Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Guns are often featured in the news media. Here you can post links to such news items and discuss them.

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby Uinta Firearms » Tue 02 Jun 2015 10:50 pm

bagpiper wrote:
Uinta Firearms wrote:Now, tell me churches should be gun free zones.


Nobody here likes the LDS policy on guns in their houses of worship.

But I will actively and ardently defend the right of churches to set pretty much whatever entrance requirements they like. Nobody is legally required to enter a church. And whether it is the gun ban on all LDS (and some other denominations') houses of worship, or a ban on extra-marital sex and a requirement to tithe and abide the LDS dietary code in order to enter beyond the recommend desk at LDS temples, or the requirement to cover one's head to enter a Jewish house of worship, removing shoes, or any other requirement, if a person finds anything about the policies set by churches to be offensive, that person has every right to avoid entrance into, affiliation with, or any support of that church.

The 1st amendment protects the very widest berth possible when it comes to churches setting policies and requirements for membership, entrance into their houses of worship, reception of sacraments, and other matters regarding how the church is run.

This topic comes up periodically and I don't intend to go on too long this time. I will point out that the LDS Church is not likely to respond to political pressure or social pressure the same way most secular organizations will. The media is certainly not going to be helpful on this except perhaps anti-religious media that might attack the church generally on some "hypocrisy charge" for not supporting similar bans in schools, hospitals, public parks, and anywhere within 10,000 miles of a child.

If anyone is close personal friends with a high ranking LDS Church official, have a chat. Or invite me over to chat with him/her.

Short of that, I predict very little else is likely to be at all effective.

And it is pretty easy to drift from civilly expressing disagreement with the no-gun policies adopted by a few churches in Utah into the type of thing starts to look like attacking one church or another or even blaming them for the conduct of criminals. Obviously, no decent man would want to cross that line, now would he.

There is a world of difference between a church adopting a gun free policy and government imposing an unwanted restriction on guns at churches.

Charles

You're response fails to recognize some very basic tenets about religion and churches in general.

There are 2 types of people in the world. Those with an internal locus of control, and those with an external locus of control. I would bet most of us on here have an internal locus of control. We believe it is upon ourselves to control our outcomes. That's why we carry. People with an external locus of control believe unforeseen force determined the outcome of something.

Regardless of locus of control, there is also cultural identity. The Jewish culture, which is a religion, but it's also a cultural identity, is the only culture to have survived throughout history with a geographic home.

Many of us with an internal locus of control may consider ourselves to belong to the Latter-Day Saints Culture. I know I do, and I don't go to church because I can't protect myself or my family. This is a choice I've made because of past incidents, the most recent as event as 5/25/15 (which has now opened my wife's eyes about self-defense).

Strangely, the Church preaches self sufficiency, has actively requested certain members obtain CERT certification, is mandating callings focused on emergency preparation (I recently refused a calling to become the emergency radio operator), and has instructed is membership in these callings to gather (and direct survivors of emergency scenarios such as the forecasted epic earthquake for Utah) at the church buildings and parking lots in their neighborhoods. Now, when the wolves come, where will the sheepdogs be? They obviously can't be on church property. Yet, these are the members with an internal locus of control.

Concerning the unlikeliness of the church changing is position due to public or political pressure, how many times has a revelation occurred when the church is threatened with a real lawsuit, or when the political or social atmosphere has changed? 1970's: Priesthood for blacks? 2000's: Gay Bill of Rights? I'm sure there's more.

As for a change of policy about concealed carry on church property, they could do it very quietly. All they have to do is not make their annual post in the newspaper.
Uinta Firearms
Marksman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Highland Park, IL

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby UCChris » Wed 03 Jun 2015 5:27 am

Hmmm, my grandfather is in charge of the location where apostles stay when in St. George.
UCChris
Marksman
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 11 May 2014 5:56 am

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby J_dazzle23 » Wed 03 Jun 2015 5:54 am

Just to be clear : I'm not advocating the church be FORCED by legal means. I'm advocating a change in its policy. This is not a doctrinal change, imo, rather a prudent, practical item of housekeeping.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby bagpiper » Wed 03 Jun 2015 10:05 am

Uinta Firearms wrote:You're response fails to recognize some very basic tenets about religion and churches in general.


