or purpose to speaking with you anymore in regards to my personal life or my business affairs. I appreciate you taking false accusations and misinformation to the source and hope you are satisfied with the correct information.
Regards,
Chad Hardy
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:56 AM
To: Chad Hardy
Subject: Re: Further Contact
Dear Brother Hardy,
I had hoped that from our conversation yesterday, previous emails and with our visit to your home, that we would be able to continue meeting with each other and that I might have the opportunity to work with you.
It is apparent that you have chosen the path that you have.
You have broken your priesthood and temple covenants and engaged yourself in a project that is considered inappropriate.
As you would hopefully understand, this is all considered as 'conduct unbecoming of a member of the Church'.
In the near future, I will have two elders deliver to your home or sent to you by registered mail, a Notice of a Church Disciplinary Council to be held in your behalf. The date and time will be indicated in the notice.
Again, I had hoped that we would have further conversation, that I might help you to come to an understanding of your Church responsibilities. Since you have chosen not to meet with me any further, I have the responsibility to take this action in your behalf.
I thank you for sharing all that you have thus far. It is my intent to do all that I can to help you and will look forward to any opportunity to do so, should you change your mind.
Please give me a call if you wish to do so.
Sincerely,
Frank Davie
Stake President
Warm Springs Stake
| From the time that I was little kid, Mormonism seemed like a religion of bullies to me. It amazed me then, and it amazes me now. It is a religion of humorless, grim, and cold hearted people looking for ways to force you to do your "church work." There is no joy, no laughter, and no happiness in it. But they do persist.
I cannot begin to count the times I was yelled at by Mormons. It seemed they were always angry and admonishing, They always "reprove with sharpness," as the "scripture" says.
My mother and father would both scream at me if I said the wrong thing, or did the wrong thing. Offenses against the church, and the church image brought the sharpest rebukes. If I ever gave them cause to think I was questioning Mormonism, I had to pay dearly. Robbing a bank would have been less offensive to them than doing something in a church meeting that embarrassed them.
There was a time when I had paid my tithing, but did not bother to make an appointment for "tithing settlement." At church, the Bishop asked my mother if I was going to make an appointment. Mother took it to mean I had not paid and she was deeply embarrassed.
She came home from church, and found me. She screamed "In this ward, when people don't pay their tithing, we demand to know why." It was a heartbreaking scene, because it hurt me, and stayed with me. I can forgive mother. She was a social Mormon, who worried what the neighbors thought. I cannot forgive the stupid organization that makes people behave that way.
I had a home teaching companion who was, I thought, a friend. He called me one Sunday, and said "I am coming to get you, and we are going home teaching." I said "You did not give me any notice, so I am not going." He yelled into the phone "I will be there to get you, and you had better go, or I will beat you up."
I waited for him to appear, and answered the door. He stood there, angrily working his jaw, breathing heavily to control his temper. I was not sure if he would hit me. He did not say a word, and then he turned, angrily, and left.
God it was pathetic. Needless to say, we were never friends again.
My son, as a joke, called the church phone number, and ordered a "free New Testament." The missionaries appeared with the book. I went to the door, and they asked for my son. I said "He is not here." They said "We have a book for him." I said "Fine, leave it with me, and I will give it to him." One of the missionaries said, angrily, "We don't just give these away, there are conditions, and one condition is that we meet with your son." I said, "Fine, take the book, and be on your way." They gave me the book, angrily, and left.
What kind of an introduction to a "true church" is that?
I recall living in another state, and seeing the missionaries in action. It was late, and my wife and I needed milk. We went to the grocery store. The lights were on, and people were inside. I went up to open the door, and it was locked. I said to my wife. "The goddam doors are locked."
Two missionaries were there. They had been too late to get in the store too. When I said "goddam," one of the missionaries screamed at me "What did you say? What word did you use?" He started to walk toward me, and his companion held him back. I think he wanted to hit me. I looked at him, shook my head, and left. Missionaries----they are such fun to be around.
