LDS Church and the missionary effort

An interesting piece from Arizona on the LDS missionary effort in the illegal alien community:

Excerpts:
"Latinos overwhelmingly are raised Catholic, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is aggressively reaching out to them by touting the religion's heavy focus on family and community, pillars of the Mormon faith that are also at the center of Hispanic culture.
As a result, Latinos are joining the Mormon Church at a greater rate than members of any ethnic group, even Anglos, church leaders say. " . . .

"Some state lawmakers, on the other hand, are trying to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.
(Sen. Russell ) Pearce said his immigration legislation, including the state's 15-month-old employer-sanctions law, is rooted in the Mormon Church's 13 Articles of Faith.
"We believe in laws and the sustaining and obeying of the laws of the land," Pearce said.
At the same time, Pearce said he is sympathetic toward illegal immigrants.
"I tell you, most of these are good people," he said. "But you are still taking jobs from Americans, suppressing wages and breaking the law. We can't tolerate that."
Still, he doesn't believe Mormons are undermining his efforts by reaching out to Latinos.
"They are not providing sanctuary policies for them, unlike some folks who hide behind their religious status and are (promoting) sanctuary policies. This church simply doesn't ask (about immigration status)."
Some Mormons, though, think the Pearce-led crackdown hurts immigrant families, including the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and goes against the Mormon faith's emphasis on families and compassion.
Pearce's role in the immigration legislation has fueled perceptions that the Mormon Church is behind the crackdown.
Wilford Andersen, a member of church's Southwest governing body, said Pearce does not speak for the church.
"Just like any church, there are people with different opinions," Andersen said. "People have the right to disagree on political issues and the right to consider issues carefully and come to their own conclusions, and we respect that, as do other churches."
The church has not taken a position on immigration, Andersen said.
"But we feel it is our responsibility to minister to all of God's children, regardless of (immigration) status," he said.
Immigration has touched off a "quiet revolution" within the Mormon Church, said Garcia, the Brigham Young professor.
The church sees Latinos as the best opportunity for growth because of their numbers and openness to new faiths, but there is resistance from Mormons who tend to be conservative Republicans, he said."

A plethora of comments have been made on the online article.

The LDS Church and Immigration (part 2)

I have been receiving queries concerning the LDS Church's position on illegal immigration, as a result of testimony by a witness, apparently using his Church credentials to lend credibility to his testimony, at the Senate Hearing on SB113 (Bill to delay implementation of SB 81) Transcript of that testimony below.
(Incidentally, I fully favor implementing SB 81 as soon as feasible)

Here is an update of a previous post on the LDS Church on the issue. I am neither a general authority, nor an official spokesman; I could cite my ecclesiastical experience but I choose not to, as I personally feel it inappropriate to give the impression that I am a spokesman for the church, merely a member.

I believe, the LDS Church has officially taken NO POSITION on illegal immigration.
To wit:

• From the 2004 DNews article "LDS Church spokesman George Monsivais said, reading from a prepared statement at a Thursday morning press conference. The church repeats its oft-stated caution to members that they should never infer that the church endorses their personal political positions."
• In an official 2006 LDS Church Press Release, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over a million members in Mexico. It does not encourage them to move to Utah or anywhere else. The Church, in fact, has made no comment so far on the immigration debate, recognizing that this complex question is now before Congress and is already being thoroughly aired in the public square."
• In a more recent DNews article, 2008, (Elder Marlin K.) "Jensen said the LDS church has taken no position on any particular measure on the federal or state level." "The current debate in our state Legislature is evidence of the very strong feelings that surround this issue," Jensen said. He noted that LDS leaders had recently issued a "very sincere plea" to lawmakers to consider the issue with humanity and compassion."