I do not necessarily disagree with any of the items you listed after this. But they all strike me as mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Again, the current LDS church policy on guns in their buildings is not the policy I would set were it my place to set policy. But it isn't my right nor responsibility to do so. Given an appropriate opportunity to do so, I will express my opinions to those who might effect a change in policy.

Uinta Firearms wrote:Now, when the wolves come, where will the sheepdogs be? They obviously can't be on church property.


Incorrect. The law--and church policy--applies only to the interior of houses of worship. Parking lots, parks, pavilions, and church owned non-houses-of-worship including visitor centers, canneries, farms, etc are not off limits to legally carried firearms.

Uinta Firearms wrote:Concerning the unlikeliness of the church changing is position due to public or political pressure, how many times has a revelation occurred when the church is threatened with a real lawsuit, or when the political or social atmosphere has changed? 1970's: Priesthood for blacks? 2000's: Gay Bill of Rights? I'm sure there's more.


Do you have actual citations for any pending lawsuit on the pre-1970s position regarding race and the LDS Priesthood? By 1978 most furor over the policy had passed. I'm a little young to know for sure, but I'd guess the height of pressure was in the late 1960s and early 70s. On what basis would the lawsuit have been based?

What lawsuit was the LDS Church facing in the last few years regarding homosexuals? You realize the bill to provide anti-discrimination protections to homosexuals that the church recently supported (as well as the SLC ordinance the church supported a few years back) specifically exempts church owned rentals? The recent 9-0 Hosana-Tabor SCOTUS decision reaffirmed the absolute right of churches to discriminate as they like in their employment practices for religious employment. Church owned for-profit businesses have adhered to anti-discrimination laws for as long as I can recall.

I'm calling BS on any threat of a lawsuit in either of these cases.

What you have posted implies that "revelations" are really man-made reactions to external results and is considered offensive by observant LDS members (as opposed to those who are merely "cultural" LDS). Giving such offense is generally not the best way to persuade LDS leadership to see your position in a favorable light.

The end of polygamy was prompted by the on-going persecution of the LDS Church as made clear in OD-1.

For the record, I highly doubt any revelation would be needed to alter the current LDS policy on privately owned firearms. I believe this is a mundane policy similar to "No open flames" in LDS buildings.

Uinta Firearms wrote:As for a change of policy about concealed carry on church property, they could do it very quietly. All they have to do is not make their annual post in the newspaper.


Again, the law and policy do not affect "church property" but only the interior of "houses of worship". And there are plenty of ways the policy could be altered. Not making the annual newspaper posting would prevent the church from appealing to Utah law if anyone violated the policy, but would not, of itself, alter the policy which is contained in the Church Handbook of Instruction Book 2, under policy 21.2.4, between the policy against candles and other open flames (21.2.5) and Emergencies 21.2.3. The policy could be altered or deleted by official communication from Church Headquarters to local leadership including Stake Presidents and Bishops.

I would love to see the policy ended so that LACs can carry firearms into LDS Houses of Worship while complying with the law AND sustaining the President of the LDS Church. Until then, I fully intend to remain a fully active, observant member of the LDS church including sustaining the LDS church President in his right to set policies.

It is generally helpful to have a working knowledge of the laws so our criticisms are accurate. Similarly, it is helpful to understand what various policies actually are in enough accuracy and detail. Your knowledge, while flawed, is sufficient for you to make your decisions and nothing I've corrected materially alters that, I'm sure. But when advocating for change, it is beneficial to be a bit more accurate than your assertions here have been.

I do sometimes wonder how many of those who complain the loudest would return to or begin attendance at LDS church worship services if the policy on guns were altered.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby Uinta Firearms » Wed 03 Jun 2015 11:10 am

Charles,

I see that you took the time to write a well thought out response. I believe you should have the same exact type of response in return. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do that today. It's just not something I can do properly on a cellphone. I hope you understand. If you give me a few days (maybe as early as Thursday night) I will provide a response with citations. In the meantime, if you want to start researching the topic of blacks and the priesthood, I recommend starting with US v Bob Jones University, 1970. This is a court case that affects the 501(c)(3) statutes of private universities, such as BYU.

