Deseret News | Debate resumes over illegal immigrants' status in LDS Church

Reader comments
Debate resumes over illegal immigrants' status in LDS Church

165 comments | Read story

Rational Oregonian | 11:16 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Most illegals do not make enough to pay income tax. They still pay property tax (they have to pay rent, right?). They still pay sales tax. Most are uninsured. The tax and premium issues are largely myths.
What is their crime? Trying to feed their families. If I were injured and my 13 year old son decided the best way to get help for me was to put me in a car and drive me to the hospital, should he be excommunicated for breaking the law? No? Okay, maybe disfellowshipped then?
It is easy to judge when you haven't had to make the tough decision. Remember we are all sinners. There are only a few sins that immediately disqualify you for baptism or a temple recommend.
Note Church policy, however on missionaries. An illegal alien cannot be recommended as a missionary. Interesting.

Steve | 11:27 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Bishops work through the spirit also, but some may not be as in tune as others. I'm not a bishop, but if I lied to the bishop about being worthy to enter the temple and the bishop doesn't pick up on it, it's not the fault of the bishop. The liar will be the one who will pay the ultimate penalty. If a bishop knows first hand that the member is illegal in this country and has a fake pass to be here, it shouldn't bar the member from membership, but should bar him from the temple. In this circumstance, I believe the bishop should pay the price also. All are invited to the temple, but there needs to be a very strong commitment and the correct standard of living. If the honesty question is being overlooked by a known illegal, the the question then needs to be disregarded, because it is a waste of time. For this reason, I'm glad I'm not a bishop yet. But despite it all, i love the church.

COME TO UTAH!! | 11:22 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

THE WELCOME WAGON IS OPEN!!

Comments continue below

How funny critics are... | 11:22 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

It's very funny to me when the LDS church makes a decision like this and all the cynics and critics of the church officially take it upon themselves to put in their own opinion. The church is led by incredibly intelligent and inspired men who unlike politicians don't lie or put out false statements so they can get elected into office. They usually have far more education and experience in dozens of matters than does anybody that tries to profess what the church does wrong.

Stewart | 11:28 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

A lot of weird logic in this article. "While reiterating the LDS Church is politically neutral, Elder Jensen noted that immigration is not only a political issue but a moral and ethical one." First of all the Church is not being politically neutral and has taken the same political stand as in previous years. This not a moral or ethical issue, it is a taxpayer, cheap labor, and a law and order issue. The Utah Legislature has every right to protect its citizens and taxpayers from the harm caused by illegal immigration.

I suppose that that having a fraudulent ID in your pocket and saying that you are honest with your fellowman makes sense?

Finally, it is a sovereignty issue. Does the Church interfere with other nations' sovereignty issues? Do they go to other states and attempt to interfere with legislatures trying to protect their citizens and taxpayers? No! only in Utah would they attempt such behavior. Compassion is fine, but compassion isn't going to stop the problem. We can have compassion for criminals of all types, but that doesn't mean that we should look the other way and allow the behavior to continue.

John | 11:30 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

As a member of the Church I see now that I may disobey laws. Them leadership is supporting lawlessness.

John Lambert | 11:29 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

So Ann Chovie is advocating for the seperation of families. Maybe that is the best way to do it now, but there is nothing wrong with favoring a change in the laws. I think we should restructure the laws to allow families to be together.

Spanky | 11:32 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I can't go to Mexico take a job from a Mexican national, get free health care, protest, stay forever, or even own land there. But illegal Mexicans can come into my country and do all of those things with no consequences. There seems to be something basically wrong with that. Because someone works in the service industry, or construction trades, does not mean that they don't have a right to a living wage. Illegal immigrants are keeping wages artificially low in those sectors, and it's big business, and politicians who are in the pocket of big business, who allow it.

Bill | 11:37 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I agree with Elder Jensen's temperate remarks, despite the fact that I was in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured, unlicensed, illegal alien young woman. Just as we cannot lump all illegals into the status of being gangland murderers or drunk drivers, we cannot lump all of them into the status of being good, hard-working people simply trying to provide for their families.

The Church's position isn't the problem. The problem is a FEDERAL (not state) government that won't step up and enforce the borders while increasing legal immigration and guest-worker arrangements.

