We've got a gun. In fact, we've got two. That's OK, man, 'cause we love God.

Poor Adam Greenwood

E-mail this post

Remember me (?)

All personal information that you provide here will be governed by the Privacy Policy of Blogger.com. More...

The kid can't catch a break. A post on immigration is sure to bring the fires of blog hell upon anyone and it seems that Adam is the latest victim.

I disagree with Adam on nearly every issue of any import at all (at least issues that are blogged about). Despite that, he really got an unfair shake on the latest T&S mammoth thread. After all, he did specifically say that he's not turning in any Church members that happen to be illegals. He does acknowledge that there are problems with the way deportation is conducted and knows that there are significant issues. In view of this, I'm surprised that Mosiah 4:27 ("see that these things are done in wisdom and in order") didn't surface at any point. I'm about as supportive of immigration as anyone and even I acknowledge that there should be limits and regulations in these fields.

I happen to think that American policy toward Latin America is so poorly conceived that current regulations are not just and that turning in illegals is not required. But another question is raised: Should we, as individuals, enforce unjust applications of a generally just law? Had this question been raised in the T&S debate, things might have been illuminated. As it is, it basically descended into an ideological food fight.

The doctrinal emphasis on sustaining governments is just plain bogus, in my view. This has a lot more to do with worshipping authority than any sound doctrinal or moral reasoning. On several occasions on that thread, commenters attempted to relate this doctrine to potential Church violations of immigration law in the missionary program and to the possibility of going after businesses that employ illegals more fully. As expected, no response whatsoever. We didn't sustain laws against polygamy. We sure didn't submit meekly to the Missouri extermination order. The point is not that we're any worse than anyone else in this regard, but simply that the status of a command as law is dwarfed by a consideration of the inherent morality of the command itself.

I'll post my thoughts on immigration more fully in the future, but for the present, I'll summarize: Adam grasped a nettle and got a real rough deal. His position is a lot more nuanced than the folks over there were willing to admit. Of course, that's the problem with these blogs: I've never heard a civilized and nuanced discussion that included more than maybe a dozen people. Such are the wages of bloggernacle domination :)

4 Responses to “Poor Adam Greenwood”

  1. Anonymous Pris 

    I stopped reading that thread after a few comments for the same reason. I, too, disagree wtih Mr. Greenword on nearly everything, but he does seem to get much more wrath than he deserves. He seems to have a great deal of integrity, so I respect him for that. (It's an integrity that many of the other ultra-conservative members of the nacle seem to lack.)

    I've never heard a civilized and nuanced discussion that included more than maybe a dozen people. Such are the wages of bloggernacle domination.

    Which is what makes UoM so great-- few people read us!

  2. Anonymous NFlanders 

    I have to disagree that Adam is getting a raw deal or that his position is very nuanced. I may be oversimplifying, but I understood Adam's position to be that he would call the DHS on anyone EXCEPT Church members, and he was wondering why how he justifies that.

    Then he whines about people daring to disagree with him and claims that anyone who disagrees with his monstrous opinions must not have thought the issue through like he has. Puh-lease.

    Reasonable people can disagree, but in my personal opinion, anyone who would call the DHS on a otherwise law-abiding illegal alien has other issues and is probably someone I don't want to meet.

  3. Anonymous D-Train 

    Ned - To me, the difference in not reporting Church members is that you likely would have found out about their illegal status through a stewardship, which gives you a different responsibility. Don't get me wrong: I think Adam's legalistic justification for turning in illegals is stupid, ill-considered, and inconsistently applied. Nevertheless, the arguments quickly turned into "aren't you a wretched little fink?" Adam has a reason for turning in illegals, it just sucks. Once the other ultra-cons got their licks in in response to the initial condemnation, the thread was doomed to 200+ insults and very little substantive analysis.

    I don't like the dismissive tone that pervades T&S. Just another reason to read FMH, right? Adam is certainly guilty of a fair bit of that, but the atmosphere is so bitter or so self-congratulatory over there at times that it's just not all that enjoyable. In this case, I think people should have been more dismissive of the argument than Adam.

    Pris - It's true. Having fewer readers means that discussion is actually a reasonable possibility. I think that comments are like students in a classroom: more than thirty or so and it's tough to manage in anything other than a cursory way.

  4. Anonymous D-Train 

    Also, Adam does note that he'd feel really bad about calling in illegals ("sick" is the word he used). So I think he's showing that he's legitimately conflicted, but that he sees his obligation to the law as coming first. I disagree strongly, but the position isn't nearly as monstrous as the opponents made it out to be.

Leave a Reply

      Convert to boldConvert to italicConvert to link



Previous posts


ATOM 0.3