Mormon church reiterates support for Utah immigration bills, including HB116

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2011 6:55 a.m.

    1. The 4 immigration bills dubbed the Utah solution are constitutional. The US has power over naturalization/citizenship, not immigration. Prior to case law beginning in 1893, Immigration was and is a State Power. The constitution wasn' changed.

    2. The Utah Compact states "Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries not Utah and other countries." So the 4 bills violate The Utah Compact, not the constitution.

    3. There are 4 bills. One that provides enforcement HB 479, one that provides for migrant workers HB 466, one that provides sponsoring HB 469, and one that provides a guest worker permit HB 116. HB 116 was modified to become a combination of others and could be deleted and the 3 bills remaining can function and many believe would work better.

    4. With HB 469, you don't need HB 116. Someone here illegally could find a sponsor, go home and come back with permission.

    5. If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can't reward those that bypass the line. HB 116 violates that. HB 469 doesn't.

  • azresident Mesa, AZ
    April 24, 2011 6:31 p.m.

    There is probably very little that is similar when comparing the immigration of the Germans, Poles, and Italians to the immigration of those from south of the border. For one thing, the Germans, Poles, and Italians probably did not march on the steps of the capital making demands as the immigrants (legal and illegal) in Arizona do.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    April 24, 2011 1:02 p.m.

    I believe a balanced and thoughtful approach to immigration is exactly what is needed. I've seen people who made it their life's goal to see that there is no immigration, period. I believe a charitable, yet orderly, approach is what the Lord would want us to do. The USA was quite willing to let in other groups of immigrants (German, Poles, Italians, etc.) in the past. If there were an orderly, consistent approach or policy for immigration, I believe those who do and would immigrate could really contribute to our society.

    Call me unrealistic, but I still see it that way.

  • Rae M. Taylorsville, UT
    April 24, 2011 12:17 a.m.

    i see why church leaders warned months ago to be compassionate. And the church is simply supporting new state law. I don't get it. Would angry posters like the churchto disagree with the State?
    Or do angry posters on this board think
    the church should do whatpay to deport! Illegal immigrants? The church is not the entity who let the immigrants stay. The State of Utah let them stay. Hey uncivil posters! Now the State of Utah, seeing no. good way out of this mess, may see a need to change a law or two. And the church is doing its. civic duty by supporting the law and
    lawmakers of the land.
    Someone tell me what the
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should do? I
    see that the leaders are doing just about what they
    need to do. Not that they need my endorsement.
    Or any of yours, either. All the criticizing will hurt
    only the critics. WE need the Church but it does
    not need our endorsement to remain true. "My ways are not your ways."
    That's my opinion. Now someone explain, please, why your Creator should do it your way.

  • Chip Douglas Cedar Hills, UT
    April 23, 2011 7:43 p.m.

    Members of the LDS church would do well to review President Bensen's landmark address, Fourteen Fundamentals of a Prophet. Highlights include:

    1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

    2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

    3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

    4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

    7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

    8. The Prophet is not limited by mens reasoning.

    10. The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

    11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

    12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

    14. The prophet and the presidencythe living prophet and the First Presidencyfollow them and be blessedreject them and suffer.

    Please spare me the line that the Prophet hasn't spoken on this issue. He directs the church's affairs. President Bensen would stand with the Prophet on this and every issue!

  • Labrat_5620 Payson, UT
    April 23, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    With this endorsement, the church has lost all credibility. When Brandon Davies got kicked off the BYU basketball team for honor code violations (violation was not illegal, just against church policy), many in the USA, although disagreeing with the action, still lauded the church for standing up for its honor code and having the integrity to dismiss a player even though they had a chance of being in the final 4. Now the church is agreeing that it is OK to lie, steal and break the law (identity/social security/job theft and fraud), just pay a fine and all is well. How hypocritical is that?? I am truly disappointed in the church for this.

  • BryH Hillsboro, OR
    April 23, 2011 1:00 a.m.

    Since this is not a doctrinal or moral issue (ignore that it's immoral to flagrantly break the law and steal benefits) why is the church taking a stand on this? This is a political issue!

    As for the 12th Article of Faith; there doesn't seem to be much room for interpreting "obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." Perhaps people need to reacquaint themselves with the definition of those words.

    Concerning the point of loving our neighbor; if my neighbor breaks into my house and steals things, I'm certainly not going to go have a key made for him.

    As for tearing families apart, we didn't create the situation. Illegal aliens knew what could happen to their family. They just figure we won't do anything about it.

    Remember, this is a political issue! This is not on par with Divine Revelation.

    If the prophet makes an official declaration then I'll feel obligated to listen. But, I don't expect that he will. He has more important matters to deal with!

  • JoRizz Framingham, MA
    April 22, 2011 12:38 a.m.

    Apparently when someone uses SCRIPTURE to show up the Mormon Church they take it personal. My original post biblically condemned the stance the Mormon Church is taking towards Illegal Immigration. I as a NON-Mormon would have thought otherwise but the Illegal Immigration problem in this country obviously has many Mormon hands in the cookie jar.


  • wer South Jordan, UT
    April 22, 2011 12:21 a.m.

    I can't understand the laws and church position in light of a Hispanic branch president in SL County who is being deported Friday, April 22.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:48 p.m.

    @BobP I doubt the local native americans considered this area part of mexico.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 21, 2011 9:54 p.m.

    The Church supports a secure border as well as some reasonable accommodation for those who are already here and who are trying to make a decent life. It is a rational position.

    If we think that deportation is the answer because these folks are serious lawbreakers, we need to remember that US policy (stretching back to pre-Reagan days) has been a wink and a nod at the border.

    For at least two generations, our message to them has been "Dont cross the border, but if you do, there is a job waiting for you".

    Now, many have been here for a decade or two. They have children who are either citizens or who have lived here so long that they have no effective recollection of their birthplace.

    Should they have a quick and easy path to citizenship? No. Should they pay fines and back taxes? Sure. The adults who have been here long-term should then have a path leading eventually to legal residency. Their kids should have a path to eventual citizenship. Perhaps disallow them access to any type of financial support for a period of years as well.

    We can make this work.

  • CJ Murray, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:29 p.m.


    Great comment, you are right on. I can tell you this the third time I have tried to comment on the story, the censors are out in force, they don't want to hear how the majority of Utahns and church members feel about this issue. You cannot reconcile this position with the 12th article of faith nor can you justify the church throwing its own law abiding citizens under the bus in favor of illegals. This is just plain wrong on so many levels and will hurt the church a lot in my opinion. They will lose membership over it they just don't seem to care.

  • hubbardesquire Alabaster, Alabama
    April 21, 2011 7:08 p.m.

    As an attorney and member of the Church, the position of the Church on illegal immigration as stated in the news release, appears to be very contradictory, impossible to implement and enforce, illegal, unconstitutional, and unchristian.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    April 21, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    The church has spoken. The thinking has been done.

  • azresident Mesa, AZ
    April 21, 2011 5:20 p.m.

    A few random thoughts--and speaking in generalities--Could it be said that Arizona and Utah BOTH have taken positions on immigration which apparently are in violation of some federal laws on some level?

    And, the United Order had to cause doubt and controversy in its day, just as polygamy and the blacks receiving the priesthood did. Were these "tests?"

    Is the church's position on immigration a test? Or, like the church's position on gay marriage, is this position on immigration a journey into the political arena?

    Obviously, I have no answers, only questions.

    One thing I am pretty certain about, there a quite a few LDS who are politically involved in Arizona, and they don't support illegal immigration. Awkward---

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    April 21, 2011 4:16 p.m.

    The Articles of Faith were not cannonized scripture until fairly recently. Sec 138 of the D and C has been around a lot longer as cannonized scripture. It covers some of the same territory but does not invariably state that all laws must be blindly followed.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    April 21, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    When Brigham Young and we Mormons hit Utah in 1847 it was still part of Mexico.

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    April 21, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    @ Hugo Stiglitz | 3:07 p.m. April 21, 2011

    Hugo, may I suggest you go back and reread some history, especially that of Mexico and the southwestern United States.

    I wonder, where did all these Mexican learn to speak Spanish?

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    There is revelation, and there are decisions made every day in running the church, that are made by men. I believe if this was Revelation, it would of been announced in conference?

    It was Gods Church when I was younger, and it's still Gods church, but man has tampered with the interpretation of the doctrine. Preaching one thing, while doing another is not going to teach or help adherence to the Gospel in my opinion.

    Our legislature and governor broke federal immigration law by inviting people to come here illegally. (May 11 deadline for new arrivals). If the Church influenced the writing of the law, then they encouraged lawbreaking also.

    Gods law is always Gods law, and you can't change it on specific issues to suit your needs, even if you are the church leadership.

  • Hugo Stiglitz Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2011 3:07 p.m.

    Mexican illegal immigrants are only taking back the land that was stolen from them by the Pioneers who were breaking the law as squatters. Yep, there is a bucket of cold hard truth for you.

  • hansentw San Antonio, TX
    April 21, 2011 2:38 p.m.

