Packing heat at church

[NeuroTypical]

On the other hand, "Tex" Texarkansas Texagan of Beaumont, Michigan probably doesn't need to carry in church.

Awwww, shucks Funky. It hurts me right here [thumps chest], but I figger' yer rahght.

I'll go tell the missus that Funky sez she caint tote Beulah ta the chapel no more.

[FunkyTown]

Awwww, shucks Funky. It hurts me right here [thumps chest], but I figger' yer rahght.

I'll go tell the missus that Funky sez she caint tote Beulah ta the chapel no more.

Oh, Tex: I'm sorry I gave everyone your real name on the Internet, but we had to make sure everyone knew the truth!

[Latter Days Guy]

What's the official policy in England, Wales and Scotland? Are you allowed to buy and own a handgun? What about rifle and shotgun? What if you want to go duck hunting or go join Prince Charles and hunt the foxes?

Handguns were banned after some nutter went on a rampage and shot a load of primary kids and their teachers a good few years back, you can still get a shotgun license but it's very hard to do so. Fox hunting with dogs has been banned since around 2004 but you can still go and shoot them with your shotgun if your a farmer I believe!

[Bini]

I personally wouldn't "pack heat" at church as I feel it's unnecessary and therefore not appropriate. I noticed references posted regarding the Church's official stance on the issue, and it appears that the Church is not in favour of people bringing lethal weapons onto and into their facilities. But it seems this regulation is not enforced since it's apparent that people have and do continue to "pack heat" (LOL) at church.

[Guest babygo21]

Its marketing director Shaeren McKenzie says the formulaprada outletfor achievementmulberry pursesis simple: "We obsess about the environment; Bottega Venetaugg outletlooks just as good in our Venice centre because it does on Sloane Street ¨C and you also get to reduce your costburberry outlet." She is wearing a cream linen Bottega Veneta tailored jacket butuggs clearanceconfesses : "I paid top dollar for it because I'm a fool."

[Spencerr]

Such types of the things create the depression among the people and society. In these cases, we should use the exace to save from the serious problems. In other case you have to face the harmful situation.

[JohnnyRudick]

I personally wouldn't "pack heat" at church as I feel it's unnecessary and therefore not appropriate. I noticed references posted regarding the Church's official stance on the issue, and it appears that the Church is not in favour of people bringing lethal weapons onto and into their facilities. But it seems this regulation is not enforced since it's apparent that people have and do continue to "pack heat" (LOL) at church.

Since the weapons are concealed, we would have any idea

(in more then half the cases) weather there is a weapon in church or not.

The only time we would know is if there is a need for the weapon to be

drawn and then most of us would then be grateful it was brought I am sure.

[NeuroTypical]

Well, the other time we would know is when the conceal carrier has an issue in the men's room and the folks washing their hands watch a pistol clatter across the tile floor.

It happens.

[JudoMinja]

Well, the other time we would know is when the conceal carrier has an issue in the men's room and the folks washing their hands watch a pistol clatter across the tile floor.

It happens.

And were you the guy washing your hands or the guy having an issue with your bodily functions?

[RescueMom]

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a aservant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall aperish with the sword.

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

How does one who carries in church reconcile this scripture? I am just curious here, because I do carry, not in church, but it is pretty straight forward.

[NeuroTypical]

And were you the guy washing your hands or the guy having an issue with your bodily functions?

I am the guy reading news articles and hearing other people's embarassing stories, and taking precautions to not only safely carry, but avoid such embarassing and potentially dangerous accidents.

The last story I heard was earlier this year - some dood at a bar in Utah managed to blow up a toilet when he was fiddling with his pants and holster and gun.

[shdwlkr]

Utah is the only state that I know of that carrying of firearms has been stated that the church is against this and yet many do carry with their local Bishop's blessing.

My bishop has told me it is fine if I chose to carry in church as long as he is my bishop.

As to the embarrassing issue with a firearm in the bathroom is far more embarrassing to drop it in Sunday school with a bunch of little kids or Gospel doctrine class when it is being discussed whether we are sheep or shepherds and yes I heard the story from a friend of that happening and the whole class roared in laughter and the individual's embarrassment.

It is not the carrying that is the issue it is the stigma that goes with carrying in a place of worship. I know from reading some news stories more ministers than you might think now carry just in case they need to get a point across.

As to the scripture of living by the sword and dying by the sword, we are also told not to be sheep and to protect our own and those we are stewards for. How do you protect if you don't have the tools to do so?

What the scripture is getting at is we should always be in the defensive mode when protecting and not the aggressor.

Check this out:

a. Alma 43–44. Led by Zerahemnah, the Lamanites come to battle against the Nephites, seeking to bring them into bondage. The Nephites, led by Moroni, fight to defend their families and their liberty. The Nephites prevail because they are “inspired by a better cause” and because they exercise faith in Jesus Christ.

b. Alma 45:20–24; 46. Amalickiah desires to be king and causes dissension among the Nephites. Captain Moroni raises the “title of liberty” to inspire the people, and they covenant to follow God. Amalickiah and a few of his followers join the Lamanites.

c. Alma 47–48. Through treachery, Amalickiah becomes king of the Lamanites. He incites the Lamanites to fight against the Nephites. Captain Moroni prepares the Nephites to defend themselves righteously.

d. Alma 49–52. War continues between the Nephites and the Lamanites. The king-men desire to set up a king over the Nephites, but they are defeated. Teancum kills Amalickiah, who is succeeded as king of the Lamanites by his brother Ammoron.

Doesn't sound like to me they were just going to stand by and be destroyed?

Even the Jews learned in WWII that to not defend themselves was a very high price to be paid to be the meek among the wolves.

If we are truly a free people then we should also realize freedom has a price that must be paid to remain free. You can choose to bury your head in the sand or be part of the solution and maybe die fighting for freedom. I will take the last choice as I have no desire to be anyone's subject we made that decision in the 1770's that this land was a not a servant land to anyone!

Do I think it is sad that even in a house of worship someone might come in and try and kill anyone yes! but to be sheep and go to the slaughter without trying to end the violence is just plain not how I was raised to live. I went into the military when my country called in a war no one saw why we were there and we lost it too because politicians thought they knew how to fight a war not generals. Many died in the war something like 56,000 and one I know for sure was part of my family in fact I wear a bracelet to never forget what he paid so we can sit here and debate the right or wrong of carrying in church.

My family has fought in every conflict America has been in since 1775 and yes this land has a lot of my family's blood in it and to allow it to be destroyed without trying to stop the insanity is just plain stupid to me.

If my bishop asks me to not carry in church of course I will honor his request because he asked and because he is my bishop and a man of honor. If I am killed because of his decision and my following his counsel then I am sure I will be rewarded for following my bishop's counsel.

One of the reason's we are here on this earth is to learn to follow directions, to learn, to grow and to magnify our priesthood. Does that mean we should just do what we want well you can but how do you answer the question from Jesus when he asks why did you disobey the prophet? I for one like to have others in the fire with me as it makes it easier to accept the pain knowing I am not the only one who is being roasted.

What do you do if Jesus asks you why you didn't do all you could to stop others from being killed in his house? You don't live in Utah, you didn't ask your bishop if he was ok with your carrying in his ward meetings and most of all you didn't pray to your father and older brother in heaven as to what you should do?

[Dravin]

How does one who carries in church reconcile this scripture? I am just curious here, because I do carry, not in church, but it is pretty straight forward.

How do you reconcile carrying? I don't see anything in that scripture that narrows it's application to carrying a weapon to just in Church. So if the verse needs to be reconciled by those who carry at church it needs to be reconciled by those who carry period.

[Just_A_Guy]

How does one who carries in church reconcile this scripture? I am just curious here, because I do carry, not in church, but it is pretty straight forward.

How about with a little Tolkien?

And those who have not swords can still die upon them.

[xLandonx]

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

There's a big difference between being "smitten" on the cheek and letting someone rape your wife and murder your family because you are too much of a coward to protect them.

Just my thoughts...

Edited September 14, 2011 by xLandonx

[FunkyTown]

There's a big difference between being "smitten" on the cheeck and letting someone rape your wife and murder your family because you are too much of a coward to protect them.

Just my thoughts...

Wait... Wait...

So pacifists are all cowards?

Gandhi, who faced down armed men with nothing but a hug and the willingness to die, was a coward?

Jesus, who healed a man who had come to kill him and whose ear had been cut off by one of his apostles was a coward?

That's what I'm reading from what you're saying here. Would you care to elaborate?

[JudoMinja]

The last story I heard was earlier this year - some dood at a bar in Utah managed to blow up a toilet when he was fiddling with his pants and holster and gun.

Wow. That... sucks.

[Vort]

Wait... Wait...

So pacifists are all cowards?

He didn't say that at all. Rather, he said:

There's a big difference between being "smitten" on the cheeck and letting someone rape your wife and murder your family because you are too much of a coward to protect them.

Perhaps there are noble reasons to allow your wife to be raped and your family murdered (Ghandi certainly did not allow any such things, but the people of Ammon may have), but cowardice is not one of those noble reasons. I agree with xLandonx's rather obvious observation: There is indeed a very big difference between turning the other cheek because you are acting in a Christlike manner and allowing harm to your most intimate loved ones because you lack the simple courage to defend them.

[Guest gopecon]

Context matters here. Being smitten on the cheek was more akin to a personal insult than a threat on one's life. I think that turn the other cheek had very little to do with self defense against great bodily harm and more about self control/anger management. As far as the rebuke given to Peter, he was trying to stop the arrest of Jesus. The Savior knew that His time had come, the atoning sacrifice had already begun. I think that He was telling Peter that the work of the Lord was to be done in other, more peaceful ways. Certainly Jesus would have been protected (as he was on other occasions) if it was not His time.

Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, the God of the Old Testament (also Jesus) approved of the use of force in the Bible and the Book of Mormon for protection of life and liberty, and to punish/remove the wicked.

[NeuroTypical]

The BoM tells about the People of Ammon, who worked miracles by allowing themselves to get hewn down due to their oath of peace.

The BoM also tells about just wars conducted by righteous men, and deadly violence worked by those following God, for the defense of their families and faith.

Be on whatever side of the issue you wish. Apparently God works with both sides.

[FunkyTown]

Ah! We're making meaningless observations that have nothing to do with the topic, then.

All right.

There's a big difference between being smitten on the cheek and going on a killing spree, shooting innocent kids as well.

Can't disagree with anything I said there! Meaningless facts are fun!

He didn't say that at all. Rather, he said:

There's a big difference between being "smitten" on the cheeck and letting someone rape your wife and murder your family because you are too much of a coward to protect them.

Perhaps there are noble reasons to allow your wife to be raped and your family murdered (Ghandi certainly did not allow any such things, but the people of Ammon may have), but cowardice is not one of those noble reasons. I agree with xLandonx's rather obvious observation: There is indeed a very big difference between turning the other cheek because you are acting in a Christlike manner and allowing harm to your most intimate loved ones because you lack the simple courage to defend them.

[RMGuy]

I bet I know how Old Port would have answered this question. Then again, he liked a bottle of Valley Tan from time to time as well, so this might not be the best authority on it.

Personally, I figure I would never need a weapon at chuch, but if I do, I need it right now. And I figure all the brethren will need to draw breath if they want to discipline me for violating policy. I could live with myself knowing that I was disciplined for saving the lives of my brothers and sisters. I don't know if I could live with myself otherwise.

That said, I abhor violence in all its manifestations.

Again, just my $.02

-RM

[xLandonx]

Wait... Wait...

So pacifists are all cowards?

Gandhi, who faced down armed men with nothing but a hug and the willingness to die, was a coward?

Jesus, who healed a man who had come to kill him and whose ear had been cut off by one of his apostles was a coward?

That's what I'm reading from what you're saying here. Would you care to elaborate?

Jesus was the Lamb of God. His mission on earth was to be a sacrifice for our sins, so he allowed himself to be subjected to violence at this time. Given that before mortality he was known as Jehovah, and responsible for quite a bit of loss to human life, and will be responsible for more at the second coming, we can deduce that He cannot be classified as a pacifist.

I understand how my statement could be misinterpreted. I just didn’t want to provide a lengthy explanation unless needed/requested.

What I meant is there’s a difference between subjecting YOURSELF to something, and allowing horrible things to happen to OTHER people when you have the ability (and in certain circumstances the obligation) to defend them.

My decision to use a term as strong as “coward” was very intentional, but not meant to be all inclusive. Pacifism can be a wonderful ideal, when applied to ones responsibility to themselves. But IMO it falls short when it comes to non pacifists, who don’t have the ability to defend themselves, suffering when there is someone who COULD defend them, but chooses not to. Also, there are two types of people who claim to be pacifists. Type A: is brave and unwavering in their ideology, they will stand humbly, but without shame, as violence is inflicted upon them. Type B: will soil themselves at the first sign of confrontation and look for the nearest dark corner to hide in. Then hide again from the truth of their character by wearing the mask of a “pacifist”. Type A has my deepest respect, unfortunately I strongly suspect most people who claim pacifism fall easily into the Type B category.

[FunkyTown]

Jesus was the Lamb of God. His mission on earth was to be a sacrifice for our sins, so he allowed himself to be subjected to violence at this time. Given that before mortality he was known as Jehovah, and responsible for quite a bit of loss to human life,.

Quote source. As there were no physical bodies, what did murder entail? How did someone die? What were the consequences?

My decision to use a term as strong as “coward” was very intentional, but not meant to be all inclusive. Pacifism can be a wonderful ideal, when applied to ones responsibility to themselves. But IMO it falls short when it comes to non pacifists, who don’t have the ability to defend themselves, suffering when there is someone who COULD defend them, but chooses not to. Also, there are two types of people who claim to be pacifists. Type A: is brave and unwavering in their ideology, they will stand humbly, but without shame, as violence is inflicted upon them. Type B: will soil themselves at the first sign of confrontation and look for the nearest dark corner to hide in. Then hide again from the truth of their character by wearing the mask of a “pacifist”. Type A has my deepest respect, unfortunately I strongly suspect most people who claim pacifism fall easily into the Type B category.

There are two types of people who claim to be willing to use violence. Type A: Is brave and unwavering in their ideology, sweeping forward to end tyranny and protect the innocent. They will march humbly, but without shame, towards danger as they use violence as the last resort. Type B: Is a petty tyrant compensating for a lack of manhood by seeking to force their will upon all others using those same means. Type A has my deepest respect, unfortunately I strongly suspect most people who claim willingness to use violence fall easily in to the type B category.

NOTE: I actually don't believe this. I also don't believe most pacifists are cowards. I'm merely providing the mirror to your own statements. Not so pleasant when the point is turned back, is it?

[Dravin]

Quote source. As there were no physical bodies, what did murder entail? How did someone die? What were the consequences?

Funky, I suspect he's talking about before Christ's mortality. AKA the time period known as BC as opposed to before anyone mortal was kicking around the planet. With that understanding his source would be things such as the Flood, the death of the firstborn in Egypt, Uzza when he steadied the Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the like. Though I suppose he'll probably be along to clarify for himself.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Dravin