Church news reiterates immigration stance

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not legal to get legal because they jumped the gate rather than got in line. Immigration laws are strict for very good reasons.

You don't seem very informed about US immigration law.  It is legal to get legal when you jump the gate in some cases. It isn't in other cases.  Immigration law isn't bad because it is strict.  Its bad because it is arbitrary and lets certain people in and doesn't let other based on random factors beyond the persons control.  

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

lying about residing in a country illegally when asked if you deal honestly,

Except they don't lie.  They tell the truth. 

These things are not hidden in the church. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

These people tell their priesthood leaders they are here illegally.  They don't hide it. 

If they disclose to their church leader and the church leaders accept their answers, there is no dishonesty.  

The dishonesty is that they are in violation of our laws. And the Church is understandably cautious about what can and cannot be done to help.

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When I married my wife, she was here illegally.   She was interviews by her bishop, and her stake president.  They both knew she was illegal.  She was called on a mission by a prophet who was informed she was illegal.  She served a faithful mission.  She served in leadership callings.  

Who are you to say she wasn't worthy.

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why can't you accept our prophets and apostles?

Why do you have a problem with the church leaders?

Why must you set yourself up as Judge of who is worthy and who isn't worthy for baptism and temple covenants.  There are already people called to do that.

I understand the personal connection and sympathize with it. However, that doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants are in violation of our laws, and we have multiple doctrinal expressions of our fealty to the law of the land. It is a dilemma that must be dealt with, and I think that time may be coming as this all comes to a head. 

Quote

Except they don't lie.  They tell the truth. 

These things are not hidden in the church.

Well, yes they are. Our leaders are quite careful about the ramifications of illegal immigrants in the Church. Again, the bad people are they people that have allowed this situation to fester and who have profited and exploited and given false hopes to mostly good, but desperate, people. 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You don't seem very informed about US immigration law.  It is legal to get legal when you jump the gate in some cases. It isn't in other cases.  Immigration law isn't bad because it is strict.  Its bad because it is arbitrary and lets certain people in and doesn't let other based on random factors beyond the persons control.  

In 10-20 million cases? Not sustainable. Not reasonable. Not sane. 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Pink said:

Trump is in office because the liberals turned into a bunch of Nazi loving fascist mother fukkers that hate Americans. They hate white people. They hate Asians. They hate hate hate and hate even more. Liberalism has become the party of hatred.

Trump was brought in to stand up and put his **** in their face! That's what he's doing. He's rubbing his **** all over them and he's doing it with a smile on his face. That's why we voted him into office. 

I get it now. The leprechauns are about. 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The dishonesty is that they are in violation of our laws. And the Church is understandably cautious about what can and cannot be done to help.

Where do you come up with dishonesty = Violation of Law?

It isn't the same thing.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand the personal connection and sympathize with it. However, that doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants are in violation of our laws, and we have multiple doctrinal expressions of our fealty to the law of the land. It is a dilemma that must be dealt with, and I think that time may be coming as this all comes to a head. 

You really haven't responded to the question.  

Do you sustain the church leaders? Do you think the prophets and apostles have been led astray?

I understand if you don't, many on the board don't and they are open about it, honest question.  

Do you sustain the Prophets and Apostles? 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Then don't write about people "picking cotton". It is offensive to me.

Yeah - you seem to think, for some reason, that you have the market here on rationality, ethics and morality. But, I think that others are going to disagree with you. When you are ready to have the adult conversation, lets do it.

You miss the irony. "Who will pick the cotton" derides the argument that if the slaves were freed there would be no one to pick the cotton. Today, it's if all the illegals go home, “who will mow our lawns and fix our roofs?”

Quote

If you were a slave owner in the United States in the 19th century, you probably owed your wealth and continued income to the continuation of slavery. If someone made the case to you that slavery was morally wrong, your first thought probably would have been, “But if we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton?”

Having adult conversations with you means acquiescing to your personal slurs and oft-expressed sentiments of moral superiority. No thanks, not interested.

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, yes they are

To you, they seem to be hidden, but not because the church is hide it, but because you don't know where to look. 

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, it is an honest question. The song from "King and I" reflects my puzzlement at all that is going around me, especially here on this board. I thought it could be a way to inject a tiny bit of humor into a serious conversation. I apologize that it offended you.

