Please do not get so emotional. It is just a discussion and we share different points of view and that's okay.
It has nothing to do with "judging" (I think as members of the Church we use this term very quickly). If the Church thinks they deserve to hold a temple recommend, they are entitled to do so just like they are entitle to share their views on what constitutes marriage. Let's leave the "judging" part outside the picture please and let's call this by what it is: Breaking the law (whether you may want to admit it or not which you haven't said as yet. You mentioned they have no other choice, etc but I haven't read you admit they are breaking the laws of the land) and whether the Church sees it that way or not, does not change that fact.
I saw this letter in today's Salt Lake Tribune that reflects some of the things we have discussed:
Name: Paralegal
Comments: It's survival. Can't you see it?
You're just looking at it from the "American" point of view.
Try to look at it from the other point of view?
Read previous posts. If they had a decent way of life, they would NOT be here. There is no double standard. There is nothing wrong in trying to provide for your family. Forget about the double standard already.
If you're drowning and there is a boat (which is not yours); would you drown just because the boat is not yours?
Or would you climb on it? It has nothing to do with being dishonest by climbing on that boat. There is no double standard about it either. Would you rather drown? Would you call yourself "dishonest" or unworthy of holding a temple recommend for climbing on that boat.
Don't tell me it is not the same.
It's exactly the same thing. They are saving their lives "HONESTLY" by looking for work to be able to provide for their family's needs. In my humble opinion
Name: Paralegal
Comments: Well, but don't get me wrong.
I'm just trying to keep an open mind.
Yes, the end justifies the means. Maybe not in YOUR opinion, but I'm sure it does in their families opinion. . . when they are able to pay for their needs. You know. . . There are many instances where "the ends DO justify the means".
Our very existence justifies the means.
(Adam's fall)
Nephi getting the records from Laban.
Nephi taking Zoram with him.
God destroying Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ telling people to get out of The Temple.
Ammon cutting the arms off from that people.
Moses being left in the water (as a baby).
Isaac being offered as sacrifice.
etc. Etc.
Would you agree with me on that?
Hmmm Paralegal, the problem with your examples is that all of them are either from God, Jesus Christ or one of the Prophets. The comparison is non-existent. I'm confused as to why you would even bring it up into a discussion of illegal immigration.
The definition of the word "illegal" is quite clear: Prohibited by law. Those who choose to cross the border aren't jumping fences. They are jumping "countries" with laws and regulations. When they do not adhere to such laws they are breaking it and shouldn't quality for a Temple recommend. The questions are quite clear in the interview.
This is a complex issue, and I think that it is a dilemma that we all have to face to some extent. Yes illegal immigrants are breaking the law, but I personally support the church's decision. This is not the only time in our history that we have supported or overlooked law. The church still married people in polygamous marriage in the US well after the manifesto and the federal law to ban it.
I guess the question for me is, when a law is bad, or morally wrong, do you have an obligation to support it or to fight or ignore, and if so too what degree? I think we would have a lot of positions on this. This is a complicated issue, and I am not sure if there is a exact answer that works, for everyone. Perhaps the church took pres. Joseph F. Smith's advice: "If you are going to error, error on the side of mercy." Personally I am proud of the church's stance, with this political issue. Maybe the church does not see this as an issue of morality, but rather a political issue. But this position does come with a lot of baggage.