But I was a missionary myself at one time. I recall the two humorless years, the angry comments from the other missionaries, and the times I was rebuked by the Mission President---in front of the other missionaries. Funny how you remember that. Being bullied stays with you, and you don't forget. It makes you realize the kind of people you are dealing with. People don't like bullies.
And Mormons are bullies.
| | | Pulling Back The Curtain On The '78 Priesthood "Revelation": Black Redemption Thru Tax Exemption
Article Archived: Thursday, Jul 17, 2008, at 06:53 AM
Stored Under Topic: BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | | |
In another thread, poster "mikeutah" indicates that he is "interested in the sources to back . . . up" claims regarding "[t]he 'real' reason for [the] 'Blacks and Priesthood' revelation," saying the he "just want[s] to research it more thoroughly."
Hopefully the following will be of assistance to him and others with a similar interest:
--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.
--The Official Mormon Cult Claim: Alleged Threats of Federal Tax-Exempt Revocation Had Absolutely Nothing To Do with Black Men Belatedly Getting the Priesthood--
Speaking for the Mormon Church’s Public Affairs Department in response to accusations about its suspicious reversal of its long-standing anti-Black priesthood doctrine, LDS spokesman Bruce L. Olsen flatly denied that the Church’s decision to grant priesthood authority to Black men was in any way related to fear of losing federal tax exempt status.
With a straight face, Olsen asserted:
”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.
"In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.”
(Bruce L. Olsen, “Distorted History,” in "Public Forum," Salt Lake Tribune, 5 April 2001)
http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_pries...
(Interestingly enough, a former missionary who served under Olsen-- when the latter was his mission president--made the following observation about both the Mormon Church’s decision to reverse course on Black priesthood and Olsen:
”If it was tax considerations and liberal Jimmy Carter that made the Church abandon institutionalized racism, I can understand why the Church is now so Republican.
”[By the way,] Bruce Olsen was my [mission president] and is a great guy. He does have an impossible job representing the Church on PR issues. Like a tobacco executive in charge of expounding on the health benefits of tobacco, he has his work cut out for him.”
(“Interesting stuff,” RfM post by “activejackmormon,” 7 February 2006)
--Color It Contrary: The Case of Mormon U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee--
Reacting to Mormon mouthpiece Olsen’s dubious claims, Gary Anderson, in a letter to the editor of the "Salt Lake Tribune," countered:
"I was quite surprised by LDS PR man Bruce Olsen's attack . . . regarding the Mormon Church's motivations for abandoning its anti-Black doctrine . . . .
“His bold assault is particularly amazing in light of the fact that history ‘distortion’ and ‘invention’ have been trademarks of Mormonism since its inception. Of course, the risk in Mr. Olsen's gallant tossing of the gauntlet is that someone might just pick it up.
“For example, it didn't take much investigation to discover that in 1981 the Solicitor General of the United States, Rex Lee, a Mormon, recused himself from a case against Bob Jones University.
“In that case, the U.S. government was threatening to revoke Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because of its racist policy of prohibiting interracial dating.
"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 Dhurch should retain its tax-exempt status despite its racist policies and felt conflicted from arguing an opposing view in the Bob Jones case. (see, "The Tenth Justice," [by] Lincoln Caplan, Knopf, 1987, p. 51, note 2 . . . p. 293).
“If the [Mormon] Church's tax-exempt status was never threatened by the U.S. government because of its racist policies, why was Mr. Lee making such an argument, presumably in an era before 1978?
“Given Lee's explanation, Olsen's ‘categorical’ assertion that federal tax law was never a motivating factor in the church's 1978 change in racial policy rings disingenuous. One thing true history teaches us is that secrecy breeds dishonesty.
“It's fairly easy for Mr. Olsen to hide behind the tightly secured vaults in the Church Office Building and demand proof. If he was a true knight, he would throw open the doors to the vault and invite inquiring minds in to examine the minutes of meetings held by Church leaders in the months and days leading up to the 'revelation,' so we might decide for ourselves the Church's actual motivation for the change.
"What's that you say, Mr. Olsen? Salamander got your tongue?"
(Gary Anderson, Springfield, Virginia, letter to the editor, "Salt Lake Tribune," 22 April 2001)
http://www.salamandersociety.com/blac...
