Posted on 11/28/2005 11:20:38 AM PST by JZelle
The Mormon church arranged for a Utah senator to write a law to shield churches from prosecution for knowingly allowing illegal aliens to be ministers or do volunteer missionary work for them. Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, released a statement saying the church asked Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, to sponsor the provision, which she called a "narrow exception to the immigration act." "The law permits churches to use the volunteer services of their undocumented members by insulating the churches from criminal sanctions for doing so," she said. She said she would not answer any further questions, including why the church needs access to illegal alien volunteers. But now the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says it wants to revisit the provision and Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, has introduced a bill to repeal the exception. "It removes an important legal tool for law enforcement and at the same time allows groups that would do us harm to legally conceal and transport people whom they know are in the United States illegally," Mr. Tancredo said in a letter asking Mr. Bennett to undo the measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"Ah...always the same ol' lovable Grig...."
I don't seem to recall your name from previous threads. Is there another name I would know you better by?
"Perhaps if I just knew more about your Church and its Missionary programs I'd understand."
Only if you have a desire to know the truth, not if your desire is justify what you wish the truth was.
"p.s. I know more about the LDS than you do"
I *really* doubt that. Care to tell just what it is you base your boasting on.
"AND I openly challenge you to a factual debate. Anytime, anywhere!"
I see no point in giving you a forum to air well-crafted deceptions and I don't need to shore up my faith by picking fights. If you want to discuss it with me, meet me at the judgement bar of God and we'll talk then.
If it turns into knowingly letting illegals serve missions or other viluntary efforts...then I would be against it as much as the next person.
From the article:
The Mormon church arranged for a Utah senator to write a law to shield churches from prosecution for knowingly allowing illegal aliens to be ministers or do volunteer missionary work for them. (emphasis mine)
Against it now?
"I'm a sixth generation Latter-Day-Saint(on all sides) of my much researched pedigree. My dad was a Bishop, my Grandfather a Stake President"
Why do you even think any of that is the least bit relevant? There is nothing genetic about faith, knowledge, testemony or anything else.
"and sealed to a dirty, rotten, scoundrel who was practicing to attain celestial glory through earthly polygamy (but he never actually married his "helpmates"), "
I hope he was reported to the church and dealt with properly. I also hope that you are not so bitter about the wrongs one person did to you that you feel compeled to lash out at a church that also doesn't approve of what he did.
"Now you can go and tell me, that all these "beliefs" don't belong to the "Church." "
there are commonly held mistaken ideas, 'lds urban legends' and such that circulate among members (especially in Utah it seems). The same could be said of any church however, it is just human nature to do things like that.
The doctrine of the church however is what is in the scriptures. A lot of work is put into making sure official publication like Church magazines and lesson manuals accuratly portray the doctrine of the church, but the stardard to measure by is what is in the Standard Works. If you can't find it on lds.org, don't go around calling it church doctrine.
"I'm sorry you don't remember me, because I remember you."
I apologize for my poor memory then. Can you remind me what thread it was?
"I have researched the LDS from inside and out, I know BOTH sides....not just one side of the propaganda."
Likewise. Nor was I born, raised or ever lived in place with a significant Mormon population to shelter me from other ideas. Even inside my childhood home my dad was not a member for many years. I too am a Seminary Graduate, and I'm a returned Missionary who married in the temple and has served in many different callings, including EQ President.
Don't assume that simply because I have not reached the same conclusion as you that I have not examined things as deeply.
"Mormons can be wonderful people, great neighbors, and good politicians. They can also be dishonest, self-serving, criminals."
And how is this any different than any other group?
"I believe that people need to examine all sides of an argument. I hope you can."
I can, I have, and I continue to do so. Seeking personal revelation is part of examining things however, don't ignore that.
If you want to discuss this further, freepmail would seem to be more appropriate IMHO.
Keep speaking the truth and let the cultists choke on it.
I made it clear how I felt. If that is the case...then I do not agree with it.
Maybe the Book of Abraham should be entered into the scriptural part of the discussion. Of course the apologists have been given their talking points by old Hugh. Possibly a better one would be the Kinderhook Plates or better yet the DNA research.
Seems to me a full and honest admission is in order regarding such.
Why do you even think any of that is the least bit relevant? There is nothing genetic about faith, knowledge, testemony or anything else.
I have access to the writings and intimate experiences of at least 32 forbearers. This gives me glimpses into the history of the Church, as experienced by its members…not through the propaganda of the “Church Machine.” I have a family member who was director of communications for the LDS, thus I have some knowledge of the workings of the “approved doctrine.”
"and sealed to a dirty, rotten, scoundrel who was practicing to attain celestial glory through earthly polygamy (but he never actually married his "helpmates"),
I hope he was reported to the church and dealt with properly. I also hope that you are not so bitter about the wrongs one person did to you that you feel compeled to lash out at a church that also doesn't approve of what he did.
Your statement goes to prove that members are “reported” to Church hierarchy and thus forced to submit or else face recrimination. This can be devastating in a small LDS community and serves (as in a cult) to strictly regulate behavior.
"Now you can go and tell me, that all these "beliefs" don't belong to the "Church."
there are commonly held mistaken ideas, 'lds urban legends' and such that circulate among members (especially in Utah it seems). The same could be said of any church however, it is just human nature to do things like that.
The Church did not view “garment protection” as an urban legend when it published many books containing stories of such. For example; see the writings of Paul H. Dunn and other Church officials. Of course, now the Church views Dunn as a liar and no longer recognizes his “faith promoting stories.” Other Church officials have publicized the belief see - Apostle Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, page 75
The doctrine of the church however is what is in the scriptures. A lot of work is put into making sure official publication like Church magazines and lesson manuals accuratly portray the doctrine of the church, but the stardard to measure by is what is in the Standard Works. If you can't find it on lds.org, don't go around calling it church doctrine.
A lot of work goes into preparing official publications so that they do not contain sacred or embarrassing doctrine, for example the text of the Temple Ceremony is not recorded anywhere for the general public since it is sacred. It is published however by non-LDS groups (much to the chagrin of the Church machine.)
The Church Lesson manuals are a fairly recent invention of the LDS. In days past, there were other publications that were approved as educational materials such as; BY’s Journal of Discourses. Of course the Church no longer recognizes these writings as “approved doctrine,” because frankly they are embarrassing. Brigham Young’s writings teach of man becoming God, Adam = Michael the Arch Angel, the Earth being populated by beings from another planet named Kolob, to name a few. It is very convenient for the Church to be able to say now, that these were just the ramblings of a man named Brigham Young and not the PROPHET, Brigham Young.
Approved Church doctrine in the 1960’s said Joseph Smith never practiced physical intimacy in polygamy….that he was sealed to multiple women for eternity only. Of course, this doctrine has had to be revised, as history has revealed the embarrassing facts concerning Joseph Smith and polygamy. The Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 was changed in the 1970’s to state that the doctrine of polygamy had been revealed to Joseph Smith and he had in fact been practicing it for six years before the practice was revealed to his wife, Emma in that section of D & C.
Another recent invention is lds.org. My ancestors would have been surprised to hear your statement, that “If you can't find it on lds.org, don't go around calling it church doctrine.”
"I'm sorry you don't remember me, because I remember you."
I apologize for my poor memory then. Can you remind me what thread it was?
The great thing about FreeRepublic is I can read what you write and become acquainted with your opinions without your knowledge. We have, in fact, conversed, but that is irrelevant since anyone can read about you here.
"I have researched the LDS from inside and out, I know BOTH sides....not just one side of the propaganda."
Likewise. Nor was I born, raised or ever lived in place with a significant Mormon population to shelter me from other ideas. Even inside my childhood home my dad was not a member for many years. I too am a Seminary Graduate, and I'm a returned Missionary who married in the temple and has served in many different callings, including EQ President.
Not having lived in Utah or among a significant Mormon population gives you the disadvantage of not experiencing Mormon culture. Mormon culture, consist of non-doctrinal, folkloric beliefs, which are just as important and vital to the religion as the “official doctrine.” By their FRUITS you shall know them. How Mormons live their religion is possibly MORE important than the Church’s published doctrine. Following is an example of culture dictating behavior over published “doctrine:”
Garments have remained the same since the last changes in 1979, although more women today are wearing their bras underneath their garments. Traditionally, temple workers have told women that they must wear the garment on their skin and bras must be worn over the garment. Although temple workers continue to give this directive, there is no documented instruction from the First Presidency to do so.
"Mormons can be wonderful people, great neighbors, and good politicians. They can also be dishonest, self-serving, criminals."
And how is this any different than any other group?
Not different at all…..this makes Mormons just like everyone else, not special, chosen or exalted in any way.
I owe you another beer or ten.
Ha ha! Anytime, anywhere!
"I have access to the writings and intimate experiences of at least 32 forbearers. This gives me glimpses into the history of the Church, as experienced by its members"
Still not relevant IMHO. I have access to the word of God (as do you). If men disagree with God I'll take God's side, even if the man is a relative.
"Your statement goes to prove that members are “reported” to Church hierarchy and thus forced to submit or else face recrimination"
Do you think the church should just ignore it when a member strays so far? Do you think that a person who loves the sinner should just let them waltz into hell without trying to get help for them?
The church has no power to force someone to submit to anything. They can invite him to repent and offer him help in finding God's forgiveness. If the person chooses to continue rebelling against God it is better for them to be relased from their covenants than to continue breaking them. If others gossip or are uncharitable, that is their own sin and they will answer for it in time if they do not repent.
It seems like you want the church to tollerate his breaking his oath to God but didn't tollerte his breaking his oath to you.
"Other Church officials have publicized the belief see - Apostle Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, page 75"
Here is the quote: "For many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when the wearer has been faced with temptation." See that, protection against temptation, not physical harm (although God can still do that if he wants no matter what a person has on). That book echos what is contained in various official publications, including letters from the First Presidency, spiritual protection against temptation and evil to those striving to keep their covenants. I would recomend Carlos E Asay's article in the Aug 1999 Ensign for more evidence of that.
"there were other publications that were approved as educational materials such as; BY’s Journal of Discourses"
JoD was never approved material. It is not even published by the church. The speeches were recorded in a form of shorthand with no punctuation, by a recorder who had no special seating or arrangements made to ensure he could hear well and record every word. They were often transcribed to english by someone who was not even there to hear the talk, and rarely checked by the speaker for accuracy after the transcription. The example you cite is a speech that the evidence stronly indicates was recoreded incorrectly in JoD base on other first hand records from people also there.
Also, prophets are not God's meat puppets. They are free to form their own opinions on things that God has not revealed to them and as likely to be wrong on those opinions as any other person.
I don't know what source you are using for your claims, but the D&C 1921 edition was around until 1981 when two new sections and OD2 were added, extensive cross referencing done, and a re-write of all chapter headings. I'm sceptical of your claim as you have demonstrated that you have trouble telling what sources are valid for defining church doctrine.
"Not having lived in Utah or among a significant Mormon population gives you the disadvantage of not experiencing Mormon culture. Mormon culture, consist of non-doctrinal, folkloric beliefs, which are just as important and vital to the religion as the “official doctrine." "
I know enough people who have moved to or come from Utah to know what you are speaking of, but from their accounts it isn't nearly so common as you seem to think. The church leaders also speak out against those things and those members who go in for it are doing so in spite of the church, not because of it.
"By their FRUITS you shall know them. How Mormons live their religion is possibly MORE important than the Church’s published doctrine. "
If you want to see the fruits of Mormonism, you have to look at those who are actually living it, not some modified version of it. Everyone will be judges by how they live (or fail to live) they truths they are given.
Your comments have pattern to them, over and over you seem to seek out flaws and faults in others so you can blame the church for them not being perfect. What a waste of time. Everyone is flawed, everyone is a sinner, everyone falls short of perfection, even you and I. The Church is there to help us be better, but we'll never be perfect in mortality. I'm sorry that you find our human weakness offensive, but it does not stop the church from being God's kingdom.
I doubt that there is any benifit for either of us to continue this, and I've already spent more time on this than I should, so I'll stop here. I hope you can learn to forgive those who hurt you and put your faith in God to answer you rather than trust in your own understanding or the words of others.
