Utah Guns Forum banner

Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

38K views 62 replies 24 participants last post by  aanfed602 
#1 ·
http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/34782442

Shooter opened fire at an LDS stake center.

This is why sometime *law abiding* gun owners may feel more justified In protecting their (pregnant wives) rather than obey the letter of the law on this one. .
 
#52 ·
Guaraca said:
I am a faithful member of the church, and I have my own reasons for obeying the policy, but I have no problem sharing my opinion about the policy simply because I think this is a policy that directly contradicts church doctrine.
I think a lot of very valid conversation and debate can be had on the topic by those who first make clear they obey the policy. Thank you.

I have long said that I don't much care for the policy, I don't understand it very well (Is it doctrinal? Is it to avoid having one more issue that makes liberals uncomfortable? A test of faith? An effort to reduce liability from NDs or even an effort to make churches safer?), and it isn't the policy I'd set were it my place to set such policies. But since it isn't my prerogative to set such policies, I'm left with the choice to either abide (one way or another) or not abide the policy. Like you, I choose to obey the policy while remaining an active, observant, member of the LDS Church.

Guaraca said:
What does everyone think? Am I over thinking this?
This is an RKBA forum, not an LDS (or any other religious) forum. So I hesitate to delve too deeply or spend too much time on religious beliefs. That said, I'm reminded often that one of the central doctrines of the LDS Church is that of living prophets and continual revelation. With the official policy as part of the General Handbook #2 (21.2.4) and with the First Presidency Signatures appearing over a letter to local leaders on the topic there can be no argument among faithful LDS that the prophet is not fully aware of and supporting this policy.

Whether the policy is the result of direct revelation in his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, or is merely a mundane matter (similar to lighted candles or masks at Halloween parties held at the church) determined in his role as President of the Church, really shouldn't matter to active LDS as we sustain him as both the President of the Church and as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.

It is also the Prophet's responsibility to guide us as to how doctrines interplay with each other (EG "let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing" vs "let your light so shine") and with policies (EG King Benjamin's admonition not to let the beggar put his petition to you in vain vs the signs around Temple Square encouraging donations to reputable charities rather than giving directly to pan handlers). For example, see the Doctrine and Covenants study manual lesson on "The Living Prophet" and this article by then President Ezra T. Benson in the1975 New Era that touches on the importance of the living prophet.

Bottom line for me: I'm not going to even hint that the prophet/president of the church has promulgated a policy that violates established doctrines. I'm going to assume that maybe my understanding of doctrine isn't as full as his is. I personally don't like the policy. But I also don't personally like sitting in 3 hours of meetings in a building that is 2 degrees warmer than I think comfortable. :D I don't much care for getting up for 7:00 am leadership or general priesthood meetings. Before I got married, that whole law of chastity was pretty rough as well. I don't know why the LDS Church has adopted the policy on guns in buildings it has.

I do figure that the most important thing a Prophet does for me is to correct me when I'm wrong. Encouraging me when I'm doing right is nice, but perhaps less important than correcting me when I'm in error. I don't know what it is that might be "wrong" about taking a gun into an LDS Church building at this period in time. I know that it is a fairly easy thing for me to obey the policy. By doing so, I hope to never need my gun at church, or to have the personal strength through the Grace of God to endure whatever I have to endure should I need it but not have it; as well as whatever else may come my way whether in church or not.

Charles
 
#55 ·
I won't say where or whom but there are Wards that have actually asked very selective people to carry for the intended purpose. If one knows how to carry properly no one should ever be aware anyhow.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#56 ·
To inform if you are unaware, I see some basic hypocrisy with this law as it generally concerns LDS Houses of worship. That is that the Prophet of the LDS Church and the Apostles do have armed bodyguards - even when they are in a church building. As with other issues in society it vexes me as it feels like an us vs them issue where they can thwart the law but we little people are of no consequence and cannot. This, the scriptures we LDS use and the Proclamation on the family are not in compliance with one another as they seemingly violate each other, or denigrate the veracity of each other. I hope and pray for the day when this curse is lifted and is no longer an issue up for discussion.
 
#57 ·
adamslm said:
I won't say where or whom but there are Wards that have actually asked very selective people to carry for the intended purpose. If one knows how to carry properly no one should ever be aware anyhow.
And they too would be in violation of the law without a letter signed by the Managing director of church security.
 
#58 ·
Cinhil said:
To inform if you are unaware, I see some basic hypocrisy with this law as it generally concerns LDS Houses of worship. That is that the Prophet of the LDS Church and the Apostles do have armed bodyguards - even when they are in a church building. As with other issues in society it vexes me as it feels like an us vs them issue where they can thwart the law but we little people are of no consequence and cannot. ....
I won't argue the apparent hypocrisy issue as it can certainly appear that way.

However, there is no "twart[ing] of the law" by the church or its high-ranking clergy. Let us recall that the law specifically allows churches to grant exemptions as they see fit. to wit:

URS 76.5.530 said:
(3) A church or organization operating a house of worship and giving notice that firearms are prohibited may:
(a) revoke the notice, with or without supersedure, by giving further notice in any manner provided in Subsection (2); and
(b) provide or allow exceptions to the prohibition as the church or organization considers advisable.
In other words, it is entirely within the law for a church to ban private guns generally, but to then turn around and grant an exception to that ban to their own security personnel, to the pastor, or to anyone else to whom they want to grant an exception. In like manner, police officers (as defined in Utah statute, including judges, prosecutors, and many federal officers) are exempt from the law.

So a cop who carries a gun to church is not violating the law. Whether he is violating the intent of the Church Policy about guns being inappropriate "except as required by officers of the law" is debatable. Many departments highly suggest or even require their officers to be armed when in public. Others leave it up to officer discretion.

Anyway, that the law treats some people differently than others cannot be denied. That this can easily look like hypocrisy is certainly a fair argument. But neither church security nor police officers are violating the law as written if they carry firearms into an LDS church building.

Charles
 
#59 ·
True Charles, and I know this as well however, it would certainly be nice if this were never a worry in the first place, like it was when we were young and liberalism/socialism were not so prominent at destroying the fabric of society as they are today.
 
#61 ·
althor said:
When you were young you most likely wouldn't have been able to carry a concealed firearm at all... legally.
But I was able to have a weapon on site for Boy scout activities and Road Shows (Never had them loaded but did have them on site for some legitimate reasons) without issue until this law went into effect, now doing so is a problem.
 
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