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 Cinhil » Tue 30 Jun 2015 11:33 am

In response to this comment by Bagpiper;
. 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.
I served a brief mission in the 1970's prior to the admission of Blacks into the Priesthood. During tat period of time not only were Blacks taught actively, but we were encouraged to teach all men/women regardless of race. When presented with the question concerning Blacks and the Priesthood we did walk a fine line because f the turmoil at the time in so far as to how the issue was discussed. I was 16 1/2 at the time and only serving two weeks full time under a new program however, I do remember this and my having to discuss this on several occasions, including wile presenting discussions to Blacks, and even Whites.

Sorry, I know this has little to do with the issue at hand, essentially that it wold be much nicer were the moratorium against guns, a simple tool, be removed by the LDS church, but I felt it important to clarify this.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri 24 Jun 2005 1:31 am

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

Postby bagpiper » Tue 30 Jun 2015 12:06 pm

Cinhil wrote:In response to this comment by Bagpiper;
. 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.
I served a brief mission in the 1970's prior to the admission of Blacks into the Priesthood. During tat period of time not only were Blacks taught actively, but we were encouraged to teach all men/women regardless of race.


Interesting. Where did you serve?

I've known others who served LDS proselyting missions prior to the 1970s who did not generally teach blacks. If, upon knocking on a door they realized the home was owned by a black family (as opposed to just the black housekeeper answering the door) they would leave a short, generic Christian message rather than making any active effort to preach or teach anything specific to the LDS Church itself. One man I know related an experience where after doing this the homeowner said, "No. You have a more important message than that and I want to hear it." They had to receive special permission to teach and eventually baptize this spiritually in-tune person who was of black African descent.

Cinhil wrote:Sorry, I know this has little to do with the issue at hand, essentially that it wold be much nicer were the moratorium against guns, a simple tool, be removed by the LDS church, but I felt it important to clarify this.


I appreciate the clarification. I learn again and again that "history" is rarely as simple or clear cut as it might seem at first glance.

I think it safe to say that all here would much prefer not to have our otherwise legally carried guns banned in LDS Houses of Worship. It isn't that I'd necessarily pack a gun to sacrament meeting (though I might). For me personally, it is just a hassle to have to disarm prior to anything at the church when I am otherwise carrying. A few weeks ago my wife and I walked across the street to pick up a child from a youth activity. To her annoyance, I stayed outside while she went in to fetch the child. I had been out in the yard when she asked if wanted to walk over with her and I didn't have or take a chance to disarm.

I've said and written repeatedly, "It isn't the policy I'd set were it my right to set policy. But it isn't. And at the end of the day, I do feel a personal obligation to sustain the President of the Church even when I don't necessarily agree."

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 Cinhil » Tue 30 Jun 2015 12:28 pm

My "mini mission," as it were, was in the Minneapolis Saint Paul, Minnesota Mission. I grew up in Wisconsin and this was my Stake at the time. This was a special learning experience for a two week period ad we were allowed to track out and to teach anyone, even Blacks, which we did. There was a lot of discussion at the time concerning our policy on the Priesthood, even several excommunications because several individuals church-wide who thought they could act without authority on the matter and performed ordinations in violation of church decree. It is interesting to note that at this time we were considered liberal in the sense that we were one of only a couple religions nationwide which allowed women to pray during services. We were also one of the most accepting churches nationwide for allowing Blacks into the church, most had issues with doing so except for the Southern Baptists who opened their arms and received Blacks immediately after the Civil War. That being said, it was interesting that our policy at the time concerning Blacks and the Priesthood was the major concern for so many of other faiths whose own churches did not want to ave Blacks in their fold. Blacks were even allowed to pray and teach which in most churches was verboten at the time. Later I served my mission in Australia where we had other issues to work with, but where we often had this question come up.
I do know that Spencer Kimball and the Apostles prayed earnestly daily for the time when the church would be able to ordain Blacks into the priesthood, and that shortly after the revelation on the Priesthood Spencer Kimball was able to marry a black friend and his wife in the temple. It was an amazing time, and so wonderful to see these things unfold, and all blessings of the gospel open to everyone at this time.
Again, I know this has little to do with the discussion at hand however, it would be awesome should there be a reversal and we would not have to worry about our safety anymore when attending services. There have been too many instances where death, mayhem and destruction of property may have been avoided had this moratorium not been in place. Let us pray for the day this happens.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri 24 Jun 2005 1:31 am

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

Postby bagpiper » Tue 30 Jun 2015 1:58 pm

Cinhil wrote:My "mini mission," as it were, was in the Minneapolis Saint Paul, Minnesota Mission.
...


Most cool account, thank you.

Cinhil wrote:Let us pray for the day this happens.


Absolutely. And beyond that, if anyone has an "in" with those in a position to make or influence a change, I'd love to be part of a private conversation if I could be of any help.

I am told that such private conversations where information could be presented that may not have been previously considered, were part of reversing the original church position in favor of the MX Missile project (which would have brought a bunch of good jobs to the area at a time when many were in need of work) to a position of opposition (since the project would presumable have put Utah high on a Soviet first strike list). I believe a similar course, when the opportunity is available, is the most likely course toward some change in policy if such a change is to ever come.

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 J_dazzle23 » Tue 30 Jun 2015 5:13 pm

You know....as I see this as policy and not doctrine, I find it may be only a matter of time before this policy is turned around. Furthermore, If you are LDS and believe in the scripture foretelling our future, I think it is pretty clear the in the future there will be a time when the LDS church may even REQUIRE and institute carry of firearms for the safety of the congregation. I certainly wouldn't think that porter Rockwell times are gone forever for this church, if you pay attention to the doctrine.

I don't think gospel principles change. But policies do, and this one will be only a matter of time IMO.
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 » Mon 17 Aug 2015 4:20 pm

"Un
Last edited by James on Wed 21 Jun 2017 12:10 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 Snurd » Mon 17 Aug 2015 4:28 pm

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!!!"

OK, so you want to be legal? Your options are: 1, Don't enter an LDS property at all! 2, leave your gun at home and go to church unarmed. 3, have a gun in you car and park on the street and leave the gun in the car and walk in to church with no gun. ( I do believe it is illegal to have a gun in the car on church property?) 4, Ask your Stake President for permission to carry. (Good luck with that one.)

You can have a gun on church property, just not in "houses of worship".

Link

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....
snip
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 D-FIN » Mon 17 Aug 2015 5:02 pm

When visiting ID for a couple funerals this past year I had no problems carrying into the church as they do not have the same law. Same Church different state different law. Definitely not doctrine ;)
You can't win the sheep over to your side if your always showing them your fangs.

NRA RSO
D-FIN
Sniper
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat 29 Dec 2012 8:39 pm

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

Postby RustyShackleford » Mon 17 Aug 2015 6:51 pm

After our OC/CC event at the park Aug. 8, and then the news story coming out. That Sunday, I had 5 different members wanting to know if I was packing....(they didn't have a problem with it, but just were wondering and looking for some printing).
I also informed them that it would be illegal and punishable as an infraction.
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 James » Mon 17 Aug 2015 7:40 pm

" I
Last edited by James on Wed 21 Jun 2017 12:10 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 hibby76 » Wed 13 Apr 2016 9:37 am

We all break the law all the time. When was the last time you sent the state of Utah sales tax for something you bought online??? YOU BROKE THE LAW!

IMO, this law gives the church power to legally disarm unstable or "questionable" people while ignoring people who legally and responsibly CC.

If you want to responsibly CC at church then knock yourself out. It's 100% a "victimless crime".
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi
hibby76
Marksman
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon 31 Aug 2009 2:50 am
Location: Davis County

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

Postby JoeSparky » Wed 13 Apr 2016 10:03 am

hibby76 wrote:We all break the law all the time. When was the last time you sent the state of Utah sales tax for something you bought online??? YOU BROKE THE LAW!

IMO, this law gives the church power to legally disarm unstable or "questionable" people while ignoring people who legally and responsibly CC.

If you want to responsibly CC at church then knock yourself out. It's 100% a "victimless crime".

Please be careful about publicly admitting on this or any other forum about violations of law! Many a convict has been convicted because he couldn't or wouldn't keep his big mouth shut about the deeds! :shades:
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

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

Postby JoeSparky » Wed 13 Apr 2016 10:03 am

hibby76 wrote:We all break the law all the time. When was the last time you sent the state of Utah sales tax for something you bought online??? YOU BROKE THE LAW!

IMO, this law gives the church power to legally disarm unstable or "questionable" people while ignoring people who legally and responsibly CC.

If you want to responsibly CC at church then knock yourself out. It's 100% a "victimless crime".

Please be careful about publicly admitting on this or any other forum about violations of law! Many a convict has been convicted because he couldn't or wouldn't keep his big mouth shut about the deeds! :shades:
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

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

Postby bagpiper » Wed 13 Apr 2016 5:14 pm

hibby76 wrote:We all break the law all the time. When was the last time you sent the state of Utah sales tax for something you bought online??? YOU BROKE THE LAW!
...


We do not all break gun laws all the time. For better or worse, "gun laws" are going to get treated differently than do other laws. Oft-times this difference is legal (no criminal penalties for taking pork into a Mosque or Synagogue despite Judaism and Islam having much stronger doctrinal prohibition against pork than the LDS have against firearms), almost always there will be a different social reaction.

Utah has a higher per-capita number of persons with permits to carry than any other State in the Union so far as I'm aware: 10% of adults.

That means that something like 90% of adults don't carry a concealed firearm at all (ignoring the ~3% criminal element). Of the 10% with permits, my personal experience suggests no more than half actually carry on any regular basis. 95% of our voting neighbors don't carry at all, much less carry into a church or other location where owners or religious leaders have expressly banned guns.

Laws that everyone break will be understood. But laws that only 1% of the people break are very easy to condemn.

And whether you love the LDS church, hate the LDS church, or are completely indifferent to the LDS church, nobody who knows anything about Utah politics thinks it would be a good idea to make a political enemy of the LDS church.

NOTHING but political will prevents violation of Utah's church gun ban law from being elevated to a felony with lifetime loss of RKBA and other important rights.

Please read, and re-read those bolded portions above until they sink in fully and completely. And then search the forum for my posts on the history of the church gun ban and read a couple of them. Tonight, I'm not going to retype them for the 10th time.

If the LDS Church decided that it needed stiffer penalties in order to encourage compliance with their gun ban, we would have a rough fight on our hands. We might win. But we might lose. We might also find a very strong enemy on lots of other RKBA-related issued that didn't directly touch the church gun ban but that could be construed as contributing to the pro-RKBA culture that some insist on encouraging or at least actively condoning violation of the church gun ban.

For the love of our political and social credibility, we cannot have members of the RKBA community publicly calling for violation of gun laws, and especially not because the current penalties are low enough to make it worth the risk.

And all of this ignores any religious obligation that LDS members may have to sustain their church leaders and abide church policies. It also ignores the basic respect and reverence that decent men owe to any holy ground. Carrying pork into a Mosque or Synagogue probably doesn't hurt anyone, especially if nobody knows. But it simply isn't something that decent, mature men do.

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 quychang » Wed 13 Apr 2016 9:39 pm

I'm not going to retype everything I just put in the other recent thread, nor bore you all by cutting and pasting. I do think part of it is worth repeating, even if I paraphrase rather than copy exactly.

If you profess belief in a church and its leaders, and those leaders put a policy in place be it policy or doctrine and in spite of the law being on their side as well, you pick and choose which policies you will uphold, and which laws you will break, then perhaps it behooves you to re examine the entire body of your beliefs.

Yes, you're right. Most of us order things online and do not pay state sales tax on it. Many if not most of us occasionally exceed the speed limit. If we're caught, we pay the penalty for doing so. Perhaps the church should consider re examining their policy. Perhaps if there were religious consequences as well as potential legal consequences members would take the policy more seriously. Perhaps a warning, with a following violation to cost a period of disfellowship. I'm flying off the cuff, that may be too severe, or perhaps not. I think any organization or church has a right to expect a certain standard of behavior of their members. I know, no one is perfect. People make mistakes. Charles probably would not, but "might" inadvertently forget he was carrying and enter the building. Chances are he would be very quiet about it, never mention, and be more aware of having violated the policy in the future. Hence the suggestion for a stern warning the first time you were caught.

The fact is, if you choose to violate both the law, and what you might consider an inconsequential rule, how long before you find yourself rationalizing something that might be more important religiously? Again, I ramble and share thoughts that might be uncomfortable to hear, but if I, a non member with no religious reason what so ever to follow the policy, choose to do so out of respect for the law, and for the churches right to set policy, I find it mildly amusing that members feel free to disregard law and do as they please.

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

PreviousNext

Return to Guns in the News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron