Jump to content

Obey The Laws Of The Land?


LDSGuy

Recommended Posts

I came across this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/latino-mormons-speaking-out-against-romney-over-immigration-issue/

Its about Hispanic Latter-Day Saints trying to defeat Romney based on his legal immigration position. It says they are using teachings of the church to defend their position. But as members of the church, we believe in obeying the laws of the land. So are they using all of the church's teachings or just the one that fit their cause? Can immigration that predates U.S. immigration laws be used to defend crossing the border without going through the legal criteria?

Link to comment

Does that mean the book of Mormon gives the okay to disobey the laws of the land?

In some cases, yes. In others, no.

Remember that Lehi was a fugitive from justice. By the law of the land he should have turned himself in in Jerusalem. Nephi and his brothers' attempts to get the plates weren't precisely legal either. They ended up running from the law and hiding in caves. Alma the Elder fled from the king's law. Limhi broke an agreement with the king of the Lamanites to escape bondage. Ammon struck down the reigning monarch (in self-defense admittedly). Nephi and Lehi (the later ones) through the power of God escaped prison. Alma and Amulek escaped the law after the other believers were burned to death by the legal authorities of the land.

That is just a sampling. The Bible and the D&C have some law breaking as well.

Link to comment

The higher law is love of God, yourself and your neighbor. So, if you got a neighbor (one you actually don't mind), and they need to go to the hospital, you might consider breaking the speed limit if it means saving their life. Unless its that b***ch that threw away my clothes that were in the laundry room - then definitely go much, much slower!

Link to comment

If we follow the book of Mormon thenh god caused 911. Aacoording to the BOM no one comes to this land save it was Gods guidance.

Your premises do not support your conclusion.

The D_& C states that those obeying Gods law have no reason to break the laws of man, so LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity

Someone should really have told Peter and Paul that before they were killed. If they had been true followers of God they would have given up their Christianity to be in conformity with the law. If there can be no conflict between the law of God and the laws of man then the Holocaust was logically in conformity with the law of God as it was all done very legally with paperwork and everything. This is silly.

The D&C says no such thing.

Link to comment

If we follow the book of Mormon thenh god caused 911. Aacoording to the BOM no one comes to this land save it was Gods guidance.

The D_& C states that those obeying Gods law have no reason to break the laws of man, so LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity

Can you provide these verses you are speaking about please. I'd like to understand what you are saying better.

Link to comment

If we follow the book of Mormon thenh god caused 911. Aacoording to the BOM no one comes to this land save it was Gods guidance.

Your premises do not support your conclusion.

From the article "Ignacio Garcia, a history professor at Brigham Young University and a Sunday school teacher at his Mormon ward. "The book says no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God."

The Book of Mormon does indicate that no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God, if that is an absolute truth, then the 911 terrorist were brought by God, because no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God.

The D_& C states that those obeying Gods law have no reason to break the laws of man, so LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity

Someone should really have told Peter and Paul that before they were killed. If they had been true followers of God they would have given up their Christianity to be in conformity with the law. If there can be no conflict between the law of God and the laws of man then the Holocaust was logically in conformity with the law of God as it was all done very legally with paperwork and everything. This is silly.

The D&C says no such thing.

Perhaps we should ask the Doctrine and Covenants.

D&C 58:21

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

As I accurately pointed out, LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity. Illegal aliens do not have any justification for their illegal entry into the United States. And though some Church leaders have described illegal aliens as trespassers, the Church itself reserves the right and has had person physically ejected from Church property for trespassing.

Link to comment

From the article "Ignacio Garcia, a history professor at Brigham Young University and a Sunday school teacher at his Mormon ward. "The book says no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God."

The Book of Mormon does indicate that no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God, if that is an absolute truth, then the 911 terrorist were brought by God, because no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God.

So logically every act perpetuated by anyone coming to America was caused by God? Seriously? Everything from the American Civil War to the destruction of the rain forests in Brazil?

D&C 58:21

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

As I accurately pointed out, LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity. Illegal aliens do not have any justification for their illegal entry into the United States. And though some Church leaders have described illegal aliens as trespassers, the Church itself reserves the right and has had person physically ejected from Church property for trespassing.

This was a commandment to a group of saints under covenant at a specific time to live on a certain land. If they had lived the law of God then they would built Zion and the laws of the land would never be able to touch them. They didn't. This commandment was not universal in scope and never intended to be. As proof I would offer up polygamy which was in violation of the law yet a commandment from God. This would put the lie to this verse if it was intended to be universal. It would also condemn many prophets throughout the ages. In addition to those I named above Abinadi and Moses were most definitely hard-core and regular law breakers.

