Feeling Conflicted Over Elder Kearon's Talk About Refugees

Elder Patrick Kearon, of the quorum of the Seventy, gave a moving talk about the Church's call to help refugees during the Sunday afternoon session of the April 2016 General Conference. 

Many Mormons were clearly moved by his talk. However, there were many of Mormons who felt conflicted about his talk. I can see this conflict in debates among members of the Church after General Conference on social media sites.

Before I explain the conflict felt by many members in the Church, I want to make it clear at the beginning that we are all for helping refugees. We fully support the Church's efforts in mobilizing members to gather food, water, clothing, bedding, and bags full of sanitary items so that they can ship it to refugee camps in the Middle East and Europe. 

Elder Kearon's talk certainly pulled at our heartstrings. Elder Kearon raised the valid point that Christ himself, at one point in his life, was a refugee when his parents fled to Egypt when he was a little child. He talked about how Mormons were refugees when they were forced to flee from place to place by angry mobs and ultimately had to leave the United States to find peace beyond the western frontier of the United States by moving into what was then Mexican territory. We know that many in the Church were once refugees. We clearly heard the call to be compassionate and charitable towards refugees that are escaping war, famine, and economic uncertainty in their homelands. 

It was clear that Elder Utchdorf was moved by Elder Kearon's talk afterwards. Elder Uchtdorf talked about being a refugee prior to Elder Kearon's talk in General Conference.

However, many members couldn't help thinking about the ongoing political debate in America and in Europe about letting refugees into their homelands during his talk.  Many of us were thinking about how Europe suffered repeated terrorist attacks because they allowed people to come into their country without asking any questions about who was coming in. 

Elder Kearon didn't mention anything about opening the borders and letting as many refugees in as possible. His talk simply focused on the need for members of the Church to help the refugees. He explicitly stated in this talk that his desire was to focus on refugees themselves and not on immigration policy or the debates over the definition of a refugee. 

Yet, many members were torn between having compassion for these refugees and the desire for security against terrorism by refugees coming from certain parts of the world. Clearly, the hot topics of immigation, terrorism, and other issues came to mind to some people when they heard this talk even when Elder Kearon explicitly stated that he would be avoiding these issues.

Correctly or incorrectly, some people got the impression that we should sacrifice our desire for safety and security in the name of compassion. Many of us have a legitimate concern about sacrificing security for compassion by opening up our borders to people who wish to do us harm. The United States government, through both the FBI and DHS, have admitted that we have no way to verify who is coming into our country. Many members of the Church want to help the refugees, but they have a legitimate concern about their safety not being compromised while helping others.

We fully acknowledge that not every refugee is a terrorist bent on hurting as many as possible. Refugees do flee from all parts of the world to come to places of safety. Not all of refugees come from the Middle East. But some of the terrorists did come into Europe during the large wave of refugees who came from the Middle East last summer. And this fact certainly is still a presence in many people's minds.

Its clear that the recent events in Europe have affected some people's reception of Elder Kearon's talk. Under different circumstances or had the recent terror attacks not occurred, the response to his talk would have been more universally accepted. Instead, many people felt conflicted about his talk. Many debates erupted on social media sites about the issue of compassion versus security.

I don't know how to resolve the conflict between the call for compassion and the legitimate desire for personal safety while helping others. I don't know what the answer to that problem is. I felt this conflict while I listened to his talk. I confess to having participated in these online debates on various social media platforms.

I have been reflecting on this inner conflict and thinking about the points raised by both sides. I decided to write this post to ask the readers for solutions on this conflict. I don't want a debate. I want answers. I want to be Christlike but I also want to protect myself and others at the same time. 

How can members of the Church balance their desire for compassion and safety? Is such a balance possible? 

Lawsuit Seeks To Ban LDS Church From Giving Its Input On Utah Alcohol Laws

A lawsuit has been filed in Utah to prevent The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints from giving its input on new or proposed alchol laws:

A trade group for bars and restaurants is asking a federal judge to block Utah legislators from considering input from the Mormon church when drafting future liquor laws.

The Utah Hospitality Association contends that considering the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unconstitutional under federal laws separating church and state.

The claim is part of an amended lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City.

"We know the LDS church wields a lot of influence with the Legislature, especially as to liquor policies in this state," association board spokesman Kenneth Wynn said on Tuesday. "I think we've felt this for a long time. The church ought to butt out of state business ... we're just bringing it to the forefront."

Hospitality association attorneys originally filed the lawsuit in June. It targets Senate Bill 314, which bans daily drink specials and ties the number of liquor licenses to population totals and the number of state-employed police officers.

Association attorneys say eliminating discount pricing for alcohol amounts to price-fixing that harms both consumers and businesses. They contend such limits on competition in liquor sales and distribution places an unfair restraint on trade that violates federal antitrust laws.

Passed by lawmakers earlier this year, most of the new laws became effective in July. The portion of the so-called "quota system" tied to the number of law enforcement officers takes effect July 1, 2012.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the state of Utah, the governor and the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control Commission.

The Mormon church is not a defendant, but the lawsuit cites examples of the Utah-based church's influence with lawmakers, including remarks from Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who sponsored SB314, about the church's support for the bill.

The lawsuit also contends that a pair of church lobbyists had "warned" lawmakers that "there would be repercussions" if they disagreed with the church's position on the legislation. Court papers don't specify what those repercussions would be.

This is an interesting lawsuit and I'm interested in the outcome of this case. The LDS Church is free to give its opinion on laws and to lobby in support or opposition of a law just as much as any other organization is free to do. However, they are alleging that the LDS Church has a greater influence on laws crafted in Utah than most regular lobbying groups do. It will be interesting to see how the Plaintiffs prove that given that most of the members of Utah Legislature is LDS.

LDS Church Under Fire From Opponents Of AZ SB 1070

Once it was discovered that, Sen. Russell Pearce, was the legislator behind Arizona's immigration law was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Church has come under fire from the Hispanic community: 

Many Latinos who view the new law as unjust and discriminatory blame not only Pearce but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is making it hard for Mormons to proselytize to the state's 1.8 million Latinos, whom the church views as key to future growth.

When the LDS Church was contacted by the press about the Senator Pearce's endorsement of Arizona SB 1070, it gave a very surprising response:

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, said in an e-mail that elected officials who are Mormons do not represent the position of the church. She said the church has also not taken a position on immigration, which is "clearly the province of government."

"However, Church leaders have urged compassion and careful reflection when addressing immigration issues affecting millions of people," she said in the e-mail.

It is odd that the Church has no official position on whether or not people ought to be allowed to have citizenship papers with them. Yet the Church does have an official position on illegal immigration.

Maybe Kim Farrah, the LDS spokeswoman, should read D&C 88: 3, 5-7, D&C 98:4-8, D&C 101:77 and the Twelfth Article of Faith if she is having trouble in figuring out what the official position of the LDS Church is on illegal immigration.

The fact that the Church doesn't have an "official" position on illegal immigration despite the fact that scriptures and modern Prophets have clearly stated that obedience to the laws of the land is necessary in being a good member of the Church is odd.

Furthermore, its strange that the LDS Church requires worthy members to carry and present their temple recommend as a requirement to enter into the Temple yet they have no official position with regards to state law that requires people to carry and present their legal papers as a condition to entering the United States?

I guess the Church really doesn't have a coherent or consistent official position on illegal immigration since the religion expects people to be obedient to the commandments as given in the House of The Lord yet many illegal immigrants are given temple recommends despite the fact that sneaking into America is a form of disobedience.

How the can the Church expect people to obey the commandments of God yet have no stance towards those who break the law of the land? This doesn't line up with D&C 58:21:

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

One of the temple recommend questions is "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?" How can the Church expect people to be honest if they're handing out Temple recommends to Church members who violate the law by entering the country illegally?

Sneaking into America is not only a form of disobedience but a form of dishonesty.

Hopefully, the Church will figure out what its official position is on civil obedience is.