Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

One More Mormon Boycotts Miller Beer

Here's one more reason why a number of outraged people in Wisconsin are boycotting Wisconsin-based Miller Beer. Well, count me in. No Miller Beer for me!

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

I also will boycott Miller beer. On a more serious note---I do not think our friends from Mexico understand the process of citzenship. Also, are illegal immigrants allowed to be baptized?

Michael said...

Of course they are allowed to be baptized. The Kingdom of God encompasses the whole earth and citizenship in that Kingdom is not dependent upon some temporary national boundaries set up by man that will be non-existent in the millenium. Honestly, tying together illegal immigration and membership in the Lord's Kingdom is really stretching this mixing of politics with religion that too many LDS buy into which such ease.

Walker said...

Actually, the policy was (in my mission--San Diego, CA) that illegals were not allowed unless they began the naturalization process (or something like that--I was an English speaking missionary so we only dealt with the situation a couple of times.

In any case, if one were a straight-up illegal, it was a no go.

ujlapana said...

Just had a discussion on this topic last month in PEC. I suggested that if a person exceeds the speed limit on their way to their baptism, that perhaps they should be denied that saving ordinance. Consensus was that the SP should be consulted. (I didn't hear anything later--perhaps the investigator dropped the lessons.)

Michael's got it on the money, but clearly the church administration does not. Does God really care about petty human laws of questionable moral underpinnings? Ludicrous.

Reach Upward said...

I was at a regional leadership meeting two years ago that was led by Elder Robert D. Hales. The topic of ministering to immigrants was one of the main items on the agenda. Elder Hales was very careful and very measured in what he said on the issue. To me, he came across as deliberately vague. I believe that what was said failed to satisfy those on either side of the issue.

What I took from it is that all people are children of God and we are required to minister to all, regardless of citizenship and residence issues. The Church is really in no position to handle immigration issues. It is in no position to determine a person's citizenship status. While the Church does not want to be an agent for the government, it does want to honor the laws of the nations in which it operates. It wants to be a good 'corporate citizen,' if you will. It actively encourages its members and all people to honor and sustain the properly established laws of the land. However, Church members should not shelter known fugitives or circumvent law enforcement.

In other words, I understood Elder Hales to mean that the Church encourages people to obey laws, but the Church does not enforce those laws. Due to the vageuness tactic, it is quite possible that others in the congregation took a different meaning from what was said.

Anonymous said...

My dh was a spanish missionary in california, and they most definitly baptize everyone, illegal immigrants included. Im quite astounded that the notion of keeping that from them even occured to anyone. He established a whole new spanish speaking ward there (which is now two wards, soon to split again)and the ward is mostly made of up 'illegal' immigrants. I am from San Diego also, and I can definitly assure you there is nothing barring them from it there either. Sometimes (cough-racist-cough) stake prezs will try and prevent crap like that, but the missionary and mission prez will always win that battle :)

Anonymous said...

Someone mentioned speeding and ordinances. A number of years ago a Bishop came down hard on a young Priest. The Priest was fooling around and driving like a fool. An accident resulted with injuries to a young woman in the car.

People were mad at the Bishop for getting involved.

Walker said...

Ujlapana:

Agreed. Beer to all youth--after all, adults are allowed to drink. Everyone ought to be. Such laws saying otherwise question the equality our democracy holds dear. Talk about moral underpinnings.

Agreed. Marijuana is a plant of the earth. It helps people in pain. The Church must be simply holding back the progress of pain killers.

Reach Upward:

The policy specifically was that if someone was a known illegal immigrant, they were not to be baptized. The Church in San Diego had some negative experiences trying other routes.

Of course, anyone that would support the law of the land MUST be racist. Why? It MUST be because America is controlled by power-hungry hateful, right wing demagogues. Simplistic answers for complex questions.

If all else fails, call someone racist. Poisoning the waterhole of discourse--always a winner in raitional debate.

Bishop Rick said...

To me this is pretty black and white. IF you are breaking the law, you can't get a recommend. This is not a racial issue, it is an issue of law.

