Mormon Matters host, Dan Wotherspoon, first interviews Sister Aileen Clyde, who served from 1990 to 1997 as a fellow counselor with Sister Okazaki in the Relief Society general presidency under the leadership of President Elaine Jack. He then speaks with Margaret Young and Darius Gray, two of Elder Hanks’ close associates. We very much hope you will enjoy getting to know more about each of these incredible souls—Sister Okazaki and Elder Hanks, as well as the great spirits of those interviewed here.

Please join in the conversation by sharing your own reflections on these leaders. How have they affected your life for the better? What teachings or qualities will you remember most about them?

1. The LDS Church’s recent reaffirmation of the King James Version as is its official Bible translation and
2. The changes it has made to chapter headings in the online version of the Book of Mormon (changes that will be carried forward in future printings) that de-emphasize the idea of darker skin as a curse from God.

What is the significance of this renewed commitment to the KJV instead of switching to newer, more scholarly Bible versions based on older manuscripts, translated into more modern English, and increasingly the Bibles of choice for other Christians? What are the possible positive and negative impacts of the Church’s continued use of this translation–on missionary efforts, scriptural literacy among the rising generation, and so forth? What do the new Book of Mormon chapter headings say about the continued fading of Mormonism’s history of equating skin color with God’s blessing or cursing? What steps might be next? What steps should be next?

The U.S. Asylum System

Prior to 1980, the Attorney General had authority to authorize the withholding of deportation for an alien who feared physical persecution in the home country, and there was little right to appeal adverse decision in court. The legal concept of asylum was based on a 1951 U.N. Convention, which led the U.S. to amend its immigration laws to protect refugees. Starting in 1965, the U.S. recognized refugees only from communist countries or countries “in the general area of the Middle East,” and these claims were the subject of strict numerical limitations. The 1980 Refugee Act adopted the definition of refugees from a 1967 U.N. Protocol, removed the ideological considerations and numerical limitations, and provided appeal of adverse decision to the U.S. Courts of Appeal. As a result, asylum was no longer an ad hoc immigration procedure subject to the whims of policy, and Executive Branch asylum discretion was overseen by the judiciary.

Under current U.S. immigration law, asylum claims are first considered by an immigration judge. If the claim is rejected the alien ordered deported, the alien may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If the BIA denies the claim, the alien may appeal directly to the federal circuit courts of appeal. It has been this way since 1980.

How did these changes in immigration law impact the cases that we heard by the U.S. courts? The following graph shows the number of asylum decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1969 and 1980, when the Refugee Act was enacted. (These figures were obtained through a computer search I did of all federal opinions containing the keyword “asylum” within two words of “refugee”).

This next graph shows the number of asylum opinions issued between 1981 and 2000:

The second of these graphs undoubtedly shows the impact of the Refugee Act – asylum claimants began to seek review of the BIA’s denial before the U.S. appellate courts. This does not mean that the number of asylum claims necessarily increased. Rather, it reflects that the circuit courts heard the claims, because the law provided for judicial review that did not exist before 1980. The growth of opinions issued in the late-1990s probably reflected additional resources that were given to the asylum process to address the backlog of cases.

This third graphs shows something that is no so easily explainable – the stunning growth of asylum court rulings in the first six years of the 20th Century.

It is important to note how large of a jump there was between 2000 (71 judicial opinions) and 2001 (218), and the continuing exponential growth thereafter. To put this in perspective, the sum of the number of asylum decisions issued in 2005 (1965 opinions) and 2006 (2701) exceed the total number of asylum cases for all prior years in history combined. The following graph illustrates this. It depicts of the number of asylum decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1969 and 2006, drawn to scale:

Clearly, something is going on here. Asylum has become a growth industry, mainly since 2000.

Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists

I counted a total of 160 opinions involving asylum claims by foreign Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, dating back to the first two in 1990. From that year to the present (September 2009), the following chart depicts the growth in these cases, by year, and how they follow the increased trend in asylum cases generally:

Amazingly, the Christian Scientists quickly dropped out of the deeper analysis, since there was only one case involving an asylum claimant from that faith, with the court affirming the BIA’s denial.[1] This left 159 asylum cases involving Mormons (26 opinions),[2] Seventh-Day Adventists (34 opinions),[3] and Jehovah’s Witnesses (98 opinions).[4]

