Matthew 25 and Immigration Policy

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You are a socialist, because you want the government to control the labor market.

Well, no.  At its core, Socialism calls for the State to own the means of production.  I don't want that.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Is wanting secured and controlled borders and enforcement of immigration law an expression of Socialism (ostensibly because this would involve the government "controlling" the labor market)?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

No, wanting secured and controlled borders and enforcement of immigration law is not inherently an expression of socialism. While government regulation of labor markets is a component of some socialist policies, border security and immigration enforcement span the ideological spectrum and are not exclusive to socialism.

Why Secured Borders & Immigration Enforcement Are Not Necessarily Socialist

✅ 1. National Sovereignty & Rule of Law (Not Socialism)

• Controlling borders is a fundamental function of a sovereign nation—not a uniquely socialist idea.
• Enforcing immigration laws aligns with the rule of law, which is a core principle of constitutional governance, whether in capitalist, socialist, or mixed economies.

✅ 2. Traditional Conservative & Free Market Views (Not Socialism)

• Historically, many capitalist, free-market nations have implemented strict border controls to protect national security and economic stability.
• Milton Friedman (a champion of free markets) argued that open borders and a welfare state are incompatible, implying that border control is essential to maintaining a market-driven economy.

✅ 3. Protection of National Labor Markets Is Not Necessarily Socialist

• While socialist economies may advocate strict state control of labor, border enforcement does not automatically imply central planning or state ownership of labor.
• Many capitalist nations regulate labor markets to prevent exploitation, ensure fair wages, and manage supply and demand of workers.

✅ 4. Immigration Enforcement Exists in Both Capitalist & Socialist Nations

• Capitalist nations (e.g., the U.S., Canada, Australia) enforce immigration laws to manage economic and national security interests.
• Socialist nations (e.g., the former USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela) have historically imposed strict border controls to keep citizens from leaving, which is the opposite of enforcing borders to regulate entry.

---

When Immigration Control Could Be Considered "Socialist"

🚨 Immigration policies could lean toward state interventionist/socialist principles if they:

• Centralize government control over labor allocation (e.g., requiring state approval for hiring foreign workers beyond visa programs).
• Restrict private businesses from making employment decisions based on government mandates.
• Nationalize or collectivize labor industries as part of a broader socialist economic system.

However, most arguments for border security do not advocate these positions—instead, they seek to enforce existing laws, manage economic impacts, and ensure national security.

---

Conclusion

🔹 Wanting secured and controlled borders is primarily an issue of national sovereignty, law enforcement, and economic policy—not socialism.
🔹 Border control is practiced in capitalist, socialist, and mixed economies alike.
🔹 The real question is not whether borders should be controlled, but rather how immigration should be managed in a way that balances economic needs, security, and humanitarian concerns.

"{B}order security and immigration enforcement span the ideological spectrum and are not exclusive to socialism."

"Wanting secured and controlled borders is primarily an issue of national sovereignty, law enforcement, and economic policy—not socialism."

"Border control is practiced in capitalist, socialist, and mixed economies alike."

"The real question is not whether borders should be controlled, but rather how immigration should be managed in a way that balances economic needs, security, and humanitarian concerns."

These aptly reflect my thoughts and perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2025 by smac97

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As I opined on this board the other day, some on this site have enthroned “compassion” and mercy to the overpowerment of justice, wisdom and reason. What these folks fail to realize is that their unwise idealistic zeal blinds them to the fact that they’re advocating for an imbalance between justice and mercy that not only destroys justice but also ends up destroying the very mercy they claim to own. Why? Because there can be no effectual and enduring application of mercy unless the immutable law of divine justice has been fully satisfied. What you’re witnessing here is a regression into the kind of uninformed and unrealistic adolescent thinking that ignited the war in heaven, because some insisted that God’s realistic and pragmatic plan of mercy, that lays the effectual groundwork for overcoming the world and glorious celestial exaltation, is “just too hard!” It’s a childishness that will hopefully be grown out of in time.

