Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church news reiterates immigration stance


Recommended Posts

Posted
30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Another article asks the question, "What if ICE shows up to sacrament meeting?"
https://bycommonconsent.com/2025/01/22/religious-liberty-and-sanctuary/

This paragraph got my attention:

"But second, it stomps on their constitutionally-protected, foundational religious liberty."

From a strictly legal perspective, does this argument hold any water?  Do illegal immigrants have constitutionally protected rights?  Sincere question because I don't know how the constitution applies to people who are not citizens.  

Posted
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

This paragraph got my attention:

"But second, it stomps on their constitutionally-protected, foundational religious liberty."

From a strictly legal perspective, does this argument hold any water? 

I don't think so.  I commented on this in the other thread:

Quote
Quote

But second, it stomps on their constitutionally-protected, foundational religious liberty. And it stomps on the church’s religious liberty in ministering to those who wish to attend.

I'm not sure about this.  If the police received information that an on-the-run kidnapper was, at that moment, attending a Sacrament Meeting, would it be a constitutional violation for police to immediately go there and arrest him?  No.  

If the Trump Administration wanted to turn public opinion against their immigration policy, I think they could hardly do better than start sending federal agents into churches.  That is why I don't think this will happen (or that it will only happen in rare and extraordinary circumstances).  We'll see, I suppose.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Can Law Enforcement Enter a Religious Building to Arrest Someone?

There is no constitutional prohibition against law enforcement entering a church, mosque, synagogue, or other religious building to arrest someone, even if that person is claiming "sanctuary." However, legal, historical, and policy considerations sometimes make it a complex issue.


1. The Constitution & Law Enforcement Entry into Religious Buildings

The Fourth Amendment – Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures but does not provide absolute protection for religious buildings. Police can enter with:

  • A valid warrant issued by a judge.
  • Exigent circumstances (e.g., hot pursuit of a fleeing felon).
  • Owner or occupant consent (which may include religious leaders).

The First Amendment – Protects freedom of religion but does not grant absolute immunity to religious buildings.

  • The government cannot target religious institutions specifically for enforcement.
  • However, the neutral application of criminal law does not violate religious freedom.

🚨 Conclusion: Religious institutions do not have automatic constitutional protection against lawful police entry.


2. The Concept of “Sanctuary” in the U.S.

🔹 Historical Basis

  • The idea of "sanctuary" has roots in medieval and biblical law, where churches could offer protection from authorities.
  • However, U.S. law does not recognize "sanctuary" as a legal defense.

🔹 Modern Usage

  • Some churches symbolically declare themselves "sanctuary spaces" to protect immigrants or fugitives from law enforcement.
  • Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a policy (not a law) discouraging enforcement in "sensitive locations" (e.g., churches, schools, hospitals).
    • DHS Sensitive Locations Policy (2011) advises against arrests in places of worship except in extreme cases.
    • However, this is a policy, not a law—it can be changed and does not prevent all law enforcement actions.

🚨 Conclusion: While churches may provide refuge in a moral sense, sanctuary claims hold no legal standing under U.S. law.


3. When Can Law Enforcement Enter a Religious Building?

With a Warrant – Officers may enter and arrest a suspect if they have a proper arrest or search warrant.
Exigent Circumstances – If police are in hot pursuit or believe a crime is occurring inside, they can enter without a warrant.
Consent from Church Authorities – If religious leaders grant permission, officers may enter lawfully.

🚨 Limits on Law Enforcement:

  • Police cannot enter unlawfully or conduct unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Targeting religious buildings for enforcement solely based on their religious nature may raise First Amendment concerns.

4. Legal & Policy Considerations

🔹 Immigration Enforcement vs. Criminal Arrests

  • While ICE typically avoids churches, local police and the FBI are not bound by the same policies.
  • Law enforcement may still execute arrest warrants for serious crimes in a church.

🔹 Political and Public Relations Concerns

  • Law enforcement may hesitate to enter a church due to public backlash or political controversy.
  • Some churches actively defy federal law in sanctuary movements, leading to potential legal battles.