In the book to which Anderson refers, author Caplan notes, in fact, that U.S. Solicitor General/Mormon Lee (who would eventually become president of BYU) recused himself from the case of Bob Jones v. IRS, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious schools which practice racial discrimination could be constitutionally stripped of federal tax exempt protection.
Lee, writes Caplan, bowed out of the case because Lee had previously petitioned the IRS for tax exempt refuge in behalf of the racially-discrimnatory Mormon Church.
Lee, noted Caplan, begged off because, given his previous advocacy for the color-bound Mormons, he now considered it improper for him to argue in behalf of the IRS against color-bound Bob Jones University.
From Caplan’s book:
”Rex Lee . . . who had been sworn in as Solicitor General seven months before [the Bob Jones brief was filed in 1982], had once represented the Mormon Church when it faced a problem like Bob Jones's and, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had taken himself off the case.” (p. 50)
“In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other Blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race . . .
"By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of Blacks attending the school was less than a dozen, making the ratio of Whites to Blacks about 550 to one.
“From the vantage point of the Solicitor General's office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.” (p. 53)
As one unpersuaded skeptic points out regarding the Mormon Church’s unpersuasive denials over its threatened tax-exempt status:
”If the IRS had never threatened the LDS Church's tax exempt status, why was Lee arguing over it and race with the IRS on the Church's behalf?”
Another understandable doubter observed:
"The only thing he [Olsen] stated is that the Church never was 'threatened' by the Government, NOT that the Church wasn't worried that such a thing *could* happen and was watching court rulings [like the one that was occurring in Wisconsin] to see if they could continue discriminating against [Black] members.
"Yes, it is possible to lose tax-exempt status for discrimination--Bob Jones University lost it once for its interracial dating policy."
http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_pries...
It should be pointed out here that although Lee recused himself from the Bob Jones case, the reasons why he did so are a matter of some dispute.
As one contributor on the RfM board has noted:
”It has been stated that he did this because he had been previously involved in a discrimination case involving the Mormon Church. . . .
“He [Lee] had been the dean of the BYU Law School which was one of the schools that would have been affected by the Bob Jones decision. That also would have been a reason to recuse himself. In 1986-87 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.”
(“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” nao_crer@yahoo.com, 8 February 2006; and idem, “Re: We do the best we can with the sources currently available,” RfM post, 8 February 2006)
--The Issue of Tax-Exempt Status, As Applied to the Mormon Church--
In order to understand what was at stake for the Mormon Church in regard to possibly losing its tax-exempt status due to its racial bias against Black men, it is important to understand what kind of tax-exempt protection the LDS Church enjoyed.
Again, reference is made to the same poster directly quoted above. This observer also identifies himself as “hold[ing] a CPA in the state of Utah and a Masters in Accounting,” adding that he received his CPA “in 1981, which is in the same time frame [as the Mormon Church reversal of its anti-Black priesthood doctrine].”
He further observes that “[t]he IRS law concerning non-profit organizations has not substantially changed since the inception.”
He then goes on to explain how educational non-profit organizations and religious non-profit organizations “are treated differently:”
”In the U.S., the . . . 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 . . . The tax exempt status of [their churches is] not threatened [by doing so].
“Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar ‘hot’ religious topics . . .
“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.”
(“What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” RfM post by “nao crer,” 8 February 2006; and idem, “Corporate Soles—IRS & Bob Jones University,” RfM post, 8 February 2006)
--The Mormon Church Had Good Reason to Fear Revocation of Its Federal Tax-Exempt Status, in Light of the Bob Jones Decision--
The LDS Church which, as a tax-exempt organization, practiced notorious racial discrimination against Blacks, was most likely notified of the Jones decision by the federal government and would have undoubtedly become concerned about losing its tax-exempt status.
As one contributor observed:
”A lot of tax-exempt organizations were worried during the Bob Jones case about losing their exempt status over discriminatory policies, according to my statutory law professor. . . .
“The Supreme Court decided the Bob Jones case in the ‘80s, at which point the federal government (under Reagan) was no longer behind the IRS's interpretation of ‘charitable organization’ defined as excluding those promoting bad public policies, like racism, but Bob Jones still lost in the Court.
“The controversy started years before when the IRS sent Bob Jones a notice that they were no longer tax exempt. Whether the Mormon Church received such a notice from the IRS, they would have been well aware of the situation with Bob Jones long before the Supreme Court case, as most non-profits apparently were.”
(“Aphrodite,” RfM post, 7 February 2005)
Indeed, in all probability the Mormon Church was notified by the federal government of the potential ramifications it faced in the wake of the Jones decision:
“The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the U.S. vs. Bob Jones University.
“This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH [Church College of Hawaii] and other U.S. Mormon-owned schools.
“These schools are organized under separate non-profit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. . . . [T]he Bob Jones University case was directed at educational non-profits. This would have affected the [Mormon Church], but not the core corporation.”
Why, and how, would this have affected the Mormon Church? The answer lies in the tax-exempt status of its privately-owned schools:
”Based on court documents, BYU, CCH, and Ricks were probably notified . . . [since] [t]his affected educational 501(c)(3) organizations.”
How the Bob Jones case, specifically, would have impacted BYU is explained as follows:
”The Bob Jones case was concerning a university and discrimination by the university. BYU is a separate 501(c)(3) corporation and there was a risk of losing its tax exempt status for the same reason as in the Bob Jones case.
“BYU received government research funds and participated in sporting events governed by the Amature Sports Act. It is an educational non-profit rather than a religious non-profit.”
”Religious organizations are allowed to discriminate. There are early rulings on this, but in 1987 the Mormon Church was directly involved in such a case. In CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), it was affirmed that a religious organizations can discriminate in hiring under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
”Religions have always been able to limit their membership to any group. There are many examples of religious organizations that limit their membership. . . .
”Religions could always do whatever they want as long as they were not taking public money.”
Not only is the Mormon Church a registered 501 (c)(3) organization, it is a racially discriminatory one.
For racist organizations such as the Mormon Church, "Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3). . . . The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.”
Just how the Bob Jones ruling affected private schools like BYU was made clear in a federal court ruling that denied tax-exempt status to private schools.
These rulings undoubtedly would have given the racially-discriminatory Mormon Church serious pause about its own standing before the federal government on the matter of continued tax-exemption protection:
“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. 81-83, 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.’” (See id., at A232).
“BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.”
Why the Mormon Church, burdened as it was with its anti-Black priesthood doctrine, would have been concerned about losing its federal tax-exempt status was made abundantly clear in the district court’s ruling:
“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...
This key information pointing, as it does, to the real vulnerablity Mormon Church-owned private schools faced with regard to having their tax-exempt status removed by the federal government because of the LDS Church's racially discriminatory practices was completely ignored by LDS spokesman Bruce Olsen. Worse still, Olsen grossly misrepresented the facts.
As Olsen's inartful dodging demonstrates, Mormon Church spokesmen are akin to diplomats, in that both are sent forth to lie in behalf of the organizations they represent:
"[Olsen's] . . . quote . . . was consistent with the [Mormon Church's] use of half truth. [His] statement . . . only addressed the Church as a religious organization. He was not addressing the related issue of the Mormon owned schools. [Again, quoting Olsen:]
"'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 [Mormon 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."
(“BYU (Edited),” RfM post by “nao crer,” 7 February 2006; “Educational nonprofits,” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; “What we DO know about the 1978 ‘revelation,’” idem, RfM post, 8 February 2006; and idem, "I appreciate your thanks," RfM post, 9 February 2006)
--An Insider Source Within the Mormon Church Confirmed That Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Helped Drive LDS, Inc. to Abandon Its Anti-Black Priesthood Ban--
Writing in their article, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner recount what they discovered concerning the Mormon Church’s tax-driven disavowal of its racist teachings:
”. . . [W]e . . . learned from a source within the [Mormon] Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States.
“In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination.
“The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of their doctrine of discrimination against Blacks. . . .
“[I]t may very well have been the ‘straw that broke the camel's back.’”
