Utah Guns Forum banner
101 - 115 of 115 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
hyrax said:
Just gotta ask. When will the LDS Church name show up in the "Boycott " area of the board index? We have thrown businesses in there for far less. :dunno:
There is a diffrence between boycotting a busness even though you like the muffins, and boycotting a religion you belive in strongly. I may not like that fact that I can't carry, but to me, that doesn't change that fact that I belive its true.

Also I want to point out, yes, not allowing firearms in church is a policy. However, obeying the law of the land is a core belief, and it is against the law when it comes right down to it. Make your own choices, just keep that in mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Hawk87 said:
hyrax said:
Just gotta ask. When will the LDS Church name show up in the "Boycott " area of the board index? We have thrown businesses in there for far less. :dunno:
There is a diffrence between boycotting a busness even though you like the muffins, and boycotting a religion you belive in strongly. I may not like that fact that I can't carry, but to me, that doesn't change that fact that I belive its true.

Also I want to point out, yes, not allowing firearms in church is a policy. However, obeying the law of the land is a core belief, and it is against the law when it comes right down to it. Make your own choices, just keep that in mind.
As a reminder, it is only an infraction and carries minimal, if any consequences unless multiple warnings are issued to you/refuse to comply when confronted by someone in authority (Building Supervisor or Bishop) and refuse to leave or take your weapon out of the church. It is perfectly legal to have your weapon in your car while parked and attending meetings (Though not recommended as many vehicles are robbed while people are attending church).

This is definitely an issue that I, and many hundreds, if not thousands, of Utahans feel the bite of the two-edged sword of obeying the law of the land and obeying church doctrine or following a dictate concerning bringing weapons into the church which feels like a contradiction to the divinely inspired writings (also accepted as doctrine by the majority in acclamation) of the Proclamation concerning families where it succinctly states it is the calling of fathers to protect their families. I, as do many, believe this to mean (as with those in the Book of Mormon) that I protect my family even unto blood shed if it means I am protecting them, or my liberty or life. It is an issue that we all take umbrage to because it feels as wrong as it feels right to not have to worry about the cares of the world while worshiping. But we also know that the evils of the world do not confine themselves to the world, they creep in and destroy often, or threaten those who may be worshiping. We need to following the promptings we receive and act accordingly hoping that whatever decision we personally make will be the correct one for us, our families and loved ones - regardless of policies which may be blindly followed. Doctrine, and obedience to that have greater sway, I believe, than innocuous words written in what has never been stated as divinely inspired.

With that said, whether I do, or do not, carry while in church it is still a matter between me and my God as it should be for everyone. It is not something I would boycott but I can work from the inside & try to do what I can to make it better. Hopefully things will be able to be changed. Unfortunately, it may take more than a Bishop being murdered in far off California before change may be effected here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
Cinhil said:
Unfortunately, it may take more than a Bishop being murdered in far off California before change may be effected here.
The irony of this incident is that it is legal to carry in a church in California.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
Cinhil said:
Hawk87 said:
hyrax said:
Just gotta ask. When will the LDS Church name show up in the "Boycott " area of the board index? We have thrown businesses in there for far less. :dunno:
There is a diffrence between boycotting a busness even though you like the muffins, and boycotting a religion you belive in strongly. I may not like that fact that I can't carry, but to me, that doesn't change that fact that I belive its true.

Also I want to point out, yes, not allowing firearms in church is a policy. However, obeying the law of the land is a core belief, and it is against the law when it comes right down to it. Make your own choices, just keep that in mind.
As a reminder, it is only an infraction and carries minimal, if any consequences unless multiple warnings are issued to you/refuse to comply when confronted by someone in authority (Building Supervisor or Bishop) and refuse to leave or take your weapon out of the church. It is perfectly legal to have your weapon in your car while parked and attending meetings (Though not recommended as many vehicles are robbed while people are attending church).

This is definitely an issue that I, and many hundreds, if not thousands, of Utahans feel the bite of the two-edged sword of obeying the law of the land and obeying church doctrine or following a dictate concerning bringing weapons into the church which feels like a contradiction to the divinely inspired writings (also accepted as doctrine by the majority in acclamation) of the Proclamation concerning families where it succinctly states it is the calling of fathers to protect their families. I, as do many, believe this to mean (as with those in the Book of Mormon) that I protect my family even unto blood shed if it means I am protecting them, or my liberty or life. It is an issue that we all take umbrage to because it feels as wrong as it feels right to not have to worry about the cares of the world while worshiping. But we also know that the evils of the world do not confine themselves to the world, they creep in and destroy often, or threaten those who may be worshiping. We need to following the promptings we receive and act accordingly hoping that whatever decision we personally make will be the correct one for us, our families and loved ones - regardless of policies which may be blindly followed. Doctrine, and obedience to that have greater sway, I believe, than innocuous words written in what has never been stated as divinely inspired.