5. Conclusion

🔹 There is no constitutional prohibition preventing law enforcement from entering a church to make an arrest.
🔹 "Sanctuary" is symbolic, not legally binding, and does not protect fugitives from arrest.
🔹 Law enforcement can enter a religious building with:

  • A valid warrant.
  • Exigent circumstances.
  • Consent from church authorities.
    🔹 ICE has an internal policy discouraging arrests in churches, but this does not apply to all law enforcement agencies.

In sum, while religious buildings may provide a temporary safe haven, they do not grant legal immunity from arrest.

The commentary above about ICE policy is, it seems out of date by a few days.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do illegal immigrants have constitutionally protected rights? 

Yes.  But avoiding arrest/deportation by claiming "sanctuary" in a church building is not a constitutional right.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sincere question because I don't know how the constitution applies to people who are not citizens.  

People in the U.S. illegally have some, but not all, rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.  Again, from ChatGPT:

Quote

What Constitutional Rights Do Illegal Aliens Have in the U.S.?

Despite lacking lawful immigration status, illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) in the United States do have constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution applies to all persons within the country’s jurisdiction, not just U.S. citizens.


1. Due Process & Equal Protection (5th & 14th Amendments)

The Fifth Amendment – Protects against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment – Guarantees equal protection under the law to all persons, not just U.S. citizens.

  • Key Supreme Court Case: Plyler v. Doe (1982)
    • The Court ruled that undocumented children cannot be denied public education based on their immigration status.
    • The ruling reaffirmed that "all persons" in the U.S. have equal protection under the law.

2. Protection Against Unreasonable Searches & Seizures (4th Amendment)

Illegal aliens are protected from unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement, just like U.S. citizens.

  • Law enforcement must have a warrant or probable cause to search a person or their property.
  • Immigration enforcement exceptions:
    • Border agents have broader authority to conduct searches near the border.
    • Immigration officers can ask for documents but cannot conduct warrantless home raids without consent or legal authorization.

3. Right to Legal Counsel in Criminal Cases (6th Amendment)

Undocumented immigrants have the right to a lawyer in criminal cases.

  • If charged with a crime, they must be given access to legal representation.
  • However, in immigration proceedings (which are civil, not criminal), there is no right to a court-appointed attorney.

🚨 Key Distinction:

  • Criminal cases → Right to a public defender.
  • Immigration proceedings → No public defender; must hire their own lawyer or find pro bono assistance.

4. Right to Remain Silent (5th Amendment)

Undocumented immigrants have the right to remain silent when questioned by law enforcement.

  • They do not have to answer questions about their immigration status.
  • They can refuse to sign documents without legal advice.

5. Protection Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment (8th Amendment)

Illegal aliens are protected from inhumane treatment and excessive bail or fines.

  • They cannot be subjected to abuse, torture, or inhumane detention conditions.
  • Supreme Court precedent: Even those facing deportation cannot be subjected to cruel treatment by the government.

6. Right to Access the Courts

Undocumented immigrants can sue in U.S. courts.

  • They can file lawsuits (e.g., for workplace violations, discrimination, or injury claims).
  • They can testify in court as witnesses.
  • They cannot be denied access to legal proceedings simply due to immigration status.

7. Right to Work Protections

Labor laws apply to all workers, regardless of immigration status.

  • Employers cannot:
    • Refuse to pay wages owed to undocumented workers.
    • Violate workplace safety laws.
    • Engage in discrimination or abuse.
  • Supreme Court Limitation:
    • In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002), the Court ruled that undocumented workers cannot receive back pay if fired due to union activity, limiting some labor protections.

8. Rights That Do NOT Apply to Illegal Aliens

🚫 Voting Rights – Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal and most state elections.
🚫 Firearms Rights (2nd Amendment) – Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms.
🚫 Public Benefits – Most federal benefits (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, welfare) are not available to illegal aliens, though some states provide benefits like healthcare for children.