I don't think speaking about politics on this board and thus violating the rules is the same with lying about residing in a country illegally when asked if you deal honestly, but I have tried to keep the discussion within a gospel setting. And with many topics like this it is impossible for them not to involve politics, and it does impact the Church. I don' know how that can be avoided. I appreciate your good heart.

I appreciate what you said last as I have always felt like your target since I opened up about no longer believing in the church.  

I understand that you don't feel that they are the same.  It just puzzles me why when we are talking about a temple recommend interview why you see them differently.

The recommend question is, " Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?"

Board rules:

Quote

"BEFORE POSTING: read everything below. You to follow these guidelines when you register.

....

BANNED TOPICS include but are not limited to:
...
• Politics (unless directly related to the church)

  First of all I've never noticed that this seems to be missing the word "agree".

Second, just realized that it isn't just straight politics that is not allowed like I was thinking - there is an exception for things directly related to the church.  Good to know. That can make for a tricky line.  I appreciate that you are trying to keep it to the rules with the gospel-setting guidelines.

My thoughts about being here illegally and things such as baptism, sealings, and missions is that I'm not a leader of this church.  I'm not even a believer at this point.  But even when I was a believer I always felt like questions like this were up to the church and up to the person working with God as to answering the question of whether they are honest in all their doings.  It's not a question that has come up for me because it just wasn't between them, the Lord and me.  I figured the Lord worked with that person so I would let him do his job.  

In my last couple of interviews, I actually answered "no" to that question because I didn't feel like I was "striving" to be honest. I was trying, but not striving.  They still let me have a recommend. 

Anyway, if I am asked if I am striving to be honest in "all" I do I just don't see a difference in being honest with my agreement with board rules and country laws.  The key word there is "all".  So if one, after working it out with God can feel comfortable with not following board rules I can see how one, after working it out with God, can be comfortable with not following country laws. 

I also get that people have different reasons why people are ok with one and not the other. There are definitely different consequences in many ways and many different levels of consequences.  It just makes sense that some people will be ok breaking one and not the other.   The only thing I don't understand is in the setting you put it - a temple recommend interview - asking if one is honest in "all" their dealings how they are different, especially when the person has been in honest in telling the leader they are in that country illegally.   

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You really haven't responded to the question.  

Do you sustain the church leaders? Do you think the prophets and apostles have been led astray?

I understand if you don't, many on the board don't and they are open about it, honest question.  

Do you sustain the Prophets and Apostles? 

Of course I do. That is not the issue.  We have long-established doctrines and policies regarding obeying the laws of the lands in which we live.

From the baptism interview and the temple recommend interview:

Quote

1.  Baptism: Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole?

2. Temple: Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?

3. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

4. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?

In our country, it is against the law to enter and/or stay without vetting and documentation. There are serious penalties for violation of that law including fine, imprisonment, and deportation, whether you are among the tiny majority of bad guys or the vast majority of good folks seeking to better their lives. The reasons for that are obvious.  

There are two parts to the baptism question: 1. "Have you ever committed a serious crime?" If you know you are in violation of immigration law that could result in punishment but say no, is that being honest? My concern is that a priesthood leader may say, "Yeah, I get that you are here in violation of the law and that could get in serious trouble, but I don't care about that. It's not a big deal." What other crimes get a similar pass?

Apparently you don't consider violating immigration laws a crime. 

The second part, "If so, are you now on probation or parole?" If you have been deported once and come back again, the penalties are much more severe. If you have committed other crimes which are discovered, the penalties escalate exponentially.

In the temple recommend interview, we are asked if we are honest, if we have serious sins that have not been repented of, and if we support or promote practices that are contrary to those of the Church. Violating the law is contrary to the practices of the Church.

If in an interview I am asked if I have committed a serious sin and I say yes, then the proper way to deal with it is to go through the process of repentance and then come back when things are better. Repenting from serious sin is not easy and sometimes the process is painful.  I know from first-hand experience. It's easier to fudge the truth or outright lie, but in the end that's not for the best. 

Lots of very active LDS folks on this board have questions about church policies, doctrines, and procedures. This is one area that concerns me, and since it is a hot topic for our country right now it is obviously going to concern the Church. I can be concerned without being accused of rejecting the Prophets and Apostles, a thing which I would never, ever do.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course I do. That is not the issue.  We have long-established doctrines and policies regarding obeying the laws of the lands in which we live.