    To "Timj | 10:18 a.m. April 21, 2011" - maybe you should read Section 134, specifically verses 5 and 8 (excerpted below). And, keep in mind that some of the most common words out of the Savior's mouth were "it is written..." referring personally to the scriptures on multiple occasions when clarification or guidance was desired.

    If I follow my Saviors example, then I would refer to the Doctrine & Covenants (canonized LDS scripture) and to the Articles of Faith (again, canonized LDS scripture) for guidance, both of which clearly, without ambiguities, state that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside (vs 5) and the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offenseby the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment. (vs 8)

    THAT is scripture, and nowhere does it discount the two great commandments - in fact, allowing someone to suffer their own consequences is an act of the utmost love; any parent will so testify.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 21, 2011 2:25 p.m.

    I believe in the official doctrine of the Church, not the individual opinions of Church leaders.

    D&C 134 is canonized scripture: "It is NOT JUST for religions to mingle religious influence with civil government..."

    I disagree with the stance on illegal immigration being taken by the Public Relations department of the Church organization. I believe their position is in error and contradicts the collective will of the people of Utah, and the best interests of this State.

    I do not "sustain" this position by the Public Relations department of the Church. It was never presented for a sustaining vote. It was never presented as a doctrinal or canonized position.

    I have no problem at all opposing HB116 and all that it represents. It needs to be repealed, and we need to take a serious look at how our public servants and elected representatives are being manipulated by people in high places, but who should not be mingling religious influence with civil government.

  • docw Saint Johns, AZ
    April 21, 2011 1:43 p.m.

    you could not be more wrong .. this is not the church of Pres. Monson

  • Mormon Apologist Orem, UT
    April 21, 2011 1:02 p.m.


    "It violates the 12th article of faith by rewarding and encouraging illegal immigration. (The law has a May 11th deadline, which encourages people to come here illegally)It's against it's own teachings in the Bishops handbook."

    The living prophet being called of God has the right to determine the official position of the Church and to have all of those who are called to exercise any portion of his authority do so in his behalf. It is doctrine that the public relations department of the Church is acting under the direct authority of the President of the Church and those called or hired to fill those positions are exercising his authority. Every calling or position in the church falls under the President. It's him and his direct leader, Jesus Christ, who have made this decision and have allowed this statement to be released. If you do not agree with it then you do not agree with Jesus Christ or His Father.

    "This is not the Church I knew as a child."

    Of course it is not the church you knew as a Child because its is God's Church and not RichardB's.

  • docw Saint Johns, AZ
    April 21, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    how strange to think that " the constitution will hang by a thread" is because the church ( in this one case) is part of the problem

  • BoomerJeff Saint George, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    Seems odd to me that if a member drinks one cup of coffee, or a can of beer, they are not in good standing with the church. Yet another can break immigration laws, steal someone's social security number (fraud), and work illegally all for financial gain, yet they are considered a member in good standing (and can attend the temple, be in a bishopric or serve a mission). How do I explain this irony to my neigbhors who aren't Mormon?

  • Phill Provo, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    So much ignorance is been portrayed on this board. And the pharisees have come out full force too!! That is the reason why I find that those that bind themselves with political ideologies, loose the meaning and understanding, the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I see this ever more constantly with the Right now-a-days, but I'd say it happens with the left too. Elder Oaks said that there are truths in both conservatism and liberalism.. but some are been blinded and fooled by opinionated TV characters. Some are easy and fast to jump and judge the brethren of the church, and the church. It is an official statement from the church, and I believe that the Prophet has a wider, and more spiritual vision on all things, compared to the narrow mind of some. I have a testimony of the Gospel and of this church, and I support wholeheartedly the brethren and their official statements. For those of you who are questioning, I'm no one to judge you or your testimony of the church, for all that I can do is invite you to pray about it and for it. Seek Wisdom, no men

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    April 21, 2011 11:50 a.m.

    I love that people cite "The laws of the land must be obeyed" as if it were the One Commandment to Rule Them All. Study your New Testament, folks:
    Matthew 22:36-40 (King James Version)
    36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    38 This is the first and great commandment.
    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    Laws are man-made and are changeable. Yes, the church instructs us to obey, honor, and sustain the laws of the land. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make changes to the laws to improve them. The current immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.

  • Conservative Veteran Layton, UT
    April 21, 2011 11:38 a.m.

    One could argue that a guest worker program is necessary; however, it is still unconstitutional for a state to issue visas to citizens of other nations.

    Some thoughts to consider:

    1. Would other states have to honor Utah's state visas?
    2. Who could apply for them - citizen's in other countries? Illegals already here?
    3. What if it runs in conflict with immigration laws set in other states?
    4. If it conflicts with other states laws, how will this variance in states laws be resolved?
    5. What if other states create laws that Utah visas are invalid in their states and that these individuals are therefore restricted to movement in Utah?
    6. Who would be responsible for issuing, managing and tracking these visas?

    There are valid reasons why immigration (who can and who cannot enter the United States) is an ennumerated power in the constitution and should remain in authority by the federal government. Passage of this law would create far more problems than it would resolve.

  • docw Saint Johns, AZ
    April 21, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    i'm confused. it has been 48 hours and the church has not issued a statement that they were in error. what will i now say in my temple interview. that i support part of what the Brethryn say and do . Very confusing. And by the way, please don't preach to me, I do everything that all of you "worthy" members do and then some.

  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    April 21, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    I believe that the churches should stay out of the state's business, because it appears that the church believes in breaking the laws are just as guilty as the illegals that come to this country. I've worked hard all my life and I have to follow the laws of this land, why shouldn't churches be held just as accountable as I am? I further believe that there is a way to handle this problems of the illegals and it's not rewarding them for breaking the law, send them back to were they came from and make them come to this country the right way.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    BYU Alum | 12:24 p.m. April 20, 2011
    Cedar Hills, UT
    I refuse to believe that my Church would side with law breakers. Mercy CANNOT rob justice. I want to throw up.


    2 words then Brother -- Bye Bye.

    Oh, and please turn in your Temple Recommend on the way out.

  • jenrmc Fort Worth, TX
    April 21, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    The LDS Church has an obligation to remain out of politics. It is a church not a PAC. If the Church chooses to become political (ex. Prop 8 in California and now the support of legislation) it should lose it's designation as a religious organization. To reiterate other's comments, the Articles of Faith state clearly that the laws of the land are to be obeyed.

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    April 21, 2011 10:18 a.m.

    I find it interesting that the church has to repeat itself so many times here. Why are people so reluctant to take what the church says at face value? This isn't some general authority giving his opinion on Coke or bananas. This is the church itself making and repeating a statement regarding how we should treat immigrants.

    Also, for those enamored with the 12th Article of Faith, I encourage you to dig a little deeper. D&C 134 is a good place to start. Also, remember the two greatest commandments...

  • gem2477 Layton, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:59 a.m.

    c'mon. Not everything the brethern says or does is inspired or needs to be substained. They are just men. Sometimes they speak for themselves, and not for God. Tough to handle, but it is true. The prophet could say bannanas are the best fruit in the whole world, but that doesn't make the opinion church doctrine of mean that it came directly from revelation by God.

  • gem2477 Layton, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    There's been a lot of responses to the article since you replied to me, but I will respond. No, the church doesn't need to take a political stand on everything, or really anything. People who know the church at all know our moral stances. If there is a bill in direct opposition with the standards, individual members should take a stand and vote occordingly to those standards. The church leaders don't need to get involved. It is not only hypocritical for the leaders of the church to claim to be neutral on issues, but then take stances and support or oppose legislation, but it creates political hatred that the church that we don't need.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:47 a.m.

    I choose to follow the counsel of wise church leaders as opposed to listening to the vitriol and hate spewinhg from talk radio. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh and all Sean Hannity is nothing but a professsional critic. To Kathy many illegal immigrants are also victims. About 75 were murdered in cold blood before they could even try to come here. Mexico is a broken country. Most posters on here only care about the United States. The fact that violence, poverty, and corruption exist in Mexico seems pointless to many. We are all brothers and sisters in the gospel, regardless of country of origin and nationality. Punishing people for being poor is not a solution. I choose to support the church and the right to speak out on political issues.

  • Confused in AZ Chandler, AZ
    April 21, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    Call me crazy but there is something I just don't understand here. As LDS, we are always instructed to "obey the laws of the land"- but, that only applies if we are legalized citizens? Illegals can crash our borders; feed off our social services; break our laws and the Church approves of this using the theory that we should "love our brothers"? hmmmm. I seem to have a disconnect somewhere as I thought we, in the Church, all lived the same laws. Maybe not? Illegal is illegal and as such the Church should probably not encourage any other way of thinking or it seems to be back pedaling on what we have been taught all our lives. Just my opinion. A legal citizen.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2011 9:21 a.m.

    @ Viva la migra @ 11:26 you are right on I couldn't have said it better and I'm so glad someone has common sense.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    April 21, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    Chances are close to zero that this ever becomes law. It appears this is nothing but a public relations ploy. Whether it leaves a good or bad image remains to be seen.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    I believe in the Gospel, right now I don't believe much in the actions of some men.

    If they want to show compassion, then do so with the tithing money, not with American jobs.

    April 21, 2011 7:40 a.m.

    This country gives out over 1 million green cards a year. More than any other country. We give out 160,000 just to Mexico last year. Combine that with the H-2b non agriculture visas that are limited to 66,000 each year to protect American jobs, and no limit H-2a agriculture Visas, and we give out more than we should. We can't let everyone in when they want to come. No country can.

    Saying one thing, and doing another is going to create questions. I find myself lost here, because I was taught right from wrong, and this does not seem right. The guest worker bill hurts the illegal immigrants and the citizens, it only benefits business.

    And it is amnesty to let people stay here that are illegal immigrants. Residency of any kind is amnesty.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    April 21, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    I'll attempt to follow the reasoning of those who criticize the Church's policy of compassion.

    1. They refuse to look beyond the word illegal.

    2. The only acceptable punishment for undocumented presence is deportation.

    3. They refuse to consider any change in policy until our borders are secure (and in their view they'll never be completely secure, so the only acceptable change is to make the laws even more harsh).

    4. They will not consider the needs of the poor because there are too many.

    5. They ignore any evidence that having more legal aliens among us could actually be good because _________________________(fill in the blank).

  • raybies Layton, UT
    April 21, 2011 6:19 a.m.

    Yay! I'm with the church's stance, and have been arguing vigorously for quite some time now that we show compassion to all men, keep families together and that we're responsible about how law-enforcement is handled.

    The law can and should be maintained through principles of righteousness.

    Let's do our best to get to know all our neighbors and treat them the same way we'd want to be treated. I'm a better person because my neighbors are immigrants.

    No one in this country is "entitled" to a job, regardless of your birthplace--it's about one's ability and willingness to work hard, learn more, and respect one another.

    There should be no American Aristocracy.

    Our country should be one that loves the downtrodden, cares for the huddled masses, makes means for the handicapped and underprivileged, and still reaches out around the world to care for the afflicted and oppressed. That's the work and will of God and we are an honored and blessed nation to be able to do that sort of work.

    Until the whole world hears and is liberated and free.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    April 21, 2011 6:18 a.m.

    When our compassion leads us to finally allow enough more new visas, more guest workers and immigrants will finally be legal.

    Meanwhile those who hide their prejudices behind "the law" will be scurrying for a new excuse.

    Does this issue remind anyone else of the occasional resurgence of tax protesters among some LDS members? They advocate breaking tax laws, justifying their actions despite clear reminders from Church leaders to obey tax laws. I propose that both groups are cut from the same cloth--a willingness to rationalize their personal selfishness despite clear Church teachings.

  • Rae M. Taylorsville, UT
    April 21, 2011 12:31 a.m.

    To me most of the previous posts disagreeing with the Church are good for nothing but to be cast away. Only the drywaller, the lady who had premature labor and one or two others had valid concerns worth reading. Anyone would think the Church got us into this mess.
    One poster is Back East, I think. I shudder to think what his impression is.
    I'm glad I'm not to be sentenced by some of the previous posters. I'm sure my sentence would be execution.
    And I'm against illegal immigration!

  • Fender Bender Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:44 p.m.

    Based on the comments here, it sounds like a lot of LDS members who sustained their leaders a couple of weeks ago in conference have sincerely prayed about this issue and received confirmation that those leaders... are wrong?

  • abinadi Magna, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:23 p.m.

    The Lord already had an immigration policy which he set forth in Alma 27. The Book of Mormon was written specifically for the latter day saints so that we would have a blue print to follow in dealing with today's problems and so that we would know how to handle this issue and others.

  • danaslc Kearns, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:17 p.m.

    I suggest that the church find families to sponsor those coming into this country. Take them off the welfare rolls and take care of them. It is not fair to take our taxes to support something that not all agree on. The best way is for the church to do it the way it was done in the past. Sponsorship without hardship to the rest of the citizens of the country or this state. Check for disease, criminal activity and identification. That would solve all the problems we are facing now.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    April 20, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    It is hard for me to see this being about anything other than economics. If member illegals in Utah don't have work then the wards and stakes end up supporting them. That is an enormous drag on the funds of the church.

    And with others I wish there were a statement from the First Presidency, or a statement from the Quorum of the Twelve. Having something come out from the public affairs office is less than faith promoting. And I appreciate the Presiding Bishop stepping out to take any bullets, but it has been years (since LeGrand RIchards) that the statements of the Presiding Bishopric have carried doctrinal weight. If "The Brethren" really feel this way, then let's have "The Brethren" speak up. Every other issue - even the biannual statement on members voting - are signed by the First Presidency. Certainly this issue is as important. Or, perhaps the Brethren are unable to get unanimity.

    This is the fist conference in my life when I didn't raise my hand for EVERY sustaining vote.

  • freedomfighter American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    "I like the people who are referring to President Benson as their reason for not following the church's stance on this issue. They should read President Benson's "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," a talk given in 1980. It was quoted by TWO different speakers in the October 2010 General Conference. Here are a couple of those fundamentals: "The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works and The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. Ezra Taft Benson was a great man and prophet, but the prophet TODAY is Thomas S. Monson. The church doesn't put out statements that President Monson isn't 100% behind. Do you really need President Monson to express directly over the pulpit every stance of the church before you follow?
    And to those who get up in arms over illegal immigrants breaking the law, there was another man who would break the law to help others and make their lives better. Jesus was often condemned and criticized for healing on the Sabbath or breaking other stupid rules the leaders had made up. What would He do with illegal immigrants? Send 'em back? Really?" ~kepurz

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:27 p.m.

    The real message today is this: The end justifies the means.
    It is OK to take a job from a citizen, using fake long as you attend church and pay your tithing.
    It is OK to be a financial clerk in your local unit...even though you are paid under the table and are thus violating the tax code.
    It is OK to serve a mission as an illegal alien...even though we make special arrangements so you don't fly or drive a car. (Thanks, Bob Bennett, for the indemnification.)
    It is good for illegal aliens to live here...because our branches are filled with them and they wouldn't have joined otherwise.
    Did the Brethren really want to send that message?

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:22 p.m.

    No matter what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported or opposed there would be a riff among citizens of Utah and elsewhere. For those members who have a problem with their support of this issue I would suggest you pray about it. I've given this a lot of thought and have concerns just because the current trend of illegals has brought burden on the economy of each state, vandalism and crime has increased yet we can't blame them for wanting something better for their families. I believe they should do it legally but that's just my opinion. I've tried to put myself in their shoes - it's a sad place to be and it's not my place to judge. So I stand in support of President Monson and the Brethren for I know there are good reasons for their support of the Bill and as an active member of the Church it's not my place to question our Prophet..but to support his decision.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:21 p.m.

    I guess this just goes to show the church is full of contradictions....

    Early Church History teaches us that the message of the early Church was to collect in Zion or Utah following baptism......As a Missionary in Australia during the 70's, one of my converts approached an Apostle for guidance on immigrating to Utah, along with his wife and three beautiful daughters.....he was advised to stay in Aussie and grow the Church in his the Church has reversed their position once again inviting illegals to break the laws of the USA, come to Utah, and steal SS# from law-biding Citizens?

    How can you view this any other way? I am questioning the wisdom of the Church and President Monson....I am missing Pres Hinckley alot right now!

  • liberate Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:20 p.m.

    It amazes me how many people on here I assume consider themselves good members of the Church but will pick and choose what they will agree with. When I opposed the position of the Church on gay marriage, everybody told me I was directly opposing the prophet, and I reconsidered. But now I'm sure many of those same exact people are the ones saying they don't need to take advice on politics from the Church. A bit hypocritical but I guess understandable.

  • Drywaller out of work Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 7:12 p.m.

    The federal Government already has a guest worker program but employers are breaking the law along with the employees.

    The State has no interest enforcing laws with illegal immigration or they would have stopped all the big Home Builders from using subs that use illegals. You can't win a drywall bid on a home built by any of those taking up freeway space on billboards along the freeway without using illegals and paying under the table. But they do pay for campaign funds.

    The new E-Verify law in the State should be for all companies not for those with 14 or more employees.

    The foreclosures or on the brink of foreclosures I know about are directly related to illegal immigration.

    I try to keep a good feeling towards others who may or may not be illegal immigrants. It doesn't make the person. Doesn't make them a "criminal" per say. But they do have a direct effect on people's lives and those using them are usually the only ones benefiting in this economy.

    Like I said if they don't enforce it on these big builders now when then?

    April 20, 2011 7:05 p.m.

    Where is charity and compassion for those out of work and their families? I guess giving them back their jobs is not a good public relations ploy? I don't see this ending here. To many questions left unanswered.

    It was strange how we went from an enforcement legislature to a guest worker in one night. People are starting to talk and point fingers.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    April 20, 2011 7:01 p.m.

