Here is an old Goggle-cached SLTrib article about how the LDS church gets away with sending undocumented kids on missions. In short, they drive undocumented kids out to their missions, so that the missionaries don't have to travel by plane and get arrested. There doesn't seem to be any particular effort to uphold any laws, or anything. Mormons just do what benefits them the most. The article maintains that many of its local leaders are undocumented aliens. I know this for a fact. So I wonder how the new dynamic of this new administration will change things for Mormons, if at all.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g-Pij3WnPFMJ:www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_12787617+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2017 10:52AM by cludgie.

I guess some people believe in following only the Articles of Faith they want to, just as some people obey only the laws that suits them:

#12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

And some Presidents enforce only the laws they like, and some Appeals Courts sustain only some of the laws.

And, of course, some laws are unconstitutional - speaking in general terms of course.

No wonder TSCC took a strong stand during elections...As for the 12th Article of Faith,the church certainly obeyed that one when they kissed up to the Nazi's before and during WWII.

In Mexico (for just one example), sneaking in to the country illegally is a serious crime, punishable by thousands of dollars and/or years in prison. I doubt that the church woukd risk subjecting their missionaries to these punishments.

But here in the US... our laws are not important to illegal aliens and anyone who supports them (including the church). Anyone who wants to enforce immigration laws here in the US is marginalized, and called a racist. Hopefully Trump will turn this around. After the wall is built, after there are a million people on the other side, looking at the wall while being stopped by it, then and only then we should ask ourselves if, or how many of the people on the other side of the wall should be allowed in. Until then, the boundary violations should cause us to claim what belongs to us first, and to exercise generoudity ourselves only after our boundaries (everything north of the border) are respected.

D.T. marginalizes the immigrants, especially those from Mexico, Guatemala, etc.


Get it RIGHT next time, OK?

Laws? Try lawlessness as a founding doctrine, azsteve.

https://www.quora.com/What-US-states-once-belonged-to-Mexico-How-did-they-become-part-of-the-US

After all, war is theft writ large, right?

Thank you!

This whole arguement about how parts of the American southwest once belonged to Mexico bypasses the whole issue. If the US gave California and Arizona to Mexico, in a few years from now those two states would be the impoverished, corrupt place that the rest of Mexico is now. It's not about the land and geograpgy. That is completely beside the point. They want our wealth. Their corrupt system can't create wealth. So they want to cash in on ours.

If the US were to invade Mexico, redraw a border a few hundred miles South, and clean up the new US territory in between, that area would prosper. People who live in that area would no longer feel the need to immigrate North. I am not advocating for this. But which would be more compassionate: 1.) Give California, Arizona, and New Mexico back to Mexico despite how it would affect those who are currently living there, or 2.) Take more of Mexico's land from them and turn it in to a more civilized and prosperous place?

If you had an alcaholic uncle (a metaphor for the dysfunctional Mexican government) living on your couch and refusing to get a job (a metaphor for corruption in the Mexican government), how would you help him? Kick him out of your house (deport him from your home), get a restraining order if he keeps coming back (build a wall). That would be the compassionate way to help him clean up his life. If he really didn't seem to believe that you have a right to your own home, you could even tell him that you want him to pay for the costs of getting the restraining order.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2017 11:37AM by azsteve.

I did not serve a mission. However, serving a LDS mission does not appear to be displacing an American worker out of a great career.

I do not have any evidence, but a suspicion that undocumented missionaries are probably not abusing any government assistance programs.

I would further think that the vast majority of undocumented LDS missionaries are probably not radical Islamic jihadists looking for martyrdom.

Is LDS Inc skirting the law on this? Perhaps. However, if the argument is relating to the Article of Faith regarding observance of local laws, I would submit questioning LDS Inc's financial operations might be better.

I think you are correct ghecco. Pointing out the church's disregard for the immigration laws, is more of an intelectual exercise aimed at showing that the church in principal, does not respect the laws of the land as they claim to.

If someone wants to deal the church a painful blow, go after their money. Hit them where it really hurts. Moral issues aren't so important to them.

I believe the church is cautious not to make any move that would cause citizens of other countries and in this case those south of the border to percieve it as any thing other than a world wide church.

If they were to take a hard stand on any of the imigration laws they might be percieved as acting in the national interests.