Conclusion

🔹 Illegal aliens in the U.S. have many constitutional protections, including due process, protection from unlawful searches, and access to the courts.
🔹 However, they do not have certain rights like voting, gun ownership, or guaranteed government benefits.
🔹 Key Supreme Court rulings (such as Plyler v. Doe) affirm that constitutional rights apply to all persons, not just citizens.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
3 hours ago, halconero said:

Pretty much what CV75 said, but I'd add that the 14th Amendment and its antecedents in statute and common law are noteworthy here.

That is, who is or isn't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. According to the amendment, American citizenship is conditional on two factors:

1) Direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. According to the amendment, people born in the U.S. owe the U.S. their allegiance (conditional on the second factor). The other group? Those who are naturalized. As a side tangent, it's fascinating to me how the term naturalization implies a sort of rebirth of the metaphysical changing of a person from one who owes their allegiance to another country to one who inherently and naturally owes their allegiance to the U.S. It reminds of who, when a child is sealed to a couple, they are treated as though they were born inside the covenant (with one secular exception — the presidency).

2) Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning that the laws of the United States apply to the person.

Both (1) and (2) are necessary for citizenship but insufficient on their own — meaning that just being born in the U.S. or attempting to adopt an Americanized identity isn't enough; I also need to be subject to its laws. Likewise, I can be subject to U.S. law, be born outside the U.S., and having never adopted Americanized identity, rights, and obligations (to clarify, I am not using "identity" here as a trite social identity; instead, I mean adopting all the rights and responsibilities but are not born there (duh) nor have they inherent in that identity through a formal process).

That implies that there are people in the U.S. who are subject to its laws, but not born there (duh) nor formally adopted into American identity. Every time I cross the border of my hometown in Southeast BC into Idaho to buy cheap gas, c'est moi. I wasn't born in the U.S., and never went through the national adoption process, but the $80 I paid for speeding suggests that I'm definitely subject to American law (or at least it's speed laws; I don't want to test the limits of other ones).

It also implies that there are people born inside the U.S., who may have even sought to apply for national adoption (what I'm calling the nationalization process), but who aren't subject to U.S. law. Historically and in legislation, this has only ever applied to two categories of people — diplomats and foreign soldiers (and the family members of both). Diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity. As much as the plethora of unpaid parking tickets in D.C. annoy the local and national government to no extent, there is good reason for giving foreign diplomats immunity from local laws — to keep lines of communication open between countries on the surety that their representatives will not be harmed. The informal practice of diplomatic immunity stretches back to antiquity (the horror stories for torturing and executing diplomats in times of conflict are notable because they are exceptions that prove the rule), but really became formalized with the Peace of Westpahlia and the Diplomatic Privileges Act (1709) passed by the British Parliament, the first piece of written legislation of its kind. The U.S. has adopted pre-revolutionary law from the U.K. into its corpus of common law.

Foreign soldiers are also not ordinarily subject to local laws. They are not part of the local polity, and are governed by the military laws of their own countries. Jurisdiction over war crimes are the one exception here (hence 'ordinarily'), as the U.S. and other countries generally consider war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide as offences under universal jurisdiction (given they are attack on 'humanity' itself rather than one nation in particular).

Besides those two categories of persons (diplomats and foreign soldiers), people who are born here are indeed subject to the laws of the United States. Here's the cool thing, however — laws don't just penalize; but protect as well. So all foreign persons in the U.S. who are neither soldiers nor diplomats enjoy protection under the U.S. constitution as much as they are subject to it and other national, state, and local laws.

 

Which is more constitutionally sound, for our host government to declare or treat undocumented immigrants as invading soldiers, or to declare or treat them as negotiating diplomats? Why would our government do either?

Posted
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Which is more constitutionally sound, for our host government to declare or treat undocumented immigrants as invading soldiers, or to declare or treat them as negotiating diplomats? Why would our government do either?

I didn’t suggest that.

I brought up soldiers and diplomats to demonstrate, by way of negation, why constitutional protections extend to immigrants without legal status in the US.