Once again your idea of a vengeful God does not match up with my idea of a loving and merciful God, however, calling people childish and adolescent just because they see things differently is, well, childish and adolescent. 

[Danzo]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  At its core, Socialism calls for the State to own the means of production.  I don't want that.

Yes, Good sir, You do want that. 

At least with the labor market (and yes, the labor market is a means of production), and AI isn't going to absolve you of your socialist tendencies. 

You have consistently maintained that the labor market needs to be controlled by the quota set forth in 1990 and unadjusted since 1995

You are a socialist.  Own it.  You may disagree with other socialists on the details, but fundamentally,  you are in favor of Big Government controlling the labor market.   

By advocating central control, you embrace the idea that government knows best and the market is just too scary for you. 

You are scared that too many people will come here.  If too many people come here and they can't find a job and make a living, the market will encourage them to return.

I know you are scared of the free market, but  history has show time and time again that the free market gets better results than Socialism.

 

 

 

[Steve J]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would really like to keep this thread away from the politics. This thread is about the morality and ethics of open and closed borders. Do we, as followers of Jesus Christ, have an obligation to try and help those who are strangers here? And what do we think are the limits of those obligations? If you want, we can certainly open a different discussion on another thread about the welfare state and the impact of immigrant populations on that welfare state.

I guess I don’t fully understand what we are arguing. The impact of open borders (large numbers of people migrating into country, majority from economically impoverished areas of the globe) and its impact on the U.S., its current residence, and the world at whole) will hit on topics that seem to necessitate talking politics (or at least policy positions)… if we take away those things, I think there is no debate that the gospel is pro-open borders

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are speaking of issues that have profound legal, social and political dimensions.  I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about immigration without acknowledging and addressing those dimensions.

Then you are welcome not to engage.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Steve J said:

I guess I don’t fully understand what we are arguing. The impact of open borders (large numbers of people migrating into country, majority from economically impoverished areas of the globe) and its impact on the U.S., its current residence, and the world at whole) will hit on topics that seem to necessitate talking politics (or at least policy positions)… if we take away those things, I think there is no debate that the gospel is pro-open borders

I think, since the gospel is neither pro- nor anti-open borders (policy-wise), but about how to emulate Christ in our relationships and interactions, it would have us go about policy with charity, and in councils.

Doctrinally, I would characterize the gospel as pro-agency (freedom with charity and in councils). Some will take this to point to open borders, and others to controlled borders. As with love, justice, mercy and grace, I would say a balance, and not competition, is the best way to go. But to do that, all good-faith ideas need room for discussion.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Yes, Good sir, You do want that. 

At least with the labor market (and yes, the labor market is a means of production), and AI isn't going to absolve you of your socialist tendencies. 

You have consistently maintained that the labor market needs to be controlled by the quota set forth in 1990 and unadjusted since 1995

You are a socialist.  Own it.  You may disagree with other socialists on the details, but fundamentally,  you are in favor of Big Government controlling the labor market.   

By advocating central control, you embrace the idea that government knows best and the market is just too scary for you. 

You are scared that too many people will come here.  If too many people come here and they can't find a job and make a living, the market will encourage them to return.

I know you are scared of the free market, but  history has show time and time again that the free market gets better results than Socialism.

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of what you say about the free market but I don’t think it is fair to call Smac a Socialist. 

[Okrahomer]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

You are a socialist, because you want the government to control the labor market.

 

There is something about your logic here that reminds me of this:

 

Edited February 2, 2025 by Okrahomer

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

About a week ago, @smac97 asked if I was an advocate for open borders. My answer is yes.