At least we laid it out there for those who want to investigate. I hope they will find truth by research and honest appraisal and not just a burning in the bosom.
Regarding D&C; check out the heading of section 132 in the 1981, or later publication (my recollection had the changes occuring in the late 1970's):
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501-507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles nvolved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
A committee appointed by the First Presidency of the Church directed the publication of a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1981. New features included completely revised footnotes and rewritten introductory headings for each section. Two additional sections and a second official declaration were also incorporated. Section 137 is a portion of a vision of the Celestial Kingdom given to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple on January 21, 1836. Section 138 is a vision about the redemption of the dead given to Joseph F. Smith, sixth President of the Church, in 1918. Official Declaration-2 is the 1978 announcement by the First Presidency that all worthy male members of the Church can be ordained to the priesthood.
I don't understand why this information was so difficult for you to find.
Why?
That's funny, as a Catholic I feel the same way about many others in a similar fashion. Catholics, first in religion. (How you like it?)
Ahh, the same sweet lovable Porterville. You came in at the end of the last Mormon thread with the exact same comment.
Hmm, Porterville as in Orrin PORTER Rockwell?
Many Catholics feel the same way as you profess to feel, that Catholic is first in religion. It is not offensive to me, and I suppose it is not offensive to others posting here. Of course that would be your belief as a practicing Catholic.
Have you ever wondered how Mormons feel about the Catholic (Great Whore) Church. Please google it and find out, Wikepedia (even though it may not be 100% accurate, clearly demonstates the Mormon distaste for the Christian Church that was taken from the earth because of its 'great iniquity and abomination.'
I'm too confident in my religion to concern myself with what a few loose nuts in a given group believes. Damn it feels good to be a Catholic.
It is indeed good.
Emma, Joseph's wife, had been suspecting Joseph of having affairs with other women, i.e., Fanny Alger about 1831 and from then on. Family life was not very happy and calm. Joseph was relating this to his brother Hyrum and William Clayton. Hyrum suggested that Joseph would write a "revelation" where God gives instructions for Joseph to have other wives. Joseph doubted Emma would believe that. However, William Clayton wrote it down and Hyrum took it to Emma. EMMA DID NOT BELIEVE IT.
Later on, Joseph somehow convinced Emma to accept it, which she did for a short time, but after Joseph's death, Emma went into a total denial of polygamy as if it had never happened. Many thought that her reasons were to protect her children and their memory of their father.
Utah LDS Church's historian, Andrew Jensen, in 1887, taking from the enormous files of then secret manuscript material in the Salt Lake City Church Library, compiled the first list of 27 wives of Joseph Smith. Genealogical Archives were used to add another 21. Nauvoo Temple records were the main source. Fanny Alger was his first plural wife, married to Joseph in 1834.
If one looks at the D&C from 1890, it says that revelation was GIVEN July 12, 1843. "History of the Church," vol. 5. pages 500-501, also says that it was GIVEN that day, but now D&C section 132 says that it was RECORDED July 12, 1843 - implying that it could have been given at an earlier date. This kind of altering of the records of the Church can be noticed quite often by comparing the earlier printings with the more recent ones.
Obvious attempts were thus made to save some integrity, since Joseph Smith had made a number of public denials of even knowing anything about polygamy. He and the Church leaders denied it publicly, but practiced it secretly. In the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, printed in 1835, in Section 101:4, there is denial of polygamy, calling it a "crime of fornication..." This remained in the D&C until 1876, when it was removed, and Section 132 added about God commanding the practice of polygamy. Examples of the Church practicing unwritten, undocumented dogma........there are many, many others.
One fundamentalist bishop in San Jose actually refused to acknowlege the change and continued to preach the old racist dogma.
That is interesting.
As a side note, I'm a blonde and my ex-husband chose me for that reason. Somehow he got it into his head that blondes were somehow more "white and delightsome" and therefore any children born to us would be more "white and delightsome."
Little did he know! ;-)
What US laws are Mormons exempt from? Please, enlighten me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.