To put it another way, by understanding the limited categories of persons specifically excluded from Constitutional protections why they are excluded (they’re protected/subject to other jurisdictions) we can better understand why/how the U.S. Constitution applies to people without legal status.

Posted
1 hour ago, halconero said:

I didn’t suggest that.

I brought up soldiers and diplomats to demonstrate, by way of negation, why constitutional protections extend to immigrants without legal status in the US.

To put it another way, by understanding the limited categories of persons specifically excluded from Constitutional protections why they are excluded (they’re protected/subject to other jurisdictions) we can better understand why/how the U.S. Constitution applies to people without legal status.

I know you weren't suggesting it, and it was a great way to demonstrate your point, but I had he news on while reading your post :D ...

Posted
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I refuse to believe that a devout Christian like our President would desecrate a church by sending in agents to harass and detain suspected undocumented attendees. That sounds like the kind of thing a weak and spineless tyrant would do as a clumsy attempt to appear to be strong. Definitely not our President.

/s

No. Not Russel M Nelson. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

No. Not Russel M Nelson. 

He means Trump and he is being sarcastic (several posters signal sarcasm by ending with a /s)

Posted
1 hour ago, Calm said:

He means Trump and he is being sarcastic (several posters signal sarcasm by ending with a /s)

Ooh well... nice that i've learned something else. Thank you Calm, nice of you to inform me of this information. But uh...1 question... was it not forbidden to talk about politics on Mormon Dialogue? 

Posted
27 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Ooh well... nice that i've learned something else. Thank you Calm, nice of you to inform me of this information. But uh...1 question... was it not forbidden to talk about politics on Mormon Dialogue? 

We are pretty much ignoring that rule at the moment, lol.  There are some pretty hefty moral questions in current political debates, kind of irresistible.

We might get a scolding from Nemesis one of these days.

Posted
1 hour ago, Calm said:

We are pretty much ignoring that rule at the moment, lol.  There are some pretty hefty moral questions in current political debates, kind of irresistible.

We might get a scolding from Nemesis one of these days.

Lol. 🤣

Posted
4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Ooh well... nice that i've learned something else. Thank you Calm, nice of you to inform me of this information. But uh...1 question... was it not forbidden to talk about politics on Mormon Dialogue? 

It is forbidden- but generally only enforced when Conservatives start to answer back.

Kind of like how we can have people come in here all day long and tear down the Church, disparage the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc... but then have a topic shut down once a testimony of the Restored Gospel is posted.

Posted
17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is forbidden- but generally only enforced when Conservatives start to answer back.

Kind of like how we can have people come in here all day long and tear down the Church, disparage the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc... but then have a topic shut down once a testimony of the Restored Gospel is posted.

I don't like it when people use this website to tear down the LDS community and Joseph Smith the whole day long though. That can't be the intention of this platform i do believe. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Calm said:

We are pretty much ignoring that rule at the moment, lol.  There are some pretty hefty moral questions in current political debates, kind of irresistible.

We might get a scolding from Nemesis one of these days.

Different times.....

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

is forbidden- but generally only enforced when Conservatives start to answer back

Not really.  It gets enforced when reported.  Often by me, which I haven’t been doing as much because even when it gets personal, it doesn’t as often just keep ramping up so I am not as concerned about a thread going toxic.  This change may be due to less posters posting and the ones who do have figured out how far to go or it may simply be I am tired of reporting stuff that keeps happening anyway and so am making excuses for not doing so, lol.

Since I enjoy hearing different political views, why would I report when I am getting just what I am interested in?  We don’t have in depth discussions on politics at my home because it’s a topic that does not contribute to a congenial environment.

Now if the conservatives here go personal or liberal or other posters respond to them immediately with personal comments, it might get reported and therefore seem to be a response to a political position, but that would be wrong…at least if it’s me reporting it.

Edited by Calm
Posted
3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is forbidden- but generally only enforced when Conservatives start to answer back.

Kind of like how we can have people come in here all day long and tear down the Church, disparage the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc... but then have a topic shut down once a testimony of the Restored Gospel is posted.

Are you sure it's not when things get reported? 

Posted

Deseret News: Church reiterates immigration policy, creates guidelines for local congregations

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement Thursday reiterating that its approach to immigration issues is centered on love, law and family unity.

Church leaders shared those principles again in a letter to local church leaders in the United States as the nation grapples with securing its border and resetting its immigration and refugee policies.

“As disciples of Jesus Christ,” the church statement said, “the following principles guide the Church’s approach:”

  • “1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obeys the law.
  • “2. We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children.
  • “3. We seek to provide basic food and clothing, as our capacity allows, to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. We are especially concerned about keeping families together.”

Sensible stuff, this.

Quote

Those principles closely mirror statements church leaders have shared previously on immigration issues.

The new statement said that the church’s Office of General Counsel had created guidelines intended to help the leaders of American congregations comply “with federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States.”

I think we as a nation (including, to some extend, local leaders and members of the Church) have more or less turned a blind eye to "federal laws that criminalize harboring, transporting or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States."  Such disregard for these laws has, for many, been borne of compassion, but others may have malicious motives for "harboring, transporting or encouraging undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States."

On a large scale, I think it may be difficult to, as a legal matter, differentiate between well-intended and malicious efforts.  

Quote

Senior Latter-day Saint leaders send letter to local American leaders

Senior leaders at church headquarters in Salt Lake City shared those guidelines with U.S. church leaders in a letter.

“We are concerned about the complex challenges and hardships now faced by members who are undocumented immigrants living in the United States,” the letter stated. “In the current circumstances, many local church leaders have questions about how to legally assist undocumented immigrants in a manner that is both compassionate and consistent with the immigration laws of the United States.”

I am glad that the Brethren are providing this guidance, and also further tools and resources, for local leaders.

Quote

The reiterated principles and letter arrive after President Donald Trump signed 10 executive orders on immigration during the first week of his second term, according to ABC News.

One order halted all refugee entrances into the United States, including religious refugees and those who go through the U.S. refugee resettlement system that thoroughly vets each person, per the Deseret News.

The letter from the church’s senior leaders to American general authorities, area presidencies and stake presidents acknowledged that the administration and courts continue to work out how the executive orders will be enforced.

“Until we learn of changes in the law, church officers should continue to follow the attached guidelines from the Office of General Counsel regarding such assistance,” the letter said. “Area Presidencies and Area Seventies should help stake presidents become aware of and adhere to these policies.”

Sound counsel, this.

Quote

The church created specific guidelines for leaders of congregations

Those guidelines include:

  • “Local leaders may use fast-offering funds to provide temporary assistance for essential needs like food, clothing and medical care, regardless of immigration status.

This is good counsel.

Quote
  • “If local leaders have reason to believe someone is undocumented and not authorized to work, they should avoid potential conflicts with federal law by avoiding or limiting housing assistance, not transporting the person outside the local community and not referring the person for employment.

This one is a bit more difficult, but still understandable given the legal landscape.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided guidance to its bishops regarding assistance to members who may be undocumented immigrants. Specifically, bishops are advised to "avoid potential conflicts with federal law by avoiding or limiting housing assistance" to individuals believed to be unauthorized to work in the United States.

Reasoning Behind Limiting Housing Assistance:

  1. Legal Compliance: Federal laws in the United States prohibit the harboring of undocumented immigrants, which can include providing housing. By advising bishops to limit housing assistance, the Church aims to ensure that its leaders and members do not inadvertently violate these laws.

  2. Avoiding Legal Liability: Providing housing to individuals known to be unauthorized to work could expose Church leaders and the institution itself to legal penalties. By adhering to this guidance, the Church seeks to protect its leaders and organization from potential legal repercussions.

  3. Balancing Compassion with Legal Obligations: While the Church emphasizes the importance of loving and assisting all individuals, regardless of immigration status, it also upholds the principle of obeying the law. By limiting housing assistance, the Church strives to balance its compassionate mission with its legal responsibilities.

