person0

I don't think it takes any research at all to do that. Just take a look at the Family Proclamation, then take a look at society; the degradation of the family unit is the primary force in the degradation of society, from victimhood culture, to criminality. Until Satan is given the boot, there will always be evil actors in mainstream society. Widespread carrying of firearms in mainstream society works like medicating an incurable disease: it protects the individual for as long as possible until they ultimately succumb to the effects of the illness. In the case of guns, if everyone in society becomes wicked, people will kill each-other with anything. Eventually, only Zion will be a place of refuge. In the meantime, I will protect myself while I await the day I am called to go.

I am not an insurance underwriter, however, given our modern culture, perhaps a law suit itself is much more likely to happen in the event of an accident rather than a massacre, because of the way people react to each type of event. Also, even if the odds were exactly the same, the negative PR of a mass shooting, give our modern culture, is likely to be lower than that of an accidental shooting. All factors considered, the opportunity cost is likely to be greater. That said, I have no idea if any of these things play a role in the decision making process, but until I receive a confirmation that this policy change was the result of revelation from the Lord, I am keeping all ideas on the table. Regardless, I will be obedient to the policy, while I will continue to seek additional information. Except that if the perpetrator is dead, or imprisoned, the impact on their next victim is now guaranteed to be 0.

Yes, this one is much more familiar to me.

I've actually never seen this image in my life. No joke.

Moses lied at least once; he was punished by never being permitted to set foot in the promised land, but he was still the prophet, and still received revelation from God. On that note, Peter lied 3 times in the same day and yet he was still called and chosen as a prophet and still received revelation for the Church.

Because someone would have a much simpler legal case against the Church if they were injured by accident because of another member's failure to secure or properly use their weapon than if they were injured by an unpredictable external attacker. I thought that would be obvious given the previous discussion in this thread. Given that the lowest estimate is 55,000 and the highest estimate is 4.7 million / year, I think it is safe to say there are likely to at least be more than 1194 cases. I am fully willing to admit that it is in fact impossible to know exactly how many lives have been protected from death because of the defensive use of a gun. That said, our individual right to self defense should not be up for grabs, regardless.

I agree with the above quoted part of what you said (with my one adjustment). However, to address your other point, I have yet to find any statistics that include accidental yet non-fatal gun uses/discharges. The next closest thing is: However, that number includes intentional firearms use by an attacker, as well as intentional firearms use by a defender, so it is clearly unusable. Then you have these: However, those figures also include intentional firearms use by an attacker, as well as intentional firearms use by a defender, and the first accounts only for children under the age of 18 so it is also unusable. Regardless, any defensive use of a firearm could have resulted in death had the firearm not been available for defensive use, so the comparison still stands. However, to consider it further: If we strip out the minimum 97% that are intentional uses of a firearms, that leaves us with ~1194 firearms deaths caused by 'other'. That is still 50x less than the LOWEST estimate of defensive firearms use. The point? Death by guns that is not intentional is much lower than intentional use by guns to prevent death. That said, even comparing all firearms related deaths, the defensive use of firearms still overshadow firearms deaths by about 1.5 to 1 (at the minimum).

The Divinely Inspired Constitution By Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve I figured these, and other Church resources apply to our discussion and consideration of the topic at hand. In pondering on the passage from Luke 22, it is clear that the Lord establishes that He knows exactly what is needed and when. At one point he instructed His Apostles to go forward and teach taking nothing with them and He was right that they lacked nothing. Likewise he at another time tells them to buy weapons (during a Church function - where there are weapons present). If this most recent policy change is based on revelation from God, then I support it 100% as I trust that the Lord knows best. However, I do not yet have sufficient information to determine that to be the case. Regardless, I will be obedient and follow the Lord's anointed (and encourage all to do likewise), while going through the process of seeking clarification, confirmation, and remaining hopeful that the policy will be reversed.

I would much rather have you than no one. If you are afraid to shoot the weapon, you can hand it to me, and I will do it for you That is an entirely inaccurate assumption. Show me the statistics that establish that. . . oh wait, here they are . . . are some that establish the opposite: Even based on the lowest estimate, more people are protected because of guns in a single year than died over the course of 10 years. Looking at 2016 alone, at minimum, more than 100x the people were protected by firearms than killed. I'd say that's a fairly substantial difference.

Good question. Not sure if that is even provable, but I'd be willing if it were possible. It would be very easy to 'prove' for veterans with military experience and the like.

My wife pointed out that I failed to address this (my bad). In the situation you proposed, I would answer that I do not accept the premise that leaders of the Church always convey the will of God, but that in certain situations they do, such as when speaking from the pulpit during General Conference, or when claiming a direct revelation from God. Not sure where the trap is, I could point to official statements by the Church that make it clear that sometimes leaders do and say things and sometimes policies are enacted that are not based on doctrine or revelation, but that the doctrine is what is true. That doctrine asks me to 'turn my heart to my fathers' through temple worship, which requires a recommend, which requires truthfully stating in the affirmative that I make an effort to attend all meetings. Additionally, it would be unnecessary to prove that the Church is the only True Church, it would only have to be established that I am truly and sincerely psychologically convinced (which I am), that as the teachings of the Church explicitly indicate, it is the only True Church. Anyway, what I am really hoping is that everyone remains safe, despite the new policy, and that eventually, it is reversed under the radar, but if not, I will still follow it. I did some more research and discovered that the change was enacted in specific response to the new law in Texas that permits carrying a firearm into religious institutions. My guess is that whoever passed down the decision is trying to prevent a situation where someone gets shot at church because someone else mistakenly perceived a threat. Admittedly, that would have a much higher negative PR effect, and be much more widely published than the types of situations I am concerned about.

Sorry, you should have thought to include that before.

You CAN bring an M16 to church, however, you MAY not bring one. Additionally, you can and may bring an M16 TO church, just not IN church. I look forward to your selfie in your white shirt😀😀

For all secular intents and purposes God IS arbitrary about who he protects in mortality, hence, we should plan and prepare to protect ourselves. There is no expectation of physical safety from the Church, which is why making policies that knowingly inhibiting my God given right to fully protect myself are a problem, since they are not also providing a guarantee of safety in return. Schools provide training to students and teachers and drills for best safety measures to enact during natural disasters. Not providing adequate training (i.e. lock the door and teacher is allowed to pull out a gun to protect students - or bulletproof walls & doors) for an equally unlikely event (mass shooting) seems like something they need to fix, or be liable.

I recognized this, which is why I did my best to make sure not to 'over quote' you.

Until now, there was no rule or regulation preventing previous leadership from protecting themselves as they saw fit. There was even a time when an arrest of Joseph Smith was thwarted by members with guns.

Not sure about that:

I don't know if any schools have been sued in such a case, but I agree it would probably be a simpler case. As far as the state is concerned, my membership in the church and attendance would likely not be recognized as a need. That said, in that same vein it could be argued that despite the secular view of need, the psychological effect of the Church's teaching regarding the need and expectation to be there and to participate, especially in connection with the teaching that any other form of worship is inadequate as it pertains to salvation after death, imposes said need upon me. Just a thought. EDIT: Looks like schools have been sued for this. Specifically in the Parkland incident.

That's just the thing, the Church teaches that you do have to be there. @Just_A_Guy is a lawyer, and he at least thinks there would be interesting implications. The Church claims that I as a member NEED to partake of the sacrament. Because I am able bodied, it would be denied to me should I choose to stay home because of their gun policy. The only way to participate in something the Church claims that I NEED is to physically be present during Sacrament meeting. Not sure why it would be a silly lawsuit, all things considered. More examples where attendance is required in order to receive required/needed blessings can be found in the temple recommend questions, and other areas.

🤷‍♂️ I still intend to be obedient to the policy, which is why I believe I would be justified in taking such action.

Absolutely. I am being expected to forsake a God given right established by the constitution which is upheld by the scriptures themselves. If they are not providing adequate protection to coincide with and justify their policy and I or my family are harmed when we might otherwise been able to be protected, I would have no qualms in pursuing legal action. That was exactly where my line of thinking went. We are expected to attempt to attend all meetings, and the Church represents itself as being the only true Church, thus, I would find it difficult for them to get away with suggesting that I didn't have to be there.

It only takes one incident for me, my spouse, or one of my 7 children to end up dead. Identity theft is statistically a rare occurrence, and yet there are hundreds of companies that are successful at selling identity theft protection. Why? Because it only takes one incident to financially ruin someone for the foreseeable future. Personal protection is the same; you carry a weapon all of the time, hoping you will never need to use it, but it is there in case you do. On the rare chance that a violent incident should occur that directly affects me or my family members, I have no qualms in suing any gun-free institution for their policy preventing me from protecting myself, my family, and others, while not providing adequate defenses against such a threat. I am surprised we don't hear of legal action like this being taken on a more regular basis.

At first I considered this an excellent point, and then I shared it with my former bishop who brought up the following: I think he makes a very valid point.

If more law abiding, peaceful citizens had guns, there would be much less violent crime all together. Knife crime would drop drastically, gun crime would increase by a small percentage, overall violent crime would drop substantially, because people would be using their guns to protect themselves and/or to ward of criminals. In the US, including suicides, there are around 35k fatal and 75k non-fatal instances of gun crime each year; compare that to between a minimum of 500k and max of more than 3 million instances of defensive use of a firearm (these statistics were determined via a study by the federal government). Even going with the lowest number, It is preferable to have ~110 gun crimes as opposed to ~600k instances of violent crime.

If I identify as an off-duty cop does that mean I can still carry at church?