I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Part of this is rooted in the Gospel. The Old Testament asserts that we should treat the alien in our country as if he were a part of our society. The New Testament goes further and suggests that the way that we treat the alien in our country should be understand as the way that we are treating the Lord. That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46 - and it is quite clear (at least to me):

It's not a difficult proposition here. There are a couple of things that I think are important - other than the fact that Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Another is that He identifies these immigrants as His immediate family (the meaning of the Greek in verse 40 that is translated "my brethren" indicates siblings). The message that Jesus offers is that if we fail to treat these immigrants as family, we risk exaltation in the Kingdom of God. There is no such statement made in the Gospels about political laws (that are subject to change). Theologically, there isn't much value in trying to weigh keeping a bad law against this sort of Gospel principle/necessity. The idea of legal and illegal in this case isn't particularly morally or ethically solid to begin with (it may not be immoral or unethical - just that there is no moral or ethical demand to have such laws (as opposed to laws that have significant moral and ethical content). And we can list a number of reasons why significant immigration (and even open border policies) can be beneficial.

So to answer the question that was raised, I am an advocate for open borders. And I think that those who are engaged in efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable will discover that they are the goats that Jesus speaks of. And finally, I believe (and I don't feel the need to hold others to this standard) that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to advocate for more moral and ethical laws dealing with immigrants.

Thanks for sharing this. I haven't posted on any of the other threads. In part because I didn't have the energy. In part because they were well into discussion when I started reading them.

These are my thoughts. 

Ideally and ultimately, I don't think borders are consistent with a Zion society. It inherently asserts separation and distinctions that can quickly form hierarchies in both social order and prioritizing who matters most as children of God. 

Principally and ultimately, we are all children of God. All but a negligible few will be ordered in our responsibilities in the family of God in heaven one day. Anything that blurs or obfuscates our eternal nature with a temporal nature/label will and must fall away in time...whether here of the next life. But I think there is something integral of working to have our scales fall off our eyes here. Something that teaches us to overcome and master the chaos of now into the eternal of God. 

On these ideals I definitely relate to what you mention here. A lot of the dialogue I see around this, particularly in this time, seems at best nominal (as in "well, of course we're all children of God, but illegal immigrants...."[fill in  justification for falling into temporal concerns and priorities]).  The language becomes more and more emphasized to dehumanize children of God moving them from illegal immigrants, to simply "illegals," to criminal aliens. It feeds on anecdotes and cherry-picked evidence, that emphasizes othering and fear and risk. It's bleeding over to people who did come here legally but are still seen as threats or circumspect to particularly those born/raised here. Reinforcing at each turn greater and greater foreignness to "us" and thus greater and greater threat to "real" americans. It's so potently negative, that even people who are undocumented and follow this line of thought will assume that the people described aren't them but the other ones. The real baddies. It turns people into boogie men. Always other. Always less. Maybe not explicitly said, but definitely felt in action.    

So I am by no means convinced that our current governing stance is a good one, on just a spiritual end (I think there's also plenty of practical problems with it as well). 

That said, I don't think I'm "for" open borders right now. For me it's about grounding in where we're currently at and how to realistically move the needle closer to something better. When we have a culture that's being fed hyper negative dialogue around immigrants, I would be ignoring the limits of our culture and peoples to take in a zion mentality. That can be setting both immigrants and the current population up for failure. Immigrants, by leaving them in a disjointed, chaotic, and inconsistent community that one day welcomes them and the next exploits and demonizes them. The current population, by not working to help better respond to their concerns and make sure there are grounded efforts to meet the demands of their true problems rather than overly focus on scapegoats. I would want communities that feel secure enough in themselves to be able to take in the stranger with more open hearts/arms. A community that can also look at themselves and acknowledge their own deficits as easily they do the stranger and can balance it healthily with the strengths both likely have. I would want immigration to grow as well as we can properly resource and facilitate healthy migration practices. 

I do think there's people who come in and are violent or are greater risks. I don't think these should be disproportionately focused on, but I don't think they should be ignored in policy implementations. But I would also want us to look and recognize our own society's contribution to problems we associate with "the border" (such as the gun trafficking across the border, worsening Mexico's problems with cartels/gangs, and that US citizens are those most likely to traffic drugs cross border into the US). This to me would need to include better dialogue about treating drug addictions, our rampant obsession with guns, and how to support and correct our own bad neighbor behaviors or bolster other countries in their pursuits for social bettering. 

