Guns at church?

[NeedleinA]

I live in a state where you can get a concealed carry permit for guns. I don't own any guns personally and have zero issue with people who do. Talking with a group of Elders and High Priest in our ward, by there own admission there are 3-5 people with guns at church any given Sunday. 

 

Of the 5 people, 4 have it for general safety and the 5th is a police officer.  

 

Handbook 21.2.4 Firearms:

 

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."

 

Any thoughts on guns at church or the interpretation of "inappropriate"? Just curious, thanks!

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's inappropriate.  One aspect of responsible gun ownership, is abiding by the wishes of private property owners who make it crystal clear that they do not want firearms on their property.

[Blackmarch]

I live in a state where you can get a concealed carry permit for guns. I don't own any guns personally and have zero issue with people who do. Talking with a group of Elders and High Priest in our ward, by there own admission there are 3-5 people with guns at church any given Sunday. 

 

Of the 5 people, 4 have it for general safety and the 5th is a police officer.  

 

Handbook 21.2.4 Firearms:

 

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."

 

Any thoughts on guns at church or the interpretation of "inappropriate"? Just curious, thanks!

I'm fine with that policy.

As for a thought there is this; God is life and order, a gun is a tool designed for killing and destruction.

Another possibility is that our current society is too focused on such things and they have become a golden calf of sorts.

edit to add: totally agreeing with JAG as well.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Blackmarch

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Needleina,

 

You might want to check out this recent thread.  I'll restate what I said there.

 

I'm halfway active in various LDS concealed-carry circles.  The policy in the handbook is often passionately discussed.  Here's a smattering of opinions on it:

 

* It says "carrying is inappropriate", not sinful, not prohibited, so I guess I'll just be inappropriate.

* I spoke to my bishop about it, and he's grateful to hear I'm willing to carry at church and fully supportive.

* I spoke to my bishop about it, and he confirmed I should not be carrying.

* As long as I raise my arm to the square and sustain my leaders, my gun won't be with me at church.

 

Basically, LDS conceal-carriers' opinions are all over the map on whether it's appropriate to carry at church or not.

 

Now, a local mega-church/homeschool co-op in my area had a mass killing a few years back.  They adopted a position I support and would like to see in our church:

- Strongly worded zero-tolerance policy regarding firearms.  Immediate consequences (sanctions, disciplinary action, suspension of students/termination of workers.  Immediate police involvement if a firearm is present.)

- Exceptions are on-duty police, licensed church safety persons, and others authorized and permitted under relevant state and county laws (here in Colorado, it's C.C.R.S. 18-12-203).

 

The policy helps those who think a written policy is the best response feel safe, because the policy is so strongly worded.  It also helps people actually be safe, by allowing authorized folks to carry. 

[Guest]

I'm aware of the Church policy.  But this is one of those things I feel strongly enough about that unless they clearly state in no uncertain terms that it is strictly forbidden, I'm going to carry.

 

I agree with JaG's statement about respecting private property rights.  But that is not strong enough wording for me to believe it is forbidden.  I'm very responsible and would never reveal the gun at all, unless I was in a situation which required it.  And it is secured in such a way that it could not be taken from me without extreme force.

 

Consider: If a friend asked me over for dinner, I'd probably bring it and he'd never even know I was armed.  If he knew beforehand and stated, "I'd really appreciate it if you left your gun at home."  "Really? Uhm I'll think about it."  If he doesn't press any further, I'd bring it and he still wouldn't know. 

 

If instead he said, "look, I know how you feel about guns.  But this is my home and if you bring your gun, you will not be allowed inside."  Then I'd have to consider how much I want to go visit him.

 

Line from a movie:  Look, we're not crashing this party.  We were invited.  So if you expect us to give up our 2nd amendment rights, we can just move on down the street.

 

Not that I would take that tone with a Church decree.  But it is pretty much my attitude when dealing with even my friends who invite me over with this request.

 

If the Church came out with stronger language that essentially said it was forbidden or if they went so far as to put that sign out front, as required by law, then I would comply.  I want to go to church more than I want to keep my gun.  But as it stands with that wording, I won't.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Guest

[Blackmarch]

with the way it's worded it gives stake presidents and bishops some wiggle room.

[Just_A_Guy]

Line from a movie:  Look, we're not crashing this party.  We were invited.  So if you expect us to give up our 2nd amendment rights, we can just move on down the street.

 

On the other hand, you also have a first amendment right to call my kids ugly.  But I don't think you'd dream of ever doing so in my home, even if I hadn't expressly forbidden you from doing so.  :)

[Guest]

That's because that is the kind of guy I am.  But I'm also the guy who very responsibly carries a gun.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's because that is the kind of guy I am.  But I'm also the guy who very responsibly carries a gun.

 

I have no doubt that you're careful with your firearms.  But it just strikes me as common courtesy for me to abide by a property owner's request instead of hiding behind a "gee, I didn't really think you meant it" when I knew darned well what the property owner expected and chose to ignore it.

