Comments about ‘LDS Church repeats call for 'civil discourse' on immigration’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 18 2010 12:31 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
John Pack Lambert of Michigan

The claim that all Liberals hate the LDS Church is false.

It is hard to desribe Marlin K. Jensen as other than a liberal. However, no one would question his being LDS.

The culture of people in a ward and the Church itself are not the same thing.

I had multiple professors at BYU who were devote members of the Church and political liberals.

It is impossible to be a devote member of the Church and what Dr. Midgley calls as "Liberal Mormon". However, Liberal Mormons could be Libertarians politically, and thus on many issues agree with Cleon Skousen, Glen Beck and company. "Liberal Mormons" use the term because they have been "liberated" from the Church, and have embraced liberal methods in theology, like disconting the historical reality of text, or starting with the assumption "you don't get gold plates from angles".

I know people who find it extremely hard to understand why any believing member voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000, and I am not sure I understand how you can read the New Testament and still hate your fellow man.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

No one dislikes the far right-reactionary more than a true conservative. My example of this has always been John Engler stating he hoped that the Republican nominee for congress in the Michigan 10th district in 1996, Donald Lobsinger, would get only 2 votes.

John Engler was the Republican governor of Michigan at the time, backed by Right-to-Life and many other conservative movements, but he had no love for Lobsinger's attempts to prevent the deportation of Nazi war criminals.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

"We have a U.S. citizen who cannot have his wife here," says state Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake. "That is an atrocity."

This couple has been married for five years. This is no sham marriage to avoid immigration laws. The lady fled to the US in 1992 from the raping death squads of the central American wars.

The only reason she could not get refugee status then is because the US government supported these death squads because they said they were "fighting communists" and back then if someone claimed to fight communists we threw money and resources to support them.

Obviously we could not accept refugees from this "freedom fighting" government, it would cause unwanted questions.

I was beganing to wonder if my references to the death squads raping women were a blast from the past, but now I see that the past is still with us, especially since the view that all violence is done in Central America is false, and the war in Guatamala did not realistically end until at least 1995.

UtahBlueDevil

Resident, you asked Liberal Dude about social justice. These are from the book of James.

1: 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his atongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

2: 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

I think Christ was pretty clear on whats expected.

midwestreader

Nice to see some more midwest readers outside of the Utah bubble that have commented so eloquently on this issue. It is not a black and white issue, and anyone who has left the borders of the state know that well. The first presidency was very wise in their wording of this very touchy issue. It would be wise to heed their comments.

LDS Liberal

UtahBlueDevil | 2:31 p.m.
============

Sweet!
Thanks.
Now I have it saved for furture reference.

Like I've posted before - I'm not a bible-bashing-Mormon. I read the scriptures, I think I understand them, I just can't seem to be able to quote chapter and verse to these guys (letter of the law, vs. Spirit of the law-types).

You said it Bro.
That's what I'm talking about!!

Jesus said what he meant to say,
and these guys keep wanting more and more petty little rules to follow and then run around buggy whipping those who don't conform.

It's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I will follow His example, not a bunch of culture based rules.

Thanks again.

Peace, out!

The Atheist

all of god's children? How is that relevant? This is a political issue. Elected representatives do not represent "god's children" - they represent the legal citizens of the U.S. and their interests. They do NOT represent illegal aliens who are NOT citizens and who do not have the right to vote nor any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are not under the Constitution. They are outside it. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not guaranteed to anyone but legal citizens of the United States.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments