Jump to content

LDS Church supports immigration reforms


LDSToronto

Recommended Posts

Shouldn't someone be screaming for our tax exempt status to be taken from us? :P

Link to comment

Shouldn't someone be screaming for our tax exempt status to be taken from us? :P

while the action of the Church as a whole, would not rise to revocation status, standing visible on the "sideline" seems rather unrepublican form of government; and it seems as though the bishop was given the mic at the signing, certainly grounds for raising eyebrows. If the Pope had the same many would be up in arms.

Link to comment

Of course the church is for immigration reform. It has been encouraging law-breaking by calling illegals as Branch Presidents, Bishops, Stake Presidents, full-time missionaries, etc... Which is highly contradictory to their "we sustain the law of the land" mantra.

Link to comment

The church takes a moral stance in encouraging everyone to think along the terms that seem close to Christs view. In that way they are always right. I also find it amusing, and I am a proponent of the stance the church has taken, (having taken some flack from my conservative friends for it) that those who were so vehemently opposed to the church being involved in the politics of prop 8, are now so suddenly enamored that the church speaks out on immigration questions. Methinks there is the slight taint of hypocrisy in the air over methodology, ie "don't let your feelings be known unless you agree with me".

Link to comment

And kudos to you, for finally being on the same page as the Church, which always supports what is right.

I think a close reading of the history of the church shows that the church does not always support what is right and a close reading of this message board shows that it's members agree:

Deleted. Don't quote other posters not a part of this thread.

H.

Link to comment

Some members might agree. Those with disdain for the church, such as yourself will of course always disagree. To you the church is bad, we understand that, we know it from your posts. It is one reason you presently seem to want to crow, but what about many of us aren't sure, since we generally know the church tries to do the right thing to bring us closer to Christ.

To you this is a unique concept. It isn't so to the vast majority of members.

Link to comment

They are.

I know people have over the Prop 8 issue, but is the immigration reform bill bringing the same response?

Link to comment

Some members might agree. Those with disdain for the church, such as yourself will of course always disagree. To you the church is bad, we understand that, we know it from your posts. It is one reason you presently seem to want to crow, but what about many of us aren't sure, since we generally know the church tries to do the right thing to bring us closer to Christ.

To you this is a unique concept. It isn't so to the vast majority of members.

I feel no contempt for the church, nor is it accurate to say that I feel the church is bad. It is accurate to say the following:

1. I believe that the history of the church, including it's origin claims, are different from what the church officially claims as true.

2. I believe that the church's stance on many social issues is morally wrong.

3. I believe that the revelatory scope of those that are called prophets is more limited than is typically claimed.

Those are my top three differing beliefs. I hold other beliefs, certainly, but none of those are 'I believe the church is bad'.

I also believe that the church is capable of, and has done much, good, and will continue to do much good, in the world. And, as part of my life, I am happy when I see the church take a social position that is morally right.

H.

Link to comment

I think a close reading of the history of the church shows that the church does not always support what is right and a close reading of this message board shows that it's members agree:

Deleted. Don't quote other posters not a part of this thread.

H.

Um, why not? I see no rule in the Board Guidelines that states this is not allowed (especially when the quote is relevant). Perhaps an explanation, mods?

H.

You were clearly mocking the poster and failed to provide context.

Link to comment

I don't think the attacks are nearly as viceral as those who attacked the church on Prop 8. Will we see people lose their jobs? Grafitti scrawled on temples? I don't think so. And will those who attacked the church in regard to their status during prop 8 uphold the same principle? Not really.

So we have two very different reactions.

Conservatives tend to disagree, but relative to the "more genteel" left do not propose any type of physical damage or attacks.

Liberals will of course turn on a dime "if" and only "if" you support their cause. They don't care about methods.

Link to comment
2...I believe that the church's stance on many social issues is morally wrong...

Well, if I ever need moral advice, it's not my bishop, stake president nor conference talks I should go to, but you, the expert on morality. Clearly, the GA's don't know right and wrong like you do. How would they? It's not like they understand the scriptures nor do they have a lot of life experience, study and education. You, by yourself, as opposed to the collective wisdom of the GA's are the moral compass the Church is missing.