Overall, across these three religions, the success rate for asylum claims reaching the U.S. Courts of Appeal is 21 percent (33 wins out of 160 cases). Mormon claimants won five (5) times, for a success rate of 19 percent.[5] For Adventists, the success rate was eight (8) percent (three for 34).[6] Meanwhile, the Jehovah’s Witnesses prevailed 25 times out of 98 opinions, for a success rate of roughly 26 percent. [7]

What accounts for the higher frequency of Jehovah’s Witnesses seeking and winning asylum? Part of it has to do with its faithful’s refusal to be part of any organized military, which makes mandatory conscription in any country a form of actionable persecution. Another factor might be where these cases are brought. Of the various circuit courts of appeal, the Tenth Circuit (where Utah is located) granted relief to only five percent of claimants from these four faiths. In contrast, the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) granted relief in 33 percent, the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut) granted 29 percent, and the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Idaho and other Pacific states) also granted in 29 percent of the cases. The lesson here might be simple: Mormon aliens should file asylum claims in Idaho, California or Arizona or anywhere else in the 9th Circuit, rather than in Utah.

What are the worst places to be a member of these religions? In terms of asylum claims, the most common countries members of these faiths feared being sent home to were Armenia (27 opinions, most involving Jehovah’s Witnesses)[8] and Indonesia (24 opinions, most involving Adventists),[9] followed by Eritrea (15), Russia (12), Romania (9) and China (8). In terms of highest percentage of claimants winning in the courts, war-torn Eritrea had the highest percentage (six of the 15 claims), all of whom were Jehovah’s Witnesses.[10]

What about the Mormons? China [11] and Russia [12] (three cases each) appear to be the places from which the most fearful Mormons hail, although asylum petitions were granted to alien LDS members from Colombia,[13] Iran,[14] Ethiopia,[15] Russia [16] and Ukraine.[17]

What is the take-away of this analysis? For one, it cannot be said that Mormons are more persecuted overseas than other American religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (ironic, given that the Witnesses’ missionary efforts are rarely touted).  Mormons seem about as persecuted overseas as Adventists, though they are more successful at proving their case in court. Compared with Jehovah’ Witnesses, Mormons living in foreign countries are not persecuted nearly as much.

Still, reading these cases – even those where asylum is ultimately not granted – can be a heartbreaking experience, no matter the minority religion and no matter the country. Man-made tragedy abounds.

Maybe there is hope that these cases will slow to a trickle, after all the growth we have seen since the start of the 20th Century. As of this writing (three quarters of the way through 2009), the total number of asylum decisions involving these American religions totaled only six, compared with four times that many in 2008. Here is a chart showing the trajectory of Mormon asylum opinions over time:

There has not yet been a single asylum case involving a Mormon issued this year. Perhaps if fewer foreign Mormons are feeling persecuted, it might be the start of a trend, and mean that the spike between 2004 and 2007 might have been a storm that has passed. We can only hope.

________________

[1] Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2004)(feared persecution in Kenya)

[2] The Mormon asylum cases, in chronological order, are: Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994); Refahiyat v. U.S. Dept. of Justice I.N.S., 29 F.3d 553 (10th Cir. 1994); Oloson v. I.N.S., 51 F.3d 1045 (5th Cir. 1995); Narvaez-Diaz v. I.N.S., 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996); Vorobieva v. I.N.S., 172 F.3d 64 (10th Cir. 1999); Yunus v. I.N.S., 176 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1999); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Mendoza v. I.N.S., 28 Fed.Appx. 586 (8th Cir. 2002); Davila v. Ashcroft, 33 Fed.Appx. 703 (5th Cir. 2002); Igoshin v. I.N.S., 50 Fed.Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2002); Villeda v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 636 (9th Cir. 2004); Rodriguez-Pozos v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 906 (9th Cir. 2004); Ashmawy v. Gonzales, 130 Fed.Appx. 71 (8th Cir. 2005); Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005); Pogai v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 564 (9th Cir. 2005); De Maerschalck v. Gonzales, 159 Fed.Appx. 29 (10th Cir. 2005); Otero v. Gonzales,164 Fed.Appx. 732 (10th Cir. 2006); Yan v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Gonzales, 174 Fed.Appx. 710 (3rd Cir. 2006); Gomez v. Gonzales, 179 Fed.Appx. 220 (5th Cir. 2006); Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006); Wang v. Gonzales, 207 Fed.Appx. 130 (2nd Cir. 2006); Liang Wen v. Gonzales, 223 Fed.Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2007); Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007); Simonchyk v. Keisler, 251 Fed.Appx. 730 (2nd Cir. 2007); Dan Zhu Wong v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 271 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2008); and Malkandi v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2008).

