The Nehor Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, mbh26 said: You're either allowed to have a country with borders or you're not. Up until now, every sovereign nation has had that right. Do we allow a beggar on the street to dictate what percentage of our income he is entitled to? Even the brethren own private property and don't give everything they have to the poor. In fact they don't allow the poor to decide what percentage of their income the poor are entitled to. Are the brethren good examples of disciples of Christ or not? False dichotomy. 7 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Yet, none of those scriptures tell us to not have national borders. I really think your position is untenable and illogical. Though I understood the use of the oil and Jesus' statement that I will only be a here a little while whereas the poor will always - ALWAYS - be with you. The anointing - that is a stretch unless you are also proposing that the anointer held the priesthood. I think it is better to say he was anointed with oil based on the customs of the day. I love the scriptures, but I don't think it is spiritually healthy to stretch them into meanings that are not evident. This also applies to the "refugees" coming to Zarahemla - simply does not fit and I think you know better. I believe we should help the poor and I do so by my actions and by our donations and offerings. What do you call it when a nation is invaded by groups that are neither invited or wanted? Webster's defines it as "an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain". Attempting to belittle this invasion by people we do not know are poor, have not been invited, and just simply assume that they can go anywhere they want. Why? By what authority? It is laughable to assume these individuals think that their actions are acceptable. They know they are not welcome and demand entry anyway. It does not matter that they are not carrying guns - as far as anyone knows - what is absolutely crystal clear is that they are not wanted. chose to all walk together to enter the USA. If you believe, please know I have beach front property in Kansas for sale and rich people like yourself will surely want to buy to give to the poor. Nations can only survive with borders that are respected by others. The USA and Western Europe are not the dumping grounds for other nations to dispose of their respective peoples. Lastly, did not vote for Trump. Don't like him, but on this issue he is right and I am able to support this issue. By your definition they have to be unwelcome which means that as far am I am concerned it is not an invasion. That terminology is used by those who want to insinuate that a bunch of ragged immigrants are a military threat. 12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: You're right. We should follow the Biblical invasion of Canaan and kill every man, woman, child, and animal. Wait, I'm starting to sound like Nehor... Release your anger........ On 10/27/2018 at 1:10 AM, Scott Lloyd said: I agree that the Church’s statement is very measured. But I wonder why, in your quotation of it, you included only the portion that has direct bearing on those already in the country and left out the first part, which seems most relevant to the matter under discussion in this thread, i. e. the approach of some 14,000 or so (last I heard) with the apparent intent of storming the southern border unlawfully and unchecked. Here is that portion: “Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable. “As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.” That is soft language. “Discourage” “As a matter of policy”. I would feel no guilt from that statement if I were desperate. If the church were truly interested in making sure the Saints followed immigration law a few alterations to the requirements for baptism and a temple recommend would show that quite clearly. In general I agree that people should not violate immigration law but if push came to shove in my life I would break it. Edited October 28, 2018 by The Nehor
mbh26 Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: "False dichotomy. " It's happening right now. It really comes down to this question Nehor. "Did Jesus own the clothes He wore?" 5 hours ago, The Nehor said:
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The so-called "caravan" of people from Central America was only formed for group protection from rampant crime en route. They are families fleeing very unstable societies. They have no intention of attempting to storm our southern border, which could not be successful in any case. They really have no choice. Either they remain in their home countries and suffer brutality from gangs and local government (including kidnapping of their children), or they can flee -- despite the uncertainties. They are desperate. They were offered asylum in Mexico. IMO, with considerable US assistance in logistics, education, supplies, jobs, etc., that would be a far preferable solution...similar culture, climate, religion, and language...than trekking across a very long hostile territory, confronting soldiers and police, falling prey to cartels and human trafficking, disease, fatigue, and probably being turned back. $7000 would be a considerable nest egg to establish oneself in Mexico rather than enrich the coyotes. Edited October 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
halconero Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 I just want to throw something out there for everyone in the conversation, regardless of their position on this issue: Please please please drop the words “George Soros,” and derogatory use of “globalist” in reference to who is funding the caravan, or pushing various conspiratorial agendas in the United States. Yesterday’s attack in Pittsburg hit home for me. I still identify as Jewish, even though I’m a Latter-day Saint, as it has a particular linguistic, cultural, genealogical, and even spiritual meaning to me. I lost family in the Holocaust. I’ve know for years now that if you just scrapped the surface of the words George Soros or Globalist you would find the word “Jew” on the lips of many using it and pushing it. Yesterday was evidence of that, and I’ve seen the clock thrown off increasingly in the past few months. You can take issue with the caravan. You can want a sealed border. Whatever. Those aren’t positions I take, but I can understand why some might hold them. Just please don’t fall into the trap I’ve seen many of my friends fall into as labelling, even unwittingly, this as the fault of some sort of International Jewery. 3
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 4 hours ago, mbh26 said: It's happening right now. It really comes down to this question Nehor. "Did Jesus own the clothes He wore?" No, it does not come down to that question? 1
Glenn101 Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 1 hour ago, halconero said: You can take issue with the caravan. You can want a sealed border. Whatever. Those aren’t positions I take, but I can understand why some might hold them. Just please don’t fall into the trap I’ve seen many of my friends fall into as labelling, even unwittingly, this as the fault of some sort of International Jewery. There are some legitimate questions about who is financing this caravan as the logistics of keeping all of those people nourished day after day has to be a daunting and expensive task. George Soros' name has been bandied about, not because he is a Jew, but because he has not been bashful in supporting so called liberal. mostly Democratic causes and campaigns. That being said, in my opinion, it is unwise to subscribe to conspiracy theories about just who is financing the caravan. The truth will eventually come out. Personally I believe that if Soros was financing that caravan he would be proud of the fact and let everyone know about it. Glenn
longview Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: . . . as far am I am concerned it is not an invasion. That terminology is used by those who want to insinuate that a bunch of ragged immigrants are a military threat. First of all, those ragged aliens should apply for work permits (at least). If they are seeking asylum status, there are plenty of consulates (in their home countries as well as in Mexico) they can seek help. Second, those that are organising and funding this "show" are NOT interested in the stability of the American body politic (would much rather agitate than to work out a calm solution).
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: On 10/27/2018 at 12:10 AM, Scott Lloyd said: “Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable. That is soft language. [Slight exaggeration for humorous purposes incoming] Yeesh. If yellin' about the impending destabilization of society is "soft language", one wonders what you consider "hard language". [/SEfHP]
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 1 hour ago, longview said: those ragged aliens Your compassion for our fellow human beings, brothers and sisters and children of God, gives me great hope.
mbh26 Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Your compassion for our fellow human beings, brothers and sisters and children of God, gives me great hope. So we're not compassionate because we draw a line on what we're willing to give? By that standard the church is not compassionate either. Nor is anyone who invests in locks or home security systems. Aren't those little walls we all put up?
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, mbh26 said: So we're not compassionate because we draw a line on what we're willing to give? By that standard the church is not compassionate either. Nor is anyone who invests in locks or home security systems. Aren't those little walls we all put up? No, it was his reference to them as "those ragged aliens." Not very kind, don't ya think?
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 43 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: [Slight exaggeration for humorous purposes incoming] Yeesh. If yellin' about the impending destabilization of society is "soft language", one wonders what you consider "hard language". [/SEfHP] I was talking about the church statement.
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, longview said: First of all, those ragged aliens should apply for work permits (at least). If they are seeking asylum status, there are plenty of consulates (in their home countries as well as in Mexico) they can seek help. Second, those that are organising and funding this "show" are NOT interested in the stability of the American body politic (would much rather agitate than to work out a calm solution). When did we become such weak-willed cowards that a couple thousand people wanting to enter the nation are viewed as a threat to the stability of the American body politic? When did we abandon hope and charity and embrace fear? Did the terrorists win when I was not looking? 3
kllindley Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I was talking about the church statement. That is the Church's statement.
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 1 minute ago, kllindley said: That is the Church's statement. There is nothing in the statement about the “impending destabilization of society”. I think it would require a mental disorder to interpret the text in that fashion.
kllindley Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: There is nothing in the statement about the “impending destabilization of society”. I think it would require a mental disorder to interpret the text in that fashion. No. That is the actual text of the Church's statement. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
Jeanne Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 Just a question to the OP. Why is the title of this this thread called: "What is Our Position on the Caravan"?