I never touched on the subject of polygamy. Imo, it has nothing to do with 2A Rights.

Lastly, why are LDS churches gun free zones in Utah, but not in other places, such as Illinois? All the church needs to do is place a 4" x 6" on the doors. They can obtain the sticker free of cost from the Illinois State Police.
Uinta Firearms
Marksman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Highland Park, IL

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby bagpiper » Wed 03 Jun 2015 1:49 pm

Uinta Firearms wrote:Charles,

I see that you took the time to write a well thought out response. I believe you should have the same exact type of response in return. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do that today. It's just not something I can do properly on a cellphone. I hope you understand. If you give me a few days (maybe as early as Thursday night) I will provide a response with citations. In the meantime, if you want to start researching the topic of blacks and the priesthood, I recommend starting with US v Bob Jones University, 1970. This is a court case that affects the 501(c)(3) statutes of private universities, such as BYU.


I appreciate the civil response and I'll look forward to your further information. Just to provide what I already know of the Bob Jones case to maybe save some typing on your part:

First, from a legal perspective, a limit on priesthood admission by race is really no different than a gender requirement. Catholics, LDS, and others continue to limit their priesthood to only men. For most non-LDS denominations, this means that many church employment opportunities (professional clergy) are limited to men only.

Perhaps most importantly, the Bob Jones case centers on tax exempt status for private schools. I don't believe the IRS ever challenged the tax exempt status of churches. The tax exempt status for churches and educational institutions, while similar, have historically been independent. The details of the Bob Jones case relies on laws specific to schools. I don't believe BYU was segregated at the time and certainly was not started in response to racial integration laws of the 60s. That latter point is one key item in the history of IRS and court action against schools. Even the LDS Church itself wasn't segregated. Blacks were welcome to join--though the church avoided actively preaching to black persons--but black men (and all women) were not eligible to be ordained to the lay priesthood. This means that certain "callings" within the church were foreclosed, as was temple admission.

Interestingly, many churches have a long history of either de jur or de facto segregation. Unlike some churches even today, the LDS Church didn't have separate white and black congregations. With the exception of language wards where members are taught in their native tongue, and wards available for un-married members or students, all Mormons living in a given geographic area meet together regardless of race.

Admittedly, Rex Lee as solicitor general did recuse himself from arguing on behalf of the government in the Bob Jones case because he had previously advocated at the IRS on behalf of the LDS Church's right to maintain tax exempt status and its racial limits on priesthood admission. The church directly asserted in an April 5, 2001 letter to the editor of the SLTribune that the federal government had never threatened its tax exempt status. I might suppose that Rex Lee's advocacy was either preemptive or in response to something less than a direct threat, and it was probably effective in quelling any IRS notions of moving to revoke tax exempt status of churches based on racial policies. Lee's recusal and reason therefore is the only evidence of anything regarding LDS Church tax exempt status.

What is most often ignored by those who claim the change was in response to a risk of tax policy is that the LDS Sao Paulo Brazil temple was announced in '75, ground was broken in '76, and it was dedicated 30 Oct of '78. The racial limits on admission to the priesthood were removed only months prior to that dedication in June of '78, ratified in general conference 30 Sept '78. Brazil has long had a high degree of inter-racial marriage. The church in that nation and surrounding countries had grown to the point a temple was needed. But it was becoming increasingly difficult to determine which male members were prohibited from holding the priesthood (and thus participating in Temple worship and receiving Temple sacraments) by virtue of having an ancestor who was a black African, vs which were permitted for lack of any such ancestry. The ban on priesthood was specific to black Africans. Dark skinned Polynesians, for example, were not prohibited. (And I can no more begin to explain or understand the origins or reasons for this policy than has current official statements about not knowing.)

The issue of race and the priesthood had, apparently, been on the minds of LDS church leadership a couple of times prior, but in the mid-70s with the temple in Brazil under construction, took on urgency.