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Death of the Anti-Black Doctrine,” in "The Salt Lake City Messenger," Issue No. 41, December 1979)
--A Reported Warning to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball from U.S. President Jimmy Carter--
According to one source, amid mounting pressures for the Mormons to join the 20th century, the Chief Executive of the United States did some arm twisting of his own:
”Kimball's announcement [reversing the LDS anti-Black priesthood ban] coincided with events which were adversely affecting the Mormon Church.
“For a period of time immediately prior to Kimball's declaration, several major universities, had announced that until such time as the Mormon Church reversed its policy of racial discrimination, they would no longer take part in athletic events in which BYU participated.
“More importantly though, approximately two weeks prior to Kimball's surprising declaration, President Jimmy Carter had phoned Kimball and informed him that the IRS was seriously considering removing the Mormon Church's tax exempt status unless changes were made in their policy of discrimination.”
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/txtmorm...
Providing possible credence to the claim of a purported phone call from President Carter to President Kimball (in which the former allegedly warned the latter that the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status was in danger of being removed unless it jettisoned its racially discriminatory practice of banning Blacks from the priesthood), are numerous indicators that a Carter-Kimball line of personal communication did, in fact, already exist around the time that the LDS Church revoked its anti-Black priesthood ban.
One piece of tantalizing evidence indicating a close relationship between Carter and Kimball comes from Carter’s White House daily diary entry dated 11 March 1977, which records that Carter met with Kimball for 21 minutes, although the details of their discussion were not specified.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/doc...
A photograph of their White House encounter was actually captured on photographic film.
As one observer noted:
”According to the President Carter Library, President Kimball and Jimmy Carter met on 03/11/1977. [T]his would be in the right time frame.
“And a good search revealed the actual photograph—at lds.org.
http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/pres...
(“According to the President Carter Library,” RfM post by “CLee the Anti-Mormon,” 8 February 2006)
Edward Kimball, in his biographical work, "Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball," reports that President Kimball, in fact, received a phone call from President Carter the same year of their White House meeting:
”In 1977, President Kimball and Marion G. Romney were attending a stake conference in Filmore, Utah. The White House telephone operator tracked President Kimball down and said that President Jimmy Carter wished to speak to him.
“Spencer was at the pulpit speaking, so President Romney took the call. President Carter was preparing to speak at a Baptist convention about missionary work and asked many questions about the Mormon program: How many missionaries? What salary do they receive? How long do they serve? Where do they come from? Where are they sent? He complimented the Church on an inspired program and asked that he be sent additional information."
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books...
Five months before the Mormon Church abandoned its priesthood prohibition against Black males, Carter was the invited guest of the LDS Church at a Salt Lake City event celebrating the family.
Carter’s participation in those festivities are described on the Mormon Church’s official website:
"On 27 January . . . (1978), President Jimmy Carter of the United States was invited by . . . [the Mormon] Church to the All-American Family Week held in Salt Lake City.
“After the meeting, President Carter said that attending the Family Week was a most pleasurable experience for him. He also praised the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for launching the welfare and community services programs. He remarked, ‘If these programs can be extended to all states in the nation, my job as the president will be much easier.’”
http://www.lds.org.hk/english/local_c...
When Kimball eventually announced the Mormon Church’s reversal of its anti-Black priesthood ban, Carter again contacted him, this time by written correspondence.
According to the article, “The LDS Church and African-Americans: THE PRIESTHOOD BAN:”
“Jimmy Carter, then-president of the United States, wrote President Kimball, ‘I welcome today your announcement. . . . I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine. This announcement brings a healing spirit to the world and reminds all men and women that they are truly brothers and sisters.’”
http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry....
In the pro-Mormon publication, "Meridian Magazine," under the headline, “Hallelujah! The 25th Anniversary of the Revelation on Priesthood,” Maurine Jensen Proctor reports that Carter made this contact with Kimball in order to relay his approval of the Mormon Church’s reversal on its racist ban relative to Black membership in the LDS priesthood:
”President Jimmy Carter commended President Spencer W. Kimball for ‘compassionate prayerfulness and courage.’
http://www.ldsmag.com/articles/030606...