Link to comment

CFR, that Section 58:21 is intended only for the specific people referenced therein and is not a general principle for all Saints to follow.

There is not much of anything in the scriptures that is universal, yet, much of the scriptures are applied universally. Also, Nephi stated we should liken the scriptures unto ourselves.

If you do not accept Section 58:21 as a teaching that those who obey the laws of God have no need to break the laws of man, then perhaps AoF 12 would support the premised that LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity - to include illegal entry into another Country.

The simple fact is, that persons entering the United States illegal can not use LDS teaching/scripture/doctrine to support for their illegal activity.

Link to comment

CFR, that Section 58:21 is intended only for the specific people referenced therein and is not a general principle for all Saints to follow.

Read the verses before. Read the verses after. Read the whole section. How much of this stuff are we doing now? Read the introduction. Who is this revelation for?

There is not much of anything in the scriptures that is universal, yet, much of the scriptures are applied universally. Also, Nephi stated we should liken the scriptures unto ourselves.

Indeed we should. Including the scripture about the outcast impoverished Zoramites who fled to another land (ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) being taken in and cared for by the righteous people of Ammon. When they were threatened and told not to help they did so anyways.

If you do not accept Section 58:21 as a teaching that those who obey the laws of God have no need to break the laws of man, then perhaps AoF 12 would support the premised that LDS Doctrine does not support illegal activity - to include illegal entry into another Country.

Which again is obviously conditional as the LDS church has previously condoned and even commanded their people to break the laws of the land. :diablo:

The simple fact is, that persons entering the United States illegal can not use LDS teaching/scripture/doctrine to support for their illegal activity.

I agree. By the same token I see no justification in LDS stuff to oppose it.

In reality though most people who point this out aren't people who are considering immigration. To those people I would encourage them to respect the law but also to consider why they are doing it, how necessary it is, and all kinds of contributing factors.

No, most of the people saying these things are concerned about OTHER people immigrating. In other words they want to prove that other people are sinners. To them I would point out the example of the Savior who seemed to think very little of such behavior. Also, most of the immigrants they want out are already here and the scriptural precedents for what we should do for those in trouble in our own land are very clear. Help them, bless them, aid them, and be kind to the stranger in our land while remembering our vagrant captive forefathers in the Promised Land and Egypt and how we should treat them according to the Golden Rule.

In other words, most people arguing this point your are not likening the scriptures to themselves. They are likening the scriptures to other people....to their detriment....which is generally bad.

Link to comment

CFR that AoF 12 is conditional

What laws of the Land did the LDS Church command its people to break?

What laws of the Land, after said law(s) were found Constitutional and not a restriction on the free exercise of religion, did the LDS Church command its people to break?

And any appeal to the Zoramites plight is misplaced and misguided....see your own posts about specific peoples in specific places and specific scriptures that pertain only to them.

Link to comment

CFR that AoF 12 is conditional

What laws of the Land did the LDS Church command its people to break?

The anti-bigamy laws of Illinois.

What laws of the Land, after said law(s) were found Constitutional and not a restriction on the free exercise of religion, did the LDS Church command its people to break?

Ahhhh, trying to preemptively disarm the one I already brought. Okay, I got a much better one anyways:

Many LDS actions in the Utah War were treasonous. Treason is not just a constitutionally valid law; it is in the Constitution that treason is unlawful and defines it as war against the government which is exactly what we did.

And any appeal to the Zoramites plight is misplaced and misguided....see your own posts about specific peoples in specific places and specific scriptures that pertain only to them.

Indeed, so one should ask which is conditional and which is the more general rule. As the actions of the Ammonites seems more consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the prophets in general about aid to the needy and one thing I have noted about immigrants is that they are often suffering.

Also, the Book of Mormon, the book for our day, seems to have almost no concern with civil obedience. You have people breaking laws left and right to obey the law of God, a military commander threatening to exterminate the government's civilian leadership, and many of the bad guys are patriotic and law-abiding supporters of the government. Then you have long sermons about not oppressing the poor, about helping those in poverty and want to become rich like yourselves, and not turning away beggars and those in need unless you literally have nothing to give.

Add in that those with Priesthood Keys today are looking to help these illegal immigrants too and I think I will stick with my conclusions.

Link to comment

We believe in obeying the laws of the Land, except in cases where the Lord has said otherwise through his prophets. There were no immigration laws that we know of in Lehite South America. He did not have to go through customs to get enter the continent/country.

