Undocumented Members

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

An authoritarian leader with a police force that is violent and tasked with rounding up people using tactics that are outside the rule of law.

Thanks for explaining your thinking on it.

[Rain]

Not a chance.

I've had several years where I've been learning how complicated immigration is.  The last year I've heard more. The last week, specifically the last 2 days I've heard even more from lawyers doing charitable immigration work. The system seems set to fail you at a number of points.

Plus I've been listening to former detainees and their lawyers  talking about what they are dealing with in detention and it is immoral what is happening in some of these places and how the system works. So, not a chance I will report them for their immigration status. I would report felony and some misdemeaner criminal behavior to the police. 

Edited January 30 by Rain

[Nofear]

One year ago today.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-reaffirms-immigration-principles-love-law-family-unity

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reiterated principles and communicated guidelines to local leaders in the United States regarding immigration issues. 

As disciples of Jesus Christ, the following principles guide the Church’s approach:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obeys the law.
2. We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children.
3. We seek to provide basic food and clothing, as our capacity allows, to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. We are especially concerned about keeping families together.

The guidance closely follows statements made previously on these issues, which are available on the Church website.

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. OGC also carefully tracks legal developments to ensure local outreach and area-initiated humanitarian activities are appropriate. Local leaders should be in contact with the Office of General Counsel for further information.

[mbh26]

I'm not sure about the illegal immigrants, but if I knew church members were acting as insurgents, attacking ICE officers, obstructing arrests, using their vehicles to obstruct ICE officers, spitting on them, vandalizing their vehicles, etc. I would turn them all in 100%.  If they really wanted to help illegal immigrants they would get real jobs and send them money in their own countries.  I see nothing Christlike in being generous with other peoples hard earned money.  I'd also have turned them in had they disrupted an LDS church meeting in the way Don Lemon did.  

Edited January 30 by mbh26

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

One year ago today.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-reaffirms-immigration-principles-love-law-family-unity

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reiterated principles and communicated guidelines to local leaders in the United States regarding immigration issues. 

As disciples of Jesus Christ, the following principles guide the Church’s approach:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obeys the law.
2. We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children.
3. We seek to provide basic food and clothing, as our capacity allows, to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. We are especially concerned about keeping families together.

The guidance closely follows statements made previously on these issues, which are available on the Church website.

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. OGC also carefully tracks legal developments to ensure local outreach and area-initiated humanitarian activities are appropriate. Local leaders should be in contact with the Office of General Counsel for further information.

Couldn't giving them leadership callings on the Branch, Ward, and Stake level, or calling them on full-time missions be seen by some as "encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States of America"?

The seems like it may be a lawyer-speak CYA document not unlike the OD1, where real world application is... Flexible.

[Nofear]

25 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Couldn't giving them leadership callings on the Branch, Ward, and Stake level, or calling them on full-time missions be seen by some as "encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States of America"?

The seems like it may be a lawyer-speak CYA document not unlike the OD1, where real world application is... Flexible.

"The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States."

I can't find a website. Maybe you can call the Office of General Counsel and see if they give you the guidelines. 1-800-453-3860 (extension unknown).

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

One year ago today.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-reaffirms-immigration-principles-love-law-family-unity

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reiterated principles and communicated guidelines to local leaders in the United States regarding immigration issues. 

As disciples of Jesus Christ, the following principles guide the Church’s approach:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obeys the law.
2. We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children.
3. We seek to provide basic food and clothing, as our capacity allows, to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. We are especially concerned about keeping families together.

The guidance closely follows statements made previously on these issues, which are available on the Church website.

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. OGC also carefully tracks legal developments to ensure local outreach and area-initiated humanitarian activities are appropriate. Local leaders should be in contact with the Office of General Counsel for further information.

