Originally posted by wally
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle
Collapse
X
-
“There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
― W.H. Auden
"God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
-- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
-
Originally posted by LA Ute View PostQuarto."In conclusion, let me give a shout-out to dirty sex. What a great thing it is" - Northwestcoug
"And you people wonder why you've had extermination orders issued against you." - landpoke
"Can't . . . let . . . foolish statements . . . by . . . BYU fans . . . go . . . unanswered . . . ." - LA Ute
Comment
-
Originally posted by DU Ute View PostHawaii Five-0“There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
― W.H. Auden
"God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
-- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostAbsolutely not. This isn't about the law. I think that the issue at hand is whether or not someone who is an undocumented alien can represent the Church ethically while not obeying the law of the land, knowingly.Religion . . . is a man's total reaction upon life.
William James
Comment
-
Originally posted by Welsh View PostDo you ever knowingly break the law? I am not trying to be tongue and cheek here, but do you ever speed when you are driving, purposefully?Religion . . . is a man's total reaction upon life.
William James
Comment
-
Originally posted by Welsh View PostDo you ever knowingly break the law? I am not trying to be tongue and cheek here, but do you ever speed when you are driving, purposefully?"Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostNot when I was an ordained clergyman. We're not talking about membership. That isn't the question. We're talking about "officially representing" the Church. I see a large dichotomy between the two classifications.Religion . . . is a man's total reaction upon life.
William James
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostNot when I was an ordained clergyman. We're not talking about membership. That isn't the question. We're talking about "officially representing" the Church. I see a large dichotomy between the two classifications.Last edited by Welsh; 08-28-2010, 08:49 AM.Religion . . . is a man's total reaction upon life.
William James
Comment
-
Originally posted by Welsh View PostI disagree. Are you saying that elder's quorum presidents, bishops, and stake presidents, if they speed, are morally unfit for their callings?
Originally posted by Welsh View PostAlso, I imagine there are a ton of mitigating circumstances that could render purposeful illegal immigration morally justifiable, like providing for starving children or fleeing the violence directed at you and your family. Let's say that I immigrate to the US under morally justifiable circumstances, and my mission-aged son wants to go on a mission. You say he can't, because he is in knowing violation of the law? Seriously?
Now, if you immigrate under morally justifiable circumstances, and I think crushing poverty is one that I understand all too well, then get baptized, enjoy the Church, etc. However, if you want to represent the Church in a land wherein you are in violation of the law, any law, knowingly, then you need to right that imbalance before serving as an official representative.
I really doubt that they would call a Seventy or an Apostle without legal status. They carry the title of elder just like the missionaries. I see little difference. I know it sucks, and it's not fair, and the laws are stupid and need to be changed. That's what I hope for, but until then, I do feel that it's disingenuous to ask people, "Do you obey the law of the land?" when we condone breaking laws that we don't agree with, no matter the circumstances."Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied
Comment
-
If the US Government doesn't do anything about charging or deporting these people why should the Church be a hard ass about it? Why should the Church sustain laws that the government doesn't even care about?"In conclusion, let me give a shout-out to dirty sex. What a great thing it is" - Northwestcoug
"And you people wonder why you've had extermination orders issued against you." - landpoke
"Can't . . . let . . . foolish statements . . . by . . . BYU fans . . . go . . . unanswered . . . ." - LA Ute
Comment
-
However, if you want to represent the Church in a land wherein you are in violation of the law, any law, knowingly, then you need to right that imbalance before serving as an official representative.
I really doubt that they would call a Seventy or an Apostle without legal status. They carry the title of elder just like the missionaries. I see little difference. I know it sucks, and it's not fair, and the laws are stupid and need to be changed. That's what I hope for, but until then, I do feel that it's disingenuous to ask people, "Do you obey the law of the land?" when we condone breaking laws that we don't agree with, no matter the circumstances.
In my view, if the unlawful conduct is itself untinged by moral turpitude, the church should not view it as disqualifying for serving as an official representative of the church. Your only support for your position were your attempts to make illegal immigration a moral issue. When I countered with examples in which it is clearly not morally wrong, you retreated to the statement of the current policy and are acting as though there is some sort of virtue in strictly construing the words of the current policy, perhaps as an appeal to the authority of church policy as doctrine. "Of course, following the law must be right...that's what the church asks us to do."
If a black man fled slavery to a northern state, returned to the south pretending to be a free man, and were called as a bishop (absurd example, but you get my drift), then I wouldn't say he needed to return himself to his owner. If a man of Jewish decent were a bishop in Nazi Germany, he needn't have worn a yellow star. These are two examples where someone would be perfectly justified to be breaking the law and representing the church. You don't think immigration qualifies... fine. But the strict construction of church policy BS is too much.Religion . . . is a man's total reaction upon life.
William James
Comment
-
Originally posted by Welsh View PostWell, that's a hard line to take. I agree we should obey the law. However, I disagree with your conclusion regarding official representatives of the church. (This is a cheap shot, but I guess we should ignore the examples set by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor.)