From the baptism interview and the temple recommend interview:

In our country, it is against the law to enter and/or stay without vetting and documentation. There are serious penalties for violation of that law including fine, imprisonment, and deportation, whether you are among the tiny majority of bad guys or the vast majority of good folks seeking to better their lives. The reasons for that are obvious.  

There are two parts to the baptism question: 1. "Have you ever committed a serious crime?" If you know you are in violation of immigration law that could result in punishment but say no, is that being honest? My concern is that a priesthood leader may say, "Yeah, I get that you are here in violation of the law and that could get in serious trouble, but I don't care about that. It's not a big deal." What other crimes get a similar pass?

Apparently you don't consider violating immigration laws a crime. 

The second part, "If so, are you now on probation or parole?" If you have been deported once and come back again, the penalties are much more severe. If you have committed other crimes which are discovered, the penalties escalate exponentially.

In the temple recommend interview, we are asked if we are honest, if we have serious sins that have not been repented of, and if we support or promote practices that are contrary to those of the Church. Violating the law is contrary to the practices of the Church.

If in an interview I am asked if I have committed a serious sin and I say yes, then the proper way to deal with it is to go through the process of repentance and then come back when things are better. Repenting from serious sin is not easy and sometimes the process is painful.  I know from first-hand experience. It's easier to fudge the truth or outright lie, but in the end that's not for the best. 

Lots of very active LDS folks on this board have questions about church policies, doctrines, and procedures. This is one area that concerns me, and since it is a hot topic for our country right now it is obviously going to concern the Church. I can be concerned without being accused of rejecting the Prophets and Apostles, a thing which I would never, ever do.

I would suggest that you take those serious questions about church policies, doctrines and procedures and discuss them with your bishop or stake president. I don't think I am going to be able resolve them here to your satisfaction. 

The Church just doesn't view Immigration violations as a "Serious Crime" which would get in the way of baptism.  If you don't believe me, I suggest you could talk to your local mission president or mission counselor(the mission presidency in my area are pretty responsive to those question, or you could ask you local missionaries of you don't want to bother the mission president).  The church doesn't view Immigration violations as something to withhold a temple recommend for.  Again you could ask your stake president, who holds the keys over who can go in to the temple for clarification.  If you don't believe me, there is probably nothing I could say here to change your mind. 

Just be careful not to call something unclean which the Lord has said is clean.

 

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

I appreciate what you said last as I have always felt like your target since I opened up about no longer believing in the church.  

I understand that you don't feel that they are the same.  It just puzzles me why when we are talking about a temple recommend interview why you see them differently.

The recommend question is, " Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?"

Board rules:

  First of all I've never noticed that this seems to be missing the word "agree".

Second, just realized that it isn't just straight politics that is not allowed like I was thinking - there is an exception for things directly related to the church.  Good to know. That can make for a tricky line.  I appreciate that you are trying to keep it to the rules with the gospel-setting guidelines.

When asked if I strive to be honest in all that I do, I answer yes because I do strive even though I fail at times, such as when Sister Gui asks what that Costco expenditure was. And I feel that I do strive not to make topics political on this board, but that is not always possible because political issues such as this one very often cross religious lines. If I were knowingly violated a city, state, or national law and I answered "yes" to the recommend question, then I obtained the recommend dishonestly. 

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

My thoughts about being here illegally and things such as baptism, sealings, and missions is that I'm not a leader of this church.  I'm not even a believer at this point.  But even when I was a believer I always felt like questions like this were up to the church and up to the person working with God as to answering the question of whether they are honest in all their doings.  It's not a question that has come up for me because it just wasn't between them, the Lord and me.  I figured the Lord worked with that person so I would let him do his job.  

In my last couple of interviews, I actually answered "no" to that question because I didn't feel like I was "striving" to be honest. I was trying, but not striving.  They still let me have a recommend. 

Anyway, if I am asked if I am striving to be honest in "all" I do I just don't see a difference in being honest with my agreement with board rules and country laws.  The key word there is "all".  So if one, after working it out with God can feel comfortable with not following board rules I can see how one, after working it out with God, can be comfortable with not following country laws. 

