The Church and members who aren't documented

[Nofear]

The irony here is that someone actually believes that the state creates what is right. Amazing really, being both German and of Jewish blood, I have long since realized the "state" is not always right and should be viewed, as our founding fathers viewed teh state, "with suspicion". I find it disheartening that the "state" can decide who enters God's Temple and who doesn't. In effect that is exactly what some people are saying. I personally would not countenance that. The state is "amoral" and we cannot allow the state to control our ordinances of salvation for the people.

Nor do I believe that the prophet and apostles are somehow unethical or denying the core values of our church as some have suggested. And I do not believe they would put politics above salvation and exaltation.

I agree with you. O-brother and like-minded basically make the argument:

1. We generally believe in being good, law abiding citizens (generally, as there are exceptions).

2. One should abide by the principles of the Church to be a member in good standing.

3. Illegal immigrants fail to meet 1. and therefore should fail to meet 2.

Is it a sound argument? In general outline, sure. Illegal immigration status does have impact and consequences for one's standing in the Church. I doubt the Church would call an illegal immigrant to be a Stake or Temple President for example -- or even a Bishop. But, there is room for disagreement on how much being an illegal immigrant should impact one's standing in the Church. It is the degree of impact it should have that is under question.

Consequently, I take no offense whatsoever at the hard line that some have drawn. I do, however, take strong umbrage at the idea that the Brethren are compromising their core values. It appears that, given conflicting values (mercy, love, patience, citizenship, honor, etc.) that the Brethren in general have adopted policies that weigh some core values greater than others such that the Church finds no ethical problem whatsoever with giving an illegal immigrant a temple recommend if they are otherwise worthy.

So, disagree with Church policy if one conscious so dictates. Such is perfectly fine. But murmuring against the Brethren with false accusation is still one of those big no no's.

[Vindicator]

I will. I've never taken an oath within the church to 'obey, honor and sustain' my govt. Are you saying that you have?

With ADR, your post came across confusing and ambiguous. Either way, joining the Church and becoming a Citizen of the United States of America, you take an oath to obey the Laws of the Land. If your born here it's implied.

Implied- Something agreed upon prior to it's use.

Vindicator

[O-Brother]

Some of you may find this interesting:

http://u.nu/257w6

President N. Eldon Tanner emphasized the importance of obeying the law in the following statement:

[O-Brother]

I will. I've never taken an oath within the church to 'obey, honor and sustain' my govt. Are you saying that you have?

I have taken an oath to uphold and sustain the laws of THIS land. Yes. I'm proud that I have. If the laws need adjustment, then I vote, something illegal immigrants cannot do. (Although some do it anyway). By the laying on of hands, I was given the gift of the Holy Ghost which says that as long as I'm worthy, I can enjoy its gift. My affairs with the laws of the land and with my fellow men were in order when I was baptized and found worthy to be a member. Something illegal immigrants cannot be since they're breaking the laws of the land at the time of baptism, at the time of being ordained to anything and at the time they're officiating in any capacity in the Church. Am I better than they? No. Absolutely not. Many are actually nicer than I am. It's not a comparative analysis of who's better or who's worse, but about who meets the requirements of baptism, obedience to the 13 articles of faith, which include obedience to the laws of the land. Do I sustain the government? Sure. Do I agree with the Government all the time? No. The government is a body of 545 people making decisions for over 300 M people. They are not the law. They make laws. They enforce laws. They're not ABOVE the law. You see, the law is above them. So, yes, I sustain the law of the land to the extent that I have control over my actions. Illegal immigrants have control over two several things:

1. Control over the decision of entering the country without permission.

2. Control over the use of other people's social security number

3. Control over applying for and accepting unauthorized employment

4. Control over their answers on pre-baptism interviews and TR interviews (They can be honest about the answers if they want to)

5. Control over their current disobedience of the laws of the land

We have control over honoring the Priesthood instead of mocking it. We also have control over who's out there representing the principles of the Church and the Gospel, Jesus's teachings. Part of citizenship is to obey the laws of the land. Of course, if one is illegal in the country, he's already broken the law.