    Those who are stridently, passionately, recalcitrant on the issue of illegal immigration absolutely refuse to understand that legal immigration from Mexico is virtually impossible under today's law's and policies. They also absolutely refuse to understand that a guest-worker program is not amnesty (amnesty grants a green card, not a work permit). They also absolutely refuse to believe that we need cheap migrant labor. I suspect that such people have never exchanged testimonies or broken bread with undocumented immigrants. I have lived in economically depressed areas where jobs existed that only undocumented immigrants would take. I have known a number of unemployed, white, legal young people to turn down jobs they felt were beneath them, and I have known immigrants -- legal and not -- who would take any work they could. When I was a child, a railroad track ran in front of our house. It was a conduit for migrant workers. Many times, they would stop and ask my mother for food. She would fix them a meal fit for a VIP while they pulled weeds for her. What a kind, compassionate woman she was! Some of us cannot close our minds and harden our hearts.

  • HaveANiceDay Ogden, UT
    April 20, 2011 6:55 p.m.

    One thing is clear to me. Members of the church do think for themselves and don't blindly follow church leaders as many people here have commented in the past.

    Maybe the defeat of Prop. 8 had more to do with personal opinion rather than church leadership. And it looks like most Mormons will decide for themselves where they stand on immigration issues.

    That may be a hard one to swallow for some people, but it does seem that Mormons do follow the dictates of their own conscience.

    April 20, 2011 6:50 p.m.

    It looks like the Church has chosen a compassion public relations move, over the families of 105,000 Utahns out of work.

  • Ok Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 20, 2011 6:31 p.m.

    Passage of the guest worker program (HB116) was a mistake. Churches, lawmakers, the attorney general, businesses and others who continue to support it's passage continue in their mistake. The citizens of Utah will continue to pay for this mistake as the federal government takes Utah to court. This HB116 should be quickly repealed. Simply admit the mistake and move on.

  • Fender Bender Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    This is an interesting situation.

    Many of those who opposed the church's involvement in proposition 8 are now saying it is a good thing the church is getting involved in this political issue.

    Many of those who supported proposition 8 based mostly on the church's statements on that issue are now claiming it is ok to oppose the church on political issues where it has taken a stance.

    Smells like a lot of hypocrisy.

  • Sego Lilly Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 6:04 p.m.

    Look out Biships, Branch Presidents and relief society presidents - you will be seeing a very large growth within your wards of those who will be needing help with paying bills, putting food on the table because of joblessness.

    Eventually, you will see members moving in or out of your wards. The reason for many is that they have had to move in with a family member to make ends meet. I have a friend who is doing that this weekend.

    Finding a job is really tough right now for anyone and worse for anyone who is only english speaking so I hope that the church is willing to give me a job as I have been looking for over 3 years and haven't been hired. I actually had one company tell me they wouldn't hire me because I don't speak spanish. And no - it wasn't considered discriminative.

  • jim l West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:56 p.m.

    HB 116 Why do we need guest workers? We need jobs

  • jim l West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:52 p.m.

    The church supports the federal government securing the borders. Well if the gov did, the other points the church supports would not be necessary.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:47 p.m.


    "I can certainly disagree with this church statement on illegal immigration while still supporting and obeying the brethern. In matters like abortion, homosexuality, etc... there is no debate because these are moral matters tied to the commandments."

    Heh, no you can't do that... that's a double standard. You see... wait first off the church supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. So actually the church isn't completely anti-abortion. Anyway secondly... there's a difference between supporting gay marriage, and then wanting the LDS church to marry same-sex couples. Those who advocate the first aren't in disagreement with commandments because it does not affect the church. Besides... LDS members, if I remember right, are supposed to uphold the Constitution, and the only way to uphold the Constitution is to allow gay marriage or to just get marriage out of the gov't and give gay and straight couples civil unions. I'm fine with my position of going against the church on some opinions but I'm not just going to let you weasel out of this double standard you've set.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    April 20, 2011 5:39 p.m.

    Guess you could compare this to Adam and Eve. They were told not to partake of the fruit and yet they were told to have children. So they ate the fruit, which was the lesser law, in order to fill the greater law.

    I have really had a hard time about this, because we are told to obey the laws of the land.

    But there is a much greater law and that is the family unit. So I still do not condone people coming here illegally, but the value and strength of their family, like Adam and Eve creating a family is more important then their being illegal, like eating the forbidden fruit.

    So, I will still want people to come here legally, but I will soften my heart for those good families that are here, but didn't go through the proper steps.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 20, 2011 5:18 p.m.

    Whatever happened to "When the Prophet has spoken, the discussion is over"?

    I hate to break it to you, but Glenn Beck isn't a General Authority. If you're going to attack those of us who have disagreed with the Church in the past (i.e. Prop. 8), at least be willing to take a look at yourself.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    April 20, 2011 5:14 p.m.

    When I read most of those who have posted on this issue I am ashamed to associated with them. Such petty mean spirited, selfish comments are hard to take.

    If I have a choice to hire a whining self righteous citizen for a job, or a man of questionable standing as to his immigration status; who will give me a day's work for a day's pay, I will take the latter 100 times out of a hundred.

    In case you wonder, I am a very hard right conservative. I love proposition 8 and I try to follow the prophet but not blindly. The person who cited Moroni 7 (or 1 Cor. 13) has it dead right. Some of you sicken me.

  • legalimmigrant Springville, Utah
    April 20, 2011 5:13 p.m.

    Why should illegal aliens receive special treatment? We already have rules to immigrate into the US. Some people keep saying these rules, or laws, are unfair. Of course they are unfair, but only for those that do not qualify for immigration. Should I be allowed to take a job even if I do not qualify for the position? Legal immigrants like myself obeyed the laws, why should illegal aliens be treated differently? I oppose HB116 as I don't agree with rewarding people who break our immigration laws. It sends the wrong message to us legal immigrants and to the rest of the world.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:11 p.m.

    As a nation, we have to become informed regarding policies that relate to our survival. Wholesale invasion of this country (which is still going on) is a serious threat to our survival. Anyone who thinks that state government is capable of measuring, monitoring, and controlling the flow of invaders is woefully naive. They may be well-meaning, but they are naive nevertheless. Any policy that supports the invasion of this country is directly contrary to the welfare of those who are working citizens, those who pay taxes, and those who might welcome the opportunity to come here, but do it legally and follow all the guidelines. Churches would be better served by sticking to the spread of the Gospel of Salvation, rather than trying to take sides in all kinds of political issues. Invasion of this nation is not an ecclesiastical issue--but you better bet it's a matter of national security and national economic survival. Before you ever get all wrapped up in someone's advice or opinions, it pays to ask "Who's paying?" We have a surplus of advisors and payees, but a severe shortage of advisees and payors. Let's listen to the payors.

  • MCFergy Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    We were each given the intelligence and a sense of reason to exercise our own agency. At this point everyone is free to do just that. Most or our Utah State legislators apparently chose to follow blindly with little concideration for the opinion of their constituents.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:08 p.m.

    Also for all those who warn all lds people not to express an opinion contrary to the offical church position I would remind you that the church is not a dictatorship and allows members the right to be democrat, republican, or independent and have their own opinion on matters that don't pertain to the commandments. I can certainly disagree with this church statement on illegal immigration while still supporting and obeying the brethern. In matters like abortion, homosexuality, etc... there is no debate because these are moral matters tied to the commandments.

  • Neanderthal SLC, Utah
    April 20, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    @EgbertThrockmorton: "It would be NICE, if the illegals here now, would at least try to take advantage of the free ESL classes our taxpayer dollars support, which are available at every single school district in this country."

    If you truly were compassionate you would learn the foreigner's language so that you can communicate. It would make them feel more loved and accepted.

    "So, if these people choose willingly to self-estrange themselves (that means segregate), from society, they are willingly depriving me of the opportunity to show compassion for their plight."

    They self-estrange even if they speak English. I see it every day... Hispanics associating with only Hispanics. Blacks associating only with Blacks. And Whites associating only with Whites.

  • MCFergy Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 5:04 p.m.

    "The churches position use to always be that that we should educate our selves
    on the issues, vote and support good causes and that it, the church was
    responsible spiritual issues. I chose to follow that stance. I am not blindly
    following political advice! If the prophet says, thus saith the Lord, then I
    will follow, but political opinions. even from the brethren is not mandatory
    for any member."

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:56 p.m.

    I think the Church is trying to be careful here and not offend Hispanic's simply because of the impact on missionary and temple work in Mexico. It would have probably been better for the Church NOT to comment at all on this political issue and simply state that it hoped illegal immigration could be stopped while treating those already here illegally in a humane manner. As Latter Day Saints, we can't have it both ways - honor, obey and sustain the law of the land while turning our heads to the law breaking thousands who come here illegally. There is no doubt that illegal immigration costs the state of Utah millions in violent crime as well as robbing legal citizens of jobs. There is also no doubt that there are many who come here illegally who are peaceful, hard working and decent human beings. The ONLY answer is for the Federal Govt to solve the problem and not leave to states the impossible task of figuring this thing out.

  • Miss Piggie SLC, Utah
    April 20, 2011 4:53 p.m.

    @Did I Say That?: "My church may accept it, but I don't... "

    It is indeed troubling that a church, any church, will condone and justify lawbreaking... for any reason.

