LDS Church issues statement on immigration

[DanGB]

And indirectly, this bothers me as well:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/20/utah-officials-spanish-language-prayer-july-th-event/

What are the chances of reciprocity in Mexico on Cinco de Mayo??? For God's sake, we are talking an "American Founding Holiday"!!!

[elguanteloko]

I need to know who was the King back then. I mean we're not talking Elvis I trust!

man, what does this matter? Did God reveal you should not obey George III?

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!

what the...?

Please quote and reference the "segregation law" you are

referring to. Not familiar with it at this time!

I am not going to find the specific law that segregated buses in Montgomery, Alabama. I don't think I do wrong in assuming BASIC knowledge of the world around you and if you don't know what the Jim Crow laws did then too bad; I am not going to teach you BASIC history to start having a normal discussion about obeying the law.

You obviously have no intention in discussing honestly here so I am not going to waste my time with you. Have a good one!

[DanGB]

Have a good one!

Thank ya, thank ya very much!

[DanGB]

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.

Admittedly, this is a passionate issue for me. But I too believe that today the Church "punted" on the integrity of it's own doctrine with it's statement today. It put the stats of membership via US baptisms of Mexican nationals ahead of doctrine. The statement issued today was purely political and gave no creedance to doctrine. Utah, has long been a defacto sanctuary state because the Church wanted to ignore this issue due to the "potential Mexican" fall out. It capitulated to this faction lime it did with the Jewish agreement in 1995!

At least the Catholic Church has had the backbone to come out against the Az law as a matter of principal in their beliefs. I'd don't agree with their position, but do with thier honesty. We are going to lose with our lack of integrity to our doctrine on this one.

[DanGB]

Admittedly, this is a passionate issue for me. But I too believe that today the Church "punted" on the integrity of it's own doctrine with it's statement today. It put the stats of membership via US baptisms of Mexican nationals ahead of doctrine. The statement issued today was purely political and gave no creedance to doctrine. Utah, has long been a defacto sanctuary state because the Church wanted to ignore this issue due to the "potential Mexican" fall out. It capitulated to this faction lime it did with the Jewish agreement in 1995!

At least the Catholic Church has had the backbone to come out against the Az law as a matter of principal in their beliefs. I'd don't agree with their position, but do with thier honesty. We are going to lose with our lack of integrity to our doctrine on this one.

To put it in perspective: We withold baptisms from African Americans for over 100 years with no evidence of it being of God's command, only to baptize those who violate a stated doctrine of God's command!!!!

Please, anyone, especially those who can speak officially for the Church, now is the time to artculate w intelligence!!!

[blackstrap]

Technically the church did not withhold BAPTISM from anyone because of race. We did ,however, not encourage giving the lessons to some people.

With reference to the OP. Those who enter the US illegally are essentially trespassing.If a person was guilty of trespassing I guess that that person could still be baptized but if they are convicted then the church would require them to pay the penalty.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You obviously have no intention in discussing honestly here so I am not going to waste my time with you. Have a good one!

I see you are new to the wild and wacky world of DanGB. Well, you've definitely got your passport stamped in this thread. It happens to everyone sooner or later....

[Hamba Tuhan]

But I too believe that today the Church "punted" on the integrity of it's [sic] own doctrine with it's [sic] statement today. It put the stats of membership via US baptisms of Mexican nationals ahead of doctrine.

'State of membership' or salvation of souls? It's interesting how one can spin this into sounding so contrary to 'doctrine'....

[ERayR]

To put it in perspective: We withold baptisms from African Americans for over 100 years with no evidence of it being of God's command, only to baptize those who violate a stated doctrine of God's command!!!!

Please, anyone, especially those who can speak officially for the Church, now is the time to artculate w intelligence!!!

The former was not turning church officers into border patrol agents. My position is that something needs to be done about the immigration problem. However, why should church officer be enforcment agents for a government that is unwilling to enforce their own laws?

