Membership in the Corporation of the President

[Moliere]

I'm still keenly interested in some of the topics brought up in the Daymon Smith podcasts. I've been spending some time doing research on them and I have to say that some (probably closer to "a few" than "many") of his criticisms outside of the correlation topic are not well founded. I do agree with him on many things though and still find myself thinking about correlation in every lesson that is presented at church.

One criticism that Smith brings up is our membership in the church. His tenet in this regard seems to be that there really is no legal church. Instead our church records or our membership is really in the Corporation of the President or the Intellectual Reserve Inc. companies. The gist of this conclusion comes from the fact that the church was legally disbanded in 1877 (not sure my date is correct) with all the anti-polygamy legislation was being passed ultimately leading up to the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the Manifesto.

Apparently after the legal dissolution of the church, it wasn't until the early 1900s that the church was legally reorganized into a corporation, or at least the assets of the church were placed into a corporation that ultimately became known as the Corporation of the President. Subsequent legal entities have been formed to hold other assets and intellectual property of the church.

In short, Smith seems to think that because the church assets are housed under a legal corporation that our membership is really to that corporation. I differ from him in thinking that our membership in the church has no bearing on how the assets of the church are legally handled. In fact, I don't think it is significant to our history that we had 6 people present to establish the church in accordance with the laws of NY. I know this fact is often expressed as a means to show the legality or legitimacy of the early church but I personally believe that the church was started the day that Joseph and Oliver were baptized. I guess you could say the church was organized on April 6, 1830 but the meeting held that day seems more ceremonial or procedural especially when juxtaposed against the dissolution of the church.

In short, I guess I see my membership in the church as more spiritual in nature. I expect that at the time of Christ there were no set of laws governing the establishment of churches and membership in His fold was more a spiritual membership that came by way of baptism. This is why I really have no issues, or at least I don't hold the same issues as Smith, with the current legal organization of the church.

I wanted to use this background and discussion to see how others view their membership in the church.

[CardiacCoug]

I agree with you that church membership is really about spiritual rather than formal "on-the-books" status. It seems to me that the New Testament Jesus didn't really seem to care too much about formal church membership or authority:

Matthew 18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Luke 9:49-50: And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

[Non Sequitur]

I have no patience for people who always talk about the Church as a corporation and completely ignore its spiritual aspect. It's the same people who rip on companies like Nu-Skin, calling them greedy, MLM scammers, while altogether ignoring the fact that they are providing a generation of men and women with an affordable means to luxurious skin.

[CardiacCoug]

I have no patience for people who always talk about the Church as a corporation and completely ignore its spiritual aspect. It's the same people who probably rip on companies like Nu-Skin, calling them greedy, MLM scammers, while altogether ignoring the fact that they are providing a generation of men and women with an affordable means to luxurious skin.

LOL!

[old_gregg]

I have no patience for people who always talk about the Church as a corporation and completely ignore its spiritual aspect. It's the same people who probably rip on companies like Nu-Skin, calling them greedy, MLM scammers, while altogether ignoring the fact that they are providing a generation of men and women with an affordable means to luxurious skin.

[John McClain]

If I am a member of the Corporation, where's my stock certificate? Seriously, I don't think God cares what the legal organization is, other than His directive that we follow the laws of the land.

[Moliere]

If I am a member of the Corporation, where's my stock certificate? Seriously, I don't think God cares what the legal organization is, other than His directive that we follow the laws of the land.

Good question. Here's a link (http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/chorg3.htm) to the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation of the President. I'm not sure how updated the link is but I imagine you could get a copy of the AOI somewhere from the state. Some interesting things in there including:

Distribution of assets on dissolution (sorry you get nothing):

Upon the winding up and dissolution of this corporation, after paying or adequately providing for the debts and obligations of the corporation, the remaining assets shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation, which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, or religious and/or scientific purposes and which has established its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Unwritten method of presidential succession:

But in the event of death or resignation from office of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or in the event of a vacancy in that office from any cause, the President or Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of said Church, or one of the members of said Quorum thereunto designated by that Quorum, shall, pending the installation of a successor President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, be the corporation sole under these articles

[FMCoug]

Most church assets are not owned by the COP. They are owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. This is of course in accordance with the D&C.

[Pheidippides]

Good question. Here's a link (http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/chorg3.htm) to the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation of the President. I'm not sure how updated the link is but I imagine you could get a copy of the AOI somewhere from the state. Some interesting things in there including:

Distribution of assets on dissolution (sorry you get nothing):




Unwritten method of presidential succession:

The distribution of assets on dissolution issue is a requirement for a 501(c)(3) non-profit. It's pretty standard (although I think you already knew that).