With that said, whether I do, or do not, carry while in church it is still a matter between me and my God as it should be for everyone. It is not something I would boycott but I can work from the inside & try to do what I can to make it better. Hopefully things will be able to be changed. Unfortunately, it may take more than a Bishop being murdered in far off California before change may be effected here.
I feel like I should clarify here, as I seemed to have hit a nerve. I am only trying to point out that it is a two edged sword, and put into perspective those that say it is only policy. Frankly, if you want to carry at church or not is none on my concern. (Well as long as you don't do something stupid like shoot the toilet anyway.) Remember as well, obeying the law of the land is in the articles of faith. It does not make exceptions for infractions. A law is a law is a law, be it big or small. Make your own choices, but do it in the proper perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
I just wanted to spur some thinking a bit. I, personally, shop wherever I feel like with no concern to their stance on firearms. I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies in the "boycott list" standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
hyrax said:
I just wanted to spur some thinking a bit. I, personally, shop wherever I feel like with no concern to their stance on firearms. I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies in the "boycott list" standards.
Fair enough. I also shop anywhere I like without regard to a given store's stance on firearms, unless that store is known for giving people trouble.

As for the LDS Church, it's the only place I don't carry (well, aside from those places where I'd find myself in heap big trouble for carrying there, such as a Post Office). I figure if I truly sustain the elders of the Church as prophets, seers, and revelators, then perhaps I ought to listen to them when they ask me to not carry in the house of the Lord.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
Been to the church office building lately, Michael?

To go anywhere beyond the ground floor, they have metal detectors. And the Brethren have their own security teams. Think THEY have to deal with those pesky rules abt firearms in churches? We the People generally get a sour taste in our mouth when someone tells us we can't do something, and then they go ahead and do it themselves, or live in a stratosphere where such things are not a concern for them.

Just sayin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Daeyel said:
Been to the church office building lately, Michael?

To go anywhere beyond the ground floor, they have metal detectors. And the Brethren have their own security teams. Think THEY have to deal with those pesky rules abt firearms in churches? We the People generally get a sour taste in our mouth when someone tells us we can't do something, and then they go ahead and do it themselves, or live in a stratosphere where such things are not a concern for them.

Just sayin.
I think this is an unfair statement.

You are not allowed to carry on an airplane, but air marshals are. You are not allowed to carry any place the president of the united states is going to be... but secret service is... I think it's totally justifiable to restrict firearms from the church office building, yet allow bodyguards to carry. I don't see it as a double standard, I see it as stacking the deck in your favor when you are a highly visible target.

-Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
FreshAir said:
Daeyel said:
Been to the church office building lately, Michael?

To go anywhere beyond the ground floor, they have metal detectors. And the Brethren have their own security teams. Think THEY have to deal with those pesky rules abt firearms in churches? We the People generally get a sour taste in our mouth when someone tells us we can't do something, and then they go ahead and do it themselves, or live in a stratosphere where such things are not a concern for them.

Just sayin.
I think this is an unfair statement.

You are not allowed to carry on an airplane, but air marshals are. You are not allowed to carry any place the president of the united states is going to be... but secret service is... I think it's totally justifiable to restrict firearms from the church office building, yet allow bodyguards to carry. I don't see it as a double standard, I see it as stacking the deck in your favor when you are a highly visible target.

-Jason
Kristy Ragsdale was a highly visible (whatever that means)target. Yet she was forbidden by church rules from protecting herself. Anyone in a divorce proceeding should exercise extreme caution, because if there's anything that's gonna make ordinary people go off their rocker, its highly stressful life events like a contentious divorce.

But that's not all. What about those of us who have, unknowingly incurred the wrath of a stranger? Clay Sannar can tell you it happens.

Now, I've never gone to Pres. Monson's ward, so I cant say what security is like there. But I'd say Pres Monson is no less a target than the Kristi Ragsdales and Clay Sannars of the world. If you disagree, just look at who is dead and who is living.

So why does Pres. Monson have more right to protection and 'self defense' (if you can call a security team self defense) than you or I do? Oh right. Pres. Monson is more important than me. So much for God not being a respecter of persons.

I reserve the right to defend myself anywhere, anytime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Daeyel said:
Anyone in a divorce proceeding should exercise extreme caution, because if there's anything that's gonna make ordinary people go off their rocker, its highly stressful life events like a contentious divorce.
Speaking of contentious divorce. She had served him divorce papers the night before. I didn't know him, but I knew her from the DMV here in town.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12565798&nid=148
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Two comments.

First, D&C 134:5 states "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments" (emphasis added). In other words, man is obligated to obey the law only to the extent that the law is just. Now, there are no doubt many cases where the law is slightly imperfect but one is better off obeying it anyway just to avoid trouble. However, there comes a point where laws are so immoral that to obey them would be immoral also.

Anyone who claims that people should always obey the law needs to think about terrible laws (or government decrees given the force of law) like the Extermination Order or the Final Solution. Would you have obeyed those laws? I certainly hope not. So any statement to the effect of "we submit to and obey the law" should be understood to have an unspoken caveat of "as long as the law is just."

