Has illegal immigration been talked.....

[falafel]

Wow - the rare Nik AND Babs double troll. Impressive, and well done!

Thanks, but its not really a double troll, since you two are basically male and female sides of the same, egotistical person. And of course, you live in the mega-state of Oklahexas.

[UtahDan]

about at your church?

We've had a couple of comments but nothing too crazy. The typical, obey law of the land talk. My in-laws told me that they had members of their Stake Presidency visit every class this past Sunday to stop the talk of immigration at church. My MIL told me that they have had multiple talks and lessons that focus on the subject over the past couple of months.

What do people think about "obey the law of the land" being invoked as a principle to follow? I have never been comfortable with it because it would seem to preclude civil disobedience where the law is unjust and it doesn't line up with the Declaration of Independence which says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The doctrine is in line with the notion of turning the other cheek, but do members really believe that the law of the land should always be followed? I can't think of too many times in modern America where it would be necessary to break the law, but the idea of just following something because it is the law rather than because it is right doesn't seem like a principle, unless the principle is submitting to earthly authority.

[Pheidippides]

What do people think about "obey the law of the land" being invoked as a principle to follow? I have never been comfortable with it because it would seem to preclude civil disobedience where the law is unjust and it doesn't line up with the Declaration of Independence which says:



The doctrine is in line with the notion of turning the other cheek, but do members really believe that the law of the land should always be followed? I can't think of too many times in modern America where it would be necessary to break the law, but the idea of just following something because it is the law rather than because it is right doesn't seem like a principle, unless the principle is submitting to earthly authority.

I'll buy the "obey the law" argument when people start driving the speed limit. Yes, I just made that comparison.

[UtahDan]

I'll buy the "obey the law" argument when people start driving the speed limit. Yes, I just made that comparison.

Well, people aren't supposed to masturbate either and we know how well that is observed. But I'm not talking about whether people comply, I'm asking whether they should. We didn't exactly "follow the law of the land" institutionally following the first Manifesto, for example (though it is probably unfair to think of the church of 1890 as a monolith).

[Pheidippides]

Well, people aren't supposed to masturbate either and we know how well that is observed. But I'm not talking about whether people comply, I'm asking whether they should. We didn't exactly "follow the law of the land" institutionally following the first Manifesto, for example (though it is probably unfair to think of the church of 1890 as a monolith).

No, I understand and agree with your premise. If we as a nation are founded upon the premise that sometimes there are laws that we need to rebel against, how are supposed to make a coherent immigration argument with an "obey the law" schtick? At least that's my take.

[UtahDan]

No, I understand and agree with your premise. If we as a nation are founded upon the premise that sometimes there are laws that we need to rebel against, how are supposed to make a coherent immigration argument with an "obey the law" schtick? At least that's my take.

I agree with you. It is like obeying your parents. I'm certain I have heard or read talks where that is caveated to say "as long as they are righteous." No one would say obey a parent who is asking a child to do something wrong. Though that is an argument we use when we talk about following the prophet sometimes "follow him even if he is wrong and you will be blessed." It is at least a coherent thought when it comes to God's mouthpiece (though not one I completely agree with) but it makes no sense to me in the context of a government.