Public Hearings on Utah Senate Bill 113 3/2/2009 4:10 pm An effort to delay enforcement of Senate Bill 81, passed in 2008 and set to take effect in July of 2009. SB81 was tailored after an Oklahoma bill designed to crack down on illegal aliens.
Comments from Kevin Taylor of the LDS Church
My name is Kevin Taylor. I am a trustee for the Liahona Self-reliance Foundation, which is organized in concert with the LDS Church's Salt Lake City Inner City Project which serves the Spanish branches in the Salt Lake valley. I'm also the Administrator of the OP Program of the LDS Church's Perpetual Education Fund.
In this capacity as a Service Missionary in the Inner City Project I have the opportunity to work with the 66 Branches and Wards of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking members throughout the valley.
I'm here to speak in favor of SB113 which delays SB81. In my view and in my experience I believe that SB81 essentially constitutes what I would call tweaking of the law where there really is a need for comprehensive reform of immigration.
I'm especially concerned about the deputization of local law enforcement officers to act as immigration agents. I fear for the impact, not just on that community, but for the safety of all of us. I believe that not just the Hispanic population is affected, but all of us are as this group of people are dissuaded from cooperating with the police in criminal investigations as has been indicated earlier.
I'm very concerned that the people who are here who are out of status for various reasons are here for the purposes of family reunification, economic survival, and they are here really expressing gratitude for the law. It is sort of a dilemma, that they really are in favor of the law of the land here because where they come from they don't have the benefit of the law.
And it's a concern to me that where these people often come from countries where they cannot trust local law enforcement we would take action that would create the same situation here where they would not feel it appropriate in their own interest to communicate and cooperate with law enforcement in trying to solve serious violent crimes.
I'm also concerned about the fiscal amount and I think our money would be much better used in service of investigating and prosecuting violent crime and not to make life harder for the people that we serve.
Thank you.

On Compassion for illegals

On Friday the Deseret News presents a "news" article, applauding the attempt of Salt Lake Catholic Bishop Wester "to tackle one of America's most contentious dilemmas: what to do about the country's undocumented workers and their families." On Sunday, the editorial staff says AMEN as part of its continuing crusade.
The "Migration" group (CCIR) the Bishop chairs reportedly decries the "un-Christian" treatment of immigrants and "hate speech" and "hate groups linked to the anti-immigration movement." Is it charitable for CCIR to use these terms against those with whom they disagree?
One can only wonder if these terms (hate, un-Christian, vitriol, extremist, etc.) can properly be applied to the majority of Americans who believe in protection of our borders. Those who believe that, yes, we should help our fellow man and work to relieve suffering, but the true helpers who believe in helping individually - not with the tax money of their fellow taxpayers.
Is it un-Christian to be considerate about those tens (hundreds) of thousands of people who are patiently waiting to come to this country of freedom - legally? Is it hate to say that THEIR rights, needs and opportunities should NOT be usurped by those who can relatively easily sneak across a porous border in the dark of night?
Should the problems be dismissed, out of hand, of the multitudinous victims of theft by the illegal aliens, of the very identity of American citizens? Is it racist that America has (and does) open its doors to multitudes of LEGAL immigrants?
Is it uncharitable to say that American taxpayers should not be required to pay for education of another country’s children? Is it really uncharitable to ask that the forced payment of costs be at least done in the language of THIS country?
I submit that there is a vast difference between migration and ILLEGAL immigration. Migration has such a benign aura, merely a movement from one place to another. Illegal or unauthorized aliens are in violation of Federal law
The solution is NOT to open the borders; - or, possibly even worse, declare AMNESTY for all the successful lawbreakers, then continue lip service to border control while we wait another twenty years for the next amnesty.
It is not zealotry, but patriotism, to believe in the Rule of Law. It is not hate, nor is it racism, to expect employers to obey employment laws. It is NOT uncharitable, nor is it bigotry, for American people to expect government, at ALL levels, to enforce laws against anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such (unauthorized) alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" (US Code Title 8-1324a)
Apparently the Federal Government is impotent in enforcing its immigration laws, due to the sheer volume of the problem it has allowed to happen. Rather than immigration reform (amnesty), it is time for States and local communities to step to the forefront and enforce those laws against what is now a virtual invasion.
In the meantime, we should all continue with our personal charitable acts towards all strangers within or midst while we work tirelessly and diligently towards protecting our sovereign country.

