Church news reiterates immigration stance

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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 legally 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!

I think you actually are getting the point.   Sometimes breaking the law is the only option one has to obey a higher law. 

Eve asked Adam in the garden of Eden if he going to obey all of gods laws.  After saying yes, he realizes he has to break a law to follow a law. 

Sometimes we have to break a lesser law to follow a higher law.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, Danzo said:

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.

That is absolutely not what I am suggesting. It's simply fact that the government decides what is criminal activity, what should be prosecuted, and what the consequences should be when the laws are violated. In making those decisions, it defines who is engaged in criminal activity. In this case, violation of duly passed immigration law can result in fines, imprisonment, and expulsion. The doctrine of the Church clearly states that we obey, honor, and sustain the legal laws of the land and the Church has to deal with it accordingly....by doctrine, principle, and practice. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

its the definition we use in law.   

You really can't call someone a criminal unless they are, in fact, convicted of of a crime (try it some time in a courtroom and you will see what I mean.  There are a whole lot of federal laws where the government has the discretion to go after someone criminally or Civilly, or not at all.  Only if A criminal prosecution is pursued, does it become a crime.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Or you may have misinterpreted what I had to say and could have asked for clarification, which is, of course, that I was engaged in fairly obvious hyperbole and satire. 

There is legitimate concern that among the many millions of people who have come into our country illegally at least a few of them could pose mortal danger to all of us. Our enemies would be stupid not to take advantage of the situation. Hopefully they really are that dumb, but I doubt it.

I believe the concern I express is rational, reasonable, realistic, and probably true. 

[Bernard Gui]

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

its the definition we use in law.   

You really can't call someone a criminal unless they are, in fact, convicted of of a crime (try it some time in a courtroom and you will see what I mean.  There are a whole lot of federal laws where the government has the discretion to go after someone criminally or Civilly, or not at all.  Only if A criminal prosecution is pursued, does it become a crime.  

You are quibbling over obvious meanings. If I rob a bank, I have committed a crime, I have engaged in criminal activity, I'm an outlaw, an evil doer, a scofflaw, and not just when I get caught. You know what I mean.  Why not address the substantive issues rather than parse words? 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you actually are getting the point.   Sometimes breaking the law is the only option one has to obey a higher law. 

Eve asked Adam in the garden of Eden if he going to obey all of gods laws.  After saying yes, he realizes he has to break a law to follow a law. 

Sometimes we have to break a lesser law to follow a higher law.

That is not the point at all. I don't know how to make it any plainer. Are you saying that the Church truly is breaking the law in order to serve a higher purpose? 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is absolutely not what I am suggesting. It's simply fact that the government decides what is criminal activity, what should be prosecuted, and what the consequences should be when the laws are violated. In making those decisions, it defines who is engaged in criminal activity. In this case, violation of duly passed immigration law can result in fines, imprisonment, and expulsion. The doctrine of the Church clearly states that we obey, honor, and sustain the legal laws of the land and the Church has to deal with it accordingly....by doctrine, principle, and practice. 

The doctrine that we obey honor and sustain the laws of the land has never been absolute. And there have been many times where the church has not obeyed honored and sustained all of the laws of the land (whichever land we are talking about). D&C 134 adds a little clarity, but there are many other examples. 

You gave me an example earlier of your mission.

There are other examples.

 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are quibbling over obvious meanings. If I rob a bank, I have committed a crime, I have engaged in criminal activity, I'm an outlaw, I'm and evil doer, and not just when I get caught. You know what I mean.  Why not address the substantive issues rather than parse words? 

The reason it matters, is that in the vast overwhelming majority of the cases the US government, under various presidents, in various political parties, including the current one,  have chosen to treat immigration violations as civil violations, rather than criminal violations. 

The Government has decided they were not criminals and didn't treat them as such. 

 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is not the point at all. I don't know how to make it any plainer. Are you saying that the Church truly is breaking the law in order to serve a higher purpose? 

Yes.

The churches mission is to bring people to Christ.  The church views that mission as greater in importance than enforcing immigration law.  I also think that the words of Christ (regarding the treatment of foreigners) also plays a part.

Choosing between the lower law and the higher law is a part of our mortal experience. 

The Law of the gospel, as it is taught in the scriptures, is a very important part of our religion.  Its mentioned in the temple. 

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The reason it matters, is that in the vast overwhelming majority of the cases the US government, under various presidents, in various political parties, including the current one,  have chosen to treat immigration violations as civil violations, rather than criminal violations. 

The Government has decided they were not criminals and didn't treat them as such. 

 

Yes, but given the chaos with millions and millions of cases that we find ourselves in because of that, things appear to be changing. Especially regarding illegal immigrants who were criminals in their home countries or commit crimes while they are here illegally. 

