My story and question of faith…

[Anonymous]

Hello,

I joined the Church at 16. I was searching for a way to feel happier with myself and life in general.

I was surprised when the missionaries came because what they taught really seemed logical and in line with what I already believed. It wasn’t difficult for them to convert me. For the next few years I went to church regularly and really enjoyed being part of the small branch I was in.

Then I went to BYU. I’ll admit that no way was I ready for college. I had a bad match ACT score so someone in their “wisdom” at BYU decided the only way I would be able to attend was to go to summer school. So, two weeks out of high school I was on a plane alone from Ohio to Utah. I really didn’t fit in in Utah. While I had the same beliefs in the Church it was a different culture from where I came from, even tho I was only from the midwest. There was higher standard of being Mormon there and I didn’t get a lot of what I felt were silly rules about what music was “acceptable” etc.

Fast forward to my 30s and a marriage to a man who joined the Church I believe because he thought it would make me love him more. By now I was active about half the time mostly because I was working and still attending school part time (ran out of money to stay out west). Sundays were the only days I wasn’t out of the house by 8 am so it was really easy to not go to Church. Four years into the marriage my ex decided to leave the Church and me and there I was alone and divorced and 37. I’m sure many of you know its not easy being divorced in the Church, especially if you don’t have kids and are a woman. So I became less and less active and by the time I moved to Connecticut I went to Church ocassionally.

The thing is, I never stopped believing in the theology and doctrine. I just really don’t care much for going to a place where I have no role or place to fit in.

That was until a week or two ago. I read a story from the Salt Lake Tribune about the Church and how its dealing with members who are in the US illegally. I was shocked and dismayed to read in the article that the leaders of the Church have missionaries who are “illegal” serve within the US because its not as easy for immigration to find them if they are traveling by car, bus or train.

Now I don’t want to get into a big discussion on immigration in the US, but it seems to me that the leaders in the Church are basically helping people break the law, thereby majorly going against one of the Articles of Faith. I’ve tried to find some official statement about this and have found nothing. Honestly I don’t feel like I could get a straight answer from the local members because to me that isn’t good enough. I need to hear official words on this.

I guess what I’m asking is how others feel about this issue. How can this be made to gel with the doctrine of the Church. How can I feel that the Church isn’t just another Church created by men using their own interpretations of doctrine instead of a true message/word of Heavenly Father?

Help!

Bitz

[Anonymous]

I have a very simple view of this issue:

This is WAY more complicated than most people think who haven’t dealt with it first-hand. I have, and I know how impossible it is to do everything “right” in regard to this issue. It simply is impossible, so what is left is to do what is best for the individuals and families involved while still doing what is legal. The Church is doing that. That is my own bottom line.

The Church cannot be an American church – and it absolutely can’t function as an arm of the US government, as an immigration department. It can’t ask about citizenship when teaching investigators, and it can’t do so when someone wants to be baptized. It must be a global church, letting members deal personally with government rules and regulations in each country in which it is formed. In many ways, immigrants are the modern publicans and sinners (along with those with AIDS, the mentally ill, etc.), and the Church absolutely must reach out and preach to them and baptize them and allow them to participate fully – regardless of citizenship status. The people know the risks of what they do, and the people are willing to shoulder those risks – but the Church as an organization simply can’t refuse to teach and fellowship and baptize when doing so is not illegal.

Congress passed a law making it legal for organizations to allow any members to provide service within the country without legal ramifications to the organizations. It is legal, and one of the main reasons was exactly instances like missions where people are making great sacrifices from personal conviction. The law recognizes the underlying need to separate church and state in cases like this, and my personal experiences make me agree with that separation. It is FAR too complicated for me to take a black and white stance on it.

[Anonymous]

I’m not going to pretend like I”m an expert, but the better part of the last three years of my life was dealing with/researching this issue. What Ray said is true. In fact, there are dozens of illegals that join the U.S. military every year (they get citizenship at the end of their duty).

This issue is beyond complex, so black/white thinking makes it incomprehensible. Ironically, some of the legalities that Ray mentions that protect the church on this issue, also make the church vulnerable when they get active in other issues (SSM).

I’m not advocating one thing or the other. I can see that, even though the church may be covered legally, there may be an ethical component. (fwiw, I’m playing devils advocate because I personally think the church is on the right side of this ethically. may be the only time I ever write those words 😈 )

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have a very simple view of this issue:

This is WAY more complicated than most people think who haven’t dealt with it first-hand. I have, and I know how impossible it is to do everything “right” in regard to this issue. It simply is impossible, so what is left is to do what is best for the individuals and families involved while still doing what is legal. The Church is doing that. That is my own bottom line.

The Church cannot be an American church – and it absolutely can’t function as an arm of the US government, as an immigration department. It can’t ask about citizenship when teaching investigators, and it can’t do so when someone wants to be baptized. It must be a global church, letting members deal personally with government rules and regulations in each country in which it is formed. In many ways, immigrants are the modern publicans and sinners (along with those with AIDS, the mentally ill, etc.), and the Church absolutely must reach out and preach to them and baptize them and allow them to participate fully – regardless of citizenship status. The people know the risks of what they do, and the people are willing to shoulder those risks – but the Church as an organization simply can’t refuse to teach and fellowship and baptize when doing so is not illegal.

Congress passed a law making it legal for organizations to allow any members to provide service within the country without legal ramifications to the organizations. It is legal, and one of the main reasons was exactly instances like missions where people are making great sacrifices from personal conviction. The law recognizes the underlying need to separate church and state in cases like this, and my personal experiences make me agree with that separation. It is FAR too complicated for me to take a black and white stance on it.

I agree with this 100%. Additionally, I will add that not only are they doing this, but in my view this is exactly what they should do. The last thing I need is my church deciding whether or not I can break civil law. That’s between me and my gov’t. The church has to act in a global sense, and unless they themselves are breaking laws, it’s not up to them to ensure all the members keep the laws.

[Anonymous]

I was actually serving on a committee at one time that was dealing with missionary work in the Stake and this was one issue that cropped up where I was from, and they were perplexed at how to best handle it, but bottom line, as others have said, the church is not responsible for enforcing the law and in our stake, we inherited the sitaution of the family and their immigration status, so we were not doing something specifically against the law, just had to deal with the situation as it was presented, but didn’t want to deny the family blessings. From what I saw, the Bishop was trying best he could to get legal support and help the family, but walking a fine line of not wanting the church to become responsible for their situation. So we tried to help in getting legal support and help the family be legal, but when it got difficult to work with the authorities, we did what we could and then encouraged the family to take responsibility and obey the laws as best they could. As long as they were working towards that (they couldn’t immediately fix the problem), we were supportive.

I guess long story short…I didn’t see the church manipulating the system, just trying to help families in a hard situation. It can be a fine line.

[Anonymous]

Wow … this is the very first time I have heard this as a faith-breaking crisis topic. Thanks for sharing it. I am not sure what the answer is really, but I think in general the Church should be involved in helping people spiritually wherever they happen to be.

I spent a lot of time on my mission working with immigrants in various stages of the legal system. Guess what? It was in Germany . I never really thought about it before like that, in relation to the currently hot topic of immigration in the US. The people I was helping were from Africa, the Middle East and also Soviet-Block, Eastern European countries.

[Author]

Posts