I also get that people have different reasons why people are ok with one and not the other. There are definitely different consequences in many ways and many different levels of consequences.  It just makes sense that some people will be ok breaking one and not the other.   The only thing I don't understand is in the setting you put it - a temple recommend interview - asking if one is honest in "all" their dealings how they are different, especially when the person has been in honest in telling the leader they are in that country illegally.   

The question I have in that setting has to do with criminal behavior. Until being in this country without permission is legalized, I don't know how I could answer that question with a yes. For example, on my mission we were required to leave Honduras every six weeks and return through a point of entry where our current address was verified, our passport was inspected, and our visas stamped (after passing a few Lempiras to the border guard). So, technically I violated the law by following the law and "bribing" the guard which was the only way to get the stamp, but there was no other way. Would that make me ineligible for a temple recommend? I don't know. On the other hand, if I were living in Honduras and knew of those requirements but chose to ignore them or lied about my current address, or bribed a policeman on the street, I would have been subject to some pretty severe consequences were I discovered that probably would have involved embarrassment for the Church. If I were doing that and were asked if I was honest in all my dealings, I would have been untruthful if I said yes.

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When asked if I strive to be honest in all that I do, I answer yes because I do strive even though I fail at times, such as when Sister Gui asks what that Costco expenditure was. And I feel that I do strive not to make topics political on this board, but that is not always possible because political issues such as this one very often cross religious lines. If I were knowingly violated a city, state, or national law and I answered "yes" to the recommend question, then I obtained the recommend dishonestly. 

The question I have in that setting has to do with criminal behavior.

I think that is the key.  From everything I have seen the church just doesn't see it as "criminal" behavior. 

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Until being in this country without permission is legalized, I don't know how I could answer that question with a yes. For example, on my mission we were required to leave Honduras every six weeks and return through a point of entry where our current address was verified, our passport was inspected, and our visas stamped (after passing a few Lempiras to the border guard). So, technically I violated the law by following the law and "bribing" the guard which was the only way to get the stamp, but there was no other way. Would that make me ineligible for a temple recommend? I don't know. On the other hand, if I were living in Honduras and knew of those requirements but chose to ignore them or lied about my current address, or bribed a policeman on the street, I would have been subject to some pretty severe consequences were I discovered that probably would have involved embarrassment for the Church. If I were doing that and were asked if I was honest in all my dealings, I would have been untruthful if I said yes.

Yes, there are consequences to everything we do.  Consequences don't have anything to do with whether someone has behaved criminally or not.  

I don't know if this really belongs here or not, but it just came to mind.  I used to think of consequences very negatively.  At some point, I realized that I thought that way because when people talked about them or taught about them they always talked about negative consequences.  So instead of seeing them as consequences, we think of them as punishments for wrongdoing.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand the personal connection and sympathize with it. However, that doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants are in violation of our laws, and we have multiple doctrinal expressions of our fealty to the law of the land. It is a dilemma that must be dealt with, and I think that time may be coming as this all comes to a head. 

Quote

 

Except they don't lie.  They tell the truth. 

These things are not hidden in the church.

Well, yes they are. Our leaders are quite careful about the ramifications of illegal immigrants in the Church. Again, the bad people are they people that have allowed this situation to fester and who have profited and exploited and given false hopes to mostly good, but desperate, people. 

I too agree that LDS leaders always obey the law of the land. Perhaps most famously how they always obeyed the anti-bigamy laws. 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think that is the key.  From everything I have seen the church just doesn't see it as "criminal" behavior. 

It comes down to this

"does Congress get to control who gets baptized and goes to the temple, or does the church?"

 

[Danzo]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, technically I violated the law by following the law and "bribing" the guard which was the only way to get the stamp, but there was no other way

You do realize that bribing a foreign government official is a US Felony?

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would suggest that you take those serious questions about church policies, doctrines and procedures and discuss them with your bishop or stake president. I don't think I am going to be able resolve them here to your satisfaction. If you don't believe me, I suggest you could talk to your local mission president or mission counselor(the mission presidency in my area are pretty responsive to those question, or you could ask you local missionaries of you don't want to bother the mission president). 

No, that won't be necessary. I'm plenty satisfied where I stand. 

