LDS Church supports immigration reforms

[LDSToronto]

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?

I was sincere in my praise and delight, and since I'm feeling charitable, the lion shall lay with the spring lamb.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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?

I believe the Leafs should bench Giguere. Does that make me an authority on hockey?

And, the inference is all yours.

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.

I couldn't agree more.

H.

[Pahoran]

I was sincere in my praise and delight, and since I'm feeling charitable, the lion shall lay with the spring lamb.

Of course you were. No one could possibly see anything back-handed about that "finally."

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Of course you were. No one could possibly see anything back-handed about that "finally."

I've just re-read all of my posts in this thread, and I don't see where I wrote "finally" as in "the church finally agrees with me"... That doesn't mean I didn't write it, but I can't find the quote.

I did write:

"Kudo's LDS church and Bishop Burton:"

and

"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."

Because I wrote those words, it's hard for me to see how they are insincere. One can certainly find reason to criticize my views of what is morally right, and one can certainly criticize me for not aligning with the church on what is morally right. But insincerity, I think, is a stretch.

H.

[Pahoran]

I've just re-read all of my posts in this thread, and I don't see where I wrote "finally" as in "the church finally agrees with me"... That doesn't mean I didn't write it, but I can't find the quote.

Did you notice the subheading of the thread? What does "finally voting for what's right!" mean to you?

And did you not write it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mordecai]

I believe the Leafs should bench Giguere. Does that make me an authority on hockey?...

Not quite an accurate analogy. A better analogy would be claiming that their coaching staff doesn't know what they're doing. That would also suggest that you think you're an expert on hockey, just as you seem to think you're an expert on morality.

[LDSToronto]

Did you notice the subheading of the thread? What does "finally voting for what's right!" mean to you?

And did you not write it?

Oh, ya! I *did* write that! Totally forgot - I thought you were referring to a specific post. What does it mean to me? When I wrote it, I was excited and happy. Nothing backhanded about it, just an expression of how awesome I thought the whole notion of the Church voting for social justice was.

Nothing sinister - you would think that my subsequent posts would add context.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Not quite an accurate analogy. A better analogy would be claiming that their coaching staff doesn't know what they're doing. That would also suggest that you think you're an expert on hockey, just as you seem to think you're an expert on morality.

I just don't see how you are inferring expertise from disagreement. Don't get me wrong - I'm flattered you feel that I am an expert on morality, but don't you think it's a stretch?

H.

[Mordecai]

...Don't get me wrong - I'm flattered you feel that I am an expert on morality, but don't you think it's a stretch?...

I don't recall saying that I agreed with your belief that you are an expert on morality, with so much expertise that you can judge the G.A.'s to be immoral on social issues. I think I've strongly implied that I disagree with your self-assessment.

[LDSToronto]

I don't recall saying that I agreed with your belief that you are an expert on morality, with so much expertise that you can judge the G.A.'s to be immoral on social issues. I think I've strongly implied that I disagree with your self-assessment.

I never claimed I was an "expert on morality". You knighted me an "expert in morality". What are you, some kind of "master of morality" such that you can wander around bestowing titles upon board members based on your own beliefs?

I guess it doesn't matter, because you seem to disagree with the label that you've given me, and with the beliefs that you have attributed to me.

You are one crazy dude, Mordecai.

H.

[frankenstein]

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

the BYU HONOR CODE which "Real Men" follow, requires "informing", so much for dignity of decent people.

as for the Church not being a law enforcer, A person on probation or other types of non-confinement recompense administered by the State, can not receive certain blessings from the LDS Church, but someone flaunting and at even claiming a right to flaunt Federal Law is given a free pass.

[Calm]

I don't recall saying that I agreed with your belief that you are an expert on morality, with so much expertise that you can judge the G.A.'s to be immoral on social issues. I think I've strongly implied that I disagree with your self-assessment.