Clarity | 11:44 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Elder Jensen's comments were his own as he repeatedly said. He comes from a good democrat background that cares about the average person and tries to treat everyone with compassion regardless of circumstances. The church has no policy on this issue and is not required to ask about immigration status for baptism, however, that is a result of government legislation that is very confusing and erratically enforced. Other countries have strict immigration policies, like Italy and the LDS missionaries there are not able to baptize illegals because that countries laws do not allow it. If you have a beef with the church's position in the US, then you should push for stronger, clearer laws regulating immigration. There is never a need to be insulting as to race or country of origin to anyone however and that is what I took most from Elder Jensen's comments.

Rule of Law | 11:57 a.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Illegal immigrants, as the name implies, are doing something "ILLEGAL" - they are violating the laws of the nation. And just as with anyone who violates the laws of the nation in which they live, they are NOT "being honest in [their] dealings with their fellowman".

Moreover, they are "supporting, affiliating with, or agreeing with groups or individuals whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," which officially teaches that we are to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (Pearl of Great Price, Article of Faith 12).

Therefore, being an illegal immigrant disqualifies them from Temple worthiness, and any Church authority who knowingly grants temple recommends to illegal immigrants is violating Church doctrine as well as acting as an accessory to a criminal act.

These statements by these Church authorities are repugnant to anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution of this great nation. They should be chastized and released from these official positions as representatives of the Church.

ChickasawMan | 12:10 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I agree with JMHO. We love our Brothers & Sisters but if the borders are not secure & the magnet that draws illegals here not removed, we will have Mexico in America, not my choice for a free land.

daddygeee | 12:10 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I find this to be one of the most perplexing problems facing the Church and its members, legal & illegal. While serving as a missionary in L.A. 37 years ago we were allowed to teach and baptize worthy individuals though they were in the US illegally. Then, in 1973 about January, we were counseled to stop baptizing those who did not have their papers but we could continue to teach them and we encouraged them to be involved in the L.A. Spanish Branch. We taught a delightful fellow from Nicaragua named Carlos who, at our invitation continued to read the Book of Mormon in spite of deep resistance from his immediate family who were very devout Adventists. We left Carlos with the Book of Mormon and challenged him to read it. That Sunday as I was gathering people from the foyer to begin our Sunday School meeting (long before the block) Carlos entered the doors of the Wilshire Building and shook my right hand; his left hand was shaking the Book of Mormon at me and with tears in his eyes he said "Este libro es verdadero"! "Puedan bautizarme?" I had to tell him that I could not.

hypocrite | 12:09 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Have you ever sped? Have you ever changed lanes without signaling? Did you forget that you are supposed to pay "use taxes" on untaxed stuff you ordered over the Internet or bought in another state? Ever "California stop" at a stop sign? Then YOU are a dishonest lawbreaker, too. Maybe you should remove the mote from your own eye by turning in your recommend before calling for immigrants to be denied baptism or temple privileges. That isn't your call to make.

Many immigrants are more righteous than you or me when it comes to the "weightier matters" of the law.

And the Church never said it's OK to break the law. They simply said let's make sure we are being compassionate in the way we deal with the issue and in the laws we make, and that the Church isn't the enforcer of immigration policies.

There is nothing inherently wrong with coming to the US without permission. It is only wrong because the lawmakers made a law saying it is illegal. There's nothing wrong with asking the lawmakers to be compassionate in the laws they decide to make that make things "wrong" that would otherwise not be.

Two sense worth | 12:13 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I suppose LDS businessmen who hire illegal aliens can now justify doing so with impunity, even though they are breaking the law. Are these lawbreakers to be treated with compassion?

Right or Wrong. | 12:15 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Baptism brings the contrite "in the fold" and "on the path." However, temple privileges are for those who have demonstrated desire, committment, and sacrifice for the gospel. Under those definitions, it is conceivable that illegals who so desire and demostrate should get both. However, honesty is one specifically asked requirement for temple privileges. Moderating one requirement would seem logically to moderate all requirements. So it would seem that the Brethern would need to explain clearly what constitues honesty, moral cleanliness, a full tithe, etc...
But then again, should 1930 and 1940 German LDS members have participated in Jewish persecution? (rhetorical) It was the law for them.
One 'illegal' youth lived with 3 families in our ward. We all liked him very much. When it came time to serve a mission. He knew that he had to go back with little to no chance to return to the USA. He did. Personally I was very impressed.

Captain Obvious | 12:17 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Its about QUANTITY not QUALITY people!

slightly miffed | 12:24 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Well, I can see their point to some extent. However, I really have a hard time with .... if you live in zion you do it this way, if you live in the mission field you do it this way......

I'm not sure I've met a latter day saint who is always honest in his dealings with his fellow man. Heber C. Kimball is the one who initiated the temple recommend, not any other source. It has been passed on by tradition ever since.

In other words, its a "policy of the church" but certainly not Doctrine in any manner whatsoever.
What the church has for policy and for doctrine are quite often Two different animals.

To Spanky | 12:25 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

You can't go to Mexico and basically take the country for all it's worth?

Just what the heck do you think Americans have been doing in Mexico, Central America and South America for centuries? Think, United Fruit Company. Or Panama -- a country carved out of Columbia when Columbia wouldn't give us the land necessary to build a canal.

Or, in the alternative, if we don't want to do it in Mexico -- we just turn that part of Mexico into the US (i.e., Texas and California)!

Irony again reigns over reason in the immigration debate!!

Texas Resident | 12:30 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

The government either needs to enforce its laws or change them to something that they will enforce. Why should a church try to hold its members to a standard that the government ignores? I feel strongly that citizens of a county should not be left to decide which laws need to be followed and which laws can be ignored.

I have empathy for all of the people that want to come here to improve their lives. Many of them are good and hard working people. But our society maintains order through its laws.

When I moved to Texas from a very expensive city, my auto insurance doubled. Why? Because the uninsured motorist line item went up so much. It is sad to know that everyone around me EXPECTS to get hit by an illegal at some point.

Government enforcement is a key. Welcome people from other countries, but allow for immigration in the law, enforce what is on the books, and do not encourage people to break the law by rewarding them for coming here the wrong way.

Clarification needed | 12:36 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

"Remember Elder Uchtdorf's family fled East Germany illegally."

However, he entered West Germany legally!!! That is the important point. The Mexicans who violate our borders are here illegally, and that is what is important.

"Why is it ok for us to live in a rich and prosperous nation and deney (sic) our borhters (sic)and sisters these blessings."

So based on your criteria should we allow the population of the whole third world to enter the United States??? Should US citizens be allowed to vote on such a proposal, or should we dispense with our representative political system and adopt your proposed theocracy???

Gavroche | 12:48 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I was intrigued by the following statement by one of the posters above: "I hate to think about sending people back into a situation where the big worry in a person's life is how to get enough money to feed my family. But does that justify breaking the law?"

I wondered why it sounded familiar, and then I remembered: This was Jean Valjean's dilemma in Les Miserables. Stealing bread to feed his sister's children was illegal - but letting them starve was morally wrong. So, he stole. Inspector Javert could only see the first part - breaking the law. I think that Javert would find many kindred spirits in the discussion on illegal immigration. Truly, our illegal immigration problem is one of "Les Miserables".

bob | 12:56 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I know a man who was excommunicated from the church for not paying taxes. That's a federal law that seems unfair. So it is with illegal immigration. The Church should not look the other way on this. Pingree's attitude that people should stay in their own country but since they're here we should embrace them is assnine. Uchtdorfs fleeing East Germany is not the same as mexicans coming to the US illegally.

Extending the analogy | 12:50 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Since Elder Jensen equates illegal immigration to civil trespass, let's take the analogy a little further. Suppose while the Jensen family were away on a church assignment, some homeless people took up residence in Elder Jensen's back yard--built a little shack there, moved in their family and friends, ran an electric line from his house (not to mention cable and maybe telephone) and maybe "borrowed" some of his food storage items.

When Elder Jensen returned, would he compassionately allow them to remain there, using his resources? Maybe, but out of respect for the safety and comfort, and financial security, of his family, it's likely that he would work with appropriate police authorities, homeless advocates, and other resources to compassionately remove them from his property and help them get a start elsewhere.

Maybe the compassionate part that we should be considering is how to help illegal immigrants to get on their feet--once they're BACK IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. And it seems that the Church has quite a few resources to do that, and is doing that now.

But I am puzzled why the Church appears to be encouraging the homeless to take up residence in our backyard.

hman | 12:59 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

How many of us forget that our ancestors broke laws to practice polygamy? Church leaders chose to follow the tenets of their faith instead of the princicples of the 12th A of Faith. This is not a black and white issue. The vast majority of illegals come here with good intentions- to work hard and provide a better life for their children, the same reason our ancestors came to this country and this valley. If you were in their situation would you come here for a better life, or continue dwelling in the cycle of poverty, and no opportunity? Would you want a better life for your children, and do anything moral to obtain? Is it better to commit a civil trespass, and provide for your progeny or let your kids suffer and go hungry? What would our ancestors do? What did they do? They broke the law. Was Brigham Young not a great prophet who also broke the law?

