Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[LA Ute]

This is true. Bribery is cultural in many third world contries. They consider it an unofficial, mandatory commission.

La mordida, they called it in Guatemala.

[DU Ute]

Quarto.

Hawaii Five-0

[LA Ute]

Hawaii Five-0

Book 'em, DUno.

[Welsh]

Absolutely 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.

Do 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?

[Welsh]

Do 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?

Before you think I am baiting you, let me flesh out my thought. First of all, I imagine you do speed sometimes. On purpose. It probably wasn't felony or misdemeanor speeding, but if you did it you broke the law on purpose. Are you unfit to represent the church as a result? From a moral standpoint, purposeful conduct results in the highest degree of culpability. Knowingly breaking the law while representing the church is what you are up in arms about (no doubt we expect missionaries to even keep the speed limit), but I think that you are making a pretty big issue of lawbreaking that is simply malum prohibitum and not even as bad as speeding, which is an inherently dangerous act.

[wuapinmon]

Do 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?

Not 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.

[Welsh]

Not 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.

I disagree. Are you saying that elder's quorum presidents, bishops, and stake presidents, if they speed, are morally unfit for their callings?

[Welsh]

Not 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.

Also, I imagine there are a ton of mitigating circumstances that could render purposeful illegal immigration morally justifiable, like providing for starving children or fleeing 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?

[wuapinmon]

I disagree. Are you saying that elder's quorum presidents, bishops, and stake presidents, if they speed, are morally unfit for their callings?

Bishops and SPs who break any law should repent by not speeding anymore, which is easily done since speeding isn't an ongoing action like immigration status. In the case of someone who wants to serve, they can't really "repent" (not calling this a sin, mind you, but a transgression, and I do think there is a difference) unless they fix their immigration status.

Also, 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?

Welsh, keep in mind that I am a huge advocate of immigration reform. I think the current laws are stupid. However, just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean that I can just break it. I think civil disobedience has its place, and if these young men and women want to disobey our civil laws, fine with me. I don't think it jeopardizes their membership in the Church unless it's a felony that also breaks a commandment. However, the right to practice civil disobedience, for me, ends, when I don the name and official representation mantle of the Church on my chest.

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.

[DU Ute]

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?

[Welsh]

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.

Well, 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.

[wuapinmon]

Well, 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.

Well, 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.

[Welsh]

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.
...

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.

Sorry for the absurd examples... it was pretty shameless of me.

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?

[ewth8tr]

Well, 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.

An example of church leadership going against the "obey the law of the land" rule would be Helmuth Hübener, a jew who was jailed and executing for treason in Nazi Germany. His local Bishop excommunicated him, but Church leadership in the US immediately restored his blessings once being made aware.

[Non Sequitur]

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.

This isn't about policy and it isn't about obedience. It's about the Church having a HUGE hispanic constituency that it doesn't want to offend.

I agree with what the Church is doing, but they're probably doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.