Link to comment

Well, if I ever need moral advice, it's not my bishop, stake president nor conference talks I should go to, but you, the expert on morality.

You are welcome to ask me if I think something is morally right or morally wrong, and you are welcome to ignore my answer. Can anyone really claim to be an 'expert on morality'? My claim is to have an opinion on morality.

Clearly, the GA's don't know right and wrong like you do. How would they?

The General Authorities have a viewpoint on morality, and are entitled to share that view point. I am entitled to accept it or reject it. On some things, the GA's and I have differing views on what is right and what is wrong. That doesn't make me a lesser human, nor does it rob them of their right to share their opinions.

It's not like they understand the scriptures nor do they have a lot of life experience, study and education.

I understand the scriptures, have a lot of life experience, I study, and am educated in a number of fields. That doesn't make me any more an authority on morality than the next person. Given you understand LDS theology, you also know that understanding the scriptures, quantity of life experience, study, education are not what give a GA their authority.

You, by yourself, as opposed to the collective wisdom of the GA's are the moral compass the Church is missing.

The church has it's moral direction determined by those who lead it. I don't lead it, therefore, I don't set the moral direction. You are free to ignore, engage, agree, or disagree with my moral leanings; your perspective on them, and the perspective of church leadership bear little influence.

H.

Link to comment
...Can anyone really claim to be an 'expert on morality'?...

You implied that you are when you said you believe that the GA's stances on social issues are immoral. Why would you believe such a thing, unless you you were an authority on what is moral and immoral?

My claim is to have an opinion on morality.

No, your claim was that the Church's stances on many social issues are immoral. Or at least that you believe they are immoral, which amounts to the same thing.

...That doesn't make me a lesser human, nor does it rob them of their right to share their opinions...

No, it doesn't make you a less of a human being. It just makes you arrogant.

I understand the scriptures, have a lot of life experience, I study, and am educated in a number of fields. That doesn't make me any more an authority on morality than the next person...

If morality is real and measurable, it certainly can. If you have studied the scriptures and the great philosophers and have put a lot of thought into it, you can certainly understand good and evil better than the next person. It seems to me people who are experts on morality aren't quick to judge the decisions of others, because morality can be incredibly complex and missing a small amount of information or perspective can change what is perceived to be moral and immoral. In other words, the more you know about morality, the less you are inclined to think you should be quick to judge others on complex social issues.

...Given you understand LDS theology, you also know that understanding the scriptures, quantity of life experience, study, education are not what give a GA their authority...

Understanding the scriptures through the Spirit and life experiences, like being obedient to commandments, study and faith, all contribute to one's ability to make moral decisions. I do understand LDS theology fairly well, actually. It doesn't seem you do, though. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&t=KJV#21

Given Matt 7:21, I have to believe that the G.A.'s know the doctrine, which means they have more perspective when it comes to moral decision. I also know that the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency do not make any decisions without consensus and that doesn't happen without the aid of the Spirit. For any member of the Church to say they believe they know better than the G.A.'s collectively is an admission of having no testimony that this is the Church of Jesus Christ. If you're not a member of the Church, I guess you're not so much arrogant as probably just prejudiced or something more benign like that.

...I don't lead it...

I think that you believe should be leading it, when it comes to the Church's "immoral" social policies.

Link to comment
Of course the church is for immigration reform. It has been encouraging law-breaking by calling illegals as Branch Presidents, Bishops, Stake Presidents, full-time missionaries, etc... Which is highly contradictory to their "we sustain the law of the land" mantra.

The Church is not a law enforcement organ of any secular government, and has not been interrogating people about how many parking tickets they have, whether their tax returns are filed on time, whether they put recycling material in their rubbish bins, or the state of their immigration paperwork. I have yet to see a coherent argument that it should.

But it still holds as a principle -- not a "mantra" -- that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." Evidently you think it at fault because it doesn't take it upon itself to inform on its neighbours, a practice that is still encouraged in certain totalitarian societies, but which is rather beneath the dignity of decent people.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
I think a close reading of the history of the church shows that the church does not always support what is right and a close reading of this message board shows that it's members agree:

Now now, Toronto. You were magnanimously congratulating the leaders of the Church for "finally" being inspired enough to agree with you; I was merely returning the favour. Let's all be magnanimous together, shall we?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...