I have a question on point 1. Let's pretend that the govt issued a law that said if you know someone is illegal then you are required to report them to the govt. Point 1 says LDS obey the law. The canonized Article of Faith reaffirms this "we belive in honoring, obeying, sustaining the law". Would that change how many of you are answering in this thread? Or would you break the law? Would you regard that law as simply unjust, or would you view it as immoral? If you didn't keep that law would you be breaking your covenants with God since our canon says to obey the law?

What if the law included a requirement to report anyone on suspicion who you believe knew someone else was illegal but was refusing to report it? (making it more likely for you to get caught if you quietly resisted.) What if the penalty was $1k, $10k, etc. per infraction? What if the penalty were jail time? What if it were death (as @sunstoned pointed out earlier he wouldn't report the Jews in Germany under potential penalty of death)? Since this issue is currently reeking of politics (which I think is really weird, but whatever), what if the law was instituted by your favorite president of all time who you trusted and all media regardless of left/right, D/R, or independent/mainstream supported the law with honey-laced justifications that got the country enamored with the new law? What if all of your friends hopped on board and were quietly watching you to see if you were on their side?

I know that everyone on here naturally believes that they wouldn't have reported Jews, and that they would resist immoral or unjust laws. But really take a moment to think about it. Would you really? I think these are interesting questions.

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, JVW said:

I have a question on point 1. Let's pretend that the govt issued a law that said if you know someone is illegal then you are required to report them to the govt. Point 1 says LDS obey the law. The canonized Article of Faith reaffirms this "we belive in honoring, obeying, sustaining the law". Would that change how many of you are answering in this thread? Or would you break the law? Would you regard that law as simply unjust, or would you view it as immoral? If you didn't keep that law would you be breaking your covenants with God since our canon says to obey the law?

What if the law included a requirement to report anyone on suspicion who you believe knew someone else was illegal but was refusing to report it? (making it more likely for you to get caught if you quietly resisted.) What if the penalty was $1k, $10k, etc. per infraction? What if the penalty were jail time? What if it were death (as @sunstoned pointed out earlier he wouldn't report the Jews in Germany under potential penalty of death)? Since this issue is currently reeking of politics (which I think is really weird, but whatever), what if the law was instituted by your favorite president of all time who you trusted and all media regardless of left/right, D/R, or independent/mainstream supported the law with honey-laced justifications that got the country enamored with the new law? What if all of your friends hopped on board and were quietly watching you to see if you were on their side?

I know that everyone on here naturally believes that they wouldn't have reported Jews, and that they would resist immoral or unjust laws. But really take a moment to think about it. Would you really? I think these are interesting questions.

The opposite question could be asked as well. How much would you follow immoral or unjust laws?  Say there was a law that you couldn't pray. How likely are you to not pray while you are waiting for the law to get changed?

[ZealouslyStriving]

42 minutes ago, Nofear said:

"The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States."

I can't find a website. Maybe you can call the Office of General Counsel and see if they give you the guidelines. 1-800-453-3860 (extension unknown).

I'm not understanding the point of your reply.

[JVW]

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

The opposite question could be asked as well. How much would you follow immoral or unjust laws?  Say there was a law that you couldn't pray. How likely are you to not pray while you are waiting for the law to get changed?

You and I are both asking the same question. Wouldn't a law to report illegal immigrants be viewed by many in this thread as immoral and unjust?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

I have a question on point 1. Let's pretend that the govt issued a law that said if you know someone is illegal then you are required to report them to the govt. Point 1 says LDS obey the law. The canonized Article of Faith reaffirms this "we belive in honoring, obeying, sustaining the law". Would that change how many of you are answering in this thread? Or would you break the law? Would you regard that law as simply unjust, or would you view it as immoral? If you didn't keep that law would you be breaking your covenants with God since our canon says to obey the law?