If one is to believe Latter-day lore, Carter even suggested to Kimball that the Mormon Church’s reversal on its ban against Black priesthood acquisition was divinely inspired.
According to LDS writer Janet Brigham:
"Even President Jimmy Carter implied acceptance of the revelation's divine origin. A telegram from Carter to President Kimball said, 'I commend you for your compassionate prayerfulness and courage in receiving a new doctrine.'
http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazin...
(Most of the above information on the Carter-Kimball connection comes from “Polygamy and Racism--a funny but sad story,” RfM post by “cricket,” cricket AT salamandersociety.com, in which the author notes that he also “found some notes about Jimmy Carter and Spencer Kimball.” 7 February 2006)
The evidence of Carter-Kimball connective tissue shows that a line of interpersonal contact existed between the two men during the time period when the Mormon Church was considering, and eventually implementing, its priesthood change pertaining to Black men.
With Carter and Kimball enjoying such a comfortable and regular one-to-one communication around the time of the Mormon Church's anti-Black doctrinal flip-flop, this potentially opens another investigative trail for examining claims that Carter also allegedly warned Kimball that continuation of the LDS priesthood ban against Blacks could endanger its tax-exempt position.
--Not-So-Secret Combinations: Consumer Boycotts, Vacation Detours, NAACP Lawsuits, ACLU Threats, Advice from Paid Professional Consultants, and Pressure from the IRS--
At the time the Mormon Church relented and reversed its anti-Black doctrine, societal and governmental forces were converging to bring it to its wobbly white and delightsome knees:
” . . . [A]nti-Mormons urged for boycotts of recordings of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the cancellation of vacations to Utah.
“The NAACP initiated several lawsuits against Mormon Boy Scout troops, charging that Church policy was foisting racism on minority Scouts. . . . “
“Several professional consulting firms which the Church had previously hired for other matters suggested to Church leaders that they reconsider the status of Blacks in the Mormon Church as part of a major overhaul of church policy. . . .”
“Worst of all, the IRS suggested that the racial policies of the Mormon Church might justify a suspension of its tax-exempt status.”
(Lorraine Hewlett, “The Second Great Accomodation,” 17 June 2004)
http://www.salamandersociety.com/blac...
Mike Schreib, pastor of the Pionner Baptist Bible Church in Ontario, California, in an article entitled, “Mormonism: A Religion for Dumb White People,” further lays out the legal hurdles facing a besieged Mormon Church in danger of taking a haymaker tax hit to the chin:
”In early 1978, the Mormon Church found itself suffering from a massive news media campaign criticizing their attitudes towards blacks and nonwhites. Allegations of discrimination and racism by such groups as the NAACP and ACLU were directed against the LDS Church, and rightly so.
"The Mormon leadership began to sweat.
“If things progressed badly for them, they feared losing large numbers of their members who saw the Church as a White supremacist haven, and were willing to tell the media about it.
"Even worse, they feared losing their federal tax exempt status from the IRS; a loss that would have devastated their financial empire.
“THE SOLUTION
“On June 8, 1978, Mormon President and prophet, Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world a new 'Official Declaration' from the Lord.
"Suddenly, he claimed, “. . . all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR COLOR.” (original emphasis)
The cult monitoring group, “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance” offers a broad overview of the increasing governmental pressures being brought to bear on the Mormon Church to abandon its racist doctrines and practices toward Blacks:
”More federal political pressure was felt by the [Mormon] Church in the 1970s over the Church's institutionalized racism.
"The Pearl of Great Price limited the advancement within the Church by Blacks or by persons with Black ancestors. (Higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, etc.). . . .
“The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened [the] LDS's tax exempt status.
"There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against Afro-Americans.
"Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with Brigham Young University.
"Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of Church businesses and of Utah tourism.
"The Church received a new revelation from God in [June] 1978 . . . which abolished racism within the Church. “
http://www.xploreheartlinks.com/latte...
Hallelujah, indeed.
--Memories of National News Accounts Indicating Mormon Church Fear of Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Due to Its Anti-Black Priesthood Doctrine--
News | |
2.0 Feed
0.3 Feed