Right now, i think we're wrong. i think we've done things and are doing things in fear that worsen the problems in immigration and inevitably shoot us in the foot in the name of "protecting US interests." But I think there are several potential plans that aren't perfect, but could move the needle to better balancing our problems. I think open borders is several steps too ahead of where we're at. But I definitely want whatever plan we replace it with to better remember the humanity in all of us and the sacred kinship we should fight to re-center in our communities. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited February 2, 2025 by BlueDreams

[rodheadlee]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

About a week ago, @smac97 asked if I was an advocate for open borders. My answer is yes.

I think that open borders are more moral and ethical than closed borders. Part of this is rooted in the Gospel. The Old Testament asserts that we should treat the alien in our country as if he were a part of our society. The New Testament goes further and suggests that the way that we treat the alien in our country should be understand as the way that we are treating the Lord. That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46 - and it is quite clear (at least to me):

It's not a difficult proposition here. There are a couple of things that I think are important - other than the fact that Jesus specifically points to immigrants as a class of people that deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Another is that He identifies these immigrants as His immediate family (the meaning of the Greek in verse 40 that is translated "my brethren" indicates siblings). The message that Jesus offers is that if we fail to treat these immigrants as family, we risk exaltation in the Kingdom of God. There is no such statement made in the Gospels about political laws (that are subject to change). Theologically, there isn't much value in trying to weigh keeping a bad law against this sort of Gospel principle/necessity. The idea of legal and illegal in this case isn't particularly morally or ethically solid to begin with (it may not be immoral or unethical - just that there is no moral or ethical demand to have such laws (as opposed to laws that have significant moral and ethical content). And we can list a number of reasons why significant immigration (and even open border policies) can be beneficial.

So to answer the question that was raised, I am an advocate for open borders. And I think that those who are engaged in efforts to make the lives of immigrants in this country miserable will discover that they are the goats that Jesus speaks of. And finally, I believe (and I don't feel the need to hold others to this standard) that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to advocate for more moral and ethical laws dealing with immigrants.

I didn't take the time to read your whole post but right off the bat Christ separated the goats from the Sheep, that's a border. Second off do you think there should be borders between the outer darkness and the Celestial Kingdom? Number three you can certainly help people in other countries without having to open the borders. We spend a thousand bucks every single month in Mexico do you think if we had Mexico's economy we would have the money to do that? Everywhere we have traveled in our sailboat, which probably cost less than the car you're driving, we have tried to leave resources behind.

Edited February 2, 2025 by rodheadlee

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

From ChatGPT:

"No modern developed nation has successfully implemented a fully open border policy while maintaining economic stability, national security, and social cohesion."

The Netherlands has open borders. Offcourse not if you travel by plane from example Spain to the Netherlands, in that case you indeed need to show your ID. But if you wanna travel from the Netherlands to Germang or Belgium by car you don't need to have anything with you because there is no security nothing on the border line. How do i know this? Because i've crossed the border between the Netherlands and Germany once by car. And when i was 13 years old i've cycled with my dad to Belgium and we have crossed the border between the south of the Netherlands and Belgium. And did we needed to show anything? No, because their was no security. Nothing. Only a sign that we where about to leave the Netherlands and going into Belgium. So that's just how the country borders are here. The link you showed me was not completaly correct. It's so easy to get into the Netherlands. It's not cusomary to have strict security here like the United States has. You guys have security between Canada and United States and Mexico and the United States on every road. And everyone even needs to show a passport (ID is not enough), while Mexico, United States and Canada are in the same continent. That's just totaly differend then how it works here in Europe anyway. And especially here in the Netherlands. The borders here are free. We have free borders. Okay...

[Dario_M]

@smac97 The Netherlands did had temporary border control which started on 9 december 2024 though. But i read that this lasted only for a half year. But in practice i don't think it meant much anyway though. That's just on paper. I bet if i wanna cross a border line on a country road there is still no control. If there is still control anyway today. However you still can't compare this with the United States.