Here's how I see compassion. I have helped people known to be illegals with many things except telling them that it's OK to be breaking the law and condone their illegal activity in the land. In most cases, I will refer them to a competent immigration attorney to see if they have any family that can sponsor them or put them in a path to a green card. Most want that really bad but if they can't get it the right way, they go about the wrong way or the illegal way. If we all did that, we'd be living in a lawless land and everyone would be taking advantage of everyone else. I know that's already happening but it shouldn't be that way.

In fact, if you go scores of posts back, you'll find me vehemently defending a family that was to be deported despite the fact that they entered the country legally. I am very flexible in my opinion when immigration involves visa issues. For example, many people have expired visas because of illness or because of discrepancies, death of a spouse while waiting for a green card or work issues. Many immigration attorneys work on such visa cases. It's the cheaters I have a problem with. Who are the cheaters? There are four major groups:

1. The Government that doesn't patrol the entire border.

2. The employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants

3. The illegal immigrant himself who, despite knowing it's illegal, follows his compatriots anyway because everyone is doing it.

4. Anyone who makes the problem bigger and more difficult to solve

Doing what's right is what separates us from a cult or some shady enterprise.

[deadeye]

A number of my ancestors defied the law for years, they went to prison, they paid fines. They practiced polygamy. Members who've lived in oppressive countries have not been required to put allegiance to country above church.

As long as we LDS have this in our history, you can't take the harsh stance that LDS always 'obey honor and sustain' the law of a land. We do not take an oath to that.

I suppose you would need to determine whether or not the laws of the land are just or unjust. It could be argued that a law that infringes on one's right to practice religion (ie the laws that targeted polygamy, or the German laws that created a death penalty for being Jewish) are unjust.

However, I fail to see how anyone could think that the laws that regulate our immigration system are unjust. Is there something wrong with a country wanting to screen potential immigrants for criminal records, diseases, education level/ability to support themselves, or ask visitors to leave at the time they promised to?

What about the other laws illegal aliens have to break in order to sustain their presence here? Are you OK with an illegal alien stealing your child's identity and creating a credit nightmare for them? If not, why would you wish that on another family? Are you OK with an illegal alien choosing to drive without insurance and then destroying your property with no means to compensate you and then lying about their contact information? That happens every day in Utah and many other states.

When I was a missionary, I worked in the office for a while and was responsible for making sure that all of the government paperwork was properly completed for each missionary in order to comply with the immigration laws of Spain. Has something happened in the last 20 years to make this no longer necessary, or is it just U.S. laws that are OK to break?

[Vindicator]

I have taken an oath to uphold and sustain the laws of THIS land. Yes. I'm proud that I have. If the laws need adjustment, then I vote, something illegal immigrants cannot do. (Although some do it anyway). By the laying on of hands, I was given the gift of the Holy Ghost which says that as long as I'm worthy, I can enjoy its gift. My affairs with the laws of the land and with my fellow men were in order when I was baptized and found worthy to be a member. Something illegal immigrants cannot be since they're breaking the laws of the land at the time of baptism, at the time of being ordained to anything and at the time they're officiating in any capacity in the Church. Am I better than they? No. Absolutely not. Many are actually nicer than I am. It's not a comparative analysis of who's better or who's worse, but about who meets the requirements of baptism, obedience to the 13 articles of faith, which include obedience to the laws of the land. Do I sustain the government? Sure. Do I agree with the Government all the time? No. The government is a body of 545 people making decisions for over 300 M people. They are not the law. They make laws. They enforce laws. They're not ABOVE the law. You see, the law is above them. So, yes, I sustain the law of the land to the extent that I have control over my actions. Illegal immigrants have control over two several things:

1. Control over the decision of entering the country without permission.

2. Control over the use of other people's social security number

3. Control over applying for and accepting unauthorized employment

4. Control over their answers on pre-baptism interviews and TR interviews (They can be honest about the answers if they want to)

5. Control over their current disobedience of the laws of the land

We have control over honoring the Priesthood instead of mocking it. We also have control over who's out there representing the principles of the Church and the Gospel, Jesus's teachings. Part of citizenship is to obey the laws of the land. Of course, if one is illegal in the country, he's already broken the law.

