Walden Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I agree. The statement is entirely neutral expressing only that Political Officials fulfill their duty. It is disconcerting that anyone would claim to identify the LDS Church position in the statement, that is a position other than "official do your duty". Successful resolution is a broad brush, which will offend many on all sides of the issue.I agree with frankenstein's assessment.....the statement is completely neutral and does little to identify the church's position on the subject. Anyone looking for clarification on where the church stands on this matter must be disappointed. Basically they state that this is a government issue and we are not taking sides.And I agree with the LDS stance on this matter.
DanGB Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 If anyone doesn't agree with me, though, I would simply ask that they bear this in mind:Find a solution that is in the best interests of all of God's children. I think He has already and gave us a command to obey the law of the land!
Jaybear Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I agree with frankenstein's assessment.....the statement is completely neutral and does little to identify the church's position on the subject. Anyone looking for clarification on where the church stands on this matter must be disappointed. Basically they state that this is a government issue and we are not taking sides.And I agree with the LDS stance on this matter.While it may seem nuetral, it implores leaders to take action with the "strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."I don't see how a secure the boarder, uproot families, and deport all illegals policy furthers the interest of all of God's children. I get the impression that your leaders would like Congress to pursue and pas comprehensive immigration reform which would secure the borders, and allow many of those who are here illegally to stay here openly. Dan: I think He has already and gave us a command to obey the law of the land! I take it you would allow your family to suffer in abject poverty, before breaking US immigration law. By allowing undocumented aliens to receive temple recommends, and serve on missions, the Brethren obviously disagree with your priorities. Though I suspect you never actually have ever had to make such a choice.
elguanteloko Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 What in the world does that contribute to? Those general statements don't mean anything relevant.
elguanteloko Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I think He has already and gave us a command to obey the law of the land!Would you have agreed to kill the Founding Fathers just because the broke the "laws" of Great Britain by committing treason? Come on, Dan. Laws don't have any moral value whatsoever. Just because something happens to be the law does not mean it is correct to obey them or to support them.
Jeff K. Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 In case there is a misunderstandingThe doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:
Gillebre Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 What I got from reading the released statement was that they are encouraging our elected officials to not only "find solutions", but enforce the ones that we currently have.Would anyone deny that there are problems with immigration, and enforcement of those laws, in our country? I don't think that is up for debate. What is going down in Arizona? A state government is taking stronger measures to enforce the laws that have been established regarding this issue. There is no new immigration law established...only officials seeking to enforce the law.The Church's repeated appeal for careful reflection and civil discourse about this problem is very well founded. If we were to make rash decisions about immigration, perhaps innocent people would get caught in the crossfire and persecution might surface itself, among other things. There are many things to consider about how to fix this issue, and in particular because it's immigration, has a very powerful effect on the work of the gospel and on God's children, imo.I do believe that the goings-on in Arizona have sent a kind of wake up call to the citizens of this country, with specific regards to illegal immigration and what we are doing about it. Are the laws perfect? No. Are they being enforced? Hardly as much as they should. Can we make things better, if we reform them and keep in mind the consequences for God's children? I hope so.Would God have us compromise the security and integrity of our nation by effectively doing away with the border, and not enforcing the laws of the land we have established? That's what it would become if we continue to refuse enforcing the law. Heavenly Father wants all of His children to have many opportunities to live free and experience the joys of life, and the gospel, but so far, we have an established means to do so, into the USA. It's part of the problem that we are flawed, and that any solution we come up with will fall short or lack in some areas...but we have to try. If we cannot enact reform as needed, we have to enforce the laws we have, until we can, imo. Enforcing the law is better than doing nothing and letting the problem fester and because much worse.This is a very divisive issue, and if we can try to consider the consequences in all things, I hope we will be able to deal in both justice and mercy. An adequate pairing of them both will be the only way this will work out.
handys003 Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I see absolutely no need for the Church to weigh in on this issue.Everyone has a right to an opinion. To bad so sad.
handys003 Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 Do you believe the Church endorses food storage by members to take care of all God's children?Don't derail. Start a new topic.
Jim B. Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 How wrong is it for me to take comfort in the church's apparent "squishiness" on the importance of obeying inconvenient laws?
elguanteloko Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 What I got from reading the released statement was that they are encouraging our elected officials to not only "find solutions", but enforce the ones that we currently have.Would anyone deny that there are problems with immigration, and enforcement of those laws, in our country? I don't think that is up for debate. What is going down in Arizona? A state government is taking stronger measures to enforce the laws that have been established regarding this issue. There is no new immigration law established...only officials seeking to enforce the law.The Church's repeated appeal for careful reflection and civil discourse about this problem is very well founded. If we were to make rash decisions about immigration, perhaps innocent people would get caught in the crossfire and persecution might surface itself, among other things. There are many things to consider about how to fix this issue, and in particular because it's immigration, has a very powerful effect on the work of the gospel and on God's children, imo.I do believe that the goings-on in Arizona have sent a kind of wake up call to the citizens of this country, with specific regards to illegal immigration and what we are doing about it. Are the laws perfect? No. Are they being enforced? Hardly as much as they should. Can we make things better, if we reform them and keep in mind the consequences for God's children? I hope so.Would God have us compromise the security and integrity of our nation by effectively doing away with the border, and not enforcing the laws of the land we have established? That's what it would become if we continue to refuse enforcing the law. Heavenly Father wants all of His children to have many opportunities to live free and experience the joys of life, and the gospel, but so far, we have an established means to do so, into the USA. It's part of the problem that we are flawed, and that any solution we come up with will fall short or lack in some areas...but we have to try. If we cannot enact reform as needed, we have to enforce the laws we have, until we can, imo. Enforcing the law is better than doing nothing and letting the problem fester and because much worse.This is a very divisive issue, and if we can try to consider the consequences in all things, I hope we will be able to deal in both justice and mercy. An adequate pairing of them both will be the only way this will work out.I don't see why it should be so divisive if we talk about it with a little bit more than knee-jerk reactions. I think the first questions that people should ask are: Why am I (you may not do it but you may agree or support someone else doing it like the Gov.) or someone else justified in kicking other workers out of a place against their will? Why should I threaten with jail to employers if they don't employ someone that is going to benefit ME instead of giving them the freedom to choose? These are very simple questions people should try to answer first with the idea in mind that if you can't justify these things then to use force against these people is unjustified and wrong.
