A Square Moral Compass: Baptism Worthiness vs Temple Worthiness vis a vis Immigration

[wuapinmon]

So, the missionaries just called and invited me to a baptism today at 2:15PM of a woman who I know does not have the legal right to be in nor work in the United States of America. She told me so herself. The questions for baptism do not include one of following the "law of the land" the way the temple recommend questions do.

On the one hand, I'm thrilled that the Church has decided that someone's immigration status has no bearing on their ability to join the Church, but on the other hand, I don't like that we're turning a blind eye to those who do not obey the law of the land, no matter how out-dated and stupid a law I think it is.

Is this tacit civil disobedience by a mildly activist Church?
Is it merely a way to keep the Church growing, as I imagine that the bulk of converts, even in the US, are Hispanic these days.

We are usually so unflinching on these kinds of things, so I find this policy odd.

Some links:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-response

http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.16

Ronald Mortensen offers these solutions to the problem:

Thus, the debate over illegal immigration continues among Church members, fueled by contradictions between official Church policies, the statements of senior Church leaders, and the actions of the Church’s public affairs and media groups. Until these contradictions are resolved, no easy resolution to the dilemma exists for Church, which has to carefully weigh a number of options, including:

1. Continue the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Allow the contradictions between official policy and doctrine and the positions espoused and propagated by senior Church officials and the Church’s Public affairs and media groups to go unaddressed.
2. Formally announce that the president of the Church has directed that missionary work targeting illegal aliens be ended, that baptisms of people illegally in the United States cease, and that all members illegally in the United States return with their families to their home countries in order to build up the Church there.
3. Formally announce that the president of the Church has determined that the love of God’s children surpasses adherence to the laws and borders established by man and that the Church will continue to baptize illegal aliens and grant them full standing in the Church regardless of their immigration situation and ongoing commission of job-related felonies.
4. Quietly suspend all baptisms of illegal aliens until the federal government changes current immigration laws and grants amnesty from all immigration and job-related felonies to all those who are in the United States illegally. Require members who are illegally in the United States to stop committing employment-related felonies.

Of course there are more options, but of these four, options two and three would most readily solve the problem because, once the Church president has spoken, the vast majority of members will accept the decision. Options one and four would serve to extend and increase the discontent that now exists.

Personally, I like #3. But, it is hard to square with the temple recommend questions because this same logic could be used to justify any number of other behaviors.

[Indy Coug]

I spent several years in a branch that was baptizing "undocumenteds" left and right. It's not the church's job to be an enforcement arm of the INS. We all break the law to one degree or the other. How many of us speed with impunity? Do we disqualify ourselves because of our lead feet? Should we?

As far as this issue goes, I don't see a need for the church to do or say anything differently than they already have.

[Pheidippides]

I spent several years in a branch that was baptizing "undocumenteds" left and right. It's not the church's job to be an enforcement arm of the INS. We all break the law to one degree or the other. How many of us speed with impunity? Do we disqualify ourselves because of our lead feet? Should we?

As far as this issue goes, I don't see a need for the church to do or say anything differently than they already have.

In a staggering turn of events, I agree with Indy. Let Caesar enforce immigration laws; what that has to do with baptism is beyond me.

The only caveat may come when some knucklehead in the Utah legislature starts braying loudly about the 11th article of faith as it relates to immigration, which I believe happened a few years back. But as I recall the church's response was something like "STFU", so that worked out except for the legislator.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I spent several years in a branch that was baptizing "undocumenteds" left and right. It's not the church's job to be an enforcement arm of the INS. We all break the law to one degree or the other. How many of us speed with impunity? Do we disqualify ourselves because of our lead feet? Should we?

As far as this issue goes, I don't see a need for the church to do or say anything differently than they already have.

I agree with this. Enforcing immigration is not the church's job. Butt out.

[Donuthole]

On a related note, what is it with professors and the phrase "via-a-vis"? I don't think I have ever heard this phrase used by anyone other than a college professor.

[clackamascoug]

One of the best families I've ever met came here legally, and are still here illegally. The only thing that changed was a date on a piece of paper, and their children becoming Americanized. They are hard working people with a son on a mission, and a daughter married in the Temple. I vow to help them in anyway I can, should that day come. Of course some less expensive legal work would be appreciated as well.

[thesaint258]

On a related note, what is it with professors and the phrase "via-a-vis"? I don't think I have ever heard this phrase used by anyone other than a college professor.

My boss uses it all the time. I'm not sure if I've ever read one of his motions without seeing that at least once. I've started using it, too because it is sometimes the easiest, most accurate thing to use.