 

If someone's bringing a gun, or a can of gasoline, or a stick of dynamite, or a sealed petri dish full of Ebola into my house, I wanna know about it--even if the actual risk of catastrophe from such properly-handled items is minimal.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[NeedleinA]

Thank you everyone for your insight and comments. It appears that next time I should do a topic search before starting a similar thread, sorry. (Thanks for the link NeuroTypical)

 

I visited a ward in Colorado Springs about 4-5 years ago. I believe this was on the heels of a shooting at a different local area church and also perhaps shortly after the bishop from CA was unfortunately killed. The discussion for the High Priest that Sunday was how to implement patrolling the parking lot during Sunday meetings with armed (concealed-carry) brethren. I was only visiting for one Sunday, but left with the distinct understanding those wards were not thinking about if they should do it, but rather "how" to actually do it. 

 

Perhaps that was part of the "wiggle room" that area decided to use?

Edited October 23, 2015 by NeedleinA

[Guest]

If it were a stick of dynamite or a sample of ebola, I would not say "golly-gee willikers, that doesn't make me feel comfortable."  I'd say, "Whoa!  You're NOT coming into my house with that!"

 

I can't imagine someone who feels as strongly about guns as he would about ebola doing anything less.

 

Keep in mind that in Texas, most households (even liberal's) own a gun.  It is the norm.  At least that's the perception and culture.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

Ok, I'll say it. 

You need to think like a criminal. Generally, they are the ones who want to hurt people.

 

Hey, it takes one to know one. I'm writing this from Supermax in Colorado! (kidding, kidding) 

Criminals like easy, quick targets. Gator the drug addict looking for his next hit doesn't care about gun laws. In fact, he loves gun free zones. I can mug you much, much easier there. 

You can hug criminal if you want too, but it's like old indian story of the lady who finds an injured rattlesnake, heals it, and then is shocked, SHOCKED! that it bit her. As she dies, she says "But I cared for you so much!" The snake says, "And you knew I was snake all along" 


Okay. Criminal hat off. Now I'm just back to your lovable, friendly neighbored swamp monster. 

Edited October 23, 2015 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

Ok, I'll say it. 

You need to think like a criminal. Generally, they are the ones who want to hurt people.

 

Hey, it takes one to know one. I'm writing this from Supermax in Colorado! (kidding, kidding) 

Criminals like easy, quick targets. Gator the drug addict looking for his next hit doesn't care about gun laws. In fact, he loves gun free zones. I can mug you much, much easier there. 

You can hug criminal if you want too, but it's like old indian story of the lady who finds an injured rattlesnake, heals it, and then is shocked, SHOCKED! that it bit her. As she dies, she says "But I cared for you so much!" The snake says, "And you knew I was snake all along" 

Okay. Criminal hat off. Now I'm just back to your lovable, friendly neighbored swamp monster. 

 

On the other hand, is that not, from a certain point of view, what turn the other cheek, and the good Samaritan , and a variety of other Christlike principles might suggest?

[Blackmarch]

Thank you everyone for your insight and comments. It appears that next time I should do a topic search before starting a similar thread, sorry. (Thanks for the link NeuroTypical)

 

I visited a ward in Colorado Springs about 4-5 years ago. I believe this was on the heels of a shooting at a different local area church and also perhaps shortly after the bishop from CA was unfortunately killed. The discussion for the High Priest that Sunday was how to implement patrolling the parking lot during Sunday meetings with armed (concealed-carry) brethren. I was only visiting for one Sunday, but left with the distinct understanding those wards were not thinking about if they should do it, but rather "how" to actually do it. 

 

Perhaps that was part of the "wiggle room" that area decided to use?

quite likely. I can see how a situation may arise where such sort of thing might be necessary- and where as that might be necessary for one location it might be totally unnecessary for another. I also appreciate how they also kept to the letter of it by keeping the arms outside of the building.

[Guest]

When I think of giving up my guns in the name of peace I think of Haun's Mill.

 

What do you think motivated John Moses Browning?

[Guest MormonGator]

On the other hand, is that not, from a certain point of view, what turn the other cheek, and the good Samaritan , and a variety of other Christlike principles might suggest?

 Virtually all Christian denominations have taught there is at the very least some kind of right to self defense. In fact, there are several times in the new testament where "Turn the other cheek" is contradicted is Christ says some kinds of acts of aggression are acceptable.

He also said it's acceptable to purchase swords and carry them, indicating He was okay with certain kinds of self defense. 

Edited October 23, 2015 by MormonGator

[Blackmarch]

ultimately it is up to the bishop to see how it is intrepreted/implementation.