In my view, if the unlawful conduct is itself untinged by moral turpitude, the church should not view it as disqualifying for serving as an official representative of the church. Your only support for your position were your attempts to make illegal immigration a moral issue. When I countered with examples in which it is clearly not morally wrong, you retreated to the statement of the current policy and are acting as though there is some sort of virtue in strictly construing the words of the current policy, perhaps as an appeal to the authority of church policy as doctrine. "Of course, following the law must be right...that's what the church asks us to do."
If a black man fled slavery to a northern state, returned to the south pretending to be a free man, and were called as a bishop (absurd example, but you get my drift), then I wouldn't say he needed to return himself to his owner. If a man of Jewish decent were a bishop in Nazi Germany, he needn't have worn a yellow star. These are two examples where someone would be perfectly justified to be breaking the law and representing the church. You don't think immigration qualifies... fine. But the strict construction of church policy BS is too much.
Godwin's Law come to bear bitter fruit in the latter. Alright, the Nazis didn't care about practicing the religion, so a Jewish Mormon still would've worn the star--the Nazis didn't care. In a question of unrighteousness in the law in fear of life or death, which is just a bullshit example, and so far away from the matter at hand as to be offensive, then of course you feign like Abraham calling Sarah his sister.
But this isn't that. It's not policy, it's in the canonized AofF. It's in the temple recommend questions, and it's certainly something that might, could, will be asked to the missionary by people, leaders, etc. So, while I don't really like my opinion, trust me, I don't, it gibes with how I see the doctrine.
JS, BY, and JT all did stuff that was wrong. That's between them and God. I don't judge the elder. I just think that it's lame that the Church turns a blind eye when they are strict as they can be about other things. It's cafeteria-style obedience."Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostBut this isn't that. It's not policy, it's in the canonized AofF. It's in the temple recommend questions, and it's certainly something that might, could, will be asked to the missionary by people, leaders, etc. So, while I don't really like my opinion, trust me, I don't, it gibes with how I see the doctrine.
...
I just think that it's lame that the Church turns a blind eye when they are strict as they can be about other things. It's cafeteria-style obedience.
I think there are two questions. One, given the church's policy and doctrine, should those who are in knowing violation of the law be representing the church in an official capacity. You say no, and point out that to do otherwise is inconsistent. I agree that to do otherwise is inconsistent, which leads me to questions two: should the church's policy and doctrine include a requirement for "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and thereby preclude it from exercising the discretion to allow moral or just lawbreakers to represent it in an official capacity, particularly as missionaries? I think that there can be a difference of opinion on this second question.
If the church were to exercise such limited discretion, what harms would result, apart from inconsistency with current doctrine/teaching? If no other material harms would result, and the status quo is unjust, shouldn't we think about modifying the doctrine? Don't you think this an area that can benefit from prophetic inspiration over blind yet consistent application?Religion . . . is a man's total reaction upon life.
William James
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostWell, I reject your examples of absurdity. In the former case, the person had asylum, and it's patently ridiculous given the historical nature of it. But, if he pretends to be a free man in the South, no, I don't think he should go back to his owner (this whole line of conversation is uncomfortble on multiple levels). However, I don't think that he should accept the call to be a bishop. (can we get any more obtusely abstract?).
Godwin's Law come to bear bitter fruit in the latter. Alright, the Nazis didn't care about practicing the religion, so a Jewish Mormon still would've worn the star--the Nazis didn't care. In a question of unrighteousness in the law in fear of life or death, which is just a bullshit example, and so far away from the matter at hand as to be offensive, then of course you feign like Abraham calling Sarah his sister.
But this isn't that. It's not policy, it's in the canonized AofF. It's in the temple recommend questions, and it's certainly something that might, could, will be asked to the missionary by people, leaders, etc. So, while I don't really like my opinion, trust me, I don't, it gibes with how I see the doctrine.
JS, BY, and JT all did stuff that was wrong. That's between them and God. I don't judge the elder. I just think that it's lame that the Church turns a blind eye when they are strict as they can be about other things. It's cafeteria-style obedience."I don't mind giving the church 10% of my earnings, but 50% of my weekend mornings? Not as long as DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket is around." - Daniel Tosh
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostBut this isn't that. It's not policy, it's in the canonized AofF. It's in the temple recommend questions, and it's certainly something that might, could, will be asked to the missionary by people, leaders, etc. So, while I don't really like my opinion, trust me, I don't, it gibes with how I see the doctrine.
JS, BY, and JT all did stuff that was wrong. That's between them and God. I don't judge the elder. I just think that it's lame that the Church turns a blind eye when they are strict as they can be about other things. It's cafeteria-style obedience.
I agree with what the Church is doing, but they're probably doing the right thing for the wrong reasons."The mind is not a boomerang. If you throw it too far it will not come back." ~ Tom McGuane
Comment
Comment