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The Church just doesn't view Immigration violations as a "Serious Crime" which would get in the way of baptism.  The church doesn't view Immigration violations as something to withhold a temple recommend for.  Again you could ask your stake president, who holds the keys over who can go in to the temple for clarification.  If you don't believe me, there is probably nothing I could say here to change your mind. 

Just be careful not to call something unclean which the Lord has said is clean.

Yet if a person were prosecuted for immigration violations, then it would become an issue, wouldn't it. There's the rub. Policies have changed, are changing, and will change. Doctrines do not.

Quote

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man;

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents rulers, andmagistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

We believe in being honest. 

I believe these are true doctrines. Their application is open to disagreement and "adjustment."  Rather than ignore the law, we should honor the legal processes that are in place to change it. Otherwise, the chaos we see is the result. As noted in the OP, the Church is having to deal with this issue. I'm sure they are doing so thoughtfully, prayerfully, and carefully. In the meantime, we can all disagree on how important this issue actually is and quote all kinds of studies proving whatever we think is the objective truth. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

You do realize that bribing a foreign government official is a US Felony?

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure never to do it again. Are you going to report me? I think the statute of limitations has run on that one, but who knows? 

Did I mention that that was the only way one could get a visa stamped for reentry at the points we had access to? Either that or try to stay illegally in Nicaragua. Good luck on that. Nicaraguan jails were not known for hospitality and the border guards for their empathy. They had machine guns, for cryin' out loud!

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

4 hours ago, stelf said:

. You admit that you don't know anything about them and so you are scared

Being “concerned” is not the same thing as “scared”.  For example, I am concerned about certain things that aren’t working as they should in my home.  If I was scared, I would not be living here (I do have the ability to relatively easily change residence unlike some).  

It doesn’t help to push emotions on those you are discussing things with if your intent is worthwhile conversation.

Edited February 12, 2025 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think that is the key.  From everything I have seen the church just doesn't see it as "criminal" behavior. 

And that's a problem, because in our statutes it is criminal behavior and can be prosecuted.

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, there are consequences to everything we do.  Consequences don't have anything to do with whether someone has behaved criminally or not.  

I don't know if this really belongs here or not, but it just came to mind.  I used to think of consequences very negatively.  At some point, I realized that I thought that way because when people talked about them or taught about them they always talked about negative consequences.  So instead of seeing them as consequences, we think of them as punishments for wrongdoing.  

Oftentimes, consequences can be instructive. At other times they can be devastating. 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet if a person were prosecuted for immigration violations, then it would become an issue, wouldn't it

You seem to be suggesting that the Federal Government would ultimately decide who could bet baptized, who could go to the temple and who is worthy based on which laws it decides to create and which laws it wants to enforce. 

I really don't think that would be a good idea, no matter who is president.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

In the united states, you are not a criminal unless you have been convicted of a crime.  Part of that whole pesky due process thing. 

That's an odd definition of criminal. If you are engaged in criminal activity, you are a criminal. If you get caught you are a convicted criminal.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, stelf said:

Let me be clear. I am not advocating for more illegal immigration. I would love to see the day when legal immigration is far easier. However, I know many of these people. They have fled from countries where their prospects for survival were low, let alone the chances of thriving. They come here and work to provide for themselves and their families and they live in fear. 

I am advocating for the cessation of using them as a bogeyman.

I just ran out of points and this is the post I most want to give a rep point to so far today.   

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You’re right. Illegal immigration does wonders for our country.

1. We must replace all native-born citizens with illegal aliens. Then there will be no crime. With little or no illegal immigration, US crime rates would be even lower.

2. Good. Only enough drugs get through illegal crossings to kill our population a few times over. And here I was under the impression that the cartels were master criminals. They must be stupid sending it where they know it will be discovered.

3. The more illegal immigrants and the more our economy will thrive. Silly me. And here I thought that hiring illegal aliens was against the law. I even foolishly believed one could not pay income taxes without a SSN. Oh….that must mean they have tax free income.  Sign me up!

4. Who will pick the cotton? How do you keep them down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree? 

5. As more and more illegal immigrants enter, we become safer as a nation. Finally, having open borders makes sense to me. 

I thank you. I have no need to be concerned.

I guess I shouldn’t have bothered pointing out inflating concern into scared isn’t the way to have a worthwhile conversation since you apparently approve of responding to others by misrepresenting what they have said or implied.