What if the law included a requirement to report anyone on suspicion who you believe knew someone else was illegal but was refusing to report it? (making it more likely for you to get caught if you quietly resisted.) What if the penalty was $1k, $10k, etc. per infraction? What if the penalty were jail time? What if it were death (as @sunstoned pointed out earlier he wouldn't report the Jews in Germany under potential penalty of death)? Since this issue is currently reeking of politics (which I think is really weird, but whatever), what if the law was instituted by your favorite president of all time who you trusted and all media regardless of left/right, D/R, or independent/mainstream supported the law with honey-laced justifications that got the country enamored with the new law? What if all of your friends hopped on board and were quietly watching you to see if you were on their side?

I know that everyone on here naturally believes that they wouldn't have reported Jews, and that they would resist immoral or unjust laws. But really take a moment to think about it. Would you really? I think these are interesting questions.

You are describing a fascist state. If my favorite leader of all time were behind it I need to go home and rethink my life.

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are describing a fascist state. If my favorite leader of all time were behind it I need to go home and rethink my life.

I was thinking McCarthyism as I was writing it. I haven't heard of anyone referring to that time period as fascist before.

ETA: Covid times were a lot like this in many parts of the world and many people were on board with it. My wife's family is Australian, the are all pretty far-left politically. But when they tell covid-era stories they will confess that their govt and neighbors went too far. There was a lot of spying and tattle-telling b/c the perception was "if I don't police my neighbor they could kill my grandma." So we aren't too far removed from this kind of atmosphere and I wouldn't be surprised if it pops up again very soon.

Edited January 30 by JVW

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, mbh26 said:

I'm not sure about the illegal immigrants, but if I knew church members were acting as insurgents, attacking ICE officers, obstructing arrests, using their vehicles to obstruct ICE officers, spitting on them, vandalizing their vehicles, etc. I would turn them all in 100%.  If they really wanted to help illegal immigrants they would get real jobs and send them money in their own countries.  I see nothing Christlike in being generous with other peoples hard earned money.  I'd also have turned them in had they disrupted an LDS church meeting in the way Don Lemon did.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

"The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has created guidelines to help local leaders comply with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting, or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States."

I can't find a website. Maybe you can call the Office of General Counsel and see if they give you the guidelines. 1-800-453-3860 (extension unknown).

I did find this.

Quote

Stake presidents in the United States have received a letter with additional instructions, including the following:

• Local leaders may use fast-offering funds to provide temporary assistance for essential needs like food, clothing, and medical care, regardless of immigration status.
• If local leaders have reason to believe someone is undocumented and not authorized to work, they should avoid potential conflicts with federal law by avoiding or limiting housing assistance, not transporting the person outside the local community, and not referring the person for employment.
• Leaders should not provide legal advice, testify in legal proceedings, or sponsor immigration efforts.
• Leaders may refer families to community resources that address their immigration issues or help prepare them for possible separation in cases where family members may be deported.
• Church buildings and resources should not be used to help shield individuals from law enforcement.

https://lds365.com/2025/01/31/church-reaffirms-immigration-principles-and-encourages-local-leaders-to-comply-with-federal-laws/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

have a question on point 1. Let's pretend that the govt issued a law that said if you know someone is illegal then you are required to report them to the govt. Point 1 says LDS obey the law. The canonized Article of Faith reaffirms this "we belive in honoring, obeying, sustaining the law". Would that change how many of you are answering in this thread? Or would you break the law? Would you regard that law as simply unjust, or would you view it as immoral? If you didn't keep that law would you be breaking your covenants with God since our canon says to obey the law?

What if the law included a requirement to report anyone on suspicion who you believe knew someone else was illegal but was refusing to report it?

It would depend on how humanely people were treated after being reported, I hope.

If I could trust they would be safe; held in humane, decent quarters and provided with necessities and comfort and were allowed to immediately communicate with family and employers or anyone else they needed to; then provided with effective ways to either safely return to their original country or smoothly and relatively quickly gain legal permission to work in the country as well as families not be split up if there are minors or others unable to support themselves that were legal, I would probably consider it thinking they would be better off being legal.

