Church supports watered-down immigration bill

The reason I ask the question about which law is not to be a simple pain, asking rhetorical questions, I'm sure you know. The scripture you quoted is subject to vast personal interpretation in case you couldn't tell.



Per your interpretation of that scripture, should the blacks not have gone to the voting booths to try to vote, as they believed it their right, despite it being illegal in Birmingham? Was that frowned upon by God in your mind? Or what about Gandhi? Were his actions, illegal at the time, which resulted in the liberation of a billion people from an oppressive government that treated them unequally without the shedding of blood, frowned up by God per your interpretation of that scripture? Or what about the founders of this nation? Those terrorist insurgents we call our first presidents who were guilty of treason per the laws of this land at that time, did God frown upon them for not "honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law" per your interpretation of that scripture?



So if our church had been around during the late 1700's would we have fought with the British to put down those foolish insurgents who thought they had the right to fight against bad laws and oppressive governments?

taekwondave wrote:
The reason I ask the question about which law is not to be a simple pain, asking rhetorical questions, I'm sure you know. The scripture you quoted is subject to vast personal interpretation in case you couldn't tell.



Per your interpretation of that scripture, should the blacks not have gone to the voting booths to try to vote, as they believed it their right, despite it being illegal in Birmingham? Was that frowned upon by God in your mind? Or what about Gandhi? Were his actions, illegal at the time, which resulted in the liberation of a billion people from an oppressive government that treated them unequally without the shedding of blood, frowned up by God per your interpretation of that scripture? Or what about the founders of this nation? Those terrorist insurgents we call our first presidents who were guilty of treason per the laws of this land at that time, did God frown upon them for not "honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law" per your interpretation of that scripture?



So if our church had been around during the late 1700's would we have fought with the British to put down those foolish insurgents who thought they had the right to fight against bad laws and oppressive governments?

Just so I know that we're speaking on the same subject here.... I believe our own federal immigration law to be one of the most fair in the history of the world, and you are comparing that to the British laws in India in the 1700's? Just so we're on the same page....

ABYUFAN wrote:

The reason I ask the question about which law is not to be a simple pain, asking rhetorical questions, I'm sure you know. The scripture you quoted is subject to vast personal interpretation in case you couldn't tell.



Per your interpretation of that scripture, should the blacks not have gone to the voting booths to try to vote, as they believed it their right, despite it being illegal in Birmingham? Was that frowned upon by God in your mind? Or what about Gandhi? Were his actions, illegal at the time, which resulted in the liberation of a billion people from an oppressive government that treated them unequally without the shedding of blood, frowned up by God per your interpretation of that scripture? Or what about the founders of this nation? Those terrorist insurgents we call our first presidents who were guilty of treason per the laws of this land at that time, did God frown upon them for not "honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law" per your interpretation of that scripture?



So if our church had been around during the late 1700's would we have fought with the British to put down those foolish insurgents who thought they had the right to fight against bad laws and oppressive governments?

Just so I know that we're speaking on the same subject here.... I believe our own federal immigration law to be one of the most fair in the history of the world, and you are comparing that to the British laws in India in the 1700's? Just so we're on the same page....

I would have to agree with you. Out of all the communist and socialist regimes that have existed throughout the world, we probably have the fairest immigration law.

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...

But did they exclude D&C sections 121 and 134 from the latest edition where it tells me I am no longer bound to uphold a government when that government compels a violation of my property rights to allow whomever I wish onto my lands by building a wall?



Just wondering.

I used to believe that I could read and comprehend English - but I've got no idea what you are saying here.....

Start with 134:2 and 5. Then go back and look at 121:36-43.



God and His government do not compel. Man and his government should not compel.

So we should get rid of police forces?

A just police force exists to prevent compulsion. Read the reference. We should get rid of police forces that constrain "free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." And one that puts up a wall constraining my right and control of property should certainly be abolished.

So, abyufan, I still want to know: per your interpretation of the scripture, should we just submit to bad laws, or do something about them as those men did?



Personally, although I believe our founders had every right to return violence for violence to acquire their freedom, I think Gandhi's and MLK's tactics were the wisest. But were they all disobeying the advice that "he who obeys the laws of God hath no need to disobey the laws of man"? As well as the scripture you cited? Would God have frowned upon them?



Were the Apostles, who preached the gospel contrary to the laws of the nations they were in, wrong? Or was it the willingness to disobey a bad law and submit to the punishment of that bad law by sitting in prison as a form of protest the very thing that made it so effective and right? Are people bad because they disobey bad laws? Or are there no such thing as "bad" laws; only "laws" and those who break them?

taekwondave wrote:
So, abyufan, I still want to know: per your interpretation of the scripture, should we just submit to bad laws, or do something about them as those men did?



Personally, although I believe our founders had every right to return violence for violence to acquire their freedom, I think Gandhi's and MLK's tactics were the wisest. But were they all disobeying the advice that "he who obeys the laws of God hath no need to disobey the laws of man"? As well as the scripture you cited? Would God have frowned upon them?



Were the Apostles, who preached the gospel contrary to the laws of the nations they were in, wrong? Or was it the willingness to disobey a bad law and submit to the punishment of that bad law by sitting in prison as a form of protest the very thing that made it so effective and right? Are people bad because they disobey bad laws? Or are there no such thing as "bad" laws; only "laws" and those who break them?

One thing I know. The way the Constitution was created. It was as perfect as a flawed human being(s) can create.



Since its creation, we have corrupt people come in afterwards and dilute its purpose for the last 200 years. The Constitution doesn't have the Eternal effect that it once had.



The Articles of Faith came out when our Constitution was more perfect than it is in today's time.



D&C 98:4-7



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BigCougsFan wrote:

So, abyufan, I still want to know: per your interpretation of the scripture, should we just submit to bad laws, or do something about them as those men did?



Personally, although I believe our founders had every right to return violence for violence to acquire their freedom, I think Gandhi's and MLK's tactics were the wisest. But were they all disobeying the advice that "he who obeys the laws of God hath no need to disobey the laws of man"? As well as the scripture you cited? Would God have frowned upon them?



Were the Apostles, who preached the gospel contrary to the laws of the nations they were in, wrong? Or was it the willingness to disobey a bad law and submit to the punishment of that bad law by sitting in prison as a form of protest the very thing that made it so effective and right? Are people bad because they disobey bad laws? Or are there no such thing as "bad" laws; only "laws" and those who break them?

One thing I know. The way the Constitution was created. It was as perfect as a flawed human being(s) can create.



Since its creation, we have corrupt people come in afterwards and dilute its purpose for the last 200 years. The Constitution doesn't have the Eternal effect that it once had.



The Articles of Faith came out when our Constitution was more perfect than it is in today's time.



D&C 98:4-7



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Wow, dude. I just read that. Awesome. Great find. Thanks.

I agree with the general premise that we should obey the laws of the land. However, that does not mean that we should not speak out against laws that we deem unfair or immoral. In some cases, it may even require civil disobedience. For example, the bretheren of the church that continued to practice polygamy up until the manifesto were clearly violating the law. But they were obeying a higher law.



I have known plenty of illegal immigrants in my church service, and they are mostly here seeking the same better life our ancestors were seeking when they came here. They work hard and serve in the church. And you know how the Apostles instructed us to deal with them in matters of chruch welfare or other issues--just like any other member of the church.

jvquarterback wrote:
In my mind there is no difference between migrants sending their kids to school on my dime and the grandma next door buying her meds on my dime. It is just easier for people to get upset with the migrant than with the grandma next door. They are both thieves.

I get so angry when I see those power chair ads on TV. ESPECIALLY when they start spewing drivel like "I paid nothing for mine!" or "medicare covered the whole thing!". I feel like they should be thanking me and my children and all the Chinese who are slowly buying America.

I think the Book of Mormon is also clear that corrupt government is a cause worth fighting against. Laws become corrupt when the voice of the people demand wickedness.



But usually that's when the Lord steps in and destroys the nation.

taekwondave wrote:

I'm glad the Church stepped in. I can't believe the morons down here in Arizona (BTW the guy who wrote 1070 is a member from Mesa).



I don't think anyone is really against migrants. The problem is when people, whether they are migrants or not, take your property. In my mind there is no difference between migrants sending their kids to school on my dime and the grandma next door buying her meds on my dime. It is just easier for people to get upset with the migrant than with the grandma next door. They are both thieves.

The real problem to me (and I assume your opinion is similar, JV) is not the migrants, nor the Grandma next door, but the government that enables, no, entices them, bribes them, with your money.



Some say that since our country is already socialist to a great degree, we have no other choice but to protect it from additional drains on the system. In other words, build a big wall around our borders and harass brown people all day long. I think that misses the point and the essential problem. The problem is socialism itself, and if millions of mexican running across the border is a threat to that, then I say tear down the wall. But the Socialist United States of America will not give up its power so easily and will continue to use its bought and paid for corporate propaganda (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) to twist the idea of freedom in so many crazy directions that nobody knows which way is up anymore.



IT IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE TO "PROTECT OUR BORDERS." Romney, McCain, Obama, and anybody else who says otherwise is either lying or severely confused. An essential characteristic of a FREE state is the ability to come and go as you please, without being sexually molested by TSA officials, or forced to climb over or under a 20 ft wall at gunpoint. We are the new Berlin.