[Moliere]

Being in a country illegally is not a sin so why should it disqualify someone from baptism? Same with speeding. In fact, there are many laws that, if broken, are not sins.

IMO, God probably doesn't care so much how man defines countries or borders, in fact, he'd probably prefer that we be borderless and help all people. The current church policy is that being illegal doesn't matter, which is shown in the fact that there are bishops that are also illegal aliens.

[statman]

I know the Church doesn't withhold temple recommends from illegals, but will they call illegals to serve full-time missions in the US?

My son's current companion is of Mexican descent, but he himself was born in the US - which lead to a discussion with my wife. The rest of our son's comp's family - including younger siblings - are undocumented, living in LA. If a Mexican national residing in Mexico is called to serve a mission in the US, they get a visa for him/her to serve. So what do they do for illegals in the US who want to serve? Send them to Mexico, or keep them (illegally) in the US?

[Katy Lied]

On a related note, what is it with professors and the phrase "via-a-vis"? I don't think I have ever heard this phrase used by anyone other than a college professor.

Sort of like engineering professors starting every other sentance with the word, "Similarly..."

[Guest]

For a religion to even concider itself viable, in my opinion, it should take no care to the legal matters of its members. On the other hand, the consciences of the members should take care of their own legal matters. These often times conflict with each when members concider themselves in good standing with society and their church simply because their church leaders haven't made any mention of the members illegal activities. The illegal activities in this case would, of course, be illegal immigration.

Also, I'm sure any church leader, just like any business leader, would see new members as an increase in tithing revenue and, therefore, a good thing.

[Indy Coug]

For a religion to even concider itself viable, in my opinion, it should take no care to the legal matters of its members. On the other hand, the consciences of the members should take care of their own legal matters. These often times conflict with each when members concider themselves in good standing with society and their church simply because their church leaders haven't made any mention of the members illegal activities. The illegal activities in this case would, of course, be illegal immigration.

Also, I'm sure any church leader, just like any business leader, would see new members as an increase in tithing revenue and, therefore, a good thing.

LOL. I've processed the tithing receipts from illegal immigrants. The church is LOSING money because the non-payors/welfare recipients significantly outpace the donations received. If the church was really being business savvy they'd clamp down on illegal immigrant baptisms.

[Sullyute]

Being in a country illegally is not a sin so why should it disqualify someone from baptism? Same with speeding. In fact, there are many laws that, if broken, are not sins.

IMO, God probably doesn't care so much how man defines countries or borders, in fact, he'd probably prefer that we be borderless and help all people. The current church policy is that being illegal doesn't matter, which is shown in the fact that there are bishops that are also illegal aliens.

How is being an illegal alien not a sin? Isn't it being dishonest? Is cheating on taxes a sin? Here is the church's stance on income taxes:

21.1.21 Income Taxes
Church members are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of the nation where they reside (see also D&C 134:5). Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment. Members who have well-founded legal objections may challenge tax laws in the courts.

Church members who refuse to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or comply with a final judgment in a tax case are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church. Such members may be ineligible for a temple recommend and should not be called to positions of principal responsibility in the Church. Members who are convicted of willfully violating tax laws are subject to Church discipline to the extent warranted by the circumstances.

So if you are here illegally than you may not being paying your proper income taxes on the funds you are receiving.

Also how does one get called as a bishop if you are not legal in this country? How would you perform non-temple civil weddings? How do you morally hold and issue temple recommends? Depending on the state how would you get a driver's license and be able to get to the all of the church related functions?

Lastly based on the statute below, would giving a ride to church to an undocumented member (whether bishop or newly baptized) put other members in jeopardy of violating the law? What about rides to work? What about letting an illegal alien in your home to home teach you or giving them things as their home teacher put you at risk? As a bishop if you give funds and food orders to an illegal alien which allows them to stay in the country is that breaking the law? Should we be putting bishops and relief society presidents in the position of potential felony charges in order to fullfill their church callings?

Section 274 felony under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act INA 274A(a)(1)(A). Encouraging & Harboring Illegal Aliens: It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any alien who is in the United States in violation of law. Harboring means any conduct that tends to substantially facilitate an alien to remain in the U.S. illegally. Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The most important issue that has yet been addressed is, who the hell holds a baptism at 2:15 on a Tuesday?

[Indy Coug]

The most important issue that has yet been addressed is, who the hell holds a baptism at 2:15 on a Tuesday?

Someone that isn't interested in maximizing fellowship opportunities. Someone that may be interested in alienating members from doing missionary work.