let’s roll

Wholeheartedly agree.  I’m not saying such anxiety is any more well-founded than anxiety some feel when someone comes to Church who looks different (e.g. tattoos, piercings) than some are comfortable with.  
We should all look forward to, and work for,  the day where no one feels such anxieties but, unfortunately, we’re not there yet and claiming there’s no one who feels such anxiety about guns in Church just misstates reality.

I can’t really interpret the above as anything but trolling.  

No.
I echo Zil’s good thoughts and add a few of my own.
A hearty amen to your concluding statement that the atonement is a gift which, as we come to understand it, will transform our soul and cause us to want to follow the Savior.  I invite you to continue to search President Kimball’s writings.  I’m confident you’ll find he taught that principle as well.
As to how to understand how faith and works intertwine, i invite you to ponder the Savior’s response to the man who asked what he needed to do to gain eternal life.  The initial response was confirmation by Jesus of the man’s recitation of commandments/works listed in the scriptures.  When the man asserted he had done all those works since his youth and asked “what lack I yet” Jesus gave him an invitation to do a work of faith which the man was unable, at that time, to do.  Was his ability a lack of faith or of works? I trust you’ll agree is was a lack of both.
As to the feeling of being crushed, I guess if I were to feel that way, I’d feel like I was discounting the power of the Atonement.  I invite you to read The Infinite Atonement by Bro. Callister.  It’s revelatory and while you may find it different in tone from how you found Miracle of Forgiveness, I believe the books are harmonious.
Finally there have been a few recent talks on how best to understand the invitation to be perfect.  One by Elder Holland and another by Pres. Eyeing.  I think you’ll find both empowering rather than crushing.
Godspeed to you in what are clearly sincere efforts to follow the Savior.
 
 

I, for one, can’t see a justification for taking a gun into church in either of your examples.
IMHO, trying to make an analogy between the treatment of the Missouri saints and any danger Church members face today in a chapel is melodramatic, at best.
As for the Nephites, they had every reason to follow revelation from God.  Our current direction from God, through his chosen servants is to leave guns at home when we go to Church.

Beautifully stated, and clearly deeply felt.  I both admire and share your sentiments.

No.
Now some thoughts:
1) Reading The Miracle of Forgiveness without having been a member of the Church for a long time (potentially through the age when it was written) may result in one understanding it in a different way than intended, or a different way than a member will understand it.  (Because of specialized usage the reader isn't aware of, or the absence of context that would otherwise inform one's understanding.)  I recognize that this may seem improbable to an intelligent person who reads and understands the words, but it's true nonetheless.
2) I don't think you will find a modern prophet or apostle who would disagree with the idea that what's important is what you are in the process of becoming.  If you are continually striving to become more Christlike, repenting when you fail, stretching yourself to do a little better than yesterday, then, eventually, you will have repented of all your sins, and become perfectly obedient.  This is expected to take longer than one's mortal life, but it is expected that one will continue along the same path, in the same direction.  As such, if one is doing one's best, the gospel is not crushing.  Of course, one must be honest and not self-deceiving.
I doubt President Kimball would disagree with the above.
I don't know if that helps you any, but that's the gist.  It's been a long time since I read The Miracle of Forgiveness, but I didn't come away from it feeling crushed.  I expect the above explains why.

Perhaps you will be so good as to point out who has claimed the idea of Christ being married as LDS doctrine.
Then you are wrong. Merely believing or supporting some idea is not preaching it, and certainly not attributing it to the Church.

Or maybe the church expect/ hopes that members of the church will respect and follow its position not to bring guns to church builds. Even if they have not complied with ever legal rule or posted every sticker on every door that different states make up.

You are much more patient than I, and I applaud you for that.  
I certainly wouldn’t concede it’s unobtrusive and non-distracting in all cases.  I’ve been told by a number of saints that it has created anxiety for them.
And, of course, if the Brethren believed the 2nd Amendment trumps Church policy, then bringing your gun to Church would per se be appropriate.  Instead, it’s been deemed the opposite.