Here's how I see compassion. I have helped people known to be illegals with many things except telling them that it's OK to be breaking the law and condone their illegal activity in the land. In most cases, I will refer them to a competent immigration attorney to see if they have any family that can sponsor them or put them in a path to a green card. Most want that really bad but if they can't get it the right way, they go about the wrong way or the illegal way. If we all did that, we'd be living in a lawless land and everyone would be taking advantage of everyone else. I know that's already happening but it shouldn't be that way.

Doing what's right is what separates us from a cult or some shady enterprise.

Me as well, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Which I still believe is the Laws of the Land.

Vindicator-

[Nofear]

Me as well, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Which I still believe is the Laws of the Land.

Yet, such allegiance is not entirely germane to the subject of whether or not the Church has or should have an obligation to enforce immigration policy or use immigration status as any substantial measure of membership standing.

[Jeff K.]

Me as well, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Which I still believe is the Laws of the Land.

Vindicator-

And yet, some laws are unconstitutional, other laws like slavery are constitutional... Would you defend slavery? Is the US Constitution your god?

I have yet to hear from the champions of "law of the land" regarding the church spokesman's stance on illegal immigration. Anyone care to step up to the plate?

[O-Brother]

And yet, some laws are unconstitutional, other laws like slavery are constitutional... Would you defend slavery? Is the US Constitution your god?

I have yet to hear from the champions of "law of the land" regarding the church spokesman's stance on illegal immigration. Anyone care to step up to the plate?

I will step up to the plate but you're setting a trap so I won't fall for it. The church spokesman cannot participate in the debate and give us his point of view. He may have changed his mind and we wouldn't know it if he's not here.

-revised.

[Jeff K.]

I don't know, that explanation is so lame as to deserve its own parking place.

Really lets look at what was said by a church spokesman who was given the opportunity to disavow what was said:

Quote

Mark Tuttle, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

Elder Pingree said, does everything it can to encourage its members to stay in their home countries to strengthen local stakes and wards. "But once they're here, we want to make them feel like part of the community, a valued part of the community," he said.

Tuttle said Thursday that statements Elder Pingree made then remain accurate

So you are trying to tell me that maybe the spokesman, who speaks to the media for the church, and double checks with the brethern before he speaks, and was given the opportunity to disavow Pingree, and chose to emphasize it instead and reply that the statement is accurate. That somehow he might change his mind again?!?!?!? I think that stretches the credibility scale more than just a little.

[Jeff K.]

The church spokesman cannot participate in the debate and give us his point of view. He may have changed his mind and we wouldn't know it if he's not here.

Indeed he expressed his point of view, and no, it has not changed and it stands as the policy for the church in regard to the issue. Otherwise he would have disavowed the word choice. I would say the preponderance of the evidence if fairly clear in regard to the issue where the church is concerned, as presented by the spokesman for the First Presidency.

[alter idem]

O-brother and Vindicator, neither of you took and oath or swore to defend the laws of the land when you became members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When baptized, you 'took upon you the name of Christ' and covenanted to remember him and do his works and endure to the end.

If there comes a time when members have to choose between obeying the laws of the land or the laws of God, it would be best if you understand this and know what covenants you have made.

I was reminded of this article which was in the paper just a couple of days ago:

First line from the article:

Doctors and nurses may not have a choice about whether they can refuse to participate in abortions and other medical procedures they personally object to if a trend toward legal and legislative protections continues to crumble.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700012251/Y-symposium-to-explore-rights-of-conscience.html?linkTrack=rss-30

Hopefully it will not come to a situation like this, but given that this has happened in history, apparently it could happen here.

