[hamm]

If I remember right, the LDS church's BCI posting expires in January. Those whose lives this affects should consider writing to the First Presidency to tell them not to renew this ridiculous policy.

 

[xmirage2kx]

Agreed, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Tarzan1888]

Agreed, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

They will never change due to public pressure.

This leaves you with a choice.

Transgress a lesser law for a greater responsibility, or not.

Remember Adam and Eve

Tarzan

 

[tapehoser]

They will never change due to public pressure.

I disagree. Ask Clark Aposhian, since he helped draft that little piece of legislation. The law allowing a church to forbid us from carrying our concealed weapons onto their property was brought about because a group of sheeple asked, NAY, begged the LDS Church leaders to 'protect' them from us mean widd-o gun wubbers.

That is why they have not pushed similar legislation in other states where the LDS Church has a presence (i.e. church buildings).

If enough people wrote the LDS Church's First Presidency about the foolishness of the law, I think they'd take their name of the BCI web site.

 

[Tarzan1888]

They will never change due to public pressure.

I disagree. Ask Clark Aposhian, since he helped draft that little piece of legislation. The law allowing a church to forbid us from carrying our concealed weapons onto their property was brought about because a group of sheeple asked, NAY, begged the LDS Church leaders to 'protect' them from us mean widd-o gun wubbers.

That is why they have not pushed similar legislation in other states where the LDS Church has a presence (i.e. church buildings).

If enough people wrote the LDS Church's First Presidency about the foolishness of the law, I think they'd take their name of the BCI web site.

Hope springs eternal.

But until that happens......remember Adam and Eve.

Tarzan

 

[tapehoser]

Agreed.

 

[xmirage2kx]

concealed is concealed

 

[Walther]

When BYU was supporting the ban by the U I was going to write them and ask them why a University owned by the LDS church which advocates the "Law of th land" would support another university that was breaking the law of the land. Sorry to say I never did write them. However, would that be a premise to write them?

I am for private property rights also, and wouldn't want the gov telling me I had to do this or that. If the private property owner wants to ban guns I feel he has the right and I have the right to not enter his business and buy not from him, but I would let him know why.

As far as the LDS Church is concerened, the Brethern have said not to carry in the church so I don't, but that is just me and I don't judge others in what they do.

 

[Ruger Collector]

As far as the LDS Church is concerened, the Brethern have said not to carry in the church so I don't, but that is just me and I don't judge others in what they do.

Those following the first principal of concealed carry, "Concealed" (that includes keeping your, and your families mouths shut), are highly unlikely to be discovered at any non-secured location.

The following is purely hypothetical:
Do you really think any church would excommunicate or prosecute members who stood up in an emergency willing to give his or her own life for the protection of others, just because they used a prohibited tool to stop harm from becoming the innocent? I suspect that the church officials might even work to persuade the government from pursuing charges.

Purely speculation on my part. Please always obey the law.

 

[Tarzan1888]

As far as the LDS Church is concerened, the Brethern have said not to carry in the church so I don't, but that is just me and I don't judge others in what they do.

Those following the first principal of concealed carry, "Concealed" (that includes keeping your, and your families mouths shut), are highly unlikely to be discovered at any non-secured location.

The following is purely hypothetical:
Do you really think any church would excommunicate or prosecute members who stood up in an emergency willing to give his or her own life for the protection of others, just because they used a prohibited tool to stop harm from becoming the innocent? I suspect that the church officials might even work to persuade the government from pursuing charges.

Purely speculation on my part. Please always obey the law.

I like the way you think. :wink:

Tarzan

 

[Guest]

As far as the LDS Church is concerened, the Brethern have said not to carry in the church so I don't, but that is just me and I don't judge others in what they do.

Those following the first principal of concealed carry, "Concealed" (that includes keeping your, and your families mouths shut), are highly unlikely to be discovered at any non-secured location.

The following is purely hypothetical:
Do you really think any church would excommunicate or prosecute members who stood up in an emergency willing to give his or her own life for the protection of others, just because they used a prohibited tool to stop harm from becoming the innocent? I suspect that the church officials might even work to persuade the government from pursuing charges.

Purely speculation on my part. Please always obey the law.

I like the way you think. :wink:

Tarzan

Well topically I agree; but then I believe in the sanctity of property more than my ability to carry in a church.

It is the churches property; something, despite my feelings about this or any church, I must abide. There is one little thing from the bible I believe above all others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If I expect others to defer to my property rights and how I choose to dispose of it I must in turn respect how they choose to dispose of theirs. If they say they don't want me to carry on their property I will not carry on their property.

Fortunately for me most of the property in the US belongs to me and I get some say as to what goes there.

 

[hamm]

I've been up since 3:00 this morning trying to write a good letter to the LDS church leaders about getting rid of this gun ban. In some of the research I was doing online, I found this article:

W. Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Self Defense Instructor's Network (USDIN), said he agrees with The Church of Jesus Christ's 1996 statement regarding firearms. "I don't think the Church is making a political statement," Aposhian said. "It's consistent with their stand as a religious entity, where they don't feel that firearms or weapons of any kind are appropriate in a worship venue."

My thoughts: If the big dog of the pro-gun lobby in Utah isn't with us, then we're screwed. Nevertheless, I'm going to write this letter just to get this frustration off my chest.

 

[Paul]

Well topically I agree; but then I believe in the sanctity of property more than my ability to carry in a church.