[Hamba Tuhan]

To put it in perspective: We withold baptisms from African Americans for over 100 years with no evidence of it being of God's command...

Mate, you may want to get your 'perspective-establishing' history straight; otherwise, there's very little perspective. The Church has never withheld baptism from African-Americans. I do realise, of course, that that fact might come as a surprise to someone who's unfamiliar with Jim Crow laws....

...only to baptize those who violate a stated doctrine of God's command!!!!

Do you propose that all candidates for baptism must be 100% keepers of all civil laws?

So we should be excluding those who ever drive a single kilometre over the speed limit? And those who've been fined for having overstayed at a parking metre? And those who've opened a letter not addressed to them? None of these people is obeying the laws of the land if they live in the US, and immigration law belongs to precisely the same category of laws.

[frankenstein]

The former was not turning church officers into border patrol agents. My position is that something needs to be done about the immigration problem. However, why should church officer be enforcment agents for a government that is unwilling to enforce their own laws?

you are conflating the issue. i do not think anyone is suggesting the LDS Church become agents of the INS/ICE/DHS whatever the heck it is, but rather what is being suggested is that there are numerous "obey the law" in LDS teachings and scripture, and honesty is important part of worthiness, so the rub is the Church allowing dishonest law breakers to get baptized and enter the Temple. and please to all who wish to respond please do not waste your time with a "cast the first stone" nonesense or anything like unto it, for we are all sinners and have fallen short yada yada yada....

[DanGB]

The former was not turning church officers into border patrol agents. My position is that something needs to be done about the immigration problem. However, why should church officer be enforcment agents for a government that is unwilling to enforce their own laws?

Are not Bishops held out as the enforcement officers of temple

reccomend interviews? Are they not seeking to find out if the interviewee is upholding church doctrines?

Have you now abandoned church doctrine?

[blackstrap]

Query, is tax law in the same category as immigration law ?? Spoiler alert, can of worms about to be opened.

[Brenda]

I don't get it. I'm not seeing anything in the Church's statement other than it's the job of government officials to handle the problem, and that it will take sound minds to figure it out, hopefully in the best interests of everyone.

Duh. I mean, who doesn't agree with that?

I don't get why the statement is getting any attention.

[ERayR]

Are not Bishops held out as the enforcement officers of temple

reccomend interviews? Are they not seeking to find out if the interviewee is upholding church doctrines?

Have you now abandoned church doctrine?

You have a incorrect view of a Bishop's job. The temple recommend interview is a self evaluation guided by questions from the bishop. All questions are to guide the interviewee to a self evaluation and the final question is for them to declare the results of that self evaluation.

This parable might help you put it in perspective. Mark 2:23-27

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

I hope you will still have enough of God's spirit in you to understand what the Savior is saying.

[DanGB]

I don't get it. I'm not seeing anything in the Church's statement other than it's the job of government officials to handle the problem, and that it will take sound minds to figure it out, hopefully in the best interests of everyone.

Duh. I mean, who doesn't agree with that?

I don't get why the statement is getting any attention.

Brenda, probably goes to the thinking obvious for several on this thread. Becase those of us in the Church know that the Church encourages and does nothing to stop the baptisms of illegal immigrants here in the US, should we ignore the obvious for what the Church ignores with respect to the doctrine we were taught to obey and the violation of "the law of the land" commandment?

Perhaps you can, but like others here - I cannot. It's a compromise of what we are taght s doctrine from our God!!!

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't get it. I'm not seeing anything in the Church's statement other than it's the job of government officials to handle the problem, and that it will take sound minds to figure it out, hopefully in the best interests of everyone.

Duh. I mean, who doesn't agree with that?

Well, one possibility would be those who have no concern for what may genuinely in the 'best interests' of those lyin', cheatin', law-breaking' illegals....

[frankenstein]

what we know from the scriptures is "all things in wisdom and order". out right amnesty is not wisdom, nor is it order. As any grant of amensty snubs all those who are waiting in other countries for their paper work to be processed, thus, the only lesson amnesty teaches is "break the law, get a reward".

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

This is an issue not only in the United States, but in Mexico's southern border as well. I knew of quite a few Central Americans living illegally in the country that were members of the Church. Mexico does not have the best track record of how they handle illegal aliens; ask anyone from Central America and they will back me up with that.

A quick look to Mexico's border cities in the north should be reason enough to see why so many of them come to the States for a better life. That, or looking at the poor villages of Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Chiapas.

Amnesty is not the way to go, for reasons that Frankenstein has outlined. But seriously, are we going to deport 12 million illegal aliens? That would be quite the undertaking.

[Brenda]

Brenda, probably goes to the thinking obvious for several on this thread. Becase those of us in the Church know that the Church encourages and does nothing to stop the baptisms of illegal immigrants here in the US, should we ignore the obvious for what the Church ignores with respect to the doctrine we were taught to obey and the violation of "the law of the land" commandment?

Perhaps you can, but like others here - I cannot. It's a compromise of what we are taght s doctrine from our God!!!

Oh. A few years ago, pre-recession, the Spanish branch in our stake was growing in converts (baptisms, not move-ins) far more than the rest of the stake. The local policy in the Church was don't ask, don't tell. I'm guessing this was a decision made locally, but not sure.

I'm also not sure how the branch is doing today.

It is a conundrum to be sure. In the case of baptisms, I can see both sides. I don't disagree with you, but I can see the reasoning for looking the other way also.

[Jim B.]

And I hope you never do. If you did I guarantee you you would have a little more empathy.

Apparently, you can't spot sarcasm from way up there on your high horse.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The local policy in the Church was don't ask, don't tell. I'm guessing this was a decision made locally, but not sure.

Hi, Brenda. It was not a local decision; the Church has repeatedly stated its policy when it comes to illegal migrants and ordinances such as baptism:

"The church's view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass," said Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy, relating it to coming onto someone's property uninvited. "There is nothing inherent or [inherently] wrong about that status."

...

Some members can't reconcile church membership and illegal status, particularly in light of one of the church's Articles of Faith that states, "We believe ... in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

"I wonder how they'd feel about the second great commandment, to love thy neighbor as thyself. It's not an answer to your question, but it's another question. Sometimes it's hard to do them all," [official Church spokesman Mark] Tuttle said.

...

Speaking on behalf of the First Presidency at the interfaith forum, Elder Jensen asked Utah lawmakers to consider proposed immigration legislation with a "spirit of compassion." He called for a more "thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane, approach" to the issues.

...

Addressing the matter of baptism and temple rights for undocumented immigrants, Elder John C. Pingree, an Area Seventy, told the Deseret Morning News in 2005, "It's not a problem for me."

(link to complete article)

If these statements aren't clear enough, the Church has sent letters to all priesthood leaders in the US reminding them that immigration status is NOT to be considered when conducting worthiness interviews for new converts or those desiring temple recommends. In other words, the position of the Church is not very ambiguous.

The problem comes when Church members dislike the very clear stand which the propehts and apostles have taken on this matter, though such opposition, of course, has always been their prerogative.

[DanGB]

I don't disagree with you, but I can see the reasoning for looking the other way also.

Brenda,

This is precisely why I am dissapointed in the Church statement and why it is so obvious they will compromise doctrine if it will grow the membership rolls.

[Jim B.]

Is it possible that the church is just tacitly acknowledging that a good portion of its members have unresolved issues of similar gravity who take part in ordinances anyway?

[jskains]

Brenda,

This is precisely why I am dissapointed in the Church statement and why it is so obvious they will compromise doctrine if it will grow the membership rolls.

I am trying hard to find where this statement supports your claim. It simply said we need to act mature in dialoging about illegal immigration. The letter of supposed illegal immigrants was wrong, and it smelled like a Salem witchhunt. That was an immature action. Like someone said, how can you take a high road against "illegal" immigration if your action itself was "illegal".

I think some people are trying to hard to be critical of the Church.