However, we do have laws today to organize the mass migrations of so many different peoples to our great land. Laws have been created to have a process whereby people may come here for short times for employment or become naturalized citizens. Whether we agree with the process or not is irrelevant. Why? Because we believe in obeying the laws of the land. Now, there are times when the Lord has had to command men not to keep the laws of their land, but this is not one of those times, neither has the prophet of the Lord spoken any such thing. Unless laws are contrary to the will of God for his people or to their freedom to worship Him and obey his commandment, we should keep the laws that have been passed.

Link to comment

We believe in obeying the laws of the Land, except in cases where the Lord has said otherwise through his prophets. There were no immigration laws that we know of in Lehite South America. He did not have to go through customs to get enter the continent/country.

However, we do have laws today to organize the mass migrations of so many different peoples to our great land. Laws have been created to have a process whereby people may come here for short times for employment or become naturalized citizens. Whether we agree with the process or not is irrelevant. Why? Because we believe in obeying the laws of the land. Now, there are times when the Lord has had to command men not to keep the laws of their land, but this is not one of those times, neither has the prophet of the Lord spoken any such thing. Unless laws are contrary to the will of God for his people or to their freedom to worship Him and obey his commandment, we should keep the laws that have been passed.

And I have kept these laws. The question is what do I do with those who break them and are specifically members of my faith. Do I shun them as law-breakers? Refuse to help them because they are criminals? I think not.

Instead I help them. I have a lawyer friend in my ward who helps (really cheap or sometimes free) to fight any deportation and to help them naturalize despite their illegal status. I help them with service projects and help them get jobs.

I also disagree that I am required to support laws whether I agree with them or not. I would also never use the violation of immigration laws as a black mark to keep someone out of the temple or restrict any member from any blessings.

Link to comment

And I have kept these laws. The question is what do I do with those who break them and are specifically members of my faith. Do I shun them as law-breakers? Refuse to help them because they are criminals? I think not.

Instead I help them. I have a lawyer friend in my ward who helps (really cheap or sometimes free) to fight any deportation and to help them naturalize despite their illegal status. I help them with service projects and help them get jobs.

I also disagree that I am required to support laws whether I agree with them or not. I would also never use the violation of immigration laws as a black mark to keep someone out of the temple or restrict any member from any blessings.

Helping those who have broken the law is much different from encouraging the breaking of a law. I would do the same as you have said. I would want to help naturalize a fellow member and friend. Helping, as you have stated, is different from what I am talking about which is encouraging or enabling someone to break the law by using scripture or church teaching. I believe that it is a misrepresentation of the teachings of the church.

As to temple attendance, that is based on the worthiness of the person. Food for thought! The question, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" In many cases that would apply to keeping the law. Such as not commiting fraud, breaking a contract, lying to a police officer, or committing identity theft. If we were committing fraud could we answer that we were honest in our dealings with our fellow men? No. Is coming to this country illegally being honest with our fellow men? If the person were to answer truthfully and explain to the bishop why they are dishonest, then the only thing to do is repent and make it right. Which might include returning to their country of origin and applying for a visa or work permit to enter the US legally. Hopefully it would not come to that. Hopefully they could find another legal way to stay, such as the attorney you mentioned above.

Link to comment

What message should we draw if this is true:

Garcia said it is estimated that nearly 70 percent of Latino Mormons are undocumented immigrants. He said the church has responded by hiring members whose sole jobs are to transport some Latino missionaries from state to state because they can't fly due to their immigration status. CITE
Link to comment

There are times I would advocate breaking this law.

As for "honest in your dealings" in my opinion this does not fall in that category.

How does breaking a law not fall under the category of being "honest in your dealings?" If we did not pay our taxes, would that be honest? I think not. Should a person who enters the country under secrecy (sneaking in) be considered honest in their dealings with Americans?

Utlimately, its up to the bishop or stake president to issue the temple recommend and allow temple attendance, but it is not an honest act to enter the country illegally. And, as long as they are here illegally they have not repented, and are thus continuing to be dishonest with their fellow men.

Now, none of us are free from mistake or sin and trangression, but we must be able to answer the temple questions honestly. If our answers satisfy the criteria to enter the temple, then we can go.

Link to comment

There are times I would advocate breaking this law.

As for "honest in your dealings" in my opinion this does not fall in that category.

ok, so you will twist the Doctrine and Covenants to claim its teachings are not binding.

you twist the book of mormon to promote your own agenda.

Lets go for a trifecta

"Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, ...[to teach them] to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

How will you twist this one to your own agenda? I suppose you already have by saying that law need only be followed if you want to follow that particular law.

Might as well go with; lie a little, sin a little, for there is not no harm in that, God will beat us with a few stripes and all is well in Zion.

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...