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, longview said: First of all, those ragged aliens should apply for work permits (at least). If they are seeking asylum status, there are plenty of consulates (in their home countries as well as in Mexico) they can seek help. Second, those that are organising and funding this "show" are NOT interested in the stability of the American body politic (would much rather agitate than to work out a calm solution). Nor are they interested in the welfare of those folks. They are using them for their own evil purposes. If the purpose is to get them to a better situation in the US, $7000 would buy a one-way Omnibus ticket or even a first class airplane ticket to a Mexican border town with enough left over to buy a car, a lot of food and lodging while waiting to get processed legally. Edited October 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 6 hours ago, halconero said: I just want to throw something out there for everyone in the conversation, regardless of their position on this issue: Please please please drop the words “George Soros,” and derogatory use of “globalist” in reference to who is funding the caravan, or pushing various conspiratorial agendas in the United States. Yesterday’s attack in Pittsburg hit home for me. I still identify as Jewish, even though I’m a Latter-day Saint, as it has a particular linguistic, cultural, genealogical, and even spiritual meaning to me. I lost family in the Holocaust. I’ve know for years now that if you just scrapped the surface of the words George Soros or Globalist you would find the word “Jew” on the lips of many using it and pushing it. Yesterday was evidence of that, and I’ve seen the clock thrown off increasingly in the past few months. You can take issue with the caravan. You can want a sealed border. Whatever. Those aren’t positions I take, but I can understand why some might hold them. Just please don’t fall into the trap I’ve seen many of my friends fall into as labelling, even unwittingly, this as the fault of some sort of International Jewery. No one is more contemptuous of anti-Semitism than I. But it does strike me as a stretch to link it to disapproval of the caravan snaking it’s way up to our southern border. 1
Vance Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The so-called "caravan" of people from Central America was only formed for group protection from rampant crime en route. They are families fleeing very unstable societies. They have no intention of attempting to storm our southern border, which could not be successful in any case. They really have no choice. Either they remain in their home countries and suffer brutality from gangs and local government (including kidnapping of their children), or they can flee -- despite the uncertainties. They are desperate. The mob has been joined/infiltrated by MS13 thugs and cartels to take advantage of this opportunity to smuggle children into the U.S. as sex slaves. No offer by Mexico will be accepted because it would defeat the intended outcome of the evil ones.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 26 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Just a question to the OP. Why is the title of this this thread called: "What is Our Position on the Caravan"? I wondered that myself and raised the question early on in the thread. I assume “our” is intended to mean the Church of Jesus of Christ, as though it is a given that the Church would even be expected to take a position on the matter. What is disquieting to me is the apparent mindset that a position on one side or the other is more compatible with the doctrines and teachings of the Church. That strikes me as self-righteous. There are many, many political issues, this being one, in which the Church does not bind the Latter-day Saints to one side or the other. When that is the case, one should not try to claim the moral high ground by trying to drag the Church into the discussion when the Church has not expressed a position. I have even questioned why this blatantly political thread has been allowed to carry on so long when political discussion is “banned” here on the board unless the topic has a direct connection to the Church, which this one certainly does not. 1
Bernard Gui Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, Vance said: The mob has been joined/infiltrated by MS13 thugs and cartels to take advantage of this opportunity to smuggle children into the U.S. as sex slaves. No offer by Mexico will be accepted because it would defeat the intended outcome of the evil ones. And the $12500 this family paid them. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/30/world/smuggling-illegal-immigration-costs.html
MiserereNobis Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, Vance said: The mob has been joined/infiltrated by MS13 thugs and cartels to take advantage of this opportunity to smuggle children into the U.S. as sex slaves. CFR
bluebell Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I wondered that myself and raised the question early on in the thread. I assume “our” is intended to mean the Church of Jesus of Christ, as though it is a given that the Church would even be expected to take a position on the matter. What is disquieting to me is the apparent mindset that a position on one side or the other is more compatible with the doctrines and teachings of the Church. That strikes me as self-righteous. There are many, many political issues, this being one, in which the Church does not bind the Latter-day Saints to one side or the other. When that is the case, one should not try to claim the moral high ground by trying to drag the Church into the discussion when the Church has not expressed a position. I have even questioned why this blatantly political thread has been allowed to carry on so long when political discussion is “banned” here on the board unless the topic has a direct connection to the Church, which this one certainly does not. It does have a direct connection to the gospel of Christ though, and the discussion of what the moral stance of a Christian should be in regards to immigration. That seems very relevant to the board. 1
Vance Posted October 28, 2018 Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: CFR https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/28/bad-hombres-found-migrant-caravan-approaching-america/ Why would you doubt that evil men would take this opportunity to do their evil deeds? The US government IS receiving pressure open the border and let these people in. Edited October 28, 2018 by Vance
Recommended Posts