Second, in regards to the examples that were given of the US president being able to declare any place he visits a temporary gun-free zone, I would see that as an example of why there SHOULDN'T be double standards for gun rights, rather than the opposite. Should the presence of a "high visibility VIP" be allowed to infringe on my civil liberties? And why should a government agent, whose powers are based on MY delegation of rights and responsibilites to him, claim to be superior to me in terms of being able to carry a gun? I find it ironic that many of the most die-hard promoters of gun control, including celebrities and members of Congress, have personal bodyguards who are armed at all times. And I am very sad to see that top LDS leaders have joined the list of celebrities who make use of guns for self defense (even if indirectly through their bodyguards) while forbidding that right to the people around them.

Here's to hoping against hope that some day the LDS church will come to its senses and "proclaim liberty throughout all the land" (Lev. 25: 10), including Utah!

-The Butcher
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Daeyel said:
Kristy Ragsdale was a highly visible (whatever that means)target. Yet she was forbidden by church rules from protecting herself. Anyone in a divorce proceeding should exercise extreme caution, because if there's anything that's gonna make ordinary people go off their rocker, its highly stressful life events like a contentious divorce.

But that's not all. What about those of us who have, unknowingly incurred the wrath of a stranger? Clay Sannar can tell you it happens.

Now, I've never gone to Pres. Monson's ward, so I cant say what security is like there. But I'd say Pres Monson is no less a target than the Kristi Ragsdales and Clay Sannars of the world. If you disagree, just look at who is dead and who is living.

So why does Pres. Monson have more right to protection and 'self defense' (if you can call a security team self defense) than you or I do? Oh right. Pres. Monson is more important than me. So much for God not being a respecter of persons.

I reserve the right to defend myself anywhere, anytime.
I mean no disrespect to Kristi Ragsdale, but I beg to differ in regards to her being a highly visible target. Also, it does not matter who is dead or who is living, because that statement only reflects who was successful in defending themselves and who was not. It has no bearing on the level of threat to their lives. Kristi was highly vulnerable, but not highly visible. The threat to her life was very specific and timely(she had filed for a protective order), and she was aware of the possibility of that specific threat before it happened. In contrast, LDS Church leadership receives death threats all the time. The threat is vague(can't usually identify who sent the threat), but real. The security teams do not know where or when these threats will materialize, therefore they must be prepared to deal with those threats directly.

The church office building is NOT a public place. It is private. Therefore they have every right to decide who may enter and who may not. If you are carrying a weapon, they will most likely deny your entrance. However, I have yet to hear of a church leader traveling to a PUBLIC place, and disarming the local citizens in the same area as the prophet... to do that would be a violation of those people's rights.

Now, before everybody jumps on my butt and starts ripping me a new hole, I want to be clear on this... I differ in opinion about what Daeyel said regarding the church security teams. In the case of Kristy Ragsdale, I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to judge fairly if she was denied the ability to defend herself. Truly what happened to her (based on a quick google search) was terrible, and should never have happened. I hope her husband spends the rest of his days in misery for what he did, but again, my above statements are not relevant to her issue.

However I will make this statement about my understanding of this poor lady's case: laws don't prevent people from killing, they only outline the punishment for doing so. In this young woman's case, it seems no amount of firepower, in her possession, or in the hands of her fellow worshipers would have saved her life. There was no warning, no time to react. Nothing would have saved this woman's life, except perhaps to change up her schedule, to run and hide, and break away from her predictable patterns. This husband knew exactly where she would be and used that against her. She died for her beliefs, and while I'm sure her family and children miss her, it is certainly one of the noblest ways to die. While I don't wish for death, if it should come for me, I pray it will be in the form of me dying for my beliefs.

-Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
FreshAir said:
The church office building is NOT a public place. It is private. Therefore they have every right to decide who may enter and who may not. If you are carrying a weapon, they will most likely deny your entrance. However, I have yet to hear of a church leader traveling to a PUBLIC place, and disarming the local citizens in the same area as the prophet... to do that would be a violation of those people's rights.

-Jason
+1 :thumbsup: Being who they are, I don't blame them for the restrictions on their own property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Matapatos said:
FreshAir said:
The church office building is NOT a public place. It is private. Therefore they have every right to decide who may enter and who may not. If you are carrying a weapon, they will most likely deny your entrance. However, I have yet to hear of a church leader traveling to a PUBLIC place, and disarming the local citizens in the same area as the prophet... to do that would be a violation of those people's rights.

-Jason
+1 :thumbsup: Being who they are, I don't blame them for the restrictions on their own property.
+1 completely agreed. These are prophets and apostles and leaders of a church, Having Body Guards is a Necessary thing because frankly a lot of people still want to kill mormons. The president of the united states has secret service, The Leaders of the Church have Church security. They own the land and the buildings, Private. Therefore they can enforce those gun regulations lawfully and morally. Its not a double standard, Its called Protecting valuable assets, to which these men are very valuable for very obvious reasons.
 
101 - 115 of 115 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top