Also, a sin may or may not be a crime or a civil offense. For example, we are asked if are honest or chaste, or if there are serious sins for which we have not repented. When I was an idiot teenager, I shoplifted an article of clothing. That was legally and morally wrong. I tucked it away in my conscience not thinking it was a big deal, but it was a big deal and it resurfaced time and again demanding resolution. I suppose one could say that I lied in interviews, and that would be true. Perhaps through shame and embarrassment or fear of being found out, but a couple of years later, I realized I really had broken a serious commandment and had to make restitution the best I could, which I proceeded to do. From that experience and others I learned that if I personally were trying to obtain a recommend, knowing that I were currently breaking a law or a commandment, the best thing to do would be to confess and go through whatever process was necessary to clear it up, whether it were personal repentance or through Church discipline, and then go back and try again. That's how I feel about myself, but others may not agree. 

In a temple recommend interview, is there a distinction between criminal and civil offenses? Most of them have to do with religious belief, practice, and character, however, one of them specifically deals with civil offense.

Quote

Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

Do you believe that there is any need for immigration laws? Should we enforce our existing laws? 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Yes.

The churches mission is to bring people to Christ.  The church views that mission as greater in importance than enforcing immigration law.  I also think that the words of Christ (regarding the treatment of foreigners) also plays a part.

Choosing between the lower law and the higher law is a part of our mortal experience. 

The Law of the gospel, as it is taught in the scriptures, is a very important part of our religion.  Its mentioned in the temple. 

Well, there it is. I have expressed concern that we may be in legally murky areas, but here we say up front that the Church is violating the law. That's serious.

Of course we are to treat all others with dignity and kindness. That's explicit in all the Church announcements and it is true; however, I don't believe those words of Christ were given in light of the current situation in which we find ourselves. He also said to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Do you think that applies?

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, but given the chaos we find ourselves in because of that, things appear to be changing. Especially regarding illegal immigrants who were criminals in their home countries or commit crimes while they are here illegally.

Its a bit early to tell, but I don't think this is going to change much.  

Its just easier for the government to treat immigration as a civil matter rather than a criminal matter for many different reasons.  Criminal violators get a right to trial by jury.  Jury would probably nullify half of the prosecutions in certain jurisdictions. They would also get a right to a public defender.  Also Criminal prosecution would run up against the statute of limitations  issues for anyone who is in here for a long period of time.

With Civil enforcement it is much simpler,  no trial by jury, no right to be heard by a real judge.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The doctrine that we obey honor and sustain the laws of the land has never been absolute. And there have been many times where the church has not obeyed honored and sustained all of the laws of the land (whichever land we are talking about). D&C 134 adds a little clarity, but there are many other examples. 

You gave me an example earlier of your mission.

There are other examples.

 

The example I gave was not the Church winking at the law, which is what we are talking about here. It was about corrupt application of the law by extortioners who exercised their authority illegally and unrighteously. It had nothing to do with the Church.

[Danzo]

 

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't believe those words of Christ were given in light of the current situation in which we find ourselves

That is what most people say when they want to justify not following the words of Christ.

Luckily, we have the advantage of Prophets and Apostles who can clarify what the will of Christ is, in our day.

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Its a bit early to tell, but I don't think this is going to change much.  

Its just easier for the government to treat immigration as a civil matter rather than a criminal matter for many different reasons.  Criminal violators get a right to trial by jury.  Jury would probably nullify half of the prosecutions in certain jurisdictions. They would also get a right to a public defender.  Also Criminal prosecution would run up against the statute of limitations  issues for anyone who is in here for a long period of time.

With Civil enforcement it is much simpler,  no trial by jury, no right to be heard by a real judge.

Yet those judges still enforce the civil law with penalties including fines, imprisonment, and deportation. And it can escalate to criminal courts. Let's not forget that bit. 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

That is what most people say when they want to justify not following the words of Christ.

Luckily, we have the advantage of Prophets and Apostles who can clarify what the will of Christ is, in our day.

 

Yes, but luckily I am not most people. Please describe how entertaining strangers in your home with courtesy applies to allowing millions of illegal immigrants to cross the border of a sovereign country with impunity. We all keep our doors locked at night.

Edited February 12, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, there it is. I have expressed concern that we may be in legally murky areas, but here we say up front that the Church is violating the law. That's serious.

Some violations of the law are serious some are not.  I guess that depends on who you ask.

I deal with tax law, a law so complicated and confusing that I could probably say just about all of us violate that law, either knowingly or unknowingly.  I am always being confronted with people who discover (or re-discover) that what they are doing is in violation of the law.   Sometimes the answer is do better next time, sometimes the answer is amend the tax return. sometimes the answer is approach the authorities.

Most of the authorities don't really care.

As an experiment, try calling your local police department to report a violation of the Internal Revenue Laws.  Let me know how quickly they respond. 

Look,  I deal with laws all of the time.  I help enforce them, I help people avoid the consequences of enforcement.  I am an elected official that votes on new laws.  Although people usually have good intentions when creating and enforcing laws, there isn't anything sacred about them. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, but luckily I am not most people. Please describe how entertaining strangers in your home with courtesy applies to allowing millions of illegal immigrants to cross the border of a sovereign country with impunity. We all keep our doors locked at night.

I think when you stop treating people as individuals and children of God and treat them as one of "millions of millions of illegal immigrants to cross the border of a sovereign country with impunity" is where you start running afoul of the Law of the Gospel.  The Law of the Gospel requires us to love our neighbors (who is our neighbor?, glad you asked, Jesus gave a good example).  The law of the Gospel requires us to love our enemies (when was the last time you prayed for your enemies?) The law of the gospel requires you reconcile with your brother before coming to the alter.  The temple teaches us that we should not be involved in true prayer if we have unkind feelings.  

We are always failing at these teachings, they are hard. But Each of us has to come to the altar with a broken heart to ask for forgiveness of our sins.  We cannot pretend that we are better than our neighbors just because we sin differently. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Although people usually have good intentions when creating and enforcing laws, there isn't anything sacred about them. 

This is so important to remember.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The example I gave was not the Church winking at the law, which is what we are talking about here. It was about corrupt application of the law by extortioners who exercised their authority illegally and unrighteously. It had nothing to do with the Church.

you were an ordained minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Say Saints, called by a prophet and set apart to be a representative of the Church. Of course, it had everything to do with the church.

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Some violations of the law are serious some are not.  I guess that depends on who you ask.

Heck of a way to determine policy.

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I deal with tax law, a law so complicated and confusing that I could probably say just about all of us violate that law, either knowingly or unknowingly.  I am always being confronted with people who discover (or re-discover) that what they are doing is in violation of the law.   Sometimes the answer is do better next time, sometimes the answer is amend the tax return. sometimes the answer is approach the authorities.

Been there, done that.

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Most of the authorities don't really care.

That's a problem.

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

As an experiment, try calling your local police department to report a violation of the Internal Revenue Laws.  Let me know how quickly they respond. 

That's silly. Why would I want to do that? With regard to the IRS,  I try to follow my son Bellicosissimo's advice regarding the drill sergeant......"Don't do anything that requires he learns your name."

On the other hand, it might be worth while.

Quote

You can file IRS Form 3949-A to report the alleged cheater and walk away. But if you want a reward, file Form 211 instead. Whistle-blowers can get 15% to 30% of the amount collected if the case involves more than $2 million in taxes, penalties, interest and other amounts. If the suspected cheater is an individual, he or she must also make more than $200,000 a year. Below those thresholds, the award is discretionary.  In 2015, the rewards totaled more than $103 million for 99 whistle-blowers.

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Look,  I deal with laws all of the time.  I help enforce them, I help people avoid the consequences of enforcement.  I am an elected official that votes on new laws.  Although people usually have good intentions when creating and enforcing laws, there isn't anything sacred about them. 

If the laws are not "sacred,' what are they then? Suggestions?

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you were an ordained minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Say Saints, called by a prophet and set apart to be a representative of the Church. Of course, it had everything to do with the church.

Well, no, you don't get it, but you seem to be making the point that bishops, stake presidents, and general authorities who wink at immigration laws (if so, I hope they do not do it in legally precarious ways, which I am sure they are rightly taking great pains not to do) are

actually breaking the law themselves for a righteous purpose. Do I read you correctly? 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Heck of a way to determine policy.

Welcome to the sausage factory

 

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's a problem.

not really, If every tax violation was taken seriously, then we would all be in Jail.

Quote

I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it. -Senator Elihu Root responding to a question about the 1913 tax Act implementing the Income tax

 

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If the laws are not "sacred,' what are they then? Suggestions?

Sometimes, it depends on the law and how it is written.  Some laws are enforced regularly, some seldom, some not at all.  Right now there are too many of them enforce them all.   So the government has to pick and choose.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is so important to remember.

The people or the laws? 🙂

Quote

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.  We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. 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 all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience....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;

This seems to be a pretty high bar of respect of the law to me. If we don't agree with certain immigration laws, there are ways to change them, but we shouldn't flout them, IMO.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Welcome to the sausage factory

If every tax violation was taken seriously, then we would all be in Jail.

Sometimes, it depends on the law and how it is written.  Some laws are enforced regularly, some seldom, some not at all.  Right now there are too many of them enforce them all.   So the government has to pick and choose.

I am under no delusions regarding our legal system. 

Show me the man and I will show you the crime.

It looks like the government is picking and choosing to enforce immigration laws. That seems to cause a few folks heartburn.