LDS Church issues statement on immigration

[Jaybear]

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

Oh, I saw the sarcasm, and I see the irony of your "high horse" comment.

Oh, I didn't say or imply that you have not had to make a "tough life choices," as every does or thinks they have, but more narrowly I asked if you have ever had to make a choice between your duty to care for their family and duty to strictly obey the law of the land." You used sarcasm, and a strawman to avoid the question and the point.

So have you, Jim? And if so, did you choose your duty to family or to obey the law?

Tell us about this tough life choice you have made, that makes you uniquely capable of casting righteous judgment on members of the LDS Church who are also undocumented immigrants.

[semlogo]

I think what the leaders of the church are saying is that the salvation of our brothers and sisters from other nations outweighs flavor of the month hot button political issues that aren't really important in the grand scheme of things.

[Jim B.]

Oh, I saw the sarcasm, and I see the irony of your "high horse" comment.

Oh, I didn't say or imply that you have not had to make a "tough life choices," as every does or thinks they have, but more narrowly I asked if you have ever had to make a choice between your duty to care for their family and duty to strictly obey the law of the land." You used sarcasm, and a strawman to avoid the question and the point.

So have you, Jim? And if so, did you choose your duty to family or to obey the law?

Tell us about this tough life choice you have made, that makes you uniquely capable of casting righteous judgment on members of the LDS Church who are also undocumented immigrants.

Well then, you are seeing sarcasm where it is not intended, which can be equally problematic.

I'm not judging anyone. I'm trying to reconcile what I perceive as inconsistencies in church policies.

It is a pretty simple matter for me. I would ignore a law that was detrimental to my family. My original post was my wondering out loud if this is now appropriate behavior from the church's perspective.

I'm not going to indulge you by publicizing my personal life and the accompanying tough choices. But don't let that stop you from casting righteous judgment upon this member of the LDS church who doesn't happen to be an illegal immigrant.

[ttribe]

Everyone has a right to an opinion. To bad so sad.

Oooookkkkaaaayyy.

[frankenstein]

"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."

what happens to trespassers of Church property?

...

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.

The is very simple, One is to be the "Good Samaritan" i.e. provide food, shelter, and caring, but that does require aiding and abetting law breaking i.e. I know LDS people who have helped conceal the whereabout of illegals that the gov. is searching for.

...

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.

A good statement that is neutral. The statement indicates to look at all the facts - including the harm - which comes from illegal aliens. I know of a teacher in Southern Ca. whose student have no text books, no paper, no pencils, none of the basic school supplies - because the District is so entirely without money because of all the illegals. I also know that the IRS pays millions a year to illegals who have falsified tax forms, used stolen ID's, and use fraudulent documents - illegals can get better tax break than American citizens (the IRS does this know full well the illegal activity that is going on and make zero effort to curb the illegal activity). Nonetheless, all the facts need to be looked at. It is humane to say "I am sorry we do not have enough" (it is very interesting how the 10 Virgins parable is applicable to Gov. resources and the illegal alien problem)

...

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."

A complete apathetic attitude towards the issue raises many questions. For instance how is one who has lied to an employer, and lied to others with whom one deals with "honest in their dealings". Another issue raised is the BoM verse [sin] a little for God will beat us with a few stripes and all is well.

how can one justify providing full faith and fellowship to a person who is engaged ongoing illegal activity but in the same breathe deny full faith and fellowship to a person who is on probation for a crime as one on probation generally can not get baptized?

[Brenda]

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.

What's wrong with your reasoning is in the last phrase. Yes, the Church wants to grow the membership. But why? TO SAVE SOULS. So I understand the difficult position this is. Uphold the law of the land or save souls. Which do you prefer?

Please let me re-affirm: I support any and all laws that protect our borders, disallow illegal entry, and feel the fed. govt. is sorely lacking in their duty. I support AZ Governor Brewer. I also support legal immigration. But I understand the Church's position. I agree with them saying that the law is right, but it is the government's job to enforce it, not the Church's. I would also guess that the Church would not hire an illegal, they (ward/stake leaders) just don't ask their status. This is the case with most of us.