Jaybear Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 How wrong is it for me to take comfort in the church's apparent "squishiness" on the importance of obeying inconvenient laws?You like squishy. You will love this. In 1891, Joseph F. Smith reportedly said: "The whole thing in a nut shell is this, you should keep your covenants with your family and you should also not violate the law. Now if you can comprehend it
Jim B. Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 You like squishy. You will love this. In 1891, Joseph F. Smith reportedly said: "The whole thing in a nut shell is this, you should keep your covenants with your family and you should also not violate the law. Now if you can comprehend it
Jaybear Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I'm not judging. Quite the contrary. I'm looking at the bright side. If my family is better of by my ignoring some laws of the malum prohibitum variety, I'm glad that the church won't hold it against me."Better off"...pffft. Here we are talking about having to make a choice between the welfare of your family, and obedience to the immigration law. When you have to make a real life choice, get back to me and let me know how it went.
Jim B. Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 "Better off"...pffft. Here we are talking about having to make a choice between the welfare of your family, and obedience to the immigration law. When you have to make a real life choice, get back to me and let me know how it went.You're right. I haven't ever had to make any real life choices. Thanks for reminding me.
DanGB Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 Just because something happens to be the law does not mean it is correct to obey them or to support them. Now there is a thought, if adopted by Church members or citzens, just makes me sleep well at night!!! How else could we define anarchy or chaos!Why would God give us a command to "obey the laws of the land" if he wanted something different? The Church needs to be consistent in it's doctrines or pray for a revelation to change such practice (like blacks receiving the priesthood). We should either ask prospective converts to gain legal citizenship or baptize them in the country where they are a legal citizen.
elguanteloko Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 Now there is a thought, if adopted by Church members or citzens, just makes me sleep well at night!!! How else could we define anarchy or chaos!Why would God give us a command to "obey the laws of the land" if he wanted something different? The Church needs to be consistent in it's doctrines or pray for a revelation to change such practice (like blacks receiving the priesthood). We should either ask prospective converts to gain legal citizenship or baptize them in the country where they are a legal citizen.I think I asked a question you did not respond to: Would you have agreed to kill the Founding Fathers just because the broke the "laws" of Great Britain by committing treason?
DanGB Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I think I asked a question you did not respond to: Would you have agreed to kill the Founding Fathers just because the broke the "laws" of Great Britain by committing treason?First of all, in your example, who s asking me to do such? What law am I bound by? And who am I, a revolutionist or a British loyalist.In other words, your question has no relevance to this thread issue where the issues I raised above have already been clarified and there is no conflct between God's command and the Law!
elguanteloko Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 First of all, in your example, who s asking me to do such? What law am I bound by? And who am I, a revolutionist or a British loyalist.you are under the rule of the King. In other words, your question has no relevance to this thread issue where the issues I raised above have already been clarified and there is no conflct between God's command and the Law!then it should be easy just to answer it satisfactorily and move on, right? ...just answer it.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 You're right. I haven't ever had to make any real life choices. Thanks for reminding me.And I hope you never do. If you did I guarantee you you would have a little more empathy.
BCSpace Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 On the issue of immigration, I agree. However, to tell everyone to "be cool" and yet not encourage the laws to be upheld and enforced is a significant ommission that plays directly to the aforementioned numbers game which is the game of the tares growing with the wheat. Quite a valid game imho until wheat becomes tare.Can there be any doubt that the LDS Church is playing to the Latin American community? Of course not. Is there any shame in that? Of course not. It can get out of hand however, when people use it as a justification to ignore or disobey the law.The immigration laws may need to be changed to find a solution that is in the best interests of all of God's children.That's what I think the Church is endorsing, rather than just advising everyone to obey the law that is already in place.I think that people see that in the Church's statement is a prime example of what I was talking about; justification to ignore or disobey the law.
DanGB Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 you are under the rule of the King. then it should be easy just to answer it satisfactorily and move on, right? ...just answer it.I still need to know what God's command was at that time?
selek Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 In other words, your question has no relevance to this thread issue where the issues I raised above have already been clarified and there is no conflct between God's command and the Law!I can't believe I'm taking DanGB's side on this, but if I must- then I must.Dan, you're arguing with an anarchist and a demogogue who believes that there is no law beyond what God tells him.He has repeatedly advocated the wholesale repeal of national borders and advocates the unfettered movement of people across national boundaries.In short, you're trying to reason with a nut.Fair warning.
elguanteloko Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 I still need to know what God's command was at that time? Romans 13:
DanGB Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Do you think they should have been killed for not obeying their king?I need to know who was the King back then. I mean we're not talking Elvis I trust!Do you think the mormons that got the extermination order imposed on them should have obeyed their ruler and let themselves be killed? Kinda like the NY Jets being told that Johnny U and the Colts were going to kill them?? Absolutely, I was being ruled by Unitas back then!Do you agree that Rosa Parks was going against God's will by not obeying the rules of the land or by not honoring segregation laws?Please quote and reference the "segregation law" you arereferring to. Not familiar with it at this time!Selek, hate to agree with you as well, but you may be right. This guy may be 40 yards short of a full scrimmage!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.