Immigration laws are on the books, but they are not enforced. If the Govt. decides it wants to deal with this problem, then church policies may need to be reconsidered, but until then, it is not the church's responsibility to enforce them among the members.

IMO, if the church were to decide to take the hard stance that some of you desire, it would impede the Four Fold mission of the church, something I do not want to see happen. I support the leadership of the church in their desire to be about the business of the church. I take a compassionate view of illegal individuals living in our midst and do not wish to have the blessings of the gospel withheld from them.

[Vindicator]

O-brother and Vindicator, neither of you took and oath or swore to defend the laws of the land when you became members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When baptized, you 'took upon you the name of Christ' and covenanted to remember him and do his works and endure to the end.

If there comes a time when members have to choose between obeying the laws of the land or the laws of God, it would be best if you understand this and know what covenants you have made.

I was reminded of this article which was in the paper just a couple of days ago:

First line from the article:

http://www.deseretne...inkTrack=rss-30

Hopefully it will not come to a situation like this, but given that this has happened in history, apparently it could happen here.

Immigration laws are on the books, but they are not enforced. If the Govt. decides it wants to deal with this problem, then church policies may need to be reconsidered, but until then, it is not the church's responsibility to enforce them among the members.

IMO, if the church were to decide to take the hard stance that some of you desire, it would impede the Four Fold mission of the church, something I do not want to see happen. I support the leadership of the church in their desire to be about the business of the church. I take a compassionate view of illegal individuals living in our midst and do not wish to have the blessings of the gospel withheld from them.

Alter Idem,

For the moment lets remove the Church from this discussion if possible. What will it take for you to see what the overwhelming consequences of Illegals pouring into this country will create. The complete collapse of our Medical system, to where you and your family have none? The complete collapse of our education system where your children will be the minorities in the class room. How about the food situation or the Crime situation. Or until you and yours are the minority and we have to adjust to their culture? Answer that question! What will it take for you to see that illegal immigration is wrong for this country? Or is it just simply a bit of a slanted left belief that "IT will never happen to me" going on? I'm curious with all due repects!

The Vindicator-

Vindicator!

[deadeye]

I don't know, that explanation is so lame as to deserve its own parking place.

Really lets look at what was said by a church spokesman who was given the opportunity to disavow what was said:

So you are trying to tell me that maybe the spokesman, who speaks to the media for the church, and double checks with the brethern before he speaks, and was given the opportunity to disavow Pingree, and chose to emphasize it instead and reply that the statement is accurate. That somehow he might change his mind again?!?!?!? I think that stretches the credibility scale more than just a little.

I'm confused by the logic, as many Fair members introduce a new concept of "speaking as a man" to downplay controversial statements or teachings by early church teachings taught over the pulpit at General Conference by the Prophet and Apostles, yet an off-handed remark made to a reporter by a Regional Representative about immigration is now a binding church doctrine about illegal immigrants? I don't believe a Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News article is an approved mechanism to establish new church doctrine.

As soon as I hear President Monson or another authorized authority make a definitive proclamation regarding illegal aliens at General Conference, or through an official letter read over the pulpit in Sacrament meeting I'll accept is as doctrinal. For now, I'll choose to follow the established teachings I've been taught for more than 40 years.

[O-Brother]

O-brother and Vindicator, neither of you took and oath or swore to defend the laws of the land when you became members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When baptized, you 'took upon you the name of Christ' and covenanted to remember him and do his works and endure to the end.

If there comes a time when members have to choose between obeying the laws of the land or the laws of God, it would be best if you understand this and know what covenants you have made.

I was reminded of this article which was in the paper just a couple of days ago:

First line from the article:

http://www.deseretne...inkTrack=rss-30

Hopefully it will not come to a situation like this, but given that this has happened in history, apparently it could happen here.