So if it is not a conservative principle (that of private property rights) than I can just walk into your yard and into your home whenever I feel like it. The Liberal/socialist view of property is that property is owned as a collective or by the government and that private property is stealing. If as you say we cannot put up a wall to protect our borders then we should not be allowed to put locks on doors because all property is public in nature. Walls do not contradict us living in a "free state" anymore than locks on the door of your home. The walls and the locks protect those that live in the free state.



Also, who is "forcing" people to go over and under walls and fences or advocating that we harass brown skinned people?

imuakahuku wrote:
So if it is not a conservative principle (that of private property rights)

This is not a private property issue. Nobody "owns" the public land of the United States of America. You do "own" your home (provided you paid for it). The land belongs for the use of "all men" for they are "created equal" and "unalienable." Do you know what "unalienable" means? It means there are no such thing as "illegal aliens" for all men are "unalienable."



That signifies an open border, both ways. Come and go as you please.



As for your house? No. That is private property. You cannot draw a parallel between private and public property and then attempt to close the gap by claiming they are basically the same thing. They are not anything remotely similar.

imuakahuku wrote:
than I can just walk into your yard and into your home whenever I feel like it.

Again, you don't seem to grasp the different between public and private property.

imuakahuku wrote:
The Liberal/socialist view of property is that property is owned as a collective or by the government and that private property is stealing. If as you say we cannot put up a wall to protect our borders then we should not be allowed to put locks on doors because all property is public in nature.

And there again. And wait a minute: All property is public in nature? Oh, you mean from a socialist point of view? Yes. But not an American point of view. Here we make a clear distinction between the two. True conservatism makes a distinction, socialism does not. You are the one sounding like a socialist by claiming this country is our private property and therefore should protect it with walls like in Berlin.

imuakahuku wrote:
Walls do not contradict us living in a "free state" anymore than locks on the door of your home. The walls and the locks protect those that live in the free state.

I feel like a broken record responding to you sounding like a broken record. Walls DO contradict us living in a free state (why did you put quotes around that?) moreso than do locks on the doors of your private property (home). When you put walls up to keep people in or out of public property, you have created a prison. Putting locks on your own doors is perfectly reasonable in order to protect what belongs to you and has nothing to do with that. This country doesn't belong to you per the constitution, but is a haven for all unalienable men and women.

imuakahuku wrote:
Also, who is "forcing" people to go over and under walls and fences or advocating that we harass brown skinned people?

Saying that nobody is forcing people to go over and under walls is dishonest at best. Sure, nobody's forcing them to, unless they wish to come and go as they please, which is their right per the Constitution. As for advocating that we harass brown skinned people, I advise you to look at Arizona's law. That is precisely what it advocates.

Man is not unalienable. Their rights are.

How is it not stealing when the US government sells/grants/patents federal lands (that belongs to every human on the planet, apparently) to private organizations, and then take the proceeds from that sale to subsidize scholarships for amatuer athletes? Egads!!

Going to have to disagree with both Dave and imuakahuku and say this has everything to do with private property. I live in Tucson and own land on which I have a business on the border in Nogales, AZ. The US government usurps my private property rights in preventing me from allowing whomever I wish on my property. This is a perversion of government, which was created to protect private property rights.

snoscythe wrote:
How is it not stealing when the US government sells/grants/patents federal lands (that belongs to every human on the planet, apparently) to private organizations, and then take the proceeds from that sale to subsidize scholarships for amatuer athletes? Egads!!

It is theft. Neither, the US government, nor any state government, nor any individual has any right to any land upon which they have not made any improvements. That land has no owner, so no one can sell it.

jvquarterback wrote:

How is it not stealing when the US government sells/grants/patents federal lands (that belongs to every human on the planet, apparently) to private organizations, and then take the proceeds from that sale to subsidize scholarships for amatuer athletes? Egads!!

It is theft. Neither, the US government, nor any state government, nor any individual has any right to any land upon which they have not made any improvements. That land has no owner, so no one can sell it.

I just LOL'd.

snoscythe wrote:
I just LOL'd.

Because someone asks you to consider the source of private property and you think think that is too much for you or for some other reason?

jvquarterback wrote:

I just LOL'd.

Because someone asks you to consider the source of private property and you think think that is too much for you or for some other reason?

Because of the sheer idiotic over-simplicity of your juvenile pseudo-anarchist philosophy.

What works for the Creator works for me - a thing remains unowned until someone organizes it for their use. But if you have some other way that property can be acquired please share, even if you think it is too complicated for the rest of us, we'll try to manage.



BTW Do you know what the word anarchist even means? I don't usually LOL so I'll just keep shaking my head while you think I espouse "psuedo-anarchy" given what I wrote three posts ago.