We need to be extremely careful about ignoring laws because someone thinks they are petty or temporary. That is the same justification that FLDS members use to illegally impose underage polygamous marriages on underaged little girls.

ujlapana said...

Anonymous:

I think you're missing my point. Speeding can be dangerous, so let's pick a better example: the baptismal candidate parks on the "Resident Only" side of the street when attending his baptism at an urban ward. Bishop notices the illegal parking. Does he postpone the meeting until the investigator has some time to think about his sin (and presumably pay restition by sending a check to the city, even though he didn't get a ticket)?

Walker:

Beer? Marijuana? Perhaps you were under the influence of one of the above when making the leap from my previous post?

All kidding aside, you're obviously onto something. Drug laws are the bane of our society.

Bishop:

Closer to home, I would presume it was the same justification Joseph Smith used when violating the bigamy laws of Illinois. Civil disobedience isn't wrong; it's risky. Legislation doesn't define morality--it merely sets down some agreed upon rules for your culture. Some of those are moral (outlawing theft, homocide, fraud) and some are not (outlawing polygamy, sodomy, drug use, etc.). You have to determine your moral system, then use that to judge laws, not visa versa.

Roy W. Wright said...

Amen Ujlapana

Walker said...

No need for the smart-aleck remarks. Ultimate conclusions are often called leaps by the misinformed.

The problem with that position (at least on the philosophical level), ujlapana, is that it fails to address personal accountability, leaving the individual to be little more than a composite of artificial chemicals. Trying to pierce the center of such a philosophy is like trying to peel an onion. As one apostle noted, perhaps that's why we cry when we peel onions.

Saying that drug laws are the problem is like the fellow who criticizes the police while ignoring the burglars. While the police mess up way to much, the burglars retain their reality.

Are drug laws our bane? Yes, but not because they destroy society but because society has been gradually destroying them, even on the personal level. Chesterton once noted that "the great peril to the human mind is that it is free to destroy itself." Frighteningly true. Education is the key--not legislation.

Bishop Rick said...

Ujlapana,

I happen to think JS should have been punished for breaking Bigomy laws as well. You can't just start breaking laws in the name of religion. That is the kind of crap that turns people/governments against you.

JS should have waited until the church moved outside the US (Utah Territory) before starting Polygamy (which I totally disagree with anyway)

Anonymous said...

I had an "illegal" friend go in for a priesthood interview with the Stake President, who told him that the Brethren have stated that being an illegal immigrant does NOT keep a worthy member from priesthood/temple blessings.

After hearing that, all I can say is that I'm glad to be a member of this Church.

quandmeme said...

I have trouble identifying where some of the posts on the baptizing illegals thread-jack are coming from. If I was having a conversation with each of you I would ask you to nail down the underpinnings of right and wrong using terms like “malum in se” (wrong of itself) and “malum prohibitum” (wrong because of a rule). I think speeding is a good illustration. In my opinion, creeping above the posted limit is an infraction of a rule, but I do not feel it weakens me morally or is a social wrong and is merely malum prohibitum. Excessive speed in a neighborhood where children are getting out of school is reckless rejection of my duty not to harm others that I think would be malum in se and is probably a moral/social wrong. I feel that God does care intensely about social wrongs (not heart, might, and mind, intensely but at least as ourselves). Thus choosing to drive at a certain speed or crossing a boundary line can be a wrong which reaches/reveals our souls and our standing before God when it reflects the rejection of charity (=loving as Christ loves) and choosing to disregard the rights of others. Entering my neighbor’s house to see if there are things I would like to steal is a moral wrong inasmuch as it disregards the principles of stewardship (aka personal property rights). Are some on this thread suggesting that the national frontier is not morally cognizable property right? Is it merely the infraction of a rule, the rejection of which does not figure on moral plane, or at least that it is morally superseded by the moral duty of self-support/support of family? If so, I think it would be useful to frame it in just that way. What of the morality of the dog in the manger? When does the desire to protect borders reflect the safeguarding of a stewardship and when is it crossing on the other side of the road?

Sparky said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sparky said...

With that said...what laws are okay to keep and what laws are okay to stretch a bit or ignore all together?

ujlapana said...

Bishop:

IIRC, bigamy was against the law in Mexico, too, which is where SLC was originally located. I don't think polygamy was ever practiced legally, but I'm totally open to correction on that point.

Walker:

Onions? Personal accountability? This is getting harder to follow for us misinformed folks.

Using drugs does not directly harm or recklessly endanger another person. (It can lead to such a situation, which would be a crime, but, for arguments sake, let's say we're talking about an adult, unmarried, childless person who doesn't operate heavy equipment.) As a result, your burgler analogy is totally inappropriate. A better analogy would be, should the police intervene if you're breaking all of your dishes in the sink, just for fun? No--they're yours and no one else's. Same with your brain, which is, last I checked, entirely made of chemicals. Self destruction is a wrong against yourself--so only you are in a position to claim justice.

quandmeme:
Presence in a foreign country without proper authorization is malum prohibitum. Breaking ranchers' fences on your way in--that's malum in se. If boundary-crossing is malum in se, then we have a major debt to repay to the Native Americans, don't we? Genocide was malum in se, landing at Plymouth Rock was not.

Property rights are an interesting approach to this. Private owners can obviously let anyone on their property they please. Do public lands "belong" to citizens? That might give us some authority in banning illegally present individuals from using public land (essentially justifying deportation). Many illegals who work pay taxes, though--do we refund these when they are caught? If not then we are clearly allowing the "rental" of public facilities. (All in all, this is like a neighbor who yells at your son for a retrieving a ball that has rolled onto his lawn--who's really making the bad choice?)

Walker said...

"Using drugs does not directly harm or recklessly endanger another person. (It can lead to such a situation, which would be a crime, but, for arguments sake, let's say we're talking about an adult, unmarried, childless person who doesn't operate heavy equipment.) As a result, your burgler analogy is totally inappropriate"

I'll be sure to pass the word on to my friends who son was severely injured by a drunk driver (who was probably an adult, unmarried, childless person who didn't operate heavy equipment--let's avoid the definition of "heavy equipment" :)

There is a moral ecology.

Also, last I checked, the brain doesn't tend to self-destruct (barring Alzheimer's or other brain diseases), typically a side effect of drug use.

Bishop Rick said...

I agree with Walker on this. I think he (or someone) mentioned in an earlier post that in his mission, it was ok to baptise if an illegal was in the process of becoming legal.

I don't have a problem with that. That shows effort on the part of the illegal to make things right.

For someone to simply ignore this route, and wilfully break the law, I have no patience for them.

Bishop Rick said...

And...the Church should not be sanctioning such acts either. By doing so, they are telling the illegal that they are doing nothing wrong and to a degree, influencing them to do nothing about it.

ujlapana said...

Walker:

I would expect better from you than to be made an "offender for a word." Obviously drunk driving is malum in se. I used the reference to "heavy equipment" to avoid having to laboriously list every single possible dangerous activity one could engage in. But you know that, don't you? My argument stands, undeterred by your red herring.

Actually brains do self-destruct through neural apoptosis. 1 gram/yr as an adult. They also self-destruct by controlling the body to take nitrous oxide at the dentist's, etc.

Walker said...

What makes drunk driving "obviously" malum in se while taking a substance that could cause one to go bizzerk and potentially harm someone (or even be administered to unsuspecting dates, rendering them helpless to their dates/predators)is not? Other than your personal distinction (which appears to be made simply for the purposes of being right), the core issues remain the same.

BTW, apoptosis is a natural process of the brains life cycle. Without it, tumors form causing death.
Will I get a tumor from a lack of cocaine?

Mormanity said...

Many interesting comments - thanks! I recognize immigration as a very complex issue. I think we need to enforce laws and protect our borders, especially if we're supposedly in a war against foreign powers that can send people over the border anytime. But I also understand the desire to be compassionate with the poor who come here looking for a better life. Glad I'm not the one making policy for the Church. I'd rather do policy for the nation anyday.