[deadeye]

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:

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.

Is this letter sent to all priesthood holders available someplace? Is the directive simply regarding immigration status (ie an innocent child with an illegal status caused by parents who brought him/her here seeking baptism or Aaronic Pristhood makes sense). But does the directive also mean that related (felony) crimes like identity theft, tax evasion, I-9 perjury are also not factors when considering worthiness?

Assuming Tony Yapias is still a member, it would appear that publicly criticizing the leaders, organizing a letter writing campaign to Salt Lake City are also on the list of things to ignore when considering worthiness for current or former illegal aliens? I think the appearance of a double standard is what is causing concern among long time members like me. It seems like the worthiness bar is set much higher for U.S. citizens compared to illegal aliens living here.

[daz2]

Sometimes teachings and principles and commandments conflict with each other. It has been so from the very beginning, even in the Garden of Eden. I suppose Adam and Eve should have been denied a temple recommend because they broke one of God's laws, even though they obeyed a greater one.

Near the Book of Mormon, Nephi confronts such a dichotomy. Should he have been denied a temple recommend?

Abraham and Isaac both lied about the status of their wives--certainly they misled people--for the purpose of preserving life. Should they, who according to section 132, now sit as Gods, have been denied recommends?

Daniel, and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego disobeyed laws that appeared to conflict with their religious commitment--should they have been denied recommends?

Joseph Smith misled and concealed plural marriage, as did the Church as a whole, until it was announced in about 1851. Should all of those officials be denied recommends?

When my wife was in labor and her water had broken, I violated the speed limit and ran a red light to get to the hospital before our baby was born. It never occurred to me to confess that to a bishop to determine whether I could hold a recommend. If he had asked, I would tell him I would do the same thing over again.

Church members and leaders disobeyed laws against plural marriage in the U.S., and disobeyed laws against unlawful cohabitation even after the Manifesto. And this was so notwithstanding the article of faith about obeying the law.

I know people who favor deportation who, to avoid court ordered desegregation, misled school officials about the residence of their children in order to get them into a better or safer school.

I live in AZ. I know people who favor deportation but oppose speed cameras, even though speed cameras unquestionably reduce the speeds (i.e., increase compliance with the law) and fatalities on the road.

I suppose many of us are selective in the priorities we place on conflicting requirements and commandments. I cast no stones.

I do not think it is correct to say that the Church teaches one must obey the law without exception, or that in the military one must obey orders without exception.

One other point--it is incorrect to argue that the immigration laws are not being enforced. They are being enforced. This year is on track to be the highest number of deportations (400,000) ever. What critics of enforcement mean is not that the laws are unenforced, but that they are not enforced enough. On that, reasonable minds may differ, just as reasonable minds may differ as to what is the appropriate level of enforcement against speeding or against illegal drugs.

[DanGB]

Sometimes teachings and principles and commandments conflict with each other. It has been so from the very beginning, even in the Garden of Eden. I suppose Adam and Eve should have been denied a temple recommend because they broke one of God's laws, even though they obeyed a greater one.

Near the Book of Mormon, Nephi confronts such a dichotomy. Should he have been denied a temple recommend?

Abraham and Isaac both lied about the status of their wives--certainly they misled people--for the purpose of preserving life. Should they, who according to section 132, now sit as Gods, have been denied recommends?

Daniel, and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego disobeyed laws that appeared to conflict with their religious commitment--should they have been denied recommends?

Joseph Smith misled and concealed plural marriage, as did the Church as a whole, until it was announced in about 1851. Should all of those officials be denied recommends?

When my wife was in labor and her water had broken, I violated the speed limit and ran a red light to get to the hospital before our baby was born. It never occurred to me to confess that to a bishop to determine whether I could hold a recommend. If he had asked, I would tell him I would do the same thing over again.

Church members and leaders disobeyed laws against plural marriage in the U.S., and disobeyed laws against unlawful cohabitation even after the Manifesto. And this was so notwithstanding the article of faith about obeying the law.

I know people who favor deportation who, to avoid court ordered desegregation, misled school officials about the residence of their children in order to get them into a better or safer school.

