Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

[bagpiper]

....

If you profess belief in a church and its leaders,....

Mel

+1

Most excellently put. Thank you.

Charles

[Rocketman]

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!

Shhhhhhhh

[James]

qu

[bagpiper]

Is [speeding] in some way more forgivable than taking a concealed weapon into a church? [auto-filtered] if its concealed, no one knows its there but the carrier. Who are you offending?

As I explained just a couple of posts up, yes, speeding is more forgivable than violating church gun bans.

By your own experience, "everyone" speeds. That means nobody thinks it is a big deal. In contrast, no more than about 5% of our population carries a gun. Way fewer than that violate church gun bans. That means a lot of people can easily wag their finger and click their tongues on this without the slightest degree of guilt; they are NEVER going to violate this law because they don't carry a gun. Again, consider the different reactions to showing up at a TSA checkpoint with a bottle of water or pocket knife compared to showing up with a gun.

For LDS, violating the church gun ban goes beyond violating the laws of man, it is also a violation of explicit church policy. Just this week my Bishop received a(nother) letter from church headquarters emphasizing that privately carried guns are not welcome in church. This letter quoted the letter from the LDS First Presidency about guns not being appropriate in churches.

Yes, we have the article of faith about obeying the law. And that should cover speed limits. But as you noted, we're all human and imperfect. More importantly, nobody can hold up a letter from the First Presidency telling members explicitly that they need to drive the posted limit. Indeed, with a little research we could find conference talks wherein the speaker admits to violating the speed limit. Gun in churches are quite different, aren't they?

There is a letter from the First Presidency. There is a specific section in the General Handbook. Not a single speaker in General Conference has admitted to violating this policy or law.

If one is truly concealed, then nobody knows to be offended. But if people conceal to church and then get on publicly readable boards and justify or even encourage carrying despite policies and laws, then all kinds of people can be offended. Some of those people have tremendous political clout.

If churches really want to keep weapons out, they need to wand everyone coming in! Metal detectors at the door? Plus security guards. That I wanna see!

That is what is required to keep out everyone with a gun. But the law abiding (who comprise some 95%+ of all gun owners) can be kept out a lot easier.

How many active LDS would consider carrying a gun into church, or even be sloppy about it, if the issue showed up on the list of questions to get a Temple Recommend?

How many, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs would carry into a church if the penalty was a felony with lifetime loss of RKBA? How about "just" a 2 year suspension of your permit to carry?

Groups with the kind of political sway that the LDS Church and other churches have in Utah have lots of options open to them. Gun owners would be very foolish to do anything to allow our opponents to cast us as defiling holy ground.

Charles

[Guaraca]

Sorry for being so late to the party. I have had an issue with this policy ever since I started caring about being in charge of my own and my family's safety. I understand that insurance companies will often require organizations to have "no weapons" policies, and I've also seen some companies require other companies to have such a policy before they will do business with them, but I believe the reasoning given in the handbook shows a failure to understand those who would cause us harm and turns a blind eye to the church's own history. 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.
Alma 43:46 says: And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
I think we can look at that in one of two ways. We might say that we have to let our "enemies" be the aggressors two times before we retaliate. I'm not a big fan of that interpretation. My other thought on that comes from the fact that this scripture follows closely on the heels of the story about the people of Ammon who refused to pick up weapons even to defend themselves from this who were killing them. They did this because they had been guilty of so many murders before their conversion and didn't want the stains of those murders to come back against them in the final judgment. Another section in Alma says that the three worst sins in order of severity are denying the Holy Ghost, murder, and adultery. We could say the first offense is denying the Holy Ghost, and the second offense of murder, and if we are not guilty of either of those we are commanded to protect ourselves and our families.
What does everyone think? Am I over thinking this?

[manithree]

Well, you gotta ask yourself, what's necessary for salvation? There's the scripture in Alma you referred to, Luke 22:36, and the Proclamation on the Family says it's my job to protect my family, just to name a few. OTOH, I doubt anybody will be denied entry to the celestial kingdom because they didn't get their CFP and carry every day (but I'm not positive on that). So, the question is, what, exactly, is the "doctrine" and what's not?

Banning firearms in churches certainly seems to contradict the preparedness ethic of the church. It's my job to get out of debt, store food and water, and generally be prepared for emergencies. Except in church. There I'm not supposed to do everything I can of my own volition, but leave it all to divine intervention.

Having said that, I obey the policy, and hope it will change some day.

[bagpiper]

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.

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

[James]

"

[althor]

"This is the exact reason that I may or may not have been carrying at church today."

IOW Don't ask. Don't tell.

But you have told... at least that is my perception, and how others with greater influence may perceive the same statement.

[adamslm]

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

[Cinhil]

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.

[althor]

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.

[bagpiper]

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:

(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

[Cinhil]

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.

[althor]

When you were young you most likely wouldn't have been able to carry a concealed firearm at all... legally.