I think the term "expert" is problematic. I would suggest it is more of a hierarchy where the assumption is that 'y knows better than x', not necessarily that 'y knows best'.

[Mordecai]

I think the term "expert" is problematic. I would suggest it is more of a hierarchy where the assumption is that 'y knows better than x', not necessarily that 'y knows best'.

I think if you think you know more about morality than all of the G.A.'s combined, whose job it is to be moral, you certainly think you are an expert.

[Jeff K.]

the BYU HONOR CODE which "Real Men" follow, requires "informing", so much for dignity of decent people.

as for the Church not being a law enforcer, A person on probation or other types of non-confinement recompense administered by the State, can not receive certain blessings from the LDS Church, but someone flaunting and at even claiming a right to flaunt Federal Law is given a free pass.

Is informing on someone for doing something bad immoral?

[deadeye]

Here's the thing that bugs me about the church's apparent embrace of illegal aliens into the church. I've always treated the worthiness interview for the temple very seriously and have carefully considered each interview question, answering it with complete truthfulness, even if the answer meant that a recommend would not be issued at that time. I've also known others who've had their own struggles with things and have worked through issues and put their lives in order to earn the blessings associated with being temple-worthy. For them it was a serious and solemn issue, bringing joy to many people who witnessed the spiritual journey.

With these sacred experiences in mind, I have a hard time contemplating Bishops or Stake Presidents issuing temple recommends to illegal aliens who are knowingly breaking multiple laws, in some cases multiple felonies in order to conduct their lives here.

I can't imagine a member who considers temple worthiness serious, who works through some issues in order to get to the temple, only to encounter an illegal alien there who is responsible for stealing the identity of one of the members children or who caused the member to lose his business because of dishonest business practices (hiring illegals, not paying taxes, etc...)?

What happened to the notion that God will not be mocked in his temples?

[Jeff K.]

Stealing the identity of another is theft and should be repented of. But I do not think that specific issue comes to mind since a fake social security number need not reflect an identify of another person (they often do not).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

LDSToronto-

Can you please answer my query in post #14?

(Maybe it got lost in the shuffle?)

[deadeye]

Stealing the identity of another is theft and should be repented of. But I do not think that specific issue comes to mind since a fake social security number need not reflect an identify of another person (they often do not).

Let me see if I understand your point... In order to find work, it's slightly more honest for an illegal alien to simply make up a random number which may or may not belong to someone else, as opposed to knowingly stealing someones name and identity? They still have to commit perjury when they sign an I-9 form and swear that they are authorized to work here, knowing full well that the identification they're using is not real. Is this difference subtle enough to allow them to truthfully answer that they are honest in their dealings with others?

Even if the made up number does not currently belong to someone, chances are that it could be assigned to an infant at some point. According to the Utah Attorney General, at least 50,000 Utah children have had their identities compromised by someone, mostly due to illegal immigration. Some of these families don't even learn about this until the child is old enough to try and get their first job, at which point they learn that the credit has already been ruined and the IRS wants back taxes. It's a very difficult situation to deal with. I don't think the victims really care whether or not the illegal alien knew who they are victimizing, it doesn't really change the situation that much for them.

This is something that could easily to prevented by requiring business to run an E-verify check for every potential employee. If the results show that the number really belonged to a 5 year old, it might prevent the hire from taking place for that number. Unfortunately, that bill died in the Utah legislature this year due to opposition from business groups.

[LDSToronto]

This one intrigues me. Please, specify.

1. Same-sex marriage and other LGBT-related issues

2. Women outside the home

3. Silence on important social issues, such as universal health-care and torture, while quite vocal on less important issues, such as pornography and modesty

4. Lack of public accountability for past social stances, such as withholding the priesthood from blacks and fighting the ERA

There are others, but those are the top-of-mind ones.

H.

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto-

Can you please answer my query in post #14?

(Maybe it got lost in the shuffle?)

Yes, I started this post yesterday, but had to abandon it as I got called away. See previous post.

H.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

1. Same-sex marriage and other LGBT-related issues

2. Women outside the home

3. Silence on important social issues, such as universal health-care and torture, while quite vocal on less important issues, such as pornography and modesty

4. Lack of public accountability for past social stances, such as withholding the priesthood from blacks and fighting the ERA

There are others, but those are the top-of-mind ones.

H.

1. So you believe the church is morally wrong for championing Biblical marriage?

2. I have seen the church encourage women to stay home and nurture their children, but as far as I am aware not one is punished for not doing so.

3. So because they don't deem important what you deem important, they are morally wrong?

4. I agree a bigger "mea culpa" on blacks and the Priesthood is warranted. The ERA thing, not so much.

I guess my bigger question is... Why do you believe that people who don't share your worldview are morally wrong?

[LDSToronto]

I guess my bigger question is... Why do you believe that people who don't share your worldview are morally wrong?

I'll answer this question; as for the others, you'll need to start new threads on them so as not to derail this one.

My claim is not, "people who don't share my worldview are morally wrong". That is what you have inferred. My claim is that certain positions are morally wrong. Further, I do not claim that one who holds a position that is morally wrong is generally immoral.

Do you see the difference?

H.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I'll answer this question; as for the others, you'll need to start new threads on them so as not to derail this one.

My claim is not, "people who don't share my worldview are morally wrong". That is what you have inferred. My claim is that certain positions are morally wrong. Further, I do not claim that one who holds a position that is morally wrong is generally immoral.

Do you see the difference?

H.

How is upholding Biblical marriage morally wrong?

[Jeff K.]

Let me see if I understand your point... In order to find work, it's slightly more honest for an illegal alien to simply make up a random number which may or may not belong to someone else, as opposed to knowingly stealing someones name and identity? They still have to commit perjury when they sign an I-9 form and swear that they are authorized to work here, knowing full well that the identification they're using is not real. Is this difference subtle enough to allow them to truthfully answer that they are honest in their dealings with others?

Even if the made up number does not currently belong to someone, chances are that it could be assigned to an infant at some point. According to the Utah Attorney General, at least 50,000 Utah children have had their identities compromised by someone, mostly due to illegal immigration. Some of these families don't even learn about this until the child is old enough to try and get their first job, at which point they learn that the credit has already been ruined and the IRS wants back taxes. It's a very difficult situation to deal with. I don't think the victims really care whether or not the illegal alien knew who they are victimizing, it doesn't really change the situation that much for them.

This is something that could easily to prevented by requiring business to run an E-verify check for every potential employee. If the results show that the number really belonged to a 5 year old, it might prevent the hire from taking place for that number. Unfortunately, that bill died in the Utah legislature this year due to opposition from business groups.

I don't think so. I think that such things are not nearly has common or as heinous as you may believe. Anecdotally yes but I have not yet seen a solid work up of the numbers. I think the argument is overwrought. Like not getting a temple recommend if you have a speeding ticket in regards to obeying the laws of the land.

[Jeff K.]

1. Same-sex marriage and other LGBT-related issues

2. Women outside the home

3. Silence on important social issues, such as universal health-care and torture, while quite vocal on less important issues, such as pornography and modesty

4. Lack of public accountability for past social stances, such as withholding the priesthood from blacks and fighting the ERA

There are others, but those are the top-of-mind ones.

H.

So for you the bible is generally morally wrong.

And women can and do work outside the home. My wife is a CFO and a Temple Recommend holder, as well as secretary to the YW. She is held up as a fine example by the ward. Maybe its a Canadian thing.

Universal healthcare, torture are interesting given you can't give a definition of torture (reading your self indulgent posts could be torturous, should we all care?) and healthcare is not a moral issue since providing it is a question of methodology, and not necessarily the one you want.

So tell us, how long have you been arrogant enough to view other peoples stances as being morally inferior to yours?

Or is it moral of me to ask?