We secure the borders, deport all the illegal criminals we can, and help in the graceful and compassionate assimulation of those who are already here.

What would Jesus do?

The beginning of the end | 1:04 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

It doesn't seem like allowing baptims should be a problem since this is supposely only a first step on the road to "exaltation." These would be the kind of acts that a good Samaritan would provide. On the other hand, I've always thought that those people that hold temple recommends are those that are only willing to live by the very highest of spiritual principles. I don't even hold one myself since I'm not currently a full tithe payer. What becomes interesting is that if we start making exceptions for breaking one law, such illegal trespassing, why wouldn't we make exceptions for others. It would allow us to open us the temples to everyone.

bob2 | 1:21 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

No matter how "global" the Mormon Church is the United States of America is still a soverign nation!

Kate | 1:21 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I am LDS and I see nothing wrong in baptizing an illegal immigrant, although I do not condone their illegal status. However, entering the temple is another matter entirely. The interview for a temple recommend asks if the person is honest in all their dealings. Obviously an illegal immigrant could not truthfully answer yes to that question, and they should not qualify for a temple recommend. This is something that needs to be taken seriously by the church, otherwise they need to be equally lax on the other criteria, such as being a full tithe payer, or keeping the Word of Wisdom, which would make a mockery of temple attendance. Anyone hiring illegal immigrants also comes under the umbrella of not being honest and they too should not qualify for a temple recommend.

Remember | 1:22 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Jensen seems to be one who just runs off at the mouth. I doubt that he speaks for the church in most respects. I'm not sure that's his calling. However, if it is, maybe a better setting apart blessing is in order, and maybe a little more authority to speak on what the Lord thinks, and not on what the church thinks.

Basically this:

IF the First Presidency can't say it for themselves, why are we Supposing that Jensen Has some Kind of Authority Here.

I don't see him set apart or called as a member of the twelve or the first presidency.

GI Jack | 1:29 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

My question is this.....why are illegal immigrants given resident tuition, but I as a military member cannot have it? I am stationed here, as a resident of another state and I have to pay out of state tuition for my kids. I have an issue with the double-standard.

To: The beginning of the end | 1:25 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

"What becomes interesting is that if we start making exceptions for breaking one law, such illegal trespassing, why wouldn't we make exceptions for others. It would allow us to open us the temples to everyone."

Opening up the temples to everyone?

WOW -- What a concept?!?!?!

BornAmerican | 1:45 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

REMEMBER:
I can only hope you're right,in which case, a clarification of position should be forthcoming very shortly,and a muzzle (figuratively) placed on Jensens snout at once. What isn't clear in the article,to me anyway, is whether Jensens pronouncements are his own or if he felt confidant in speaking for the GA's. Your point is noted and well taken.

Just a thought | 1:55 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

How many of you people who say you believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law who are using this as a reson to take a stand against undocumented or illegal aliens having full privileges in the church are truly always honest in your obedience to the law? Do you ever speed or break other driving rules? Do you ever park illegally? Do you ever litter? Have you ever taken anything from a hotel room?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

GI Jack | 2:38 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

File a lawsuit against Utah for violation of your equal rights.

Dave | 3:27 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Would you deny baptism to a person for speeding? At this point, being illegally here is a misdemeanor and not a felony. If the laws change and government requirements change, the LDS Church will comply with what is asked. Right now, the problem is being debated. The acceptance or rejection of illegals has yet to be determined. Up until the recent light shed upon the problem, it was winked at. Don't be so hasty to jump on any church or organization that did not create the situation, but is merely trying to help people in the best way possible.

Anonymous | 4:17 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

LET THE CHRUCH SUPPORT THEM ALL FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE IF THEY WANT THEM SO BAD!!

re: Just a thought/Dave | 4:38 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

If we have not done any of these things you listed to break the law, does our opinion that immigration laws need to be enforced have any more value or weight? Probably not to you so your comment is pointless.

Give me a break! What a cop out of a statement.

Hey Dave | 4:36 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Immigration laws is very complicated and it takes a specially trained person to enforce it properly. One thing that is clear: Illegal immigration is not a mere misdemeanor. Even a first time offender can be placed in jail for up to 6 months before being deported. Someone who re-enters the country illegally after being previously deported has committed a FELONY.

An illegal immigrant who lies about their status when they fill out the I-9 employment paperwork commits perjury when they swear they are eligible to work in this country. If they use a stolen identity at the same time, it's a felony.

If the entire basis of ones life is based on deception and trying to evade law enforcement, how can someone truly live the gospel and uphold the basic tenets and articles of faith? I suppose people could hold out hope that another amnesty might be forthcoming, but does that solve the fundamental personal honesty problem with these individuals?

It's my understanding that the church excommunicates members convicted for felonies. If that sentence is later pardoned by a governor/president, does the church automatically re-instate membership, or would they prefer a complete repentance process?

OH Yeah! | 4:45 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Now I can play the game and stay for ever !

Lancer | 4:56 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Sounds to me like many are ready to leave the Church over a pint of cream.

Kevin | 5:00 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

To Kate,

Why isn't the Baptismal interview (and worthiness) just as important and significant as the Temple recommend? Your double standard is baseless. Worthiness to be baptized is the same as worthiness to enter the Temple. Look into it and you will see that I am right.

Anonymous | 5:16 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Looks like illegals have taken over this site. Have fun talking about nothing!

Unalienable rights | 5:26 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

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.

Isn't that what the Illegal Immigrants are seeking?

We can enforce immigration laws or make laws that give order to the chaos and allow persons to pursue their unalienable rights.

Homeless status | 5:30 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

If I civil trespass in front of a LDS temple, will the church use their own security guards to remove me or call just call the cops!!!!

Elder Jensen | 5:32 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Elder Jensen was not speaking on his own errand. He was speaking at the call of President Monson.

"Jensen, speaking at a forum at Westminster College, emphasized that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hasn't taken a position on any particular legislation. He did say, however, that he was speaking on behalf of the LDS Church's governing First Presidency."

Nice attempt at disavowing someone on the Lord's errand

DP | 5:38 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Is a law really a law if it's not enforced? Jay walking, going 9 mph faster than the speed limit, swearing in public etc. How can you blame Mexicans for coming to our country? Look at our actions - we give them driver's licenses, free health care, we provide government documents in Spanish, we educate their kids for free, we allow them to sue legal citizens in our courts - just to name a few. Sure they came "illegally," but we knew what was happening. We could have stopped them if we felt it was a real need.

Post 9/11 is makes more sense than ever to secure the border and prevent future boarder crossings - but trying to send people back to Mexico is ridiculous. Our laws say crossing the boarder is illegal, but our actions encourage it. Out of one side of our mouth we say "it's illegal" but out of the other side our actions say come and we'll take care of you. How can you punish Mexican's for their actions - our actions have condoned their behavior all along.
Good for you PJ.

Ken | 5:46 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

If the temple recommend questions are answered truthfully, an illegal would not qualify for a recommend. Also, it would be in violation of the Articles of Faith.

Andrew | 5:53 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

Here's the thing: immigration isn't going to go away. It's not going to get easier to enforce. We can sit here and complain about it, or we can try to deal with it as peaceably as possible. As an LDS church member, I figure if the church is making a mistake, they are erring on the side of mercy ("For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged"). The temple recommend worthiness is self-reported - God will be the final judge, and it's not for us to say what He will say. Yes, being here is illegal and those who do live in a constant state of breaking the law. Do we not all live in a constant state of breaking some law - either of man or of God? If you say no, then congratulations, you're perfect. The Church teaches its members to keep the law - in whatever country they are in. The Church does not enforce the law. Does an LDS border patrol agent now have a moral dichotomy? No, he does his job.
In closing, I can't help but think and wonder about the verse "and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose..."

Tellin the truth | 5:50 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

If I steal a nickel or $1,000,000 bucks, which is worse? They are BOTH stealing. Stealing is a moral crime in the God's eyes. Only the law sees them as misdemenor and felony.

It's the same principle here. Illegal means illegal.

You people who use moral relativity are missing something very critical and important.

Marlin, you can have their pesos, cuz I'm done giving you my tithing dollars. Enjoy your compassion and your new amigos when our country is over run with illegals. Adios estupdido.

My church left me. I didn't leave it. It used to be black and white, now it's gray all over.

Helen | 5:53 p.m. Feb. 15, 2008

I talk to several today who are questioning the law of the land issue. They are as well contemplating leaving the church. I'm undecided.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.