Regarding the "Migration" group (CCIR) that Utah’s Catholic Bishop Wester chairs reportedly decries the "un-Christian" treatment of immigrants and "hate speech" and "hate groups linked to the anti-immigration movement." Is it charitable for CCIR to use these terms against those with whom they disagree?
One can only wonder if these terms (hate, un-Christian, vitriol, extremist, etc.) can properly be applied to the majority of Americans who believe in protection of our borders. Those who believe that, yes, we should help our fellow man and work to relieve suffering, but the true helpers who believe in helping individually - not with the tax money of their fellow taxpayers.
Is it un-Christian to be considerate about those tens (hundreds) of thousands of people who are patiently waiting to come to this country of freedom - legally? Is it hate to say that THEIR rights, needs and opportunities should NOT be usurped by those who can relatively easily sneak across a porous border in the dark of night?
Should the problems be dismissed, out of hand, of the multitudinous victims of theft by the illegal aliens, of the very identity of American citizens? Is it racist that America has (and does) open its doors to multitudes of LEGAL immigrants?
Is it uncharitable to say that American taxpayers should not be required to pay for education of another country’s children? Is it really uncharitable to ask that the forced payment of costs be at least done in the language of THIS country?
I submit that there is a vast difference between migration and ILLEGAL immigration. Migration has such a benign aura, merely a movement from one place to another. Illegal or unauthorized aliens are in violation of Federal law
The solution is NOT to open the borders; - or, possibly even worse, declare AMNESTY for all the successful lawbreakers, then continue lip service to border control while we wait another twenty years for the next amnesty.
It is not zealotry, but patriotism, to believe in the Rule of Law. It is not hate, nor is it racism, to expect employers to obey employment laws. It is NOT uncharitable, nor is it bigotry, for American people to expect government, at ALL levels, to enforce laws against anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such (unauthorized) alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" (US Code Title 8-1324a)
Apparently the Federal Government is impotent in enforcing its immigration laws, due to the sheer volume of the problem it has allowed to happen. Rather than immigration reform (amnesty), it is time for States and local communities to step to the forefront and enforce those laws against what is now a virtual invasion.
In the meantime, we should all continue with our personal charitable acts towards all strangers within or midst while we work tirelessly and diligently towards protecting our sovereign country.

The LDS Church and Immigration

In 2006 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints issued a Press Release in response to comments by Lou Dobbs on CNN:

Excerpt: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over a million members in Mexico. It does not encourage them to move to Utah or anywhere else.

The Church, in fact, has made no comment so far on the immigration debate, recognizing that this complex question is now before Congress and is already being thoroughly aired in the public square."

The LDS Church has had a long standing commitment encouraging members to build the Church within their native lands. For example:

1 Elder Dieter Uchtdorf in Nov 2005 Ensign Christlike Attributes-- the Wind beneath Our Wings :

"As the members will stay in their countries and build the Church, despite economic challenges and hardships, future generations will be grateful to those courageous modern-day pioneers. They abide by the loving invitation of the First Presidency given in 1999:

"In our day, the Lord has seen fit to provide the blessings of the gospel, including an increased number of temples, in many parts of the world. Therefore, we wish to reiterate the long-standing counsel to members of the Church to remain in their homelands rather than immigrate to the United States. …

"As members throughout the world remain in their homelands, working to build the Church in their native countries, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church collectively" (First Presidency letter, Dec. 1, 1999).

2 James B. Allen, "Line upon Line," Ensign, July 1979, 32 and Tambuli, Sept. 1979, 10

"After this concept of the gathering had been taught so strongly for two generations or more it became almost second nature—especially to the Saints in Europe. But in the late 1890s certain circumstances were changing. American public policy toward immigration began to change. Economically, the Mormon communities in the Great Basin were filling up. New immigrants would find it more difficult to find employment. More important, the Church was more secure in its western setting. The kingdom had been strengthened in its new location, the days of pioneering were over, and the challenge now was to build up Zion—the "pure in heart"—throughout the world. This, after all, was clearly the larger mission of the Church all along.

"These and other considerations undoubtedly led Church leaders to consider prayerfully what should be done. In 1898 George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, announced that the Saints in various lands were being counseled to "remain quiet for a while; to not be anxious to leave their homes to gather to Zion." (In Conference Report, Oct. 1898, p. 4.) By the following year it was concluded that it was no longer advisable for them to gather, even if they did so at their own expense.

The change in policy was implemented rapidly. The Church undertook to furnish more permanent headquarters in the missions and to build more chapels as a way of encouraging converts to remain in homelands. "We do not advise you to emigrate," President Joseph F. Smith told the Swedish Saints in 1910. "We would rather that you remain until you have been well established in the faith in the Gospel." . . .

And in 1958 three mission presidents in Europe issued a strongly worded editorial in Der Stern which epitomized the necessity to build Zion abroad:

"We have not discontinued to preach the Gathering of the House of Israel. We still call all people to come out of the spiritual Babylon, which means to come out of spiritual darkness. We are still gathering the children of light. We are still gathering scattered Israel. But we no longer urge them to emigrate to America. On the contrary, we tell the Saints exactly what the Lord required, namely to build up the stakes of Zion and to enlarge the boundaries of His kingdom …

"We believe that God directs His Church through the words of His prophets. The world conditions have undergone a complete change and we must adapt to the new situation."