In summary, the Church's directive to avoid or limit housing assistance to undocumented individuals is rooted in a desire to comply with federal laws, avoid legal liability, and balance compassion with legal obligations.

That sounds accurate.  I would be appreciative of further information from anyone about this.

Quote
  • “Leaders should not provide legal advice, testify in legal proceedings or sponsor immigration efforts.

This is really good advice.  A Latter-day Saint acting in his individual capacity can do these things, but not those who are acting in their capacity as a representative of the Church.

Quote
  • “Leaders may refer families to community resources that address their immigration issues or help prepare them for possible separation in cases where family members may be deported.
  • “Church buildings and resources should not be used to help shield individuals from law enforcement.”

So no "sanctuary" stuff.  Not surprising, this.  It's not a legally-recognized concept anyway.

Quote

The statement also directed the leaders of U.S. congregations who need additional information to contact the church’s Office of General Counsel, which it said “tracks legal developments to ensure local outreach and area-initiated humanitarian activities are appropriate.”

The much-maligned "Bishop's Helpline."

Quote

The church has more than 6.8 million members and operates 14,500 American congregations at a time when the Trump administration’s edicts regarding mass deportations and border security include one that changed generations of U.S. policy: Law enforcement can now make immigration arrests within or near places of worship, per the Deseret News.

And hospitals, and schools, and so on.

Not sure how I feel about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Posted
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sam Brunson weighs in: I Don’t Have Words

Hmm.  Sam is a law professor, so I expect him to assess this stuff through a fairly pragmatic lens, at least alongside what looks to be an emotional/political one.

See, I think Sam is being more emotional than pragmatic/legal here.  Even local leaders who are attorneys should not, while acting in their capacity as representatives of the Church, give legal advice on matters that are both massively in flux and fraught with legal peril if they get it wrong.  

I had hoped for a more substantive analysis than "bad," but oh well.

The Church has never had a doctrine or policy or practice regarding "sanctuary," and it's not legally recognized anyway.

Sam is being bringing his emotional game here, but not his legal/pragmatic one.

Perhaps the Church is aware that the Trump Administration has the legal authority to do this, but that there have - so far - not been any instances of ICE agents actually doing this, and that the Trump Administration is telling ICE agents to use "common sense" (which would, absent exigent or extraordinary circumstances, generally and strongly militate against going into "our chapels (and temples)").

Sam seems to be fearmongering here.

This is emotional/political vitriol dressed up in religious garb.  Not a good look for Sam.

Wow.  This is, um, some pretty serious invective against the Brethren.  

The Church also has a moral duty to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (AoF 1:12.)

Sam is safely ensconced in the Ivy Tower of Academia, so he can spout off this nonsense because he has no skin in the game, no stewardship, no responsibilities like unto what the Brethren have.

So the Church is abdicating its prophetic responsibilities and mandates because it is not waging a political/legal war against the Orange Man's immigration policies?

Such are, I think, the shortsighted fruits of being too cocooned in Academia.  

Sam dislikes Trump and his policies, ergo Sam is condemning the Church because it is  not actively opposing Trump's entirely lawful policies, because it is "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," while at the same time doing everything it can within those strictures to help illegal immigrants.

I have far too many instances of taking a shoot-ready-aim approach to posts on this board (such as a recent attack on @Analytics, which I regret and for which I have apologized), so I'm not really in a position to judge or condemn Sam.  But I think his published-to-the-world rhetoric against the Brethren is disappointing, particularly given that I think the Brethren are taking a clear-eyed and pragmatic and best-under-the-circumstances approach to the dilemmas inherent in immigration policy.

I hope Sam takes some time and reconsiders his commentary here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Too bad he gives Peggy Fletcher that much power over his morning!

Posted
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Too bad he gives Peggy Fletcher that much power over his morning!

I think this is what happens when we place sociopolitical ideology upstream from the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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