Yeah...I just read some more and there is no set up on any border control. There is only a change that you meight get puled over by the military police and get asked to show your ID. But honestly... that can happen anywhere. I can go outside today and get stopped by the police to show my ID. While i'm not even on a border. So that is still not the same situation as in the United States. 

Edited February 2, 2025 by Dario_M

[Zosimus]

If it weren't for open borders in the 1830s-1880s, I doubt the Church would exist today. For certain, because of open borders, ancestors on both sides of my family were able to join other members of the Church in the United States in the 1830s and then enter Mexico as undocumented (and unwelcome) migrants to help build Zion.

Its also worth remembering that the first federal actions to control America's open borders were the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Edmunds Act. Yes, that Edmunds Act. So the first formal attempts to control the borders of the United States were designed specifically to restrict and block Mormons from immigrating.

At that time the US government was also actively lobbying foreigns governments to prevent America from becoming “a resort or refuge to crowds of misguided men and women...the bands and organizations [of the Latter-day Saints] which are got together in foreign lands as recruits cannot be regarded as otherwise than a deliberate and systematic attempt to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating their laws and committing crimes expressly punishable under the statute as Penitentiary offenses.” (source)

12 hours ago, Potter said:

I believe it's quite fitting, as your temples sport a border that upholds a sense of reverence and tranquility within those walls. It’s quite simple, those temples are funded by tithing dollars, and if Mormons choose to keep the rest of the world at bay, that’s their prerogative. Others should just tip their hats and respect that choice. As a Christian, I can't just waltz up to the door and demand entry like I own the place.

Chapels are funded by tithing dollars. Many of us spent two years of our lives inviting as many people as we could to waltz right in as often as they could. We were always thrilled whenever anyone took us up on the invitation. Shouldn't this also be our approach for any physical location we call Zion? Why would we ever agree to put a border around Zion and then let the federal government decide who is allowed in and who isn't? 

12 hours ago, Potter said:

If you're skeptical about the importance of borders, then why does the Almighty seem to favor them when it comes to dividing the Celestial Kingdom from the Terrestrial and the telestial?

I don't imagine there's anything like cherubim with flaming swords standing at the border crossings telling people that don't have a testimony of Christ that they can't enter the celestial kingdom. Its probably more like those who aren't terribly interested in Christ in this life won't be suddenly interested in the celestial kingdom in the next. As I've understood it, we'll always gravitate toward the kingdoms that we feel most "natural" in.

Edited February 2, 2025 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, 150 or so years ago.  Things have changes a lot since then.  From ChatGPT:

Much has changed. For example we have outsourced our thinking to AI.

[Dario_M]

50 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

If it weren't for open borders in the 1830s-1880s, I doubt the Church would exist today. For certain, because of open borders, ancestors on both sides of my family were able to join other members of the Church in the United States in the 1830s and then enter Mexico as undocumented (and unwelcome) migrants to help build Zion.

It don't believe it is unChrist like to live in a country who performs clossed border policy. You need to do something to protect your country is that not so? Having open borders sounds maybe human but that's just an utopia. In reality you will invite everyone into your country. People with differend mentality's differend cultures. I know that the United States has already a big problem with drugs that comes straight from Mexico. Fentanil. A really dangerous drug that kills a lot of people everywhere around the United States. If you will open the border between Mexico and United States then.. the end will be in sight i'm afrait. After such a foolish mistake there bound te be a catastrophe. Open your eyes please, we don't live in such a save world anymore like we used to live in 30 years ago. Evil and darkness is everywhere these days.

Trust is good, control is beter. 🇺🇲

Edited February 2, 2025 by Dario_M

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Christ separated the goats from the Sheep, that's a border. Second off do you think there should be borders between the outer darkness and the Celestial Kingdom?

There is a big difference between God’s ability to judge who are the goats that should be kept from mixing with the sheep and our own.