Obviously, for those who are not LDS or do not accept divine revelation to LDS (or other church) leaders, an explanation other than revelation is required. For those hostile to the LDS, the base motivation of money is a much better story to propagate and believe than the influence of an increasingly inter-racial membership. So the "risk of losing tax exempt status" has a lot more staying power than the history of the temple in Brazil.

Uinta Firearms wrote:I never touched on the subject of polygamy. Imo, it has nothing to do with 2A Rights.


True. It is an example of a major change in church policy and practices. But the external influences that motivated the revelation were very openly discussed as a reason to help persuade church membership to accept that change. In contrast, no such external pressure was mentioned when the change in priesthood policy took place.

Uinta Firearms wrote:Lastly, why are LDS churches gun free zones in Utah, but not in other places, such as Illinois? All the church needs to do is place a 4" x 6" on the doors. They can obtain the sticker free of cost from the Illinois State Police.


LDS Church policy is standard throughout the nation--and perhaps even the world--in this regard. The policy is contained in the Handbook of Instruction #2 as I noted in my previous post. That the policy doesn't have legal backing in some other States is a somewhat separate discussion.

Bear in mind that churches long enjoyed the ability to ban guns from their buildings here in Utah, just as homeowners do. The latest change in law in this regard, about 10 years ago, only changed the way in which notice could be given. For reasons I have never understood, the LDS Church was very much opposed to putting notice on their buildings or in their program notes as were the only previous methods of giving notice sufficient to activate the law. The only purpose of the change in law was to give churches a way to "give notice" without having to do so on site.

What I do know is that the LDS Church felt strongly enough about not having guns in their buildings that they were considering throwing their considerable weight behind the so-called "Safe to Learn / Safe to Worship" citizen initiative that would have banned all private guns from all churches and all schools. Permit holders would not have been able to carry at schools.

I do believe Utah presents a unique situation for the LDS Church. Inside Utah, LDS Church officials are widely and well known. The concentration of former LDS who are hostile to church leaders is much higher. Where but inside Utah can a person make a living by being anti-LDS ala the Tanners? In Utah, LDS Church leaders routinely make the news and so present a target for the random crackpot looking to make a name for himself. The incident with them Quorum of the Twelve President Hunter and the guy who threatened he had a bomb in the briefcase and demanded Hunter announce the fellow as the next president of the church comes to mind. In contrast, outside Utah, LDS Church leaders are most often all but anonymous.

Obviously, we all here believe that a higher security risk translates into a higher need for personal arms. We recognize that without metal detectors and security, any policy is merely an honor system that relies on the honor of criminals and nut cases. We believe that church policy is the wrong way to approach a heightened risk.

But I think we can also simultaneously recognize that there might be some evidence of Utah being unique compared to other locations.

The extent to which State laws should help enforce such private policies is a somewhat separate discussion. I do believe some help from law is appropriate. Whether it should be limited to general trespass laws, or address certain specific issues seems a bit moot to me. Fact is, private citizens carrying guns is a major area of political and social discussion and debate and is common enough in Utah (fully 10% of our adult population currently hold Utah permits to carry) that a specific law is not unreasonable.

For now I will simply say that any group with a political supermajority tends to get some political benefits. In Utah, that is still the LDS Church.

I'll close where I tend to start these threads: I don't like the policy, it isn't the policy I'd pick were it my right and responsibility to set policies for the LDS Church. But I respect the right of churches to set and maintain whatever policies they like. We remain free to avoid association with churches whose polices we dislike.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby RustyShackleford » Wed 03 Jun 2015 6:02 pm

It is policy, not scripture. There is however much scripture to show that the "gun free" policy does not follow scripture. It is an infraction under the law.

