NeuroTypical

My wife was taught that tactic in a "Personal defense in the Home" class, offered by our local police, using a curriculum designed by the NRA, in close consultation with various law enforcement agencies. I don't see anyone pushing that concept here - do you? On the contrary - I absolutely push the notion that a gun is not a magic talisman that wards off evil. It is a complicated and dangerous tool, requiring practice and wisdom to use effectively. Agreed. I mentioned concepts like deterrence, avoidance, and evasion earlier, and advocated folks put at least as much thought into them, as they do into preparing to effectively employ a firearm for self-defense. I'm at a loss to understand any reasonable basis you have for your opinion.

Well, that's not exactly true. We know a teenage girl's parents are claiming: * Their daughter reported an alleged sexual assault to her bishop. * The Bishop did not report the alleged assault, and counseled the daughter not to report it either. We know the parents called the sheriff's office and reported the alleged assault. We know Duchesne County sheriff's detective Dan Bruso claims: * Detectives interviewed the bishop, who "told them he didn't believe the girl's disclosure needed to be reported". The bishop also claimed “that he felt that church action would take care of the problem”. We know the bishop was charged with a 3rd degree felony and a class B misdemeanor. We know LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind and is extremely proactive in its efforts to protect children and heal victims from this societal plague,” and “Bishops are instructed on how to report abuse and to follow applicable law.” It is true that we don't know whether there was an actual assault or not.

Dood is holding a calling, offered to him by his bishop, and probably approved by his stake president. It isn't my place to second guess those officeholders, based on stuff I read on blogs and websites. That said, I predict this will pan out in one of two ways: 1- He will hold this calling for a pretty short time. 2- A miracle will happen. (I usually say stuff like that with a snicker. But I've witnessed enough miracles and total 180-changes in hearts, to know it is a very real possibility.)

It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure, and call the church's 1-800 number to be advised on what he needed to do. We were supposed to be rid of this nonsense three decades ago - right around the time that humanity came to grips that sacrificing the victim of sexual abuse on the altar of supporting the perpetrator, was not a good idea. Obviously, there are still some pockets of ignorance remaining in the church. I hope this girl can heal. I hope she finds justice. I hope the perpetrator gets the help he needs - possibly behind bars. I hope the church takes appropriate action to make sure she understands that we are not the "Church of protecting sexual predators of Latter-day Saints". Nobody is ever happy in one of these situations. (Or, to put it differently, satan laughs his rear end off while we all cry.)

A few years back, there was a lady on the records of our ward. She had not only left the church, she had actually become an ordained pastor in another congregation. And there she was on our rolls. This Bishop just contacted her once a year to ask her if she wished to remain on our rolls. After a few years, she finally had her name removed. Basically, if someone has been baptized, they have entered into a baptismal covenant. Choosing to not follow your end of the covenant, is not the same thing as getting out of the covenant. To get out of the covenant, you have to make a formal request, fully understanding what you are doing.

With all due respect, you don't get to make that claim. When you have such a large number of intelligent, experienced people arguing the exact opposite, your claim of 'best answer' doesn't hold any water. People running away have been shot in the back in situations you describe. As previously mentioned, some states have a duty to retreat, other states have castle doctrine - a direct refutation that your answer is 'best'. The police who taught my wife's self defense in the home class, sure the heck disagree with you.No traveler, the 'best answer' isn't as cut and dried as you'd like it to be. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying a drunk and confused neighbor cannot be a deadly threat to your family, and must never be treated as such? Are you ignoring the answers to your situation where we gave verbal warnings first, or that we'd be content with just scaring the bad guys away? I mean, you are correct - in your situation we don't know who the intruder is. The possibilities do not prove you right. Meh - 'most likely' is something you are making up. You assume they know my armaments, numbers and intentions. You assume they're intent on doing no harm unless someone puts up a fight. You assume the encounter happens in a vacuum - that a vigorous and sucessful defense of private property doesn't make a criminal element disband or go away. I mean yeah, argue your point all you like. But you're not proving you've got the 'best answer'. You have an answer. Telling a burglar who expected an empty house that their life is in danger, is a fine and dandy way to end an encounter peacefully. Planning on mindlessly running out of your own house ("even if you have to split up" as you stated) could leave spouse and children in danger. And your advice to put the gun down before you abandon your residence to an unknown intruder? Why on earth would anyone think that's a good idea? Not just running away, but giving your gun to the intruder? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that one a little? Sounds like people who need to be stopped, not run away from. I'm not sure I'd want to live with "well, they killed my neighbor, but I was able to run away, so they killed another neighbor the next week". I mean, if you want to do that, fine by me. I am not here telling you my answer is 'the best answer'. But allow me a different course of action. I agree wholeheartedly. If you recall my answer, I'm the cornered predator. Folks, please keep in mind that the right to self-defense is enshrined not only in our laws, but in the D&C as well. The BoM contains a wonderful story of the folks who kept their oath of peace and accomplished miracles even though a few were hewn down. The BoM also contains lots of stories of righteous folks fighting and killing in self-defense. Traveler's take on things is certainly valid. But no, it's not "the best answer" as he claims.

Yeah, earthquakes in the zero to 5.something range are very common daily occurances somewhere on earth. They sway a few chandeliers and make folks uneasy, but fortunately do little else. People tell me I've been through a few of them, but I can't even feel them. You people in the Salt Lake valley are overdue for a big one - here's hoping it doesn't come.

It is a common criticism, for people who do not believe the truth claims of this church, to state that early LDS polygamy was started by man, carried out by men, and ended by men (for political gain, or under threat of destruction, or whatever). You are free to hold this opinion, AboutToLeave, if you wish. Just be aware of site rule #1 of this forum: If you wish to criticize or allude to derogatory things about this church, you have a lot of public forum choices. But this site is not one of them.

I think you did fine. Teaching kids about death is a process, not an event. A few stories from my house: * We've lost lots of cats, 3 dogs, random birds and stuff, and more than one human. * We've always used the words "dead" and "died" with our kids, even though they didn't get it until they were 4-5-ish. We have never held back the truth, but we also have never made a big deal about it. * Our kids have free reign over feeling their emotions. We don't try to modify them, so they cry or don't cry 'enough'. "You'll feel what you feel - and that's ok". * When they show us that death is something worth crying over, then so be it. We all cry when we lose a pet or beloved critter. I think it was good for the kids to know mom & dad are feeling the same loss and crying a little. * No really - it's worth crying over a lot. Sometimes, over and over again. Sometimes, a year goes by and our 7 yr old just out of the blue says "I miss [cat x]!" and cries a little. (This is the 7 yr old who has absolutely zero problem knowing that daddy shot the antelope that we're having for dinner.) We respect each other's sadness, and we mourn our lost loved critters. * They've seen death. They've helped bury cats. We have let them lead the way in this - one kid was very interested and wanted to see everything, the other one was fine with just knowing what was going on.

Well, not exactly. On Polygamy: "I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write."- President Wilford Woodruff On blacks and the priesthood: "In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church." - Doctrine & Covenants, Official Declaration 2

I can answer for myself - and of course the answer is "it depends". Are they in the kitchen or the basement? Are they in the living room or anywhere else that places them between my wife and our kids? Do we hear them breaking in, or are they already in? Do we have 10 seconds to put a plan in place, or did they just walk into the room where we are? Is my wife carrying too, or just me? What I do, depends heavily on answers to these and other questions, coupled with how many seconds I have to think about it. My general notion is that my answer, is I will do whatever is necessary to stop the threat to my family's lives. If that amounts to wife calling 911 and me shouting "I'm armed and the cops are coming, you'd better run!", then so be it. If I can deter this guy, fine /w me.

Thank you for the response, Soul. I may have missed it in another post - but where abouts do you live? No legal conceal carry, people not caring about each other, lots of violence - I'd say Los Angeles except you said 'up here'... After the experiences you describe, I think I understand. I'd ask you to consider something that I believe to be very important. The difference between "giving people guns", and a responsible citizen exercising his/her right to obtain one through legal means. I've met plenty of both, and I am an example of the latter. How many legally-permitted conceal-carry holders have you known? I'm talking private citizens - not law enforcement or PI or military. How many of the acts of violence or intimidation you've witnessed, have been from people carrying weapons legally? Permit holders have lower rates of crime - both violent and nonviolent - than nonpermit holders in their same demographic. Every study produced shows this, and it's consistent with my personal experience and the dozen or so anecdotes I've personally gathered. If you want to be around civil, mature, polite, calm people, be around permit holders. Nobody 'gave them guns'. I wonder if that's the difference.

Soul, the more I read your posts, the more I wonder if you actually know anybody who carries concealed. You seem to have a notion about folks that is just foreign to my experience and thinking. Could I ask a few questions, to see where you're coming from?1. In your experience, when you've witnessed or participated in heated debates when nobody is armed, do they often turn violent? When folks around you argue and get mad, do they start pulling out fists or reaching for lead pipes or something in order to 'win' the argument? If the answer is yes, then I can understand your opinion. If you're around immature people who get violent in a simple argument, I can understand why you'd want them far away from a deadly weapon. If the answer is no, then that tells me that most of the heated debates you've experienced before, have not ended in violence. That would match my experience, because people get mad and ticked off all the time, without getting violent. Even when the debate involves an insufferable jerk or two - rarely does anyone direct violence at the jerk. 2. So, if the answer to question 1 is no, you don't see a lot of heated debates turning violent, then do you think the chance for violence suddenly goes up just because someone has a firearm in their posession? 3. If yes, why? I mean, the shouting angry people weren't punching or biting or running each over with cars or throwing chairs or using the keys in their pockets or anything before. Why do you figure they'll go for their guns, but not go for all of the other weapons at their disposal? I'm interested in these people - could you give a few more details? Who are these people? Do they honestly wish folks were dead? Interested, LM

Not a year goes by, that I don't hear something about the church revamping scouting. Also, we're cutting the block down to 2 hours.Every year. Since 2007 when I started paying attention. Maybe eventually they'll actually do something - I wonder if the rumors will sound any different in the year before it happens...

Who is "we"? Do you mean your grandma? You? Your cousin? Who are the recommend holders here?But to answer your question: The church is not our mommy. We don't get put in time out when our bishop catches us with our hand in the cookie jar. Access to the temple isn't like a cell phone that we get taken away if they catch us texting over our limit. Temple covenants are made by people with (hopefully) a measure of maturity and an understanding of the nature of the covenants. If keeping one of the covenants is in question, or if one's worthiness is in question, it is between that person and the Lord. The Bishop is available as an earthly representative of the Lord to assist in such matters. Asking ward members for free help from their skillset or career can be a touchy thing. There are lots of members who love to share their skills and knowledge with their fellow saints for free. There are also some members who don't really think that handing out what they do for a living for free, is that great of an idea. I suppose the answer lies in which kind of person the attorney in the ward is.FWIW, the last two speeding tickets in our family, we hired an LDS attorney. :)

I appreciate the notice. Enjoy Wisconsin.As the months fly by without any twin suns or massive earthquakes or anything showing up, feel free to come back and let us know what you've learned from the experience of gearing up for the millenium, only to find it didn't happen. It's not that I don't love you, it's that I think your zeal is misplaced. I figure you'd find yourself at odds with your fellow saints a lot less, and you'd be a much happier person, if your zeal were directed a little more productively. We're commanded to love one another - but respect has to be earned.

Well, the problem I see, is that plural marriage is a very complicated and delicate issue, requiring much shared understanding between people before it can even be discussed. There is no 'short and sweet' way to package it. I make sure everyone knows we have nothing to do with Warren Jeffs, and that there hasn't been a Mormon poligamist in almost 150 years. If the person I'm talking to has a sense of humor, my wife and I will often make jokes about having sisterwives and horns and whatnot.

When it comes to wallets and cars and whatnot, I'm pretty much in agreement unless there's a direct threat of serious bodily harm. Bad guys entering a private premisis or residence is another matter. Some states have a "duty to retreat" deal going - if it's possible to run away and abandon your property, you must. Other states have "castle doctrine" in place - if someone is illegally entering your premisis through stealth or violent means, you're good to assume they intend serious harm to innocent people inside, and you're good to employ deadly force to stop the threat. [i live in Colorado - we got famous a few year's back for our "Make My Day" laws, extending castle doctrine to privately owned businesses. ] My wife's Personal Protection class (offered through the NRA, by our local police) gave us good things to think about too. Deterrence (locks and lights, yelling "I'm armed - go away"), avoidance (situational awareness, backing down from a heated discussion), and evasion (running the heck the other way) - all of those things should also be thought about/practiced/planned-for at least as much as utilizing your weapon. Target shooting, dry firing, practicing safe drawing with a firearm is good and necessary if you're going to own one. Practicing looking up from your iPhone when wandering around and practicing not walking down that alley in the first place - even more good and necessary.

It depends on what state you're in, but generally, you are correct. A right to carry does not trump someone else's private property rights.Here in CO, it's legal to carry into private property, unless the business or whoever posts "no guns allowed" or some such. Here's how a hospital in Colorado Springs handles things: Uneducated and uninformed folks assume no guns are allowed. Conceal carry permit holders can see they are within their rights to carry. Lawbreakers intent on mayhem ignore the law and the sign. Everyone is happy.

Where are you getting your data? I have a half-remembered statistic about the thousands of times per year Americans pull guns and a situation defuses itself. I also have a dozen or two first- or second-hand anecdotes. A buddy, driving at night on a dirt road, bunch of loud teenagers in a pickup truck showing bats and knives tried to force him off the road, he showed his .45, they turned three shades whiter and hit the brakes. Two stories from different states, guys filling cars up with gas, noticing they are being cased by multiple punks who then surround and start to approach - guys pull their firearms and yell 'back off!', everyone runs away. Stuff like that. There is a massive thread over on glocktalk.com, with thousands of people relaying anecdotes when they've employed their pistol and all the bad things stopped happening. It depends on the situation. For most of us, not escalating an encounter is appropriate most of the time. If someone is intent on your blood, or your wife's body, or what have you - standing there and not doing anything won't be preventing bad things. I'm only guessing, but I think that notion is held by a majority of permit holders. I certainly plan to fork over my wallet to a mugger, leaving my gun in place. I don't carry to protect my wallet. I carry to protect my wife and children's lives.

Isn't this how I Am Legend (with Will Smith) started out?

What's a Jimmer?

Heh - or it might of ended in saving innocent life, or it might have ended in no shots being fired. What-iffing a scenario is a waste of time. None of us were there, and every situation is different. It is true that a firearm raises the stakes, makes things more complicated, and brings more serious consequenses. But the notion that pulling out weapons doesn't ever make anything better, is a totally false notion. I'd refer interested folks to John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Guns are used thousands of time every year in the US to deter or stop bad things from happening, without a shot ever being fired.Yes, gun violence is a problem. Yes, accidental shootings are a problem. But the notion that guns don't solve problems, is totally false. No, that's not what he's saying. Yes indeed it is a rediculous strawman though. Wheats did not come here advocating "that we should start carrying weapons to church". He came here saying he does it, and is looking for a discussion.

Hi Wheats! Welcome to the board! You have raised an issue that gets discussed quite a bit and quite zealously in circles of conceal-carry permit holding Saints. Rest assured that your take on the issue is very well represented in such circles, but so is the other side of the issue. People, as we discuss the issue, lets keep a few site rules in mind: There are at least two polarized sides on this issue - let's civilly advocate for our reasoning, and keep our judgements and condemnations out of it.LM p.s. I used to carry at church, but changed my mind a few years ago and don't anymore.

ConvinceTheWorld seems to be doing better than a lot of end-times sensationalistic folks I run into. I mean sure, he insults us with the standard "all is well in Zion" zinger, and also the tired old "this will be dismissed by the wisdom of the world which is foolishness before God" rejoinder. However, he does use that magic word "if" in a few of his posts - most zealous end-of-timers don't come within a mile of that word. He also says stuff like "For me this is 100% proof" - allowing the possibility that others might come to a different conclusion. I just hope we can find him on September 1st.