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.
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