Ahh, yes . . . good times. My posts to this thread are primarily a response to your rhetoric, not your practice. 
1.  To me, it reduces to the following:  Russ Nelson doesn’t want you packing heat in the church house to which he owns legal title.  True, or false?  
The answer, of course, is “true”.  Beyond that, it’s the mere difference between “this is wrong and you shouldn’t do it” versus “THOU SHALT NOT” on the one hand; and the difference between “I don’t care” and “[EXPLETIVE] YOU!!!” on the other.  In other words—a difference only of degrees.  
2.  Not everything that is legally sanctioned by—or even *protected by*—the Constitution, is OK within a gospel context.  Exhibits A, B, and C would be obscenity, slavery, and abortion.  I love the Constitution; but to suggest it can or should supersede the current instructions we get from inspired Church leaders seems . . . troublesome.
3.  No one ever thinks their own disagreement with the 1Pres/Q12 is whimsical or frivolous.
4.  Sure; it’s objectively unobtrusive and non-distracting—as long as you don’t foul up.  It is also, to build on my earlier analogy, both unobtrusive and non-distracting for a duly credentialed lab tech to bring a vial of live smallpox into my sacrament meeting—but I still would prefer it didn’t happen, and would want to know about it if it did.  
Why is it that gun owners get extraordinary latitude to defend themselves against some statistically infinitesimal threats; but non-gun-owners don’t even have the right to at least know about the existence of other statistically infinitesimal threats sitting in their own pew when the Church has told them they are right to expect that no such threat exist there?
We seem to be drifting into “self-defense for me, but not for thee”.

I sort of agree with @Anddenex here.  When we talk about the “way of the Church”, we need to look at what they’ve actually said rather than delve into its history and split grammatical hairs to suggest that they actually mean the exact opposite of what they’re saying; or that we have some sort of cultural/historical duty to flout the counsel of at least the last three Church presidents. 
If you can’t bring yourself to put your life into the hands of your fellow saints, I can at least sympathize with that.  But I submit that it would be an error to justify yourself by pretending that disobedience in this instance actually  constitutes some “higher standard” of Mormon life.  

I, for one, can’t see a justification for taking a gun into church in either of your examples.
IMHO, trying to make an analogy between the treatment of the Missouri saints and any danger Church members face today in a chapel is melodramatic, at best.
As for the Nephites, they had every reason to follow revelation from God.  Our current direction from God, through his chosen servants is to leave guns at home when we go to Church.

Frankly, Carb’s response to Styln didn’t address the content of her post.   Styln’s post didn’t say anything about being a conscientious objector, only that she would be uncomfortable worshipping surrounded by people carrying guns.  She was on topic, I was on topic, Carb was the only one trying to make it about more than leaving your gun home when you go to Church,
.i guess I was a bit too subtle.
 

I, for one, can’t see a justification for taking a gun into church in either of your examples.
IMHO, trying to make an analogy between the treatment of the Missouri saints and any danger Church members face today in a chapel is melodramatic, at best.
As for the Nephites, they had every reason to follow revelation from God.  Our current direction from God, through his chosen servants is to leave guns at home when we go to Church.

Although I am not a member of the LDS, I would like to share a thought; most respectfully of course.
It is with sadness to meditate on some of the replies in this thread. As a Christina in the family of God, focusing on following the teachings of Christ's non-resistance attributes, it is unbearable to imagine myself worshipping God with a gun in hand, or sitting among fellow brothers and sister's in the faith who possess such weapons regardless of the reason. 
My personal rest and peace lay with God in knowing if I am martyred, it would be at the moment of divine dedication to my Lord in heaven as were my forefathers in the Anabaptist movement.
 
Respectfully
Styln

Pepper spray it is!

Elon Musk lie?
Never. 

A floating temple?  I’m on board with that idea.

But if some pronounce it “Pra-ha” and others pronounce it “Prague”, won’t that result in a Czechs-mix?

Ah. The Praguematic choice.

Perhaps the reason why there is nothing scriptural about Christ's wife, if there is one, are the same reasons why there is nothing scriptural about His Father's wife.

And to be honest, Disney lost it's luster for me back in 1995 with Pocahontas.  Did you see the blatant historical revisionism in that movie?  We all know that Pocahontas' tribe did all sorts of warlike slave-taking, right?  I mean, I made a big scene at the ticket line, I thought everyone was listening...

Well that’s one person’s opinion, and because it’s likely shared by others, you hear couples say they feel shamed into doing something they otherwise wouldn’t do.  As one of God’s servants explained, it’s the difference between dancing and hearing the music of the Gospel.
My point was that I would be willing to explain my decision to God and let Him look inside my heart and judge me according.  Based on a number of other experiences with Him, I believe I would have had peace in my heart regarding the decision.  That said, I concede it’s a hypothetical.

I was fortunate to be sealed and married in the temple simultaneously.  I truly believe however,  that if our circumstances had been different and our parents had not been members, my wife and I would have opted to marry civilly and then, if necessary, waited a year to be sealed.
We would have done so with love in our hearts for God and for each other and with full purpose of heart, explaining the decision to all involved, including God, with humility and love.

Nay.