Hauns mill is reminder to me of why one should not trust in the strength of man or what man can make.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Blackmarch

[The Folk Prophet]

 Virtually all Christian denominations have taught there is at the very least some kind of right to self defense. In fact, there are several times in the new testament where "Turn the other cheek" is contradicted is Christ says some kinds of acts of aggression are acceptable

 

Sure. My point is simply that taking a -- the snake is gonna bite you, so let it DIE!!! -- attitude isn't necessarily always the right thinking. It isn't so black and white. Conversely, I agree, taking a -- always care for the snake even though you know they're a snake and they're going to bite you -- attitude is not always the right thinking.

[Guest MormonGator]

Sure. My point is simply that taking a -- the snake is gonna bite you, so let it DIE!!! -- attitude isn't necessarily always the right thinking. It isn't so black and white. Conversely, I agree, taking a -- always care for the snake even though you know they're a snake and they're going to bite you -- attitude is not always the right thinking.

 I totally agree with you. Of course you should take any means possible to use the least amount of force you possibly can, even for someone who wants to inflict bodily harm.

 

 It's just that others don't share our opinion.  :)

Edited October 23, 2015 by MormonGator

[Blackmarch]

The principles of the law of moses are still applicable- it is just to defend yourself, even as it is just to demand restitution for wrong incurred against you.

[Guest]

ultimately it is up to the bishop to see how it is intrepreted/implementation.

Hauns mill is reminder to me of why one should not trust in the strength of man or what man can make.

 

So that's why the GAs have no bodyguards.  Oh! wait.  They do.

 

Just remember if you ask the question WWJD?  Upending tables and scourging a bunch of people while yelling at them is not out of the question.

[Just_A_Guy]

If it were a stick of dynamite or a sample of ebola, I would not say "golly-gee willikers, that doesn't make me feel comfortable."  I'd say, "Whoa!  You're NOT coming into my house with that!"

 

I can't imagine someone who feels as strongly about guns as he would about ebola doing anything less.

 

Maybe we should come up with safe-harbor laws for how we can be sure that a property owner really means what has already given every indication of having meant.  We could call it--I dunno--"yes means yes", or something. 

 

With a little more seriousness:  Sure, I wouldn't throw a tantrum about a biomedical technician with a petri dish full of bacteria or a demolition worker with a stick of dynamite.  I'd just say "hey, I know you're a careful guy, but I'd prefer that stuff not be brought into my home".  My effort to be civil and low-key, and my acknowledgement that these materials can theoretically be handled safely, should not be read as any sort of tacit permission to bring dynamite, or toxic bacteria, or a firearm into my home after I've point-blank told you I don't want it there. 

 

It doesn't matter that you think you do (or maybe even actually do) know how to defend my home better than I do.  It's simple respect--my house, my rules.  And although I'm pretty pro-2nd Amendment, I get real scared when gun owners decide that their right to a gun trumps my right to my own property.  Because you justify an awful lot with that sort of precedent.

 

(And frankly, I have had an experience with a CCW coming into my home (well, my in-laws' home), bringing his loaded firearm with him, and then setting it on the table and engaging us in conversation even though there were five kids under seven running around the house at the time.  So, this is kind of a tender spot for me.  Gun-owners shouldn't need to be told (twice) to respect the homeowner and not to be dipweeds.)

 

When I think of giving up my guns in the name of peace I think of Haun's Mill.

 

What do you think motivated John Moses Browning?

 

In point of fact, the Mormons at Haun's Mill did have firearms.  But, at Far West they didn't; so I do get your point.

 

But then, if you think I'm asking you not to bring guns into my home so that I can beat you, rape your wife, and shoot your kids--well, maybe it would be prudent not to come to my house at all.    

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Ironhold]

It's my understanding that here in Texas, this issue is a moot point: CCW permit holders are prohibited from bringing their weapons into a church.

[RipFoster]

I don't understand why a policy such as this is buried in a handbook that is not widely publicized to the members. I realize it is available on lds.org, but I stumbled upon it by chance. I have never heard it announced to the general membership that we should reference it or that it was available.

[Guest]

In point of fact, the Mormons at Haun's Mill did have firearms.  But, at Far West they didn't; so I do get your point.

 

And Jesus wasn't born in Jerusalem.    And I don't think you get my point.  

 

The comment was about Blackmarch's point about the Church being a place of "life".  I believe means of self-defense is a tool of life.

 

A tool is a tool.  It's what you use it for that makes the act good or evil.

 

As far as your safe harbor laws, I may have pre-empted that with my statement about the perception in Texas.  Any communication such as this would have to take into account the accepted norms.  We just passed an open carry bill here.  It is a pretty gun friendly state.  So it is more common to welcome it than it is to forbid it in one's home.

 

You're talking about a literal play-out.  I was merely stating my position. Literally, my friend would ask me.  I would say nothing and stare at him as if he were asking me to disrobe in public.  He would get the message.  And he would either press the issue and I'd have to leave.  Or he would give in.  That is how it would literally play out with me.

 

If I had uncertainty about what he understood, I'd probably go home and think about it, call, and cancel on him and tell him why.

 

But my honest interpretation of the Church's public statement is a variation of don't ask don't tell.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Guest