[3] The Adventist asylum cases, in chronological order, are: Gebremichael v. I.N.S.,10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1993); Magdici v. I.N.S.,29 F.3d 119 (7th Cir. 1997); Sahensolar v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1998); Sofinet v. I.N.S., 196 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 1999); Tsoy v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed.Appx. 982 (9th Cir. 2003); Asatryan v. Ashcroft, 99 Fed.Appx. 768 (9th Cir. 2004); Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004); Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2004); Setyawan v. Ashcroft, 111 Fed.Appx. 579 (10th Cir. 2004); Silitonga v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2005); Fantaye v. Gonzales, 161 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Nazarian v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 78 (9th Cir. 2006); Peter v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Poerwantini v. Gonzales, 217 Fed.Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2007); Tretiakova v. Gonzales, 221 Fed.Appx. 639 (9th Cir. 2007); Floroiu v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2007); Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 853 (10th Cir. 2007); Lumbangaol v. Keisler, 258 Fed.Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Attorney General of U.S., 258 Fed.Appx. 460 (3rd Cir. 2007); Sibuea v. Mukasey, 260 Fed.Appx. 43 (10th Cir. 2007); Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008); Sitompul v. Mukasey, 272 Fed.Appx. 696 (10th Cir. 2008); Harahap v. Attorney General of U.S., 275 Fed.Appx. 95 (3rd Cir. 2008); Esfandiary v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008); Liem v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 206 (3rd Cir. 2008); Zakarias v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 197 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kamuh v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 7 (1st Cir. 2008); Wontas v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2008); Manullang v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 892 (10th Cir. 2008); Tendean v. Mukasey, 292 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2008); Umar v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2008); Siahaan v. Mukasey, 301 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir. 2008); Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009); and Kojo v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1396836 (9th Cir. 2009)

