Guns at church?

[NeuroTypical]

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.

 

Respectfully,

- Handbook two is chock full of stuff nobody ever announces to the general membership.  I don't tune in to General Conference to hear (for example) that the ovens in church kitchens should only be used to warm food, not cook food.  

 

- When and how would you suggest?  During sacrament meeting or General Conference, when we're supposed to be spiritually connecting to our savior?

 

- Some folks get upset when hearing talk of guns.  