[jay santos]

I'm still keenly interested in some of the topics brought up in the Daymon Smith podcasts. I've been spending some time doing research on them and I have to say that some (probably closer to "a few" than "many") of his criticisms outside of the correlation topic are not well founded. I do agree with him on many things though and still find myself thinking about correlation in every lesson that is presented at church.

One criticism that Smith brings up is our membership in the church. His tenet in this regard seems to be that there really is no legal church. Instead our church records or our membership is really in the Corporation of the President or the Intellectual Reserve Inc. companies. The gist of this conclusion comes from the fact that the church was legally disbanded in 1877 (not sure my date is correct) with all the anti-polygamy legislation was being passed ultimately leading up to the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the Manifesto.

Apparently after the legal dissolution of the church, it wasn't until the early 1900s that the church was legally reorganized into a corporation, or at least the assets of the church were placed into a corporation that ultimately became known as the Corporation of the President. Subsequent legal entities have been formed to hold other assets and intellectual property of the church.

In short, Smith seems to think that because the church assets are housed under a legal corporation that our membership is really to that corporation. I differ from him in thinking that our membership in the church has no bearing on how the assets of the church are legally handled. In fact, I don't think it is significant to our history that we had 6 people present to establish the church in accordance with the laws of NY. I know this fact is often expressed as a means to show the legality or legitimacy of the early church but I personally believe that the church was started the day that Joseph and Oliver were baptized. I guess you could say the church was organized on April 6, 1830 but the meeting held that day seems more ceremonial or procedural especially when juxtaposed against the dissolution of the church.

In short, I guess I see my membership in the church as more spiritual in nature. I expect that at the time of Christ there were no set of laws governing the establishment of churches and membership in His fold was more a spiritual membership that came by way of baptism. This is why I really have no issues, or at least I don't hold the same issues as Smith, with the current legal organization of the church.

I wanted to use this background and discussion to see how others view their membership in the church.

I downloaded the podcasts and have meant to listen but haven't yet. What point is he making on the issue? I don't see anything interesting or controversial in this issue.

[Moliere]

I downloaded the podcasts and have meant to listen but haven't yet. What point is he making on the issue? I don't see anything interesting or controversial in this issue.

If I remember correctly, he has an issue with the church being dissolved and then reformed as a Corporation Sole. I think mainly the issue is that the church is more like a corporation both in how it functions and also how policy/spending decisions are made. He references how some projects are not undertaken in poor countries because they don't provide a return on investment (homeless shelters, schools, etc.) and then contrasts that with the big mall the church is building in downtown SLC. FTR, I tend to agree with his issue here.

But then he also takes it also to mean that his membership is really in the Corporation and not the church given that the organization is legally structured as a Corporation Sole and there is formal organization called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is where I disagree with him in that our membership in the church is more spiritual through our baptism and even if the church was not incorporated or didn't hold any assets, or didn't even keep formal records then I would still be a member of the church. His thoughts and some comments seem to not mirror my belief.

[Moliere]

Most church assets are not owned by the COP. They are owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. This is of course in accordance with the D&C.

Is one the parent company of the other? Regardless, I expect the COTPB to be structured the same.

If it's in accordance with the D&C why was it not a Corporation until the early 1900s?

[Moliere]

The distribution of assets on dissolution issue is a requirement for a 501(c)(3) non-profit. It's pretty standard (although I think you already knew that).

Ha, I did know that 95% of AOI are standard wording (as are most contracts) but I do wonder what the dissolution article means. I expect it just means that the assets would be moved to another 501(c)(3) entity. I can't imagine that if the church ever just fully dissolves that assets would be dispursed among the general membership. Of course if the church was in a position where it was dissolving, it would most likely not have any assets left.

[UtahDan]

I downloaded the podcasts and have meant to listen but haven't yet. What point is he making on the issue? I don't see anything interesting or controversial in this issue.

If I understood him correctly, his point is to highlight the idea that a huge, huge part of what the church does is function as manager of money and property on a scale that would appall a lot of us if we appreciated breadth and depth of it, and that as a result there is a "for profit" mentality that permeates leadership and our approach to a myriad of things. He doesn't question the notion that the church has done exceptionally well at growing its money and building up its assets (to the point where a 3B investment in a mall doesn't remotely represent a risk to the church), but he does question whether that is what the church of Jesus should do.

[Pheidippides]

Ha, I did know that 95% of AOI are standard wording (as are most contracts) but I do wonder what the dissolution article means. I expect it just means that the assets would be moved to another 501(c)(3) entity. I can't imagine that if the church ever just fully dissolves that assets would be dispursed among the general membership. Of course if the church was in a position where it was dissolving, it would most likely not have any assets left.

You're right. The gist is that, in order to be a 501(c)(3), you have to give your assets up to another 501(c)(3) if you dissolve - unlike a for-profit entity, in which case the residual would go to the equity holders. If memory serves - it's been a while since I've had to deal with this.