[elb1179]

Saw this post by W. Clark on PDO and hope he could clarify on here:

The definition of a Place of Worship does NOT include buildings on Temple Square. See 76-10-501(13)Worship services are not held in these buildings and as such are not envisioned under "places of Worship" just as LDS Institute and Seminary buildings do not qualify as Places of Worship either. It has been stipulated commonly that "worship" services are NOT held in the Temple rather they are held in the LDS Ward/Meeting Houses.

(13) "House of worship" means a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of worship in which religious services are held and the main body of which is kept for that use and not put to any other use inconsistent with its primary purpose.

Does this mean that LDS temples are not off limits the way meeting houses are?

 

[W. Clark Aposhian]

It hasn't been tested, but....
The only buildings that were envisioned when the bill was drafted were meeting houses, be they Baptist, Catholic or LDS. The wording of the statute could certainly be found to include LDS Temples as they do hold "Regular Worship Services”.
Here's the thing, without going on and on about the drafting and intent of the bill and the real reason for it. The major gun rights groups have always stipulated that a church is only a tiny step away from a person's home with respect to private property. As such a church didn't even NEED this statue to be able to ban firearms under an existing trespassing statute.

For the LDS church to use this statute to ban firearms in the Temple they would have to specifically state that in signage or in the other approved notification methods, newspaper, press release, over the pulpit, ward newsletter (all of these at least 1 time per year) At this time they have only indicated as such for the ward meeting houses.

Sincerely,
W. Clark Aposhian

 

[elb1179]

One more question on this, and this may be walking a close line, but if a ward doesn't put out that notification by any of those means, regardless of the church's statement with BCI?

I have missed several Sunday meetings lately, so it very possible they read a statement on a day I missed, but I am curious about the technicalities of this statute in this situation.

 

[tapehoser]

Not exactly sure what you mean, Ethan.

Are you asking whether a church ONLY has to give notification to the BCI to prohibit firearms?[/quote]

 

[elb1179]

As I understand the statue (and I very well could be wrong here), a church has to do two things to qualify. One is to notify BCI of their intent to prohibit firearms. Second, they have to notify their patrons. Clark gave several examples of such notification including an announcement from the pulpit, newsletter, signage, press release, etc.

I guess I am curious if this notification can be done generally from one source for all different congregations (LDS church headquarters press release) or if it has to be done individually for each congregation or at least buiding. So if a bishop neglects to read the letter over the pulpit or whatnot, does the restriction have no power in that LDS ward building?

 

[Jeff Johnson]

The ban does include temples themselves. The list of places where the ban is in effect is: temples, meeting houses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and the Conference Center (notice that the list does not include the visitors center, where I've peaceably packed with confidence before).

Here is the official letterhttp://lds.org/newsroom/files/Firearms_First_Presidency_Letter.pdf that was read over the pulpits.

And here is the official news release from the church:

No Firearms in Latter-day Saint Houses of Worship in Utah
23 January 2004

SALT LAKE CITY -- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has mailed a letter to its local leaders in Utah informing them that the Church "plans to invoke ... Utah law and give public notice that firearms are prohibited in the Church's houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and the Conference Center."

This action implements the Church's position announced by the First Presidency in 1996 that churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world and that, consequently, lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, do not belong in houses of worship. The Church shares this belief with many other religions in Utah.

The Church will register its position with the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation and provide notice in the newspaper, as required by the Utah law that allows religious organizations to prohibit concealed weapons from their premises.

Once the actions of registering and providing public notice are completed, individuals with concealed-carry weapons permits will not be allowed to bring their firearms inside Latter-day Saint houses of worship.

The Church's position and these announced actions apply only to houses of worship. The Church has not taken a position on legislation regarding guns in public schools or other public places.

I could personally wish that the policy were different, but I also have to say that nobody forces you or me to belong to any church. We are free in this country to exercise our religion, or to exercise no religion at all.

Logic dictates that if you believe that your church is guided and directed from Heaven, then you ought to follow the rules set by that church, even if you disagree with them. We had a very good lesson in church today. We cannot be obedient in the big things if we are not obedient in the small things. If I would that this policy were different, I would still not speak ill of those whose signature is on that official letter.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Ethan, here's the actual statute:

U.C.A. 76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.

I believe that the church has followed the proper steps to be in compliance.

 

[blackpuma]

... Logic dictates that if you believe that your church is guided and directed from Heaven, then you ought to follow the rules set by that church, even if you disagree with them. We had a very good lesson in church today. We cannot be obedient in the big things if we are not obedient in the small things. If I would that this policy were different, I would still not speak ill of those whose signature is on that official letter.

I think that this has been discussed here and other places before. Yes, this constradicts past teachings, correct principles, and logic. I'm still convinced that it's being overridden by the general attidudes of the Utah population. When people reject what they've been instructed by prophets, it's taken away. Most people are familiar with Samuel's encounter, along with our own history during the past ~170 years.

Anyhow, my two bits.

(Yes, though I'm prohibited from the most effective means, I'm still armed.)

 

[tapehoser]

Well said, Jeff. I agree.

And although I disagree with the Church's position on this matter, I will continue to obey the rules as they are set forth. It's frustrating and I pray that no harm comes to my family and others while we attend services.

 

[elb1179]

Maybe people are missing my question. Let me back up one step first. Does each congregation of the church have to make an announcement (from the pulpit or in a newsletters, etc) in order for this to be in effect (after the church files with BCI)?

 

[W. Clark Aposhian]

No, each meeting house does not have to affirm the ban on CCW. Just has to be by someone in authority. In that the first Presidency has "authority' over all of the wards they can make one declaration and it will affect all of them. At least for the LDS Church that is how it works.
Clark

 

[Cinhil]

Regardless as to whether the statute says a church may do a once a year reading from the pulpit, or contact BCI to be put on the spineless list, I still feel it is appropriates that after doing so, they then post that notice in a conspicuous place on each and every door/exit to each building. Afterall, non,members would never know, new converts might not know, and certainly individuals visiting from other states/countries are bound to be ignorant of the law, much less where to find the info on the law. It only makes good sense. If advertising the fact that all parishoners are easy prey is good enough to read on BCI, why not put it on the doors too!

 

[elb1179]

I guess that is where I was confused. I thought it had to be announced in each ward.

Let me raise another question. If the leadership of the LDS church feels so strongly about restricting weapons in meetinghouses, does anyone know if they are making efforts to restrict CCW in meetinghouses in other states? Have they posted signs on the doors in states where doing so lawfully prohibits CCW?

 

[tapehoser]

That's just the point Ethan. I DON'T think they feel strongly about it.

In what I have gleaned from Clark's comments and experiences with the Church in drafting this law, it seems that a small number of 'ANTIs' were key in lobbying the Brethren to make this happen. The general attitude of the Brethren was somethin like, "Well, fine, here ya go. For all the good it'll do ya!"

 

[elb1179]

Which is what I figured. I am just throwing the questions out to stimulate some discussion. I believe that if the Brethren had really intended to ban weapons from meetinghouses, they would be doing everything that they legally could nationwide to keep guns out. They aren't. Ergo...

 

[blackpuma]

... if the Brethren had really intended to ban weapons from meetinghouses, ..

Nor would they have armed the security guards. (I had a neighbour that worked security downtown for the Church.) He said there were a number of resignations after they were all required to carry on-duty. That would have been ~3 years ago. I'm assuming that they still are required to carry. Anybody know for sure, just out of curiosity?

He he he... what a funny idea. Require the local leaders to carry. That'll separate some wheat from chaff.

 

[Sambolijah]

He he he... what a funny idea. Require the local leaders to carry. That'll separate some wheat from chaff.

That would be great .

 

[handyrandyrc]

Nor would they have armed the security guards. (I had a neighbour that worked security downtown for the Church.) He said there were a number of resignations after they were all required to carry on-duty. That would have been ~3 years ago. I'm assuming that they still are required to carry. Anybody know for sure, just out of curiosity?

My uncle works for church security -- and yes, they carry today.