  • watchman Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    I wonder if all citizens feel as betrayed as I. First our federal government refuses to stand up for the citizens by enforcing its own laws. Then our federal government sues one of our states that is trying to protect its citizens. It then allows the president of another country to join in supporting the suit. Then our state leaders pass a bill that rewards those who have come to this country illegally, and now my church condones it.

    Is the value and integrity of citizenship really fading or am I imagining it?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    So let me understand this... if a family from Mexico breaks US Federal Law and comes to Utah illegally then ... that's ok ... because we need to love our Mexican neighbors and keep families together. The articles of faith of the LDS church state "we believe in honoring , obeying and sustaining the law of the land". Anyone see a conflict here? So as legal US citizens we should not attempt to prosecute law breakers because that means we don't love our neighbor? It seems to me that "honoring , obeying and sustaining the law" means supporting and obeying existing US law on illegal immigration which means prosecting those that break the law and come here illegally... and sending them back to Mexico. Sending illegals back to Mexico and encouraging them to obey existing US law and make the effort to get their green card and come here legally is the RIGHT thing to do. Encouraging law breaking is the WRONG thing to do.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:31 p.m.

    I simply disagree with the church's support of HB116.

    The LDS Church has not released their statement as a point of doctrine.

    When the church adds to the temple recommend questions "Do you support HB116?" and requires an affirmative answer to retain my recommend, I will rethink my position.

  • boricuan8 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:30 p.m.

    Reciting the 12th AOF like a broken record won't change the fact that charity, not justice, is the essence of the gospel. Mormon says if we don't have charity we are nothing (Moroni 7:46). Nothing! All the callings we hold, temple visits we make, or church ball tournaments we win wont matter if we arent charitable. The Gospel of Jesus Christ doesnt work that way. All things must fail, Mormon says, but charity never faileth. Do you think all things includes man-made borders, laws, and statutes? Where is charity on Gods list of important commandments? See if this rings a bell: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt 22:39). Its not my own opinion or ideology, and its not the first time its been said. This scripture sums it all up: Wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish" (2 Ne 26:30).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:21 p.m.

    "I didn't understand the Church's position on the ERA, but I wasn't (am not) a prophet, seer, or revelator. Now I see the reasons for that position. I was puzzled when the Proclamation on the Family came out (seemed pretty obvious), but now I see why it was important. I was concerned about the church's involvement in passing Prop 8, but President Monson didn't ask my opinion on that, so I didn't voice any dissent. I applaud the Church's stance on immigration, but even if I didn't, I'd support it. I believe that we have a living prophet, and I sustain him. "

    And this is why a Mormon will have a hard time becoming president.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    April 20, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    This seems to be a changing stand by the Church. Going back and reading old articles and posts on the official Church blog, show they said they never supported any particular bills. Now they say they did?

  • nottyou Riverton, UT
    April 20, 2011 4:00 p.m.

    Editor: Seriously? You can't accept a comment that is based on one of the Articles of Faith of the Church? Look at some of the comments you've accepted and please reconsider. That's a double standard if there ever was one.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    April 20, 2011 3:43 p.m.

    People make bad choices all the time, and families are broken up when laws are enforced and people are sent to jail. Does the LDS church plan to stop all laws from being enforced?

    Families are deported, I think we all know that.

    I am not going to throw my fellow citizens under the bus so people who broke the law coming here can take their jobs. You are not teaching responsibility, honesty, and doing things the right way by rewarding illegal immigration.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    April 20, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    I didn't understand the Church's position on the ERA, but I wasn't (am not) a prophet, seer, or revelator. Now I see the reasons for that position. I was puzzled when the Proclamation on the Family came out (seemed pretty obvious), but now I see why it was important. I was concerned about the church's involvement in passing Prop 8, but President Monson didn't ask my opinion on that, so I didn't voice any dissent. I applaud the Church's stance on immigration, but even if I didn't, I'd support it. I believe that we have a living prophet, and I sustain him. Over the years, people have left the church over blacks not having the priesthood, over blacks receiving the priesthood, over the ERA, over Prop 8, and now (I'm guessing) over the Utah Compact. It's a trial of our faith to sustain our leaders when we see things differently than they do, but "We see through a glass darkly." When the Savior returns, we will live in a theocracy, where all people are equal and have all things in common. That's how it is.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2011 3:32 p.m.

    "If you disagree WITH them on this issue, you are morally obligated to tell your Stake President that you can't sustain the AUTHORITY of the Prophet."

    Is this in the same spirit that an illegal alien is morally obligated to tell the Stake President that he is not being honest in his dealing with others if they are committing identity fraud and I-9 perjury or openly defying a court order to leave the country?

    And come to think of it, unless I slept through a recent conference talk, I have yet to hear a Prophet or General Authority officially proclaim that members of the church are now obligated to overlook immigration laws and disregard long-taught doctrines to be honest and obey the laws of the land. The few statements I've seen quoted from certain leaders have been made in a political setting, not in General Conference or a letter from the leaders read at the pulpit.

    I think it's safe to root against the Prophets' favorite sports team or disagree with a General Authority's political opinion outside of a church setting.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    Paying a fine and staying out of jail is not amnesty for citizens. Amnesty would be not having to pay the fine and stay out of jail.

    Rewarding lawbreakers that come here illegally for jobs is amnesty if you allow them to stay and work. You teach nothing by rewarding illegal behavior. I think this sets the wrong example, and teaches a generation that breaking laws is OK.

    It's hypocritical to stop enforcement of immigration laws, while allowing other laws to be enforced that break up families. Lots of mixed signals here that send the wrong message.

    HB116 has no quotas for need. If a person is here illegally, they get a free ride. The permits are good for two years, but can renewed indefinitely. There is no funding for a police force, administration, or workers for the new immigration department. The state does not believe this will ever be law. The legislatures own lawyers told them it was unconstitutional. It will only help the business leaders retain workers and maybe add a few new ones with the May deadline. And the Church supports this?

  • EgbertThrockmorton Layton, UT
    April 20, 2011 3:17 p.m.

    We have our agency to agree or disagree politically with our religious leaders. That's a far cry from not "supporting" them ecclesiastically.To suggest, infer, insinuate, otherwise, is truly reprehensible even here in Utah. It's typical cultural behavior from people who do not have a strong testimony of the Restored Gospel. Mexico is a corrupt failed country. It would be NICE, if the illegals here now, would at least try to take advantage of the free ESL classes our taxpayer dollars support, which are available at every single school district in this country. So, if these people choose willingly to self-estrange themselves (that means segregate), from society, they are willingly depriving me of the opportunity to show compassion for their plight. I can't force myself upon them, that's taking away their agency, but don't expect me to lay out more tax dollars to support people who are unwilling to be a part of this country, when most of those opportunities to better themselves are indeed FREE, by Federal Law. The "Statement" is nothing more than political expediency, to stave off Mexican government intervention down there. The truth never needs a defense.

  • idahonian Burley, ID
    April 20, 2011 3:13 p.m.

    What happened to the common consent doctrine? (D&C 26:2) I don't recall voting on this.

  • FarnsworthPMacGillicuddy Layton, UT
    April 20, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    Your assumption and false piety about temple recommend interviews is sadly erroneous. I vehemently disagree with the "Statement" based on political principle, you "choose" to assume that means myself and others like me, don't support the General Authorities of the Church. You are so wrong, it's part of the mythology that so infects "Utah Mormons" who wear their (false) "testimonies" on their sleeves to get their Church career tickets punched. Most unfortunate indeed. You could have shown more compassion for those who disagree, but you made false assumptions and now bear false witness by your actions. Try not to judge others so harshly friend, I/we might have to interview YOU for a temple recommend some day, you might not like the results either.Mexico is a corrupt and failed state. Yes, we desperately need immigration reform, but we need the illegals here NOW, to assimilate into our culture, to take advantage of the FREE ESL classes at every school district in the country. Most do not, and will not, that's who I have a problem with. Your assumptions are way off base and smack of the very thing the Statement is preaching against.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    Sorry Casca. Real Mormons don't drink tea.

  • Mr. Bean SLC, Utah
    April 20, 2011 3:05 p.m.

    @MormonDem: "I'm glad that so many members of the Church who find themselves at odds with the Church on this issue are so generously offering to counsel the Brethren as to the proper interpretation of the 12th Article of Faith..."

    The 12th article of Faith is not that complex and difficult to fathom. If a person crosses the US border without authorization, government immigration laws have been broken. And the law breaker must correct the situation before getting back in the good graces of the Church. That means leaving... or if necessary, being tossed out. Staying does not correct the situation. How can that be so difficult?

  • Casca Orleans, IN
    April 20, 2011 2:58 p.m.