[4]The 98 Jehovah’s Witnesses asylum cases to reach the courts of appeal, in chronological order, are: Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1990); Olmedo-Carrillo v. I.N.S., 908 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1990); Ohaya v. I.N.S., 9 F.3d 117 (10th Cir. 1993); Gebregiorgis v. I.N.S., 15 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 1994); Romero v. I.N.S., 54 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 1995); Molina-Salinas v. I.N.S., 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1995); Dobrican v. I.N.S., 77 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1996); Vega-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 85 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 1996); Del Carmen Aviles v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1996); Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996); Duarte-Perla v. I.N.S., 107 F.3d 15 (9th Cir. 1997); Zambrana-Cuadra v. I.N.S., 108 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1997); Bucur v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1997); Mejia-Paiz v. I.N.S., 111 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 1997); Adriano v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1999); Foroglou v. I.N.S., 170 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999); Essome v. U.S. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1999); Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Castellanos-Castillo v. I.N.S., 191 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1999); Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Pop v. I.N.S., 270 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2001); Pop v. I.N.S., 279 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2002); Pop v. I.N.S., 55 Fed.Appx. 375 (7th Cir. 2003); Tesfu v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2003); Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003); Berhane v. Ashcroft, 78 Fed.Appx. 339 (5th Cir. 2003); Karacsony v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed.Appx. 167 (9th Cir. 2003); Medhin v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2003); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003); Izazaga v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2004); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Xue v. Ashcroft, 93 Fed.Appx. 380 (3rd Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Woldemariam v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 537 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Manukyan v. U.S., 96 Fed.Appx. 77 (3rd Cir. 2004); Hayrapetyan v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed.Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2004); Suzdaltseva v. Ashcroft, 102 Fed.Appx. 565 (9th Cir. 2004); Saldivar-Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 68 (9th Cir. 2004); Martirosyan v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 125 (9th Cir. 2004); Nigussie v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2004); Babayan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 43 (9th Cir. 2004); Pananyan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2004); Sargsyan v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 989 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347 (10th Cir. 2004); Tewelde v. Ashcroft, 114 Fed.Appx. 91 (4th Cir. 2004); Levit v. Ashcroft, 116 Fed.Appx. 394 (3rd Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004); Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaskanyan v. Ashcroft, 118 Fed.Appx. 200 (9th Cir. 2004); Mirzoyan v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 193 (9th Cir. 2005); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Sun v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2005); Markosyan v. Gonzales, 127 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2005); Barsegian v. Gonzales,128 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2005); Patatanyan v. Gonzales, 132 Fed.Appx. 124 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Bangsawa v. U.S. Attorney General, 136 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2005); Petrov v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,135 Fed.Appx. 377 (11th Cir. 2005); Tjen v. Gonzales, 143 Fed.Appx. 405 (3rd Cir. 2005); Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005); Koulian v. Gonzales, 154 Fed.Appx. 642 (9th Cir. 2005); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2nd Cir. 2006); Mikhaleva v. Gonzales, 167 Fed.Appx. 633 99th Cir. 2006); Israelyan v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 85 (9th Cir. 2006); Woldemichael v. Ashcroft, 448 F.3d 1000 (8h Cir. 2006); Azimov v. Gonzales, 181 Fed.Appx. 601 (7th Cir. 2006); Henrys v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 184 Fed.Appx. 822 (11th Cir. 2006); Nwokeafor v. U.S. Atty. Gen., Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1594189 (11th Cir. 2006); Teclezghi v. Gonzales, 187 Fed.Appx. 749 (9th Cir. 2006); Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006); Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); Gabriel-Perez v. Gonzales, 210 Fed.Appx. 723 (9th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Kutchaidze v. Gonzales, 218 Fed.Appx. 553 (8th Cir. 2007); Anjelia v. Gonzales, 226 Fed.Appx. 662 (9th Cir. 2007); Sarkisian v. Gonzales, 228 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2007); Feng Chen v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 101 (2nd Cir. 2007); Osepashvili v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 806 (2nd Cir. 2007); Mironova v. Attorney General of the U.S., 259 Fed.Appx. 503 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kantourian v. Michael Mukasey, 265 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2008); Chelle v. Attorney General of U.S., 264 Fed.Appx. 199 (3rd Cir. 2008); Shakhijanyan v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2008); Khudaverdyan v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2008); Kupczyk v. Attorney General of U.S., 283 Fed.Appx. 44 (3rd Cir. 2008); Paomey v. Mukasey, 282 Fed.Appx. 691 (10th Cir. 2008);Zodelava v. Attorney General of U.S., 290 Fed.Appx. 504 (3rd Cir. 2008); Avagyan v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2008);Aytayan v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 360 (9th Cir. 2008); Ghukasyan v. Mukasey, 306 Fed.Appx. 369 (9th Cir. 2008); Vardanyan v. Mukasey, 305 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. 2008); Gordeziani v. Attorney General of U.S., 321 Fed.Appx. 139 (3rd Cir. 2009); Yan Lan Hong v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 320 Fed.Appx. 98 (2nd Cir. 2009); Shvetsov v. Holder, 324 Fed.Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2009); and Kauspadas v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1427106 (7th Cir. 2009).

[5] The five successful Mormon asylum claims were in Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Mendoza v. I.N.S., 28 Fed.Appx. 586 (8th Cir. 2002); Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005); Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006); Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007).

[6] The three successful Adventist asylum claims were in Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004)(Burma); Tretiakova v. Gonzales, 221 Fed.Appx. 639 (9th Cir. 2007)(Russia); and Floroiu v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2007)(Romania).

[7] The 25 claims by Jehovah’s Witnesses that were successful were in Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1990); Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996); Adriano v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1999); Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Castellanos-Castillo v. I.N.S.,191 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1999); Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004); Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Sun v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2nd Cir. 2006); Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Anjelia v. Gonzales, 226 Fed.Appx. 662 (9th Cir. 2007); and Osepashvili v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 806 (2nd Cir. 2007).

[8] The 25 Jehovah’s Witness asylum claims involving Armenia were in Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Manukyan v. U.S., 96 Fed.Appx. 77 (3rd Cir. 2004); Hayrapetyan v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed.Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2004); Martirosyan v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 125 (9th Cir. 2004); Babayan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 43 (9th Cir. 2004); Pananyan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2004); Sargsyan v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 989 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaskanyan v. Ashcroft, 118 Fed.Appx. 200 (9th Cir. 2004); Mirzoyan v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 193 (9th Cir. 2005); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Markosyan v. Gonzales, 127 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2005); Barsegian v. Gonzales, 128 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2005); Patatanyan v. Gonzales, 132 Fed.Appx. 124 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Israelyan v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 85 (9th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Sarkisian v. Gonzales, 228 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2007); Kantourian v. Michael Mukasey, 265 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2008); Shakhijanyan v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2008); Khudaverdyan v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2008); Avagyan v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2008); Vardanyan v. Mukasey, 305 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. 2008); and Ghukasyan v. Mukasey, 306 Fed.Appx. 369 (9th Cir. 2008).

[9] The 21 Adventist claims involving Indonesia are in Sahensolar v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1998); Setyawan v. Ashcroft, 111 Fed.Appx. 579 (10th Cir. 2004); Silitonga v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2005); Peter v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Poerwantini v. Gonzales, 217 Fed.Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2007); Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 853 (10th Cir. 2007); Lumbangaol v. Keisler, 258 Fed.Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2007); Sibuea v. Mukasey, 260 Fed.Appx. 43 (10th Cir. 2007); Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008); Sitompul v. Mukasey, 272 Fed.Appx. 696 (10th Cir. 2008); Harahap v. Attorney General of U.S., 275 Fed.Appx. 95 (3rd Cir. 2008); Esfandiary v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008); Liem v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 206 (3rd Cir. 2008); Zakarias v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 197 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kamuh v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 7 (1st Cir. 2008); Wontas v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2008); Manullang v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 892 (10th Cir. 2008); Tendean v. Mukasey, 292 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2008); Umar v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2008); Siahaan v. Mukasey, 301 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir. 2008); and Kojo v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1396836 (9th Cir. 2009).

[10] The six successful Jehovah’s Witness claims involving Eritrea were in Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004);Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); and Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005).

[11] Wang v. Gonzales, 207 Fed.Appx. 130 (2nd Cir. 2006); Liang Wen v. Gonzales, 223 Fed.Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2007); Dan Zhu Wong v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 271 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2008).

[12] Vorobieva v. I.N.S., 172 F.3d 64 (10th Cir. 1999); Yunus v. I.N.S., 176 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1999); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Igoshin v. I.N.S., 50 Fed.Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2002).

[13] Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006);

[14] Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994);

[15] Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007)

[16] Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000)

[17] Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005)

Take this assessment and find out:

(Taken from D. Jeff Burton’s For Those Who Wonder : forthosewhowonder.com. Similar to a Correlation Department survey on Religion and Life conducted among LDS Church members in the mid-1980s)

So share if you dare, or simply sit back and contemplate the combinations and their consequences for our church!

Let me begin with my disclaimer — as some of you may have realized, I am struggling (as a member of the LDS church) with the way that church leaders (as of late) appear to be publicly distancing themselves from many of the tenets of the “gospel” that I grew up with. This is complicated by the fact that while I am happy to see many of these changes — I also am simultaneously fearful that as we “assimilate” into mainstream U.S. culture by playing up our commonalities with others — and distancing ourselves from the differences — we will ultimately weaken the church I love, by weakening the core beliefs/theology that once made us strong.

Anyway, to illustrate….during the interview, Dr. Millet was asked why Mormons target Christians as well as non-Christians with their missionary work. His response was as follows:

“Now, people will frequently ask us, ‘But why do you go to Christians who already have a church, who already have a belief?’ And, ‘Why don’t you just go to the heathen, you know?’ And there’s a practical answer for that. And that is — I’ve had pastors ask me this, and I’ve said to them, ‘How large is your congregation?’ ‘Well, about 700.’ ‘When you look out at that congregation, can you literally tell at one glance who of all those people have truly been converted? Who of all those people have had a personal conversion experience? Who of all those people have been born again? Who of all those people have, in your language, accepted Jesus as their savior? Do you know in each case?’ And he said, ‘Well, no, of course not.’ I said, ‘Neither do we.’ And so we approach everyone. “

Based on Mormon scripture, doctrine, and theology — isn’t the most honest and up front answer to this question the following: “We don’t consider any other church to have the legitimate authority of God — and so our missionary work must go to all people”. If I may quote from the Pearl of Great Price:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

Again — I can understand what he is doing here. He is trying to build on common beliefs — and he doesn’t want to offend.

But I ask you — is it completely honest? Or is it misleading? Is Dr. Millet telling the whole truth here — or only a partial truth? More importantly — as more and more devout LDS folks pick up on answers like this — are they not going to start wondering what’s going on…and where the church that they grew up in (and that the pioneers sacrificed for) has gone? All watered down and stuff?

Finally, for those of you who were missionaries — how focused were you on “helping people to accept Jesus as their personal savior”, vs. helping them to join the one and only true church? And if people told you that they had already accepted Jesus as their Savior, did you politely accept their response, and move on to someone else — or did you keep trying?