I live in AZ. I know people who favor deportation but oppose speed cameras, even though speed cameras unquestionably reduce the speeds (i.e., increase compliance with the law) and fatalities on the road.

I suppose many of us are selective in the priorities we place on conflicting requirements and commandments. I cast no stones.

I do not think it is correct to say that the Church teaches one must obey the law without exception, or that in the military one must obey orders without exception.

One other point--it is incorrect to argue that the immigration laws are not being enforced. They are being enforced. This year is on track to be the highest number of deportations (400,000) ever. What critics of enforcement mean is not that the laws are unenforced, but that they are not enforced enough. On that, reasonable minds may differ, just as reasonable minds may differ as to what is the appropriate level of enforcement against speeding or against illegal drugs.

And one can rationalize anything for "the good" of other people! Why should we stop there?? Hell, what we be the harm of letting non members and any family members into the Temple Ceremony so as not to be excluded from the joy of a wedding?? I mean, what could possibly be the harm??

I'm sure any doctrine we have could be rationalized away. Why do we even need them??!!!!

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm sure any doctrine we have could be rationalized away. Why do we even need them??!!!!

And now you understand why we need prophets.

[DanGB]

And now you understand why we need prophets.

Why? So they can gnore or rationalize away existing doctrine?

Has Pres Monson stated an amendment to D&C 58:21? I haven't seen it!

[DanGB]

Deleted

[DanGB]

Double post

[ttribe]

Why? So they can gnore or rationalize away existing doctrine?

Has Pres Monson stated an amendment to D&C 58:21? I haven't seen it!

Did it ever occur to you that this is a matter of interpretation and not a matter of ignoring doctrine?

[DanGB]

Did it ever occur to you that this is a matter of interpretation and not a matter of ignoring doctrine?

What?????????

What is so difficult to interpret about whether illegals are breaking the law of the land???

If you believe someone in Church authority has already given an interpretation, please provide it!

[ttribe]

What?????????

What is so difficult to interpret about whether illegals are breaking the law of the land???

If you believe someone in Church authority has already given an interpretation, please provide it!

Never mind. I'm not sure why I even try.

[DanGB]

Never mind. I'm not sure why I even try.

I'll take that to mean you now realize how ridculous your question was on it's face.

[ttribe]

I'll take that to mean you now realize how ridculous your question was on it's face.

Yeah...you do that. In the meantime, maybe (just maybe) you'll realize there are real people on the other side of the screen and your hyper-aggressiveness on this issue is just plain off-putting.

[BCSpace]

Why? So they can gnore or rationalize away existing doctrine?

Has Pres Monson stated an amendment to D&C 58:21? I haven't seen it!

The Church indeed has given interpretation:

D&C 58:19

[Tango]

I thank the Lord every day that we have such wise and compassionate leaders in the Church.

Hardly!! This request came directly from the LDS lawyers. There is nothing remotely spectacular or of consequence. This is not a statement of position, but merely a request to

[Hamba Tuhan]

But they chose poorly, another fail or just good PR.

I think you forgot a third option: the mind and will of the Lord.

To each his own.

[steelyray]

I think the church's weighing in with a neutral statement is wise in this instance, in order to keep their own nose clean from possible local actions taken by zealots on either side who might be at the ward level.

[semlogo]

What?????????

What is so difficult to interpret about whether illegals are breaking the law of the land???

If you believe someone in Church authority has already given an interpretation, please provide it!

Speeders break the law of the land. Let's excommunicate them!

[Brenda]

At first I was confused at any controversy on the Church's statement. Now I see it. And I also see more clearly the wisdom in the statement. (I know, not surprising coming from this TBM.)

It was this discussion that gave me that clarity.

Thanks guys!

[USU78]

Speeders break the law of the land. Let's excommunicate them!

False analogy.

It is the fraud one must commit in order to earn enough to live as an illegal that folks find objectionable. How can one honestly answer the Temple Recommend and Baptismal questions while living and teaching one's children a lie is what gives so many folks pause.

Find me a speeding analogy that includes a related and necessary fraud, and we can talk.