    If you want an upper hand to stop these innocuous Political Correctness of our immigration laws, forced on us by the Lib-Democrats and their (seeking more votes) or Elite Republicans (cheap labor) our only real alternative is the TEA PARTY. Its overall platform is less government interference, fair taxes, and national security. Their leaders will halt the unresponsiveness of both parties to our 14 Trillion deficits and not allow the credit ceiling to rise without assurances that government expenditure will be cut, including fraud and waste in entitlements. That a double layer fence will separate America from drug cartels and the far reaching economic immigrants pouring into America. There will be no Immigration reforms, which include amnesties of any kind; currently that means the Dream Act, Sanctuary States, chain migration, that are stealth amnesties. We need to look after our own people, living in poverty, not the rest of the world. Speak-up, join the TEA PARTY and make this a central issue in coming elections.

  • Alfred SLC, Utah
    April 20, 2011 2:48 p.m.

    "The commandment to 'love thy neighbor.'"

    We love them... and we love them even more if they obey our laws and stay in their own country until invited to come in.

    "The importance of keeping families intact."

    Families can be kept intact if illegals with kids will take them with them when they are asked to leave, and stay out until they are invited back.

    "The federal government's obligation to secure its borders."

    Calls for securing the border is a red herring. The borders will never be secured. Foreigners can always find a way to break in. For example, fully forty percent of illegal immigrants here today come on visas but overstay. They forget to to home. A fence a mill high cannot stop that method of illegal entry.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 2:46 p.m.

    As a progressive, it amuses me that the staunch conservatives who are most likely to rail against progressives in the faith for things like opposing to prop 8, are now the ones who find themselves disagreeing with a church position. Welcome to cafeteria-land, it's nice to have you here.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    April 20, 2011 2:41 p.m.

    I don't understand you all that disagree with the church's stance. This is coming directly from the Prophet and the Quorem. You should not disagree - you should obey.

    Once you start disagreeing with the leadership and prophesy, it is a slippery slope. Don't let satan side-track you - to disagree is to follow the wrong path.

    Trust the church - it will not steer you wrong. When you let personal feelings interfere, you lose sight of the goal.

  • GWB West Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 2:40 p.m.

    Wow, I can't wait to hear the results of the next Temple Recommend appointments for those on this board who post that they oppose this move by the Church.

    You either sustain and uphold the Prophet and the General Authorities or you don't.

    If you disagree wtih them on this issue, you are morally obligated to tell your Stake President that you can't sustain the authroity of the Prophet.

    Anything less would be hypocrisy, and God will be able to look into your heart and know that you are being deceitful.

    So, do you support your church leaders or don't you?

  • Kearns_Dad Kearns, UT
    April 20, 2011 2:40 p.m.

    Don't we as American receive "amnesty" when we elect to pay a fine to stay out of jail for breaking the law? Shouldn't we accept our punishment and go to jail for speeding, jaywalking, etc. When I receive a ticket, I pay a fine to the city (to stay out of jail) AND pay more money to take a class to keep points off my driving record. If I'm honest in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law, I should not pay the fine, go to jail for a few days to think about my actions and allow points to be added to my driving record.

    As an American citizen and Utah native, I support the church position & I support HB116.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 2:38 p.m.


    I'm sorry to hear about the trouble you went through. But the fact is, immigration reform such as that supported by the Church would help in situations like yours, because more immigrants would have a legitimate way to work, drive, and have insurance. There's simply no way to deport all the undocumented workers that we've been welcoming into our country on the down-low in order to keep our cheap produce, etc. Sensible immigration reform like that which the Church has supported will make horror stories like yours less common, not more common.

  • Brian the engineer Columbus, OH
    April 20, 2011 2:30 p.m.

    I agree with the three points made by the LDS Church.

    Unlike many on this thread, I choose not to extrapolate the meanings of those three points in order to find details with which I disagree.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    April 20, 2011 2:29 p.m.

    Mexico is a rich nation when it comes to natural resources.
    They have a wealth of minerals.
    They export more oil than they use.
    They have fertile farmland and can grow many crops.

    Their people are poorly educated and their government is corrupt.
    Illegal immigration is their welfare program.

    Mexico could and should be one of the richest nations on earth. Educate their people, clean up their government, destroy the drug cartels and you will have a paradise.

    Mexico will never solve their own problems if the US keeps current immigration policies. These policies act as a pressure relief valve.

  • Kateybug Riverton, UT
    April 20, 2011 2:26 p.m.

    I have mixed feelings on this issue. I was broadsided by an illegal immigrant at 8 1/2 mos. pregnant. The accident caused premature labor. I had to go to the hospital for several hours until the doctors were able to get the contractions stopped. The immigrant fled the state before his court date (probably back to Mexico) so we had to pay for everything that our insurance didn't. My brother and a close friend were also hit by illegal immigrants and the same things (minus pregnancy/labor) happened to them.

    With all that said, I will support the leaders of the church in this issue. D&C 1:28 "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, WHETHER BY MY OWN VOICE OR BY THE VOICE OF MY SERVANTS, IT IS THE SAME." Obviously I added the CAPS, but pray all you want. If you get an answer contrary to what church leaders say, it's not coming from God but rather Satan to pull you away from the church.

  • Orem Native Orem, UT
    April 20, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    Cowboy Joe: That's exactly what I was thinking. I think that many of the same people on here who are upset at the Church were probably critical of the liberals who couldn't understand the Church's stand on Proposition 8. I think in both cases, people need to look into the reasons why their church spoke out. They don't speak out on political issues often, but when they do, it is important.

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    April 20, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    It is amusing to see the extreme right wing Utah legislators who are members of the LDS Church and thump their chest in pride of that fact with their shorts in a bind having just discovered the Leaders of the LDS Church suggest the idea of compassion toward the Hispanic population of the state of Utah who are in the country illegally.

    Did not the Savior show compassion toward all in the World with his act of Atonement toward all who have or will live upon the earth - including those who have crossed the US border without the proper papers!

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    April 20, 2011 1:51 p.m.

    Mormon church reiterates support for Utah immigration bills, including HB116

    Keep in mind

    Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged party, who is an accessory to the crime. Internationally, it is comparable to other laws governing the actions of accessories, including the similar provision in England and Wales under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

    It is derived from the United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:

    (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

    (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

  • mkSdd3 Ogden, UT
    April 20, 2011 1:33 p.m.

    HB116 forces illegal immigrants to pay a fine, get a legal federal visa, submit to a background check (no serious felonies allowed), have health insurance, and follow all federal and state statutes. They will no longer be able to accept pay below minimum wage, and would be fighting for jobs without all the advantages that they had before the law was passed.

    HB116 puts in place harsher penalties for employers, requires them to prove the worker has proper visas and work permits.

    HB116 allows quotas to be set so to control the number of workers based on need. It also creates a fund out of the fees and fines from migrant workers to be used to pay the damages of those injured by identity fraud.

    HB116 doesn't grant citizenship, and fines those that were here illegally. The work permits are temporary, and last up to 2 years.

    Why is everyone up in arms about these provisions. I don't see the amnesty here. I think everyone should take some time to look at the bill. Maybe the criticism would go down a notch or two.

  • one day... South Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    Let the hate begin!

    "More than 2,400 people have signed an online petition supporting a repeal of HB116" I think Utah is more than 2,400, don't we?

    I will follow my leaders, period

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2011 1:03 p.m.


    Among the immigration bills the church has come out against in the past include a bill to repeal the opportunity for illegal aliens to obtain a valid Utah Drivers licenses. Is it church doctrine that illegal aliens must be provided with a valid identity card that allowed some to vote illegally in elections?

    Another bill the church routinely opposes is a repeal of in-state tuition for adult illegal aliens who attended High School in Utah. Keep in mind that this same law forces LEGAL immigrations who attended high school in Utah, as well as U.S. citizens who graduated here and move away temporarily (military service) to pay the higher out-of-state rates. Are you saying that it's church doctrine that illegal aliens are given a cheaper educational opportunity perpetually?

    I wonder how a Bishop or Stake President would handle a situation where an illegal alien member victimizes another member by stealing their identity? Would the don't ask/don't tell policy still apply, allowing both members into the temple? I'm pretty sure the guy who stole the purse from the wardhouse will not be going to the temple anytime soon.

  • Moderate Thinking Bogota, Colombia, AA
    April 20, 2011 1:03 p.m.

    Well done to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for taking a righteous stand on this important issues.

    Members of the Church need to remember that we are no longer part of an American church. We live in an international world, and we need to consider things more holistically.

  • Littlebit Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    So how is this stance being "politically neutral"?

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    April 20, 2011 12:52 p.m.

    What I find upsetting is that somehow you don't feel it necessary to show compassion for those immigrants who are out of work. Are they not children of God as much as Americans are? When did Jesus or the Church say that we are exempt from showing non-Americans love and compassion?

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:51 p.m.

    President Monson, in the closing moments of the closing session of the last General Conference (upper caps mine):

    "May we be GOOD CITIZENS of the nations in which we live and GOOD NEIGHBORS in our communities... May we be examples of HONESTY AND INTEGRITY wherever we GO and in whatever we do."

    Somehow, this doesn't seem to comport with the Church's support of the Utah Compact and HB116 -- both of which, arguably, encourage illegal immigration, arguably for the benefit of greedy businessmen who want cheap labor and in the hope of assuaging the fears of a church apparently fearful for its survival despite scriptural assurances to the contrary.

    What is the function of the Church Public Affairs Department? Was this statement crafted with the intimate involvement of the First Presidency?

    What is the Church's point regarding Principle #1? Is it to suggest that "Love your neighbor" also happens to apply to the people of Mexico -- that they ought to show a little love for their neighbors by respecting America's borders, laws, and sovereignty?

    Or, is the Church hinting that Americans should look the other way at flagrant illegality and the harm this causes the country?

  • Cowboy Joe Encampment, WY
    April 20, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    Many people on this comment board on contradicting their beliefs. They are supportive when the church gets involved politically when it benefits their beliefs (Proposition 8), but when the church makes a politcal statment contrary to their beliefs they say "the church should be politicaly neutral"

    This is the very reason why it is not healthy to follow a strict politcal ideology regardless of the political party. Politics are the ideas of man, but religion are the ideas of a greater being.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    There is nothing wrong or prejudicial about defining a legal immigration policy that allows a limited number of potential immigrants to come and contribute to our country. Pretty much every country in the world, including ours has basic requirements that potential immigrants are free from diseases, don't have criminal records, have a basic understanding of the language/culture, etc... Illegals bypass this system completely.

    If anything the current practice of allowing our borders to remain wide-open and selectively choosing to not enforce deportation laws against most illegals combined with the chain migration and granting citizenship to children of illegals is creating a policy that disproportionally favors Mexico and other nearby nations. I'm sure there are thousands in the Ivory Coast who would like the escape the mayhem taking place there.

    there are also thousands of victims of crimes committed by illegals ranging from identity theft, job losses, and car accidents involving drivers without a license or insurance. There seems to be a trend in our justice system to be more lenient towards illegals when they commit crimes. It seems that this is no spilling over into churches, by easing up traditional standards/values for illegals.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    April 20, 2011 12:48 p.m.

    Last time I checked, 1) Ezra Taft Benson was dead, and has issued no comment on this current bill, and 2)Thomas S. Monson is President of the Church. I can't fathom that even Ezra Taft Benson would not recognize that.

    Of course mercy cannot rob justice, that's why the Church supports changing the laws of the land. Justice cannot rob mercy either.

  • Mormon88 Santa Clara, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:47 p.m.

    @SLars have you taken a look at the Church welfare program lately? Also it is not a lack of compassion for one group to show compassion for another. Jesus taught to love all men

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:43 p.m.

    Love thy neighbor goes both ways. It seems the Church and legislature has a lack of love and compassion for those Utahns out of work. I find that very upsetting.

  • Mormon88 Santa Clara, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:40 p.m.

    if legislation comes out in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints must take a stand! This also refers to the upholding of church tenets which were stated in the response if the church believes a bill is needed to uphold these tenets there is no problem with the church taking a stance

  • Mormon88 Santa Clara, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:40 p.m.

    if legislation comes out in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints must take a stand! This also refers to the upholding of church tenets which were stated in the response if the church believes a bill is needed to uphold these tenets there is no problem with the church taking a stance

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    April 20, 2011 12:38 p.m.

    Are those of you who are hung up on the 12th Article of Faith and the obligation of immigrants to honor the law unaware of the processes by which unjust laws can be changed? It's true: Bad laws do exist, and a self-governing people do have the power to change them without running afoul of God's laws, which is precisely what the LDS Church is supporting. It seems the story of the woman taken in adultery was completely lost on some, and they seem far too eager to cast stones. The Pharisees would be proud.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    April 20, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    As I recall the Nephites had a problem securing their southern border.
    Them dang Lamonites kept sneaking in and wrecking havoc.

    Timeless idn't it!

  • gem2477 Layton, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:34 p.m.

    The church needs to stay out of politics, no matter what their "position" is. Especially when the claim to be neutral. The church has become more political since Monson has become the president.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:32 p.m.

    @patrick campbell, Handbook 2 is on the Churches web site, you can look it up.

    Let's not forget that 95% of the Native Americans have their roots in Siberia, not the house of Israel. And of the remaining 5% they have varied roots.

    It sounds like they are trying to protect our governor and the rest of the legislature that voted for HB 116. I really wish we would start seeing compassion for all people in the immigration debate, and stop making it sound like our laws are breaking up families. It's the actions of the individuals that cause that. I was taught we are responsible for our own actions in Sunday School.

  • kepurz Salem, OR
    April 20, 2011 12:32 p.m.

    I like the people who are referring to President Benson as their reason for not following the church's stance on this issue. They should read President Benson's "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," a talk given in 1980. It was quoted by TWO different speakers in the October 2010 General Conference. Here are a couple of those fundamentals: "The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works and The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. Ezra Taft Benson was a great man and prophet, but the prophet TODAY is Thomas S. Monson. The church doesn't put out statements that President Monson isn't 100% behind. Do you really need President Monson to express directly over the pulpit every stance of the church before you follow?
    And to those who get up in arms over illegal immigrants breaking the law, there was another man who would break the law to help others and make their lives better. Jesus was often condemned and criticized for healing on the Sabbath or breaking other stupid rules the leaders had made up. What would He do with illegal immigrants? Send 'em back? Really?

  • LOL holladay, utah
    April 20, 2011 12:31 p.m.

    BYU Alum refuses to believe that his church would side with "law-breakers" (as he puts it) in this situation probably because he spends way too time listening to talk-radio, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News ...

  • lopaki Holladay, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    I am grateful that the LDS Church issued this statement reaffirming its position. I would venture it was done because of those who have recently misrepresented and mischaracterized the position of the LDS including the American Leadership Fund (and its leadership) via its printed piece distributed to the delegates at the Salt Lake County Republican Convention last Saturday. Hopefully the delegates and the rest of Utah will study the issues and the voices being raised and join those that are reflective of the principals of the Utah Compact (which incredibly the enforcement only crowd had rejected in the Convention with 17% of the available votes).

  • Mormon88 Santa Clara, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    I stand behind the church's three point stance
    "The commandment to 'love thy neighbor.'

    "The importance of keeping families intact.

    "The federal government's obligation to secure its borders.
    I personally do not see anything wrong or illegal about standing for something
    I stand against illegal immigration and i stand for the US Constitution someone please tell me where i am mistaken?

  • BYU Alum Cedar Hills, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    I refuse to believe that my Church would side with law breakers. Mercy CANNOT rob justice. I want to throw up.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    patrick campbell, I have no idea what Book One says any longer.
    But Book Two has a section om Emigration 21.1.16 and another on Tax evasion 21.1.21.
    This official statement winks a both.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    A person here illegally that applies will probably lose their current job. Immigration and labor laws say that a visa worker cannot take a job an American is available to do. And if they do they have to be paid a fair wage (current visa law). Most employers will prefer to pay a person here illegally a sub par wage.

    That's going to leave very few jobs for all those who apply, most will be out of work in six months with Americans filling their jobs, and illegal immigrants being hired over them to save money. Without a job and lots of competition, they will be forced to go home, or become illegal once more in another state. This really looks like a scam. How is this compassionate?

    Telling themselves it's not amnesty is not going to work, because it is. With less than 1% chance the House and Senate even meet to talk about this, is it worth the hit on the reputation? Teach one thing, support another?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    The Church has said the Utah compact is a responsible approach, not a perfect approach. The basis of this is the commandment to love thy neighbor, keeping families intact, and securing borders. As stated, Church leaders feel HB 116 is a responsible attempt to address illegal immigration.

    Where the national government has ignored immigration for over twenty years and turned a blind eye to the flood of illegal immigration it is no longer possible to just kick out all illegal aliens. Doing something that includes compassion such as the Utah compact may not be perfect but it is a place to start

  • gem2477 Layton, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    Uh...what are all the statements that are read in church during election time saying the chuch is neutral pollitically and doesn't endorse candidates??

  • patrick campbell Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:17 p.m.

    As one who is in possession of Handbook 1, would someone please give me the reference to where the church is contradicting itself? Just curious...

    Oh, and to all of those who have pointed to the 12th AoF, might I remind you of the 10th:
    "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."

  • HaveANiceDay Ogden, UT
    April 20, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    I see this statement made by the LDS Church not as a support of an individual bill, but an endorsement of an overall philosophy.

    I would be surprised if the LDS Church would use it's influence to keep this bill from being overturned. In other words, I don't think HB116 is that important to the church, only the fact that we show compassion to those around us. HB116 makes it possible for those here to stop breaking the law. If HB116 had provisions that the people had to leave the U.S. and come back legally with proper visas, I think the church would still support it.

    My point is if there is a better way to address the issue, while keeping families together and still shows compassion the LDS Church would support that option also.

    If you don't like HB116, get your representative to replace it with something better.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 20, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    After being beaten about the head for months no about comments from Ezra Taft Benson about his political views, it will be interesting to see how the "conservatives" react to this. How will they balance their black and white view of the world with a religion that teaches compassion above all?

    The funny thing is, nations and boarders are creations of man. Gods work respects no boarders. It is the same with or without some arbitrary line drawn on the globe. People living south of the boarder are no less your brothers or sisters than than family that looks just like yours sitting on the next pew.

