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

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 17 2010 8:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal

Resident | 11:27 a.m. July 21, 2010
@ LDS Liberal

On a previous post you listed what you feel makes Jesus liberal. I noticed you had social justice listed.

Can you carefully explian the parable of the talents to me?

Right after you tell me how I am wrong,
and how you KNOW the Atonement is NOT the most Liberal act in the entire Universe.


re: LDS Liberal | 6:57 p.m. July 20, 2010
Resident | 4:21 p.m.

Absoluteism (strict obedience to the law)
makes the entire sacrfice and Atonement completely null, void and in-valid.


I didn't think it was possible, but here we have someone who professes to believe in Christ, but doesn't want to be obedient to His teachings.

Thanks for setting me straight in that one doesn't have to believe in Christ, be baptised, be endowed, pay tithing, pray, go to church,have the priesthood; and yet, if one isn't obedient and do those things I just mentioned - you too can go to the celestial kingdom - Right?

If anything, one doesn't have to do anything to get there - right?

LDS Liberal

vic | 12:00 a.m. July 22, 2010

I didn't think it was possible, but here we have someone who professes to believe in Christ, but doesn't want to be obedient to His teachings.

Thanks for setting me straight in that one doesn't have to believe in Christ, be baptised, be endowed, pay tithing, pray, go to church,have the priesthood; and yet, if one isn't obedient and do those things I just mentioned - you too can go to the celestial kingdom - Right?

If anything, one doesn't have to do anything to get there - right?


I'm sorry to learn about your inability to read.
Maybe you can get some help with putting words in other people's mouths.

Could you please show me exactly where I EVER said anything about not wanting to be obedient?

I espicially found it sad that you rattled off things you need to do to get to heaven, and never once mentioned anything about others.

It was list all about yourself.

You should reconsider.

You Bleeding Heart Liberal Brother.



At what point did anyone in this discussion say that it was unnecessary to follow the example of Christ and participate in the necessary ordinances that have been outlined.

This whole discussion is about blind obedience as compared to thoughtful reflection. The last time I checked, the imposed blind obedience program was the one outlined by Lucifer, not the one advocated by Christ and chosen as the pattern for this world.

Right now, the conservatives, in COMPELLING OBEDIENCE to their definition of morality are the ones in scriptural error.



Ok, Let's play your game. How was Christ Liberal?

Let's start with his associates; he spent his time among the poor and the sinners, not 'hobnobbing' with the social elite. He called working-class men to be his disciples (again, not the power elite members of the Sanhedrin)

He preached the principles of Social Justice and redistribution in "love you neighbor" and his instructions to the young rich man (Matt 19:16-24). In fact go read the entire New Testament again and see how many times Jesus instructs wealthy people to redistribute their wealth to the poor.

How often did Jesus complain about the Pharisees, who by their strict adherence to the law had lost the true point of the Gospel.

I would strongly recommend that ALL members of the LDS Church go back and read the 134th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants. Tea-party members, pay close attention to v.5. All pay attention to v.7&9. What right have we to dictate the rights of others who wish to exercise their freedom of conscience? Legislating moral issues is not our right, except as they directly affect our ability to worship.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

The principal in writing laws is not obeying the laws, since the laws do not yet exist.

Beyond this, did obeying the law mean killing Jews in Germany when it was required by the government, or do God's laws supersede man's laws?

The fact of the matter is that our immigration system is unjust. Mexicans are kept waiting 18 years to immigrate because of the truly unfair maximum immigration cap from a particular nation, which includes in its calculations family reunifications and other things that were originally extra-quota.

We should recognize more individual freedom, and back down from attempts at social engineering in immigration policy.

While there are many needed reforms, we should first revoke all considerations of a person's nationality in the immigration process, and treat all immigrants on the same basis. Security risks could still be factored in, but limits on the number of immigrants from a specific country should be revoked.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

To cblhmb,
In some ways this comment page is not a good place to look for serious reflection on matters of public policy.

The laws are written by the government. The job of the legislature is not to enforce law, but to make it. The modern president and to some extent state governors function not just as head of the executive branch but as leading advocates for legislation.

Biden and his disciples may laugh at the Cheney/Palin view of the Vice President having a legislative role, but the fact of the matter is that for at least the last 80 years, the development of laws in the United States has largely been the work of advisors to the president who then seek to push them through congress.

It is called "Obamacare" in some circles because it was in large part developed by the Obama administration, not so much by people in congress.

Preservation of families is an important point. Two wrongs do not make a right, and ripping children from their homes is not good public policy.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

To ST,
stop blaming others for the problem and start seeking a solution.

If the death squads in Guatemala were civil and did not kill people and rape them in the middle of the night we would not have this problem.

If the drug cartels were civil, and did not kill innocent bystanders in the shoot-outs we would not have this problem.

If US born Americans respected the law and did not buy illegal drugs there would not be the drug cartels causing the problems in Mexico.

If our congress had thought on immigration policy it would not have written so many blocks to large scale immigration from a specific locale. Our current laws were written with anti-Mexican bias as a motivator.

If Americans did not higher undocumented immigrants as nannies, including Americans who later aspired to be Attorney General, we would not have this problem.

The fact of the matter is acting like we can just deport millions of people, disrupt the home lives of millions of minor US citizens and claim we are doing the right thing makes no sense.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

Did you intentionally say frieght train, or was it Freudian slip? Most people are moved on passenger trains. If we are going to treat our fellow sons and daughters of God as human beings, the least we can do is put them on viehcles that are built for the use of human beings, not the use of coal.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

I hate to say this, but I do hope that this statement by the Church gets some of the hatefilled radicals to resign their membership.

It is good for the kingdom of God to be purged of those who no longer have the principals of the gospel as the motivation of their actions.

Lane Myer

John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 11:21 a.m. July 22, 2010
I hate to say this, but I do hope that this statement by the Church gets some of the hatefilled radicals to resign their membership.


My! And that was said so very civilly...?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

You forget that extremists always have the answer, and reflection, compromise and civility are to them synonyms for defeat and surrender.

Bob Dole was right when he said honorable compromise is no sin, but we have to many in Utah who have bought Pat Buchanan's racist references to the Mexicans as "non-western hordes, like the Barbarians who overwhelmed Rome".

Besides the inate problem of calling anyone a "barbarian" there is the problem that Mexicans are Western in many respects.

They speak Spanish, a European language. The vast majority of immigrants practice some form of Christianity. Mexico actually has a government more closely patterned on our own than any European country.

They have a president, a congress, states with governors who are elected by the citizens of the state and many other things. They may have higher levels of election fraud than we do, but they are no longer a one-party state, and PAN and PT and PV have eclipsed PRI in many respects.

The backbone of the Mexican diet is corn, specifically corn tortillas, but a large percentage of their corn meal is imported for the US.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

Amnesty does not violate the 12th article of faith. What, do we go around claiming that any governor who commutes a death sentance to life-in-prison has violated the honoring of the law? Do we claim that same about governors or presidents who issue pardons?

At times the only way to sustain the law is to alter it. How are we upholding the family if we deprive fathers of a chance to work.

Instead of going after people who take second and third jobs, all at low wages, to make enough money to feed their families, maybe we should go after those who "oppress the higherling in their wages".

The Book of Mormon never denounces those who come to new countries. It does denounce those who exploit their employees though.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

To eagle at 7:38,
How do you know this? Do you even know que es su opinion sobre la cuestion de la migracion? OK, I probably slaughtered the Spanish, but the point is that you are ignoring the large number of Hispanic Latter-day Saints in both Utah and Arizona.

Just because the most politically vocal people who are Latter-day Saints favor tearing apart families, and mass deportations that override any consideration for the rights of 15-year-old US citizens, and treat people whose only crime was being carried across the border as a two-month-old as if they are hardened criminals, does not mean a "majority" of people in the Church hold this opinion.

From Chris Cannon to Jerry Johnston to many others there is another view.

I at least hold out hope that most Church members have not been overcome with hate, but my hope is dwindling.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

To frelsi,
And how exactly is Revolution a better instance of "honoring, obeying and sustaining the law" than illegal immigration?

Revolution involves the direct defiance of law, leads to many deaths and often many rapes and other crimes, disruption and destruction. Whether the good it brings is worth the cost is a good discussion.

Illegally entering a foriegn contry is clearly less of a sin than is murder, and murder is an invariable part of revolution.

You need to consider the broader implications of your arguments.

If killing oppressors of the people is acceptable under certain conditions, then how does a hard and immovable position about documents for immigration even make a little bit of sense?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

To Bryan C. Robinson,
While some of your statments are true, the claim that "The very constitution did not count a black person as a full citizen" is false. Neither slavery nor blackness are mentioned in the constitution, only "Indians not taxed".

The constitution no more denied men and women of Afircan descent citizenship than it requires abortion be legal. Both ideas were discovered by activist judges who read into the constitution things that were not there.

The 3/5th compromise technically refered to slaves, but it did so with the phrase "all other people" after listing free citizens and Indians not taxed. Massachusetts gave abult males the right to vote without regard to race, and some other New England states followed this example. Nothing in the constitution justified the claim that those of African descent lacked any rights, thus making Dred Scott v. Stanford the ultimate in judicial activism gone overboard.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

If you love them that love you, do ye well. The publicans do the same. I say unto you love them that hate you, bless than that despitefully use you.

If your brotherhood is so limited that it only extends to "those I chose" than you are not following the teachings of the Lord.

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.

to comment

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