As far as reporting people who wouldn’t inform, how would I know this unless I knew enough to inform myself?  I can’t read minds and guessing shouldn’t be used here, imo.

I find reporting illegal immigrants immoral at this time because of the treatment that has been extensively reported and documented as well as the broken imo system of trying to get legal status.  It is so screwed up I have a hard time faulting those who see it as impossible to work with. (I based this on reports of people I know who have worked with illegals and refugees as well as people trying to legally immigrate from the beginning.). That mess should have been cleaned up first before the deportation of masses started as it is just overwhelming and already overwhelmed system, imo, becoming dangerous at this point for too many to justify it.

Edited January 30 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

You and I are both asking the same question. Wouldn't a law to report illegal immigrants be viewed by many in this thread as immoral and unjust?

Not quite the same. It's subtle.  You talked about resisting unjust laws. I'm asking about following unjust laws. One is trying to figure out how to not follow the law, the other is trying to figure out how to deal with following the law. 

It may not seem to make a difference, but it will make a difference depending on the law and the persons beliefs. For example in resisting the no prayer law a person may find places not to be seen while praying.  In following the law the person may feel it is best to not pray, but feel God will understand as long as you are trying to get the law changed. 

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

I have a question on point 1. Let's pretend that the govt issued a law that said if you know someone is illegal then you are required to report them to the govt. Point 1 says LDS obey the law. The canonized Article of Faith reaffirms this "we belive in honoring, obeying, sustaining the law". Would that change how many of you are answering in this thread? Or would you break the law? Would you regard that law as simply unjust, or would you view it as immoral? If you didn't keep that law would you be breaking your covenants with God since our canon says to obey the law?

What if the law included a requirement to report anyone on suspicion who you believe knew someone else was illegal but was refusing to report it? (making it more likely for you to get caught if you quietly resisted.) What if the penalty was $1k, $10k, etc. per infraction? What if the penalty were jail time? What if it were death (as @sunstoned pointed out earlier he wouldn't report the Jews in Germany under potential penalty of death)? Since this issue is currently reeking of politics (which I think is really weird, but whatever), what if the law was instituted by your favorite president of all time who you trusted and all media regardless of left/right, D/R, or independent/mainstream supported the law with honey-laced justifications that got the country enamored with the new law? What if all of your friends hopped on board and were quietly watching you to see if you were on their side?

I know that everyone on here naturally believes that they wouldn't have reported Jews, and that they would resist immoral or unjust laws. But really take a moment to think about it. Would you really? I think these are interesting questions.

I would not, without a second thought, report someone I think is undocumented in some way. No matter what the law says.@Calm noted qualifications that would make it more palatable. Knowing US history and current rhetoric, I wouldn't trust that those qualifications would have been met. I would absolutely find it immoral and unjust. Our canon holds a lot of teachings that I would feel bolstered in with. Namely the highest laws of love your neighbor as your self, that compassion and care determines who is your neighbor....not borders and status, that I am to exhibit to the fruits of the spirit - including long-suffering - and that against these, there is "no law." Etc. 

Questions like these have not been far away from my mind and heart for me for several months now.  Realistically I have been balancing what I aspire to be to what I know I'm called to be right now. I haven't found a balance yet. I don't know what that will look like in the future. I value varying peoples at varying points who stood and fought for something better. To move a little away from a polarizing example, I find myself thinking a lot about the civil rights movements. The ones proactively in it.  But I've also thought of the pragmatists who pushed a better life for their children and families by leaving the worst parts of the US....or the US entirely to give immediate advantage to their children. I should note, this also happened in europe during WWII as well.  And likely any period of time where there is growing pressures that make a space untenable or unsafe. Personally those two options flirt in my head regularly: active engagement or leaving for a better future. Currently I choose engagement in my small ways. I don't know if that will be my choice tomorrow. 

I feel like I'm learning unspeakable lessons the last few years. Ones that people don't want to believe or think about. There's so much complexity in what's right or wrong.  

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited January 30 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I feel like I'm learning unspeakable lessons the last few years. Ones that people don't want to believe or think about. There's so much complexity in what's right or wrong.  

This is truth in my experience 

[manol]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I would not, without a second thought, report someone I think is undocumented in some way. No matter what the law says.@Calm noted qualifications that would make it more palatable. Knowing US history and current rhetoric, I wouldn't trust that those qualifications would have been met. I would absolutely find it immoral and unjust. Our canon holds a lot of teachings that I would feel bolstered in with. Namely the highest laws of love your neighbor as your self, that compassion and care determines who is your neighbor....not borders and status, that I am to exhibit to the fruits of the spirit - including long-suffering - and that against these, there is "no law." Etc.

Amen.

If there are "greater laws" and "lesser laws", then it is absolutely no contest between the greater law of "love your neighbor as yourself" and the lesser law of "obey the laws of the land". 

Especially in the event that the laws of the land are at odds with "love your neighbor as yourself".   

I'm old-school enough to be in favor of re-enshrining "do what is right, let the consequence follow" as a worthy moral guideline. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, manol said:

I'm old-school enough to be in favor of re-enshrining "do what is right, let the consequence follow" as a worthy moral guideline. 

But it needs, imo, to be a more global “do what is right” because too often if support isn’t present, the results of the right action can be wrong.  

For example, in this case being here illegally is technically wrong and there the right thing to do to help and love others would be to report them.  But this is wrong imo in this day and place unless criminal behaviour is involved because the undocumented don’t have an effective way to do better when reported.  Reporting is right if you are helping the person find a better way of life and/or preventing significant harm to others.

I have seen some think that motto allows them to not spend time examining what the consequences will be, but in my view you can’t determine what’s right or wrong until you understand likely consequences and take them into account.

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I would not, without a second thought, report someone I think is undocumented in some way. No matter what the law says.@Calm noted qualifications that would make it more palatable. Knowing US history and current rhetoric, I wouldn't trust that those qualifications would have been met. I would absolutely find it immoral and unjust. Our canon holds a lot of teachings that I would feel bolstered in with. Namely the highest laws of love your neighbor as your self, that compassion and care determines who is your neighbor....not borders and status, that I am to exhibit to the fruits of the spirit - including long-suffering - and that against these, there is "no law." Etc. 

Questions like these have not been far away from my mind and heart for me for several months now.  Realistically I have been balancing what I aspire to be to what I know I'm called to be right now. I haven't found a balance yet. I don't know what that will look like in the future. I value varying peoples at varying points who stood and fought for something better. To move a little away from a polarizing example, I find myself thinking a lot about the civil rights movements. The ones proactively in it.  But I've also thought of the pragmatists who pushed a better life for their children and families by leaving the worst parts of the US....or the US entirely to give immediate advantage to their children. I should note, this also happened in europe during WWII as well.  And likely any period of time where there is growing pressures that make a space untenable or unsafe. Personally those two options flirt in my head regularly: active engagement or leaving for a better future. Currently I choose engagement in my small ways. I don't know if that will be my choice tomorrow. 

I feel like I'm learning unspeakable lessons the last few years. Ones that people don't want to believe or think about. There's so much complexity in what's right or wrong.  

 

With luv,

BD 

No doubt.  And then add to that the complexity of immigration laws and the many processes by which people are illegally here it gets crazy.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, manol said:

Amen.

If there are "greater laws" and "lesser laws", then it is absolutely no contest between the greater law of "love your neighbor as yourself" and the lesser law of "obey the laws of the land". 

Especially in the event that the laws of the land are at odds with "love your neighbor as yourself".   

I'm old-school enough to be in favor of re-enshrining "do what is right, let the consequence follow" as a worthy moral guideline. 

I've been noticing how often things are at variance with one another lately.  A few days ago a local government organzation posted a statement.  In that statement it said it will do something.  Later on it said it would also do this other something. Most of the time I realized that would be no problem, but what about the few times when the 2 somethings were at variance with each other? Which would take prority? Which is the greater law?

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But it needs, imo, to be a more global “do what is right” because too often if support isn’t present, the results of the right action can be wrong. 

Well I could agree that "do what is right, let the consequence follow" is somewhat simplistic, but I'd also argue that it's a really good starting point. 

"Do what is right but do it prudently" is probably more... um... prudent... but imo is less of a commitment.

I aspire to "always follow the highest that one knows", which of course evolves as the person evolves.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Do what is right but do it prudently" is probably more... um... prudent... but imo is less of a commitment.

I think that depends on the person.  I feel I can commit deeper and make a greater sacrifice when I feel confident it will truly help and not just not hurt. Seen too many people do what they think the person needs instead of asking or exploring what the need actually is from the other’s POV.  My dad and grandparents were that way, sacrificed heavily for others, in my case buying me new high quality dressy clothes (I can live with a very limited and casual, mostly inexpensive wardrobe, so it was nice but not necessary and a lot just got worn a few times out of a sense of obligation, but they wanted me to look well dressed because being well dressed gave them confidence, etc, helped them feel good about themselves and they assumed I was the same way) or pay off my husband’s student loan debt (with the condition we put the money we now had free towards me going back to school, which was the eventual plan once I felt better that never happened).  What I really wanted and needed (help with exploring possible health solutions or buying books on religious themes) was not offered by them (Mom  came through later quite a bit though when she paid for things that were successful for her) and I felt too awkward to ask because it wasn’t a certain thing and so my quality of life did not improve even if having no debt removed some stress.  
 

Also I knew someone who used the “do what is right, let the consequence follow” method as an excuse not to take the time to get to know the real needs of a person before providing them with charity.  They were dismissive of the idea that you could harm someone with the wrong form of charity (example:  money intended for food is much easier to give than taking someone out to eat to ensure the money isn’t spent on drugs or drink).

To me not finding out what is prudent first is doing charity to help yourself feel good more than to help others, so I have a much harder time feeling committed unless I have taken some time to educate myself, ask questions.

Edited January 31 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think that depends on the person.  I feel I can commit deeper and make a greater sacrifice when I feel confident it will truly help and not just not hurt. Seen too many people do what they think the person needs instead of asking or exploring what the need actually is from the other’s POV.  My dad and grandparents were that way, sacrificed heavily for others, in my case buying me new high quality dressy clothes (I can live with a very limited and casual, mostly inexpensive wardrobe, so it was nice but not necessary and a lot just got worn a few times out of a sense of obligation, but they wanted me to look well dressed) or pay off my husband’s student loan debt (with the condition we put the money we now had free towards me going back to school, which was the eventual plan once I felt better that never happened).  What I really wanted and needed (help with exploring possible health solutions) was not offered by them (Mom  came through later quite a bit though when she paid for things that were successful for her) and I felt too awkward to ask because it wasn’t a certain thing and so my quality of life did not improve even if having no debt removed some stress.  
 

Also I knew someone who used the “do what is right, let the consequence follow” method as an excuse not to take the time to get to know the real needs of a person before providing them with charity.  They were dismissive of the idea that you could harm someone with the wrong form of charity (example:  money intended for food is much easier to give than taking someone out to eat to ensure the money isn’t spent on drugs or drink).

To me not finding out what is prudent first is doing charity to help yourself feel good than to help others, so I have a much harder time feeling committed unless I have taken some time to educate myself, ask questions.

I got the impression that by saying to let the consequence follow Manol meant do what is right with the Lord and for the person and let the consequence follow on the doer not do what is right with the technical commandments and let the consequence follow on the receiver.  Maybe I read that wrong?

Edited January 31 by Rain