    Why people confuse religion and politics is beyond me. One is driven my the desires of people, the other by the teachings of a higher call.

  • stevep38now Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:59 a.m.

    This is not a civil rights issue! Wrong is wrong and no legislation will make it different!

  • stevep38now Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    Illegal is illegal, end of story!

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    April 20, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    It's OK for the state to take jobs away from citizens and give them to foreign citizens with 8% unemployment? This is messed up.

    I think the Church better rethink it's position. There is no way they can rationalize this rewarding of amnesty for illegal behavior (a person that steals a job receives amnesty when they are allowed to keep it). This goes against their teachings. Member retention is going to drop with this confusion they are creating.

    The Church has no right to support one group over another for work.

  • Juliet Bountiful, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:53 a.m.

    We have evolved into a better country because unjust, prejudiced laws eventually change. One example from our fairly recent past is civil rights. Would we defend those laws today? Blacks must sit in the back of the bus. Seriously? Would we call foul and cite the 12th Article of Faith and demand they sit in the back? No. We realize some laws are unjust. We are an evolving nation. Thank heavens! Obviously, those who harbor feelings of deep prejudice will struggle with this evolution.

  • LOL holladay, utah
    April 20, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    Let's see ... what's the usual snide remark from the angst-ridden Right-wing?
    Oh, yeah. I remember now.
    "If you don't like the way things are here - Move!
    (or write Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter and Fox News and see what they can do about this terrible un-American thing.)

  • stevep38now Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:51 a.m.

    The churches position use to always be that that we should educate our selves on the issues vote and support good causes and that it, the church was responsible spiritual issues. I chose to follow that stance. I am not blindly following political advice! If the prophet says, thus saith the Lord, then I will follow, but political opinions, even from the brethren is not mandatory for any member.

  • Maggie Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:44 a.m.

    So you print this statment, but not my statement regarding Paul Mero and his sad commentary about the good people of this state who may not agree with him re illegal immigrations,and the effect of illegals on my home town. To close to the truth perhaps? It does not matter,thinking people read other forms of communication.

    April 20, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    I applaud Bishop Wester for taking the time to see what problems HB 116 will cause in the future, and not endorsing the bill.

    It's bad for those here illegally, and it's bad for the citizens of the state.

    When the First presidency addresses this directly, then I will listen, but might not agree. They have been wrong on issues before. In this case I will follow the Bishops handbook, articles of faith, and scriptures.

  • Did I Say That? Rawlins, WY
    April 20, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    My church may accept it, but I don't...

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    April 20, 2011 11:38 a.m.

    Choose ye this day...

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:32 a.m.


    In other words, you long for the days when "following the prophet" meant only following counsel that already coincided with your personal opinions anyway?

    Church aint an echo chamber, folks.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    Can someone please cite the recent conference talk that announced this apparent major change in church doctrine? I wasn't aware that parts of the D&C and Articles of Faith were no longer doctrinal.

    Since arresting and jailing any criminal separates families, does that mean the church is softening its stance on other crimes as well? It seems that sending just one family member to jail is worse than deporting one member of a country the their homeland, as the rest of the family could choose to rejoin them there and be together again.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:23 a.m.

    I'm glad that so many members of the Church who find themselves at odds with the Church on this issue are so generously offering to counsel the Brethren as to the proper interpretation of the 12th Article of Faith and the General Handbook of Instruction.

  • LDS Cedar City, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:21 a.m.

    The Church has spoken. Faithful members now need to think about their personal views of others and accept the Church's position.

    There are many scriptural accounts of clarification of social issues (King Benjamin, woman at the well, Peter & Paul's disagreement about proselyting gentiles, etc).

    No, the Church isn't the same as it was 40 years ago. The Church must be reflective of current challenges and issues.

  • stevep38now Provo, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:14 a.m.

    I'm deeply saddened that the church has chosen to support illegal activity. I long for the days when Bensen was President and was a staunch supporter of Law and Order.

  • New Age Phil Delta, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    Just who is "The Church" in this endorsment. Surly "The Church" can not expect to be speaking for every member on this political opinion. Is this a statement representing the First Presidency? If so then say so - that is their opinion. The "LDS Church" I hope does not expect every member to stand in lock step union with such a nebulous statement of LDS Church Policy unless we have some authority for who made up this position and exactly what they are driving at in their praise of the Utah legislatures recent actions.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    April 20, 2011 11:05 a.m.

    Yes, it is important to keep families together.

    But what about "We believe in obeying honoring and sustaining the law"?

    It is wrong to reward people for breaking our laws and our immigration laws are just (except for the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment that grants citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the USA).

    Here is what I propose:

    1. Offer a $10,000 reward to anyone, including illegal aliens, for turning in employers who hire illegal aliens without making an honest effort to screen them out.
    2. Make it illegal to rent housing to illegal aliens. The penalty is the landlord has to refund all the rent.

    The above provisions are self enforcing. Nobody will risk it.

    3. Offer a guest worker program where workers can come to the USA for a limited period of time (3 to 5 years). A background check will be conducted and they come here with the understanding that their children who are born here are NOT citizens.

    4. Anyone who violates our immigration laws be deported and will not be eligible for citizenship or the guest worker program. Same goes for those who help them break our laws, including lawyers.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:05 a.m.

    I don't think the Church knows what it's stand is. The law violates the Utah compact, which they claim to support, by intruding on Federal law.

    It violates the 12th article of faith by rewarding and encouraging illegal immigration. (The law has a May 11th deadline, which encourages people to come here illegally)It's against it's own teachings in the Bishops handbook.

    And it hurts the families of Utah citizens that are out of work. Is this really the message they want to send? This is not the Church I knew as a child.

  • skitarghee Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:03 a.m.

    Thank you to the leadership of the Mormon Church for bringing reason and influence to this critical issue. Their thoughtful support should be appreciated by Utah's citizens. In a politicized atmosphere, they have stated a position which resonates with a balance of justice and mercy.

  • Maggie Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    I would comment with respect and intelligence,and you would not post it. I did that already today on another article and you refused to post. One can only assume that you really do not want any other opinion than your own,and those who appear racist so you may classify all of us the same. No logical thinkers with a differing opinion will be tolerated.Silly,silly people. We allow my four year old grandaughter to use this phrase,I apologize if it is to harsh for you.
    Seriously,do you think you are a legitimate newpaper?

  • Kathy. Provo, Ut
    April 20, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    I have a lot of empathy for those that have their social security number stolen and their credit history and job history trashed.

    I also have lots of empathy for those that struggle under the unbearable tax burden of those that break the law and steal benefits.

    I have a huge amount of empathy for families that are torn apart by drugs and violent criminal activity.

    I have immense empathy for those that have had their livelihood destroyed by huge numbers of day laborers paid in cash.

    I am distressed that so much money is spent in English as a second language programs. Money that could be spent in other educational programs.

    I am troubled that so many hospitals near the Arizona border had to quit delivering babies and closing emergency rooms because of all those that don't pay their bills.

    I would like to see the compassion extended to the victims.

  • mkSdd3 Ogden, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    I looked at the statement, and it can be misleading to assume that the church is only in favor of HB-116. They are saying that it is only part of a solution. They also say that enforcement of current emigration laws is necessary. If you only look at part of the solution it doesn't look good, but taken as a whole it seems reasonable.

    As part of the Mormon church's stance on this issue is No citizenship is granted, we control the flow of emigrants, and border control.

    There are still details that the federal government needs to address. The biggest problem with this plan is the status of the children of immigrant workers. If these children are granted citizenship, then we will still have an issue of breaking up families when the jobs dry up and the parents are forced to leave because of limited work. They also need to define how long some one can stay and work. There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but I think that it should be done at the federal level.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:45 a.m.

    From the article:
    "...allow those who are now here illegally to work legally, provide for their families and become better contributing members of our communitybut without establishing a path to citizenship or granting amnesty."
    If you allow illegal aliens to work and live here, aren't you in fact granting the amnesty they seek?
    They don't want citizenship; naturalization rates have been pathetically low since 1960.
    And the Church had better get out the red pencil for the new Handbook 2.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2011 10:39 a.m.

    'Mormon Church posts statement supporting controversial immigration reform bill' - Title

    This is good. But will it HELP? We have other examples in Utah's history where Utah's leadership does factually NOT listen to the will of the Mormon church.

    *'Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances' - By Carole Mikita- KSL - 11/10/09
    'SALT LAKE CITY -- At Tuesday night's Salt Lake City Council meeting, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement showing its support of the city's proposed non-discrimination regulations.'

    This was a anti-discrimination bill in SLC to prevent discrimination due to orientation to housing and employment.
    12 cities have passed similar measures to date. Why not the state?

    *'Senate blocks anti-discrimination bill from public hearing' - By Dennis Romboy - DSNews - 02/28/11
    'SALT LAKE CITY A last-ditch plea Monday wasn't enough to move Utah legislators to consider a proposed statewide housing and employment anti-discrimination law.
    'The Republican majority Senate voted 21-7 along party lines....'