Should the Church fund fugitives?

[_Drifting]

This is going to be a potentially delicate one...

Maria was trained as a nurse in Mexico, but without papers she can't get nursing jobs. She lost a series of odd jobs because of her status as an illegal before finally landing a part-time job at a restaurant that doesn't ask questions. She makes about $7 an hour, which is not enough. Her Mormon church ward pays her mortgage and does the best she can to cover other expenses. Each month she sits at the kitchen table in front of the bills and decides which ones she can pay. She can't afford to pay them all, so she sends the most urgent a partial payment. The water company has shut off her water a couple of times.

The article is from Deseret News.

I doubt anyone here would think that the Church is wrong to support this lady but it does throw up some potentially difficult questions and it has the potential to offend those members who have been turned down for support.

Views?

[_subgenius]

This is going to be a potentially delicate one...

Maria was trained as a nurse in Mexico, but without papers she can't get nursing jobs. She lost a series of odd jobs because of her status as an illegal before finally landing a part-time job at a restaurant that doesn't ask questions. She makes about $7 an hour, which is not enough. Her Mormon church ward pays her mortgage and does the best she can to cover other expenses. Each month she sits at the kitchen table in front of the bills and decides which ones she can pay. She can't afford to pay them all, so she sends the most urgent a partial payment. The water company has shut off her water a couple of times.

The article is from Deseret News.

I doubt anyone here would think that the Church is wrong to support this lady but it does throw up some potentially difficult questions and it has the potential to offend those members who have been turned down for support.

Views?

This post is almost shameful. One should pause for reflection before being motivated in the manner by which this OP intends.
The out of context and cursory nature of the described scenario here is absurd with regards to an intellectual discussion and offensive i nterms of spirituality.
Is not the question to love or not to love?

[_Drifting]

Subgenius,

As I put in the OP, I doubt anyone here would disagree with the Church financially supporting this lady.

The question of the thread is about where the line gets drawn.

At what point, or in what circumstances should the Church help or not help people who break the laws of the land - regardless of our views on the morality of those laws.

[_just me]

Is she paying her tithing?

Actually, my thoughts are this. The church has a mishmash way of dealing with people with financial need. So, I know a family in California that had their $2000 monthly rent paid by the church for about one year. I know a family in Utah who was told that the ward could no longer help with mortgages because there were too many families asking for that type of aid.

It is just annoying that some people are able to get tons of help, and maybe even too much help in some cases (example: cable bill being paid), while others are told no.

Then there is the whole tithing issue. The first thing a family in financial crisis should be told is to STOP paying tithing. Instead they are told they need to make sure they pay it or the church can't help them!

As far as this lady and the case of people who are not here legally, I don't care. I think the church should just not ask.

[_Drifting]

Is she paying her tithing?

Actually, my thoughts are this. The church has a mishmash way of dealing with people with financial need. So, I know a family in California that had their $2000 monthly rent paid by the church for about one year. I know a family in Utah who was told that the ward could no longer help with mortgages because there were too many families asking for that type of aid.

It is just annoying that some people are able to get tons of help, and maybe even too much help in some cases (example: cable bill being paid), while others are told no.

Then there is the whole tithing issue. The first thing a family in financial crisis should be told is to STOP paying tithing. Instead they are told they need to make sure they pay it or the church can't help them!

As far as this lady and the case of people who are not here legally, I don't care. I think the church should just not ask.

Thanks Just Me.

I think local decision making can explain away some of the inconsistency. I'm interested in your view on the Church supporting people who are breaking the law, a woman on the run for instance - does the crime dictate wether one gets support or not in your view?

I am led to believe that one of the first things GBH said to Saints in New Orleans immediately following Katrina was 'pay your tithing'. It was related in my ward by a senior Priesthood Leader as a faith promoting story but I do not know how true it is.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius,

As I put in the OP, I doubt anyone here would disagree with the Church financially supporting this lady.

The question of the thread is about where the line gets drawn.

At what point, or in what circumstances should the Church help or not help people who break the laws of the land - regardless of our views on the morality of those laws.

nice backpedal and revision.
But what do you mean by "help"...your OP states quite clearly "fund", do you actually mean "help"?
So, what more needed to be said outside of the thread title?
Since when do the laws determine a moral obligation?
To adhere to the law and obey authority is an individual moral obligation, enforcement on others is another topic and even then morality can not be removed from the equation.
Whether a law is moral or not, or whether a law has been broken or not, has no influence on the fundamental commandment to "love one another".
That being said, you specifically mention "fund", at which case there are circumstances unique to each use of funds. One illegal immigrant may receive funds while another illegal immigrant does not....the legality is not the determining factor.
I would suppose that "funds" for a fugitive would be withheld when those funds were not contributing to the commandment of "love one another", or rather if they would be the cause of harm or detriment to another.

[_subgenius]

Is she paying her tithing?

Actually, my thoughts are this. The church has a mishmash way of dealing with people with financial need. So, I know a family in California that had their $2000 monthly rent paid by the church for about one year. I know a family in Utah who was told that the ward could no longer help with mortgages because there were too many families asking for that type of aid.

It is just annoying that some people are able to get tons of help, and maybe even too much help in some cases (example: cable bill being paid), while others are told no.

Then there is the whole tithing issue. The first thing a family in financial crisis should be told is to STOP paying tithing. Instead they are told they need to make sure they pay it or the church can't help them!

As far as this lady and the case of people who are not here legally, I don't care. I think the church should just not ask.

Thanks Just Me.

I think local decision making can explain away some of the inconsistency. I'm interested in your view on the Church supporting people who are breaking the law, a woman on the run for instance - does the crime dictate wether one gets support or not in your view?

I am led to believe that one of the first things GBH said to Saints in New Orleans immediately following Katrina was 'pay your tithing'. It was related in my ward by a senior Priesthood Leader as a faith promoting story but I do not know how true it is.

please, do not derail the thread onto the tracks of "tithing", especially since it is clear that some do not understand what it means, in both concept and practice.

[_Drifting]

Subgenius,

As I put in the OP, I doubt anyone here would disagree with the Church financially supporting this lady.

The question of the thread is about where the line gets drawn.

At what point, or in what circumstances should the Church help or not help people who break the laws of the land - regardless of our views on the morality of those laws.

nice backpedal and revision.

Show me in the OP where I needed to back pedal and revise.
Then show me in my second post where that back peddling and revision takes place.

But what do you mean by "help"...your OP states quite clearly "fund", do you actually mean "help"?

Do you use a magnifying glass to split those hairs?

So, what more needed to be said outside of the thread title?
Since when do the laws determine a moral obligation?
To adhere to the law and obey authority is an individual moral obligation, enforcement on others is another topic and even then morality can not be removed from the equation.
Whether a law is moral or not, or whether a law has been broken or not, has no influence on the fundamental commandment to "love one another".
That being said, you specifically mention "fund", at which case there are circumstances unique to each use of funds. One illegal immigrant may receive funds while another illegal immigrant does not....the legality is not the determining factor.
I would suppose that "funds" for a fugitive would be withheld when those funds were not contributing to the commandment of "love one another", or rather if they would be the cause of harm or detriment to another.

'if they would be the cause of harm or detriment to another'
Could an illegal immigrant taking an Americans job be legitimately seen as causing detriment to another?

[_just me]

Thanks Just Me.

I think local decision making can explain away some of the inconsistency. I'm interested in your view on the Church supporting people who are breaking the law, a woman on the run for instance - does the crime dictate wether one gets support or not in your view?

I am led to believe that one of the first things GBH said to Saints in New Orleans immediately following Katrina was 'pay your tithing'. It was related in my ward by a senior Priesthood Leader as a faith promoting story but I do not know how true it is.

Well, it's all very tricky. For example, are there children involved? I would not deprive children of food and shelter just because their parents are breaking the law.

The church is not the state. They have no policing authority, nor are they judge and jury. I do think that criminals should probably be called in to the authorities rather than harbored. However, I just don't really know about having the church leaders call in suspected illegal immigrants.

And, of course, immigration is such a huge convoluted mess all in itself. Oy! The more I learn about it the less sure I am of anything.

I guess, in the end, I don't have a problem with the church giving assistance to whomever they like, criminal or not, but it would be nice to see some kind of consistancy.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Maria was trained as a nurse in Mexico, but without papers she can't get nursing jobs.

Is there any indication why she left Mexico, where she at least could have been employed as a nurse?