It is the churches property; something, despite my feelings about this or any church, I must abide. There is one little thing from the bible I believe above all others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If I expect others to defer to my property rights and how I choose to dispose of it I must in turn respect how they choose to dispose of theirs. If they say they don't want me to carry on their property I will not carry on their property.

Fortunately for me most of the property in the US belongs to me and I get some say as to what goes there.

You make an excellent point. I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I wish the restriction did not exist. Your point about respecting others property rights is excellent. As a property owner, if I expect others to respect my rights, I should also respect theirs. I also have this little moral twinge about going against the wishes of those that I consider prophets and apostles. I have personally chosen to not intentionally carry into LDS churches. I would love to see the law changed however.

-PW

 

[xmirage2kx]

You make an excellent point. I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I wish the restriction did not exist. Your point about respecting others property rights is excellent. As a property owner, if I expect others to respect my rights, I should also respect theirs. I also have this little moral twinge about going against the wishes of those that I consider prophets and apostles. I have personally chosen to not intentionally carry into LDS churches. I would love to see the law changed however.

-PW

One thought to ponder: Only in Utah is carrying in an LDS church wrong (assuming you can carry in a church in the selected state). It is a Utah LDS church policy established because a law exists in Utah that forces churches to either allow or deny carry rights. This is not an LDS rule; it is a state law, so you would not be breaking any religious law, just an earthly law.

Not saying it is right to break the law just that you are not going against the prophet

 

[T-Man]

This is not an LDS rule; it is a state law, so you would not be breaking any religious law, just an earthly law.

Also remember that this law was passed by the state legislature after the church came out in support of it. Without public support by the church, the law probably would not have passed, and we would not be having this discussion.

There go the myths that 1. Utah politics are not run by "THE Church" and 2. "The Church" doesn't get involved in politics. Glad I moved to a state where everyone you meet doesn't ask what ward you're in.

 

[Paul]

One thought to ponder: Only in Utah is carrying in an LDS church wrong (assuming you can carry in a church in the selected state). It is a Utah LDS church policy established because a law exists in Utah that forces churches to either allow or deny carry rights. This is not an LDS rule; it is a state law, so you would not be breaking any religious law, just an earthly law.

Not saying it is right to break the law just that you are not going against the prophet

We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. That seems like a religious law to me. (Course I speed like crazy.......so what does that make me?) :?

I still just haven't really reconciled with myself, why I should or shouldn't follow this law. I do think everyone has some good arguements either way. I guess for me the obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, combined with the fact that obviously this Utah law was created for the LDS church, and I am sure BY their request (I'm sure the President and upper church leadership had a hand in this), just makes me personally feel like I need to follow the law. (If the church had a hand in setting speed limits, I would probably speed less....LOL) I don't think anyone is going to **** by carrying in a church, I just have chosen to not do it INTENTIONALLY. I also feel strongly about personal property owners rights and I really like the point Eukatea made.

-PW

 

[tapehoser]

PW, I'm just trying to figure out how you could UNINTENTIONALLLY carry concealed in church.

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

 

[Cinhil]

Well, I have watched this thread for a while now and after last night I need to make a comment. My wife & I were reading the LDS Proclamation to the World on the Family where I am copying the following from:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families"

Yes we now have a state law defining that churches may keep an individual from carrying within its doors. This of course doesn't mean that even by LDS perspective, according to what I have been taught my whole life, or according to this statement to the world, this is a good law. The fact that the church is exercising its right is only loosley, to me, following the dictates of law. This of course doesn't mean I like it, I don't. But I try to be obedient.
The fact that the church is doing this appears to be in direct conflict with how it states that fathers are to protect their families.
How can a legally authorized individual who has done no wrong be denied a divine right/responsibility to defend his family? Perhaps in letters to the First Presidency this could be addressed.
Hopefully this perspective may be of assistance in this matter.

 

[Walther]

tapehoser wrote

PW, I'm just trying to figure out how you could UNINTENTIONALLLY carry concealed in church.

I can tell you how I have. When going to church on sunday and dressing in my suit I do not put on my holster. But, when going to YM (scouts) during the week, I have been late getting off work and go right to the church for my Young Mens meeting and have not thought about taking the gun off and leaving it in my truck, which I usually do.

 

[Guest]

One thought to ponder: Only in Utah is carrying in an LDS church wrong (assuming you can carry in a church in the selected state). It is a Utah LDS church policy established because a law exists in Utah that forces churches to either allow or deny carry rights. This is not an LDS rule; it is a state law, so you would not be breaking any religious law, just an earthly law.

Not saying it is right to break the law just that you are not going against the prophet

We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. That seems like a religious law to me. (Course I speed like crazy.......so what does that make me?) :?

I still just haven't really reconciled with myself, why I should or shouldn't follow this law. I do think everyone has some good arguments either way. I guess for me the obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, combined with the fact that obviously this Utah law was created for the LDS church, and I am sure BY their request (I'm sure the President and upper church leadership had a hand in this), just makes me personally feel like I need to follow the law. (If the church had a hand in setting speed limits, I would probably speed less....LOL) I don't think anyone is going to **** by carrying in a church, I just have chosen to not do it INTENTIONALLY. I also feel strongly about personal property owners rights and I really like the point Eukatea made.

-PW

Keep in mind my opinion may not be relevant to you as a member of the LDS church. I am not a member, I have no stake or claim to the property of the church. You Latter Day Saints, on the other hand, may have a claim on the property of the church. Who owns the church if not the member of the church? Combine that with the post concerning what appears to be church doctrine

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families"

You may have both the implied right and obligation of faith to carry in church.