Anonymous said...

No one has come out in defense of Miller Beer. What, you're all Bud drinkers? Or hopefully a few Word-of-Wisdom-keeping Mormons.

Anonymous said...

well doesnt the mormon religion beleive in living in accordance with the law? and wouldnt being an illegal immigrant be ILLEGAL therefore it would make sense that they would not be allowed to be baptized until they were LEGAL .

emily said...

well doesnt the mormon religion beleive in living in accordance with the law? and wouldnt being an illegal immigrant be ILLEGAL therefore it would make sense that they would not be allowed to be baptized until they were LEGAL .

emily said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Elder Nelson just came to our Stake Conferance a few months ago and he was kinda vague but I got the impression that we can baptize illegals but getting a recommend is a different story.

Anonymous said...

Domestic Partnership Organizations call for boycott of Mormon-owned
companies because of LDS Church opposition to same-sex marriage referendum in Washington State

AgriNorthwest to be targeted first

Seattle, Washington - Several domestic partnership and gay rights
organizations are kicking off a boycott campaign of major Mormon/LDS owned companies in Washington State as a result of behind-the-scenes opposition
of Referendum 71 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). The organizations include the GLBT Coalition for Same Sex Marriages, Gay Equality Action Alliance, Domestic Partnership Education Council, Gay Marriage Freedom Federation, Coalition for Fair Domestic Partnership Laws,
Washington Citizens Against Civil Union Discrimination, Marriage Equality Washington, and the Alliance for Gay Wedding Fairness.

In particular, the domestic partnership advocacy groups are upset about a Mormon backed television advertisement that has been airing in Washington
State opposing Ref. 71 (http://protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/video).
Referendum 71 is a ballot referendum that asks Washington State voters to re-confirm the expansion of domestic partnership rights and obligations in
Washington's domestic partnership legislation (SB 5688), which was signed by Governor Christine Gregoire on May 18, 2009.

In the above referenced TV advertisement opposing Ref. 71, the
introductory picture of Adam and Eve is a painting by Lowell Bruce
Bennett, and is the intellectual property of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The second painting in the video, the Sermon on the Mount, was painted by Carl Heinrich Bloch, which the LDS Church frequently uses in their publications. Because the LDS/Mormon Church is vociferous
about protecting its intellectual property, the photos in the advertisement have been used by permission of the LDS Church.

As a result of LDS Church opposition to Ref. 71, the above mentioned domestic partnership rights organizations announced that AgriNorthwest, a large LDS owned farming and food production company headquartered in
Kennewick, Washington, is the first target on their boycott list.

"We decided to target 10 large LDS/Mormon church owned companies in Washington State. As AgriNorthwest was the first one on our alphabetical list, we are targeting them first. More importantly, AgriNorthwest sells
its potatoes, corn, apples and other crops to large restaurant and retail chains, so we feel we can get a lot of widespread support for the boycott," stated Mike Davis of the GLBT Coalition for Same Sex Marriages.

"Because companies such as McDonalds, Burger King, Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger, Wendy's, Arby's, ConAgra Foods, Sysco, etc. buy products from AgriNorthwest, we will demand that these companies quit doing business with
AgriNorthwest." explained David Wilson of the Gay Equality Action
Alliance.

AgriNorthwest has had some past problems with workplace discrimination issues. For example, in "Nielson v. AgriNorthwest", the company would not allow a male employee who was dating a non-Mormon to attend the company picnic because the employee and his girlfriend were not married. AgriNorthwest reprimanded the employee for unacceptable performance and
then demoted the employee shortly thereafter after he became engaged to the girlfriend. AgriNorthwest also gave the employee another written warning for poor performance shortly after marrying his girlfriend. Because of the ongoing retaliation and discrimination by AgriNorthwest, the employee quit. The Court of Appeals rules ruled in "Nielson v. AgriNorthwest", that AgriNorthwest's motive for taking action against the employee was
discriminatory.

For more information about the boycott against LDS owned companies such as AgriNorthwest, please call 1-888-843-4564.

################