I have always wondered why goats are the bad guys in the scriptures.  They are dang useful ( goat milk is tasty, same with cheese) and entertaining animals. You haven’t lived until you have served as a mountain that about six baby goats are trying to climb in their King of the Mountain play while a seventh is trying to nibble buttons off your shirt.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

resort or refuge to crowds of misguided men and women...the bands and organizations [of the Latter-day Saints] which are got together in foreign lands as recruits cannot be regarded as otherwise than a deliberate and systematic attempt to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating their laws and committing crimes expressly punishable under the statute as Penitentiary offenses

Sounds kind of familiar 

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

I know that the United States has already a big problem with drugs that comes straight from Mexico. Fentanil. A really dangerous drug that kills a lot of people everywhere around the United States.

89% of fentanyl seizures at checkpoints are from U.S. citizens (source)

If 9 out of 10 fentanyl smugglers are US citizens then this is not an immigration problem. You can't ban citizens from returning home, and that's exactly why Americans will always be the cartels' most effective drug mules

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

89% of fentanyl seizures at checkpoints are from U.S. citizens (source)

If 9 out of 10 fentanyl smugglers are US citizens then this is not an immigration problem. You can't ban citizens from returning home, and that's exactly why Americans will always be the cartels' most effective drug mules

May i see a link of that because i don't believe this at all. I may hope that you are aware that fentanyl actually get produced in China in the begin fase. After that it get sold to poor country's (like Mexico) and after that Mexico makes from that fentanyl the end product. In the form of other drugs... like pills, or coke or other types of drugs. A lot of victums don't even know that they are taken fentanyl because it is so well hidden. But fentanyl in small doses can allready cause an overdosis so fentanyl kills almost always. That stuff comes from Mexico. And you really want to open the borders for them all? Seriously?

And why is it unChristlike to live in a country that has closed borders? In your country that's just how the law works and you just need to obey the law. 🇺🇲

Edited February 2, 2025 by Dario_M

[Zosimus]

30 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

May i see a link of that because i don't believe this at all.

I'd linked to the source above. You can also check it on the US Customs and Border Protection site:

"More than 90% of interdicted fentanyl is stopped at Ports of Entry (POEs), where cartels attempt to smuggle it primarily in vehicles driven by U.S. citizens."

And the US Sentencing Commission site:

"86.4% of individuals sentenced for fentanyl trafficking were United States citizens"

And here are two newsy articles:

• American citizens smuggle more fentanyl into the US than migrants, data show
• Most Sentenced for Trafficking Fentanyl are U.S. Citizens

43 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

That stuff comes from Mexico. And you really want to open the borders for them all? Seriously?

It comes from Mexico, but 9 out of 10 times, when agents catch fentanyl smugglers at the border they are US citizens

45 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And why is it unChristlike to live in a country that has closed borders? In your country that's just how the law works and you just need to obey the law. 🇺🇲

I don't believe its un-Christlike to live in a country with closed borders. I just think the government can overstep when given too much control over borders, as they did when they tried to block Mormons from immigrating to the United States in the 1880s

[Dario_M]

But is that not what you said in your openingspost?

However........ every Saint can enter the United States these days when submit the necessary documents to enter the country. People from Mexico and Canada only need to show their passport and they can enter. And in my case because i'm from the Netherlands i also need to submit (next to a passport) also an ESTA and i can enter. those are just the laws. We don't live in 1880 anymore...so i don't see how that is relevant in compare with how the law is today. Which is not like it was 200 years ago. So...i still don't understand why it is unChristlike if a country practise supervision at their own borders, and let people in if they have the right documents. Eventhough they apparently did not have done that in 1880.  🤷‍♀️ We don't live in 1880. We live in 2025.

I'm not gonna react on this discusion furthermore though. This is my final word on the matter. 

Edited February 2, 2025 by Dario_M

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As I opined on this board the other day, some on this site have enthroned “compassion” and mercy to the overpowerment of justice, wisdom and reason. What these folks fail to realize is that their unwise idealistic zeal blinds them to the fact that they’re advocating for an imbalance between justice and mercy that not only destroys justice but also ends up destroying the very mercy they claim to own. Why? Because there can be no effectual and enduring application of mercy unless the immutable law of divine justice has been fully satisfied. What you’re witnessing here is a regression into the kind of uninformed and unrealistic adolescent thinking that ignited the war in heaven, because some insisted that God’s realistic and pragmatic plan of mercy, that lays the effectual groundwork for overcoming the world and glorious celestial exaltation, is “just too hard!” It’s a childishness that will hopefully be grown out of in time.

The "Teddy Bear Jesus" idea that we should have free reign to do whatever we want without consequences because Jesus loves us.

I heard an interesting idea a few weeks back about Satan's plan- that it wasn't to force us to do the right thing, but to be able to away with the consequences  of our choices. Interesting that that is what people are clamoring for in this winding up scene when Satan is unleashing his full force against the world 

Edited February 2, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I have always wondered why goats are the bad guys in the scriptures.  They are dang useful ( goat milk is tasty, same with cheese) and entertaining animals. You haven’t lived until you have served as a mountain that about six baby goats are trying to climb in their King of the Mountain play while a seventh is trying to nibble buttons off your shirt.

I think that this is more or less the point. It is too easy to see the issue when we are talking about wheat and tares. But, in this case, we aren't talking about external characteristics that make you other - its the internal characteristics. So elsewhere, Jesus says (Matthew 7:22-23):

Quote

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

There are lots of other reasons people have given. As anyone who has had goats may recognize, an old billy goat can be distinctly odoriferous - but, I tend to think that it is easy to overthink things like this.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The "Teddy Bear Jesus" idea that we should have free reign to do whatever we want without consequences because Jesus loves us.

I heard an interesting idea a few weeks back about Satan's plan- that it wasn't to force us to do the right thing, but to be able to away with the consequences  of our choices. Interesting that that is what people are clamoring for in this winding up scene when Satan is unleashing his full force against the world 

It sounds like you are saying those that are taking the easy way by rejecting their neighbors and calling them “illegal” are being led by Satan? That’s harsh. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I didn't take the time to read your whole post but right off the bat Christ separated the goats from the Sheep, that's a border. Second off do you think there should be borders between the outer darkness and the Celestial Kingdom? Number three you can certainly help people in other countries without having to open the borders. We spend a thousand bucks every single month in Mexico do you think if we had Mexico's economy we would have the money to do that? Everywhere we have traveled in our sailboat, which probably cost less than the car you're driving, we have tried to leave resources behind.

I think that the issue of outer darkness is problematic because we know virtually nothing about it. There was a statement by Brigham Young that really reveals the kinds of possibilities that early leaders felt could exist there - in light of an infinite atonement:

Quote

The Lord said to Jeremiah the Prophet, "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." The clay that marred in the potter's hands was thrown back into the unprepared portion, to be prepared over again. So it will be with every wicked man and woman, and every wicked nation, kingdom, and government upon earth, sooner or later; they will be thrown back to the native element from which they originated, to be worked over again, and be prepared to enjoy some sort of a kingdom.

I think that we think of these things as boundaries - as demarcations - but part of that is that we have an impossible time trying to wrap our minds around an eternal and infinite existence. We need difference to help us understand things (its the way our minds work, and the way that our language works). So we divide people into goats and sheep, or wheat and tares. There are two famous sayings that I like in regard to this. 1) You can always divide people into two groups - those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't. And, 2) You can always divide people into three groups: those that can add, and those that can't. I think that we should be careful about envisioning our use of difference as creating borders. One of the most destructive of these inclinations in a gospel context is (in my opinion) the idea that we should separate the truly faithful with those that are not orthodox - the boundary maintenance that we see a lot of in this forum. So for the third point - I don't disagree that we could help these other countries in other ways than open borders - but, this doesn't resolve the moral or ethical questions about the right of people to have self determination - to look for the best way to protect themselves and their families and so on.

It's also worth pointing out that generally speaking, my observation is that those who are the least interested in allowing immigrants in are also those that are the least interested in sending resources out.