We still have Agency and discernment. Many times we do need to decide what we will do. We also need to remember LDS church leaders are not infallible and they will make policy not based on what is coming down from the lord, but is based on their natural human emotions. Much like banning of beards at BYU. When a prophet and namesake of the school...or even the Savior Himself would not be allowed to attend 'His' Church University...or rent a Apartment, you will need to step back and look at human prejudices and societal and PC bigotry making policy, not at all based on spiritual inspiration. I do not blindly follow any Man. But I very much respect the way anyone chooses to worship.
If you consider yourself an American, and are not yet on a government watchlist...You're Not Trying.
User avatar
RustyShackleford
Sniper
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009 8:55 am
Location: St. George UT

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby aaron » Wed 03 Jun 2015 8:28 pm

Uinta Firearms wrote:Concerning the unlikeliness of the church changing is position due to public or political pressure, how many times has a revelation occurred when the church is threatened with a real lawsuit, or when the political or social atmosphere has changed? 1970's: Priesthood for blacks? 2000's: Gay Bill of Rights? I'm sure there's more.


First, those were never supsupported his revelation. They were church policies. The inspired doctrine remains the same. Homosexuality is still a sin and God still decides who can hold the priesthood. Now, I still think it doesn't hurt for the church to reevaluate their standing.


Sent from iPone
User avatar
aaron
Novice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed 20 May 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby jentzschman » Sun 07 Jun 2015 3:32 pm

What are the legal penelties if one were carrying and one of the frantic liberal members wanted to make a big deal about this?

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
User avatar
jentzschman
Novice
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri 18 Jan 2013 9:18 am

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby Snurd » Sun 07 Jun 2015 3:58 pm

jentzschman wrote:What are the legal penelties if one were carrying and one of the frantic liberal members wanted to make a big deal about this?

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapte ... -S530.html

Utah Law wrote:76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
(a) transport a firearm into:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence; or
(b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence.
(2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
(a) personal communication to the actor by:
(i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
(ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
(iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);
(b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;
(c) announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;
(d) publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or
(e) publication:
(i) in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state; and
(ii) as required in Section 45-1-101.
(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.
(4)
(a)
(i) Within 30 days of giving or revoking any notice pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e), a church or organization operating a house of worship shall notify the division on a form and in a manner as the division shall prescribe.
(ii) The division shall post on its website a list of the churches and organizations operating houses of worship who have given notice under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
(b) Any notice given pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e) shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first.
(5) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
(6) A violation of this section is an infraction.
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby jentzschman » Sun 07 Jun 2015 4:01 pm

Infraction eh... that's not too bad. I could live with that. Thank you

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
User avatar
jentzschman
Novice
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri 18 Jan 2013 9:18 am

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby J_dazzle23 » Sun 07 Jun 2015 5:03 pm

jentzschman wrote:Infraction eh... that's not too bad. I could live with that. Thank you

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

In addition, I have never heard of the LDS church actively going after someone.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby James » Tue 30 Jun 2015 8:25 am

U
Last edited by James on Wed 21 Jun 2017 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Carry on!
User avatar
James
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu 13 Dec 2007 9:51 pm
Location: Cache Valley

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby bagpiper » Tue 30 Jun 2015 10:49 am

James wrote:Under the circumstances, perhaps best to do what is legal?
If you can't live with that, conceal deeply and keep your mouth shut about it!!!


+1

Gun owners cannot afford any credible hint that we are anything other than fully law-abiding. An innocent, peaceful, unintentional mistake is one thing. Deliberate violation of law is quite another.

Furthermore, the LDS Church wanted stronger penalties. And the overt gun-grabbers always want any and everything to be a disqualifying event and would love an excuse to convince the LDS Church to lend its considerable political weight to an attack on RKBA. The citizen petition that got the LDS Church involved in the first place was obviously written specifically to get the LDS Church involved. I suspect most of those who wanted to ban all privately owned guns from schools rarely visit LDS (or other) Churches. But they very cagely included churches along with schools. Nobody should think the gun grabbers wouldn't be happy to come back for a second try if they thought they could win something.

We kept the penalties low by arguing that not only would we fight stiffer penalties, but that gun owners/permit holders were law abiding and courteous. They/we would abide both the law, as well as the express wishes of a religious institution that made clear they did not approve of guns in their holy edifices. After all, who here would deliberately take pork into a Jewish House of Worship, or deliberately take alcohol or tobacco into an LDS House of Worship?