Immigration laws are on the books, but they are not enforced. If the Govt. decides it wants to deal with this problem, then church policies may need to be reconsidered, but until then, it is not the church's responsibility to enforce them among the members.

IMO, if the church were to decide to take the hard stance that some of you desire, it would impede the Four Fold mission of the church, something I do not want to see happen. I support the leadership of the church in their desire to be about the business of the church. I take a compassionate view of illegal individuals living in our midst and do not wish to have the blessings of the gospel withheld from them.

Let me ask you some blunt questions and I hope you answer them:

1. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) uses someone else's social security number to work, are you OK with it?

2. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) obtains employment he or she is not legally entitled to, are you OK with it?

3. If a person's is breaking ANY law of the land for which there is no remedy (i.e, a fine, a traffic class, bail or bond) and receives the Priesthood or Priesthood callings, are you oK with it?

4. If a person who's in violation of the law of the land for which there is no remedy, are you OK with that person representing the Church in the mission field? (U.S. only, of course).

Lastly, you seem to be 100% positive that Church leaders are in favor of illegal immigration and are in support of it as far as taking care of (missions, callings, temples, etc.) of the illegal LDS immigrants who are already here. If that's the case, I think we've got a serious problem with serious implications. That's why I don't believe that the First Presidency is pro-illegal immigration because it would make no sense to me. That would go contrary to everything I've been taught since I got converted. Now, if that's really the way it is, boy, I will have to make some adjustments in my thinking and figure out how to deal with it. Maybe it's not you who's in denial. Maybe it's me. Heck, maybe the Church is pro illegal immigration and the 12th and the 13th AOF mean squat.

Wow. That would feel like a marriage proposal gone wrong where the girls says: "No thanks!"

Maybe you and Jeff K are right. The LDS Church is indeed pro illegal immigration, we do send illegal immigrants on missions, temples and they obtain the Priesthood, perform ordinances and even baptize other illegal immigrants. Wow. Is that what I am supposed to accept as our new reality in 2010 and beyond? If that's the truth, I have to do some serious thinking. It doesn't shake my testimony in Jesus Christ the least, but man, that feels like a slap in the face.

Hmmm... Maybe we should do a poll and see how many people are pro illegal immigration and how many are against. If we are against, are you saying that we're not being obedient to the First Presidency position on the issue? Are we the minority of disobedient and misinformed members?

If so, I got a problem. Defenders of the law and the AOF got a problem. Maybe this is indeed the last days where the very elect will be deceived. Which one of us has been deceived? The ones in favor of illegal immigration or the ones against? Have I been holding the wrong beliefs all these years about what we stand for and believe in?

[alter idem]

Alter Idem,

For the moment lets remove the Church from this discussion if possible. What will it take for you to see what the overwhelming consequences of Illegals pouring into this country will create. The complete collapse of our Medical system, to where you and your family have none? The complete collapse of our education system where your children will be the minorities in the class room. How about the food situation or the Crime situation. Or until you and yours are the minority and we have to adjust to their culture? Answer that question! What will it take for you to see that illegal immigration is wrong for this country? Or is it just simply a bit of a slanted left belief that "IT will never happen to me" going on? I'm curious with all due repects!

The Vindicator-

Vindicator!

Since this is an LDS message board and all topics for discussion need to be LDS oriented, then no, I don't think we can remove the Church from the discussion.

As for the rest of your comments, I think you should stop trying to make scapegoats of a certain group of people living in this country.

[alter idem]

I'm confused by the logic, as many Fair members introduce a new concept of "speaking as a man" to downplay controversial statements or teachings by early church teachings taught over the pulpit at General Conference by the Prophet and Apostles, yet an off-handed remark made to a reporter by a Regional Representative about immigration is now a binding church doctrine about illegal immigrants? I don't believe a Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News article is an approved mechanism to establish new church doctrine.

As soon as I hear President Monson or another authorized authority make a definitive proclamation regarding illegal aliens at General Conference, or through an official letter read over the pulpit in Sacrament meeting I'll accept is as doctrinal. For now, I'll choose to follow the established teachings I've been taught for more than 40 years.

Until then, I guess we'll just have to go with what the church spokesmen and General Authorities say, as in the Article JeffK posted and we'll have to accept that the church chooses to act contrary to what some of you approve of.

[Vindicator]

Since this is an LDS message board and all topics for discussion need to be LDS oriented, then no, I don't think we can remove the Church from the discussion.

As for the rest of your comments, I think you should stop trying to make scapegoats of a certain group of people living in this country.

I'll respect your reply that this isn't a non-Mormon theater. Answering those questions would certainly, based on your prior post create a problem for you in answering them. As for making certain groups of people scapegoats living in this country, I'm at a loss. Could you please cut and paste the post that I said that in. Thank you so much.

Also, I'll chose to follow the Laws of the land as I was raised and taught as a member of this Church. As I'm required to when I have my Temple recommend interviews. (Which obviously answers an earlier inquiry)

Thank you again,

The Vindicator-

[O-Brother]

Until then, I guess we'll just have to go with what the church spokesmen and General Authorities say, as in the Article JeffK posted and we'll have to accept that the church chooses to act contrary to what some of you approve of.

Actually, it's not what some of us approve of but what we've been taught. Big difference.

Let me ask you some blunt questions and I hope you answer them:

1. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) uses someone else's social security number to work, are you OK with it?

2. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) obtains employment he or she is not legally entitled to, are you OK with it?

3. If a person's is breaking ANY law of the land for which there is no remedy (i.e, a fine, a traffic class, bail or bond) and receives the Priesthood or Priesthood callings, are you oK with it?

4. If a person is in violation of the law of the land for which there is no remedy, are you OK with that person representing the Church in the mission field? (U.S. only, of course).

???

[alter idem]

My answers are in Bold:

Let me ask you some blunt questions and I hope you answer them:

1. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) uses else's social security number to work, are you OK with it?

No, of course not. If anyone(legal or not legal) uses a stolen ssn, I think it is prosecuted.

2. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) obtains employment he or she is not legally entitled to, are you OK with it?

Legally entitled to? What do you mean? Such as if they lie on their resume and say they have a BA degree and they don't, are they entitled to the work? I would say no. But once again, I think a person is prosecuted for that. There are raids on businesses and people are deported--I think the church accepts justice that is handed down when the law is enforced.

3. If a person's is breaking ANY law of the land for which there is no remedy (i.e, a fine, a traffic class, bail or bond) and receives the Priesthood or Priesthood callings, are you oK with it?

Breaking a law of the land for which there is no remedy? What do you mean? If you're breaking a law, then there's usually a punishment--even defacing a library book carries a fine. I will remind you that many men hold the priesthood who run stop lights, speed, download music, lie, and cheat--but no one takes their priesthood away, unless they are excommunicated. I'm 'okay' with imperfect men serving in callings and holding the priesthood. I cannot demand perfection or I'd have a very hard time sustaining the men in my ward and stake etc.

4. If a person who's in violation of the law of the land for which there is no remedy, are you OK with that person representing the Church in the mission field? (U.S. only, of course).

Once again this 'no remedy' business. If something is against the law, it should have some sort of punishment. If it doesn't then, I don't know what to say about it--except that it's confusing. But I will say that yes, I have no problem at all with illegals serving missions, going to the temple, being baptized, whatever. I have problems with illegals committing crimes and when they do, they should be dealt with and deported. Law abiding, productive people should not be hounded or harassed.

Lastly, you seem to be 100% positive that Church leaders are in favor of illegal immigration and are in support of it as far as taking care of (missions, callings, temples, etc.) of the illegal LDS immigrants who are already here. If that's the case, I think we've got a serious problem with serious implications. That's why I don't believe that the First Presidency is pro-illegal immigration because it would make no sense to me. That would go contrary to everything I've been taught since I got converted. Now, if that's really the way it is, boy, I will have to make some adjustments in my thinking and figure out how to deal with it. Maybe it's not you who's in denial. Maybe it's me. Heck, maybe the Church is pro illegal immigration and the 12th and the 13th AOF mean squat.

I'm sorry, but WE don't have a problem, YOU have a problem. You want the church to deal strictly with illegals, refuse them baptism, temple blessings, callings, basically membership and fellowship in the church. Reality is that the church does not. The difference is that I have NO problem reconciling my belief in the 12 and 13th articles of faith and with the church's actions regarding illegals. I accept that we have a Prophet at the head of the church who leads and guides it through divine inspiration. I believe God loves all his children and I believe he wants us to gather the Remnant of the seed of Joseph of the House of Israel. I do not see him excluding some of them because they entered this country illegally. To me, it is clear that promises made to the prophets of the Book of Mormon are being fulfilled.

Wow. That would feel like a marriage proposal gone wrong where the girls says: "No thanks!"

Maybe you and Jeff K are right. The LDS Church is indeed pro illegal immigration, we do send illegal immigrants on missions, temples and they obtain the Priesthood, perform ordinances and even baptize other illegal immigrants. Wow. Is that what I am supposed to accept as our new reality in 2010 and beyond? If that's the truth, I have to do some serious thinking. It doesn't shake my testimony in Jesus Christ the least, but man, that feels like a slap in the face.

Hmmm... Maybe we should do a poll and see how many people are pro illegal immigration and how many are against. If we are against, are you saying that we're not being obedient to the First Presidency position on the issue? Are we the minority of disobedient and misinformed members?

If so, I got a problem. Defenders of the law and the AOF got a problem. Maybe this is indeed the last days where the very elect will be deceived. Which one of us has been deceived? The ones in favor of illegal immigration or the ones against? Have I been holding the wrong beliefs all these years about what we stand for and believe in?

I would hate to see this drive a wedge between you and the church. Be aware that there are many people on the board who don't agree with all the way things are done in the church, but they have faith that it is true and they realize that they can't expect all the answers in this life. As for this particular subject, my suggestion would be that you find your answers in a study of the prophesies regarding Lehi's descendents found in the Book of Mormon and you pray humbly that you might find the answers you seek.

[alter idem]

Actually, it's not what some of us approve of but what we've been taught. Big difference.

Let me ask you some blunt questions and I hope you answer them:

1. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) uses someone else's social security number to work, are you OK with it?

2. If an LDS member (legal, illegal or citizen) obtains employment he or she is not legally entitled to, are you OK with it?

3. If a person's is breaking ANY law of the land for which there is no remedy (i.e, a fine, a traffic class, bail or bond) and receives the Priesthood or Priesthood callings, are you oK with it?

4. If a person is in violation of the law of the land for which there is no remedy, are you OK with that person representing the Church in the mission field? (U.S. only, of course).

???

Asked and answered.

[alter idem]

I'll respect your reply that this isn't a non-Mormon theater. Answering those questions would certainly, based on your prior post create a problem for you in answering them.

V, you've been around here long enough to know that threads get closed if they are not about LDS topics. I feel no obligation or desire to derail the thread into a discussion of illegal immigration. The only reason we are able to discuss it is because it is about how the church chooses to deal with it.

As for making certain groups of people scapegoats living in this country, I'm at a loss. Could you please cut and paste the post that I said that in. Thank you so much.

I see no reason to do so--I quoted the post when I made this remark.

Also, I'll chose to follow the Laws of the land as I was raised and taught as a member of this Church. As I'm required to when I have my Temple recommend interviews. (Which obviously answers an earlier inquiry)

If I'm married to a Bishop, don't you think I have a temple recommend?

Or maybe you missed that when you missed my call for reference.

Your schtick is getting old.

Vindicator, This is a second call for reference;

You need to back up this ridiculous claim you made or withdraw it:

An extra marital affair in the Churchs eyes, If you have only been with the other person two maybe three times in a month or two period, they see a verbal repremand appropriate. If you have been involved for months and months with continuous contact, Disfellowship applies. If you have conducted this affair for over a year or more, and don't really have a good reason, your excommunicated.

[frankenstein]

I have yet to hear from the champions of "law of the land" regarding the church spokesman's stance on illegal immigration. Anyone care to step up to the plate?

You posted that the church considers illegals to be trespassers and not too long we learned that trespassers are hypocritically singled out and the police are called to charge the trespasser and then signs are changed to make the no trespassing message more explicit.

[Jeff K.]

For the moment lets remove the Church from this discussion if possible. What will it take for you to see what the overwhelming consequences of Illegals pouring into this country will create.

Lets not, because the church is more important than immigration issues. Salvation is more important that immigration issues, Christ is more important. We often turn to the church and its prophets to help us and guide us during times of doubt. We as Latter-Day Saints depend on prophets and apostles to lead us. We can no more leave the church out of this moral issue than we can abortion or marriage.

As to overwhelming consequences,,, I have not seen any evidence of overwhelming consequences. Indeed what I do see with strong borders to disallow a continued flow (preventative) while accomodating those here without criminal records (pragmatic and merciful) to make a stronger nation.

The complete collapse of our education system where your children will be the minorities in the class room.

They are in the classroom now, education hasn't collapsed, rather we have poor choices made by educrats, not necessarily issues of minorities. And frankly, that statement reflects more than a tinge of "otherness" that we should definately not share. Would you say the church would collapse under the too many "minorities" in the church?

How about the food situation or the Crime situation.

Plenty of food, but are you saying crime is race based? Or is it poverty driven? Or are you perhaps saying that members are prone towards crime if they are minorities? What does our constitution say of such things?

Or until you and yours are the minority and we have to adjust to their culture? Answer that question!

Are you saying our culture is static? That George Washington ate Pizza and Tacos? Cultures change, they will always change. American culture isn't what it was 200 years ago, it isn't what it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago.

All in all, not convincing for me.

[Vindicator]

Lets not, because the church is more important than immigration issues. Salvation is more important that immigration issues, Christ is more important. We often turn to the church and its prophets to help us and guide us during times of doubt. We as Latter-Day Saints depend on prophets and apostles to lead us. We can no more leave the church out of this moral issue than we can abortion or marriage.

As to overwhelming consequences,,, I have not seen any evidence of overwhelming consequences. Indeed what I do see with strong borders to disallow a continued flow (preventative) while accomodating those here without criminal records (pragmatic and merciful) to make a stronger nation.

They are in the classroom now, education hasn't collapsed, rather we have poor choices made by educrats, not necessarily issues of minorities. And frankly, that statement reflects more than a tinge of "otherness" that we should definately not share. Would you say the church would collapse under the too many "minorities" in the church?

Plenty of food, but are you saying crime is race based? Or is it poverty driven? Or are you perhaps saying that members are prone towards crime if they are minorities? What does our constitution say of such things?

Are you saying our culture is static? That George Washington ate Pizza and Tacos? Cultures change, they will always change. American culture isn't what it was 200 years ago, it isn't what it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago.

All in all, not convincing for me.

Jeffk,

I'll recind my request. It just make things a little easier for people to be "Compassionate" when they don't have to answer the hard questions of reality. As for culture, and unless I'm watching a different Fox News channel, the Muslim religion is overtaking Europe as we speak, Sharia Law? But it can't happen in this country with a different culture or religion?

Sorry I didn't have time to read the whole above post. I only have limited access to a computer at work and then I have to borrow an AOL account from a good friend in order to participate in here. Thanks !

Vindicator-