We also argued that due to the heavy use of LDS Churches during the week with youth activities, cleaning assignments, etc, an inadvertent, entirely unintentional violation might be possible and it seemed excessive to impose heavier penalties on someone who innocently forget to leave his gun in the car.

Bottom line, gun owners should obey the law regarding possession of guns. We should also show respect to the express desires of home owners and religious organizations regarding the most private and/or sacred of property in our society. If some deeply personal revelation indicates a personal responsibility to do otherwise, that decision should be kept deeply personal.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

Postby bagpiper » Tue 30 Jun 2015 11:20 am

RustyShackleford wrote:It is policy, not scripture. There is however much scripture to show that the "gun free" policy does not follow scripture.


What follows is directed entirely at active and faithful LDS. And I do not mean to lecture, but I don't how to convey what I want to here in a less verbose fashion. No offense is intended and I hope none is taken.

It follows LDS Scripture quite nicely if one considers Official Declaration 1 and the notes included with that Declaration in the Doctrine and Covenants regarding the Lord not allowing His Prophet to lead the church astray.

Furthermore, active LDS are under personal obligation to give credence to current policies, practices, and procedures as authorized (or even just permitted) by the President of the Church. Some four times a year (twice annual general conference, annual Stake conference, annual ward conference) active LDS have the opportunity to raise their hands to sustain current leadership of the church. Additionally, those who participate in temple worship are asked directly every other year by their ward and stake priesthood leaders whether they sustain the leadership of the church.

Active LDS sustain Thomas Monson as both the prophet of the church AND as the President of the Church. As prophet, seer, and revelator, he is the Lord's mouthpiece on the earth; he declares doctrine; he holds and exercises the keys of the priesthood. As President of the Church he is charged with all manner of temporal matters including the setting forth of policies both large and mundane. Anyone who thinks that the President of the LDS Church isn't fully aware of and approving every policy that makes it into the Handbook of Instruction as well as into press releases and letters of instruction (over his signature) to local lay leadership just isn't aware of or dealing with reality. This is doubly so in the person of Thomas Monson given his remarkable memory, and his predecessor Gordon Hinckley with his managerial skills.

Now, I do not presume to judge another. But let us dispense with any rationale among active LDS that the gun ban is somehow a policy that can be easily discarded out of hand for one reason or another. I do not believe it can be ignored simply because we don't like it, can wrest the scriptures to convince ourselves that somehow the policy is in error, or simply believe we know better than those God has chosen to lead His Church.

For "conservative" members of the church to do so over a gun policy we don't like is no better than when "liberal" members of the church complain about the church deciding to get involved in a political issue like Prop 8, gambling, etc. They might suggest that while we must abide church standards, we have no business promoting laws that enforce our standards on others. Yet the Prophetic "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" makes clear that we do have obligations to support laws and public policies that make for a good society.

I can readily accept that an individual may receive specific revelation contrary to the general policy of the church and even the laws of the land. (Sometimes safely violating a posted speed limit may be required to meet a higher purpose, though I can't claim to have ever had such an excuse despite my heavy right foot.) But I believe any person receiving such direct, personal revelation, contrary to the written policies of the church would be bound to keep that revelation and resulting personal actions strictly personal rather than using it to encourage anyone else to seek cause to ignore the policies and requests of the prophet of God. Such a person would be convinced of the correctness of his action without any need nor desire to have others validate his course.

What a man discusses and decides within the walls of his own home with his family, or in confidence with local church leadership is one thing.

But on a publicly accessible forum, the only acceptable course, I believe, is:

Gun owners obey the law one way or another.

Gun owners are also courteous to the desires of home owners and churches.

Anything else should be kept strictly private in all cases.

Again, no offense intended. But it seems this topic comes up every few months and we too often see those who either justify violation of both law (however minimal the penalties) and the well known policies and desires of a religious institution of which they may be a member. Some seem to need to broadcast, either openly or thinly veiled, their personal choice to violate the law and LDS Church policy. Such is not helpful to our efforts to make clear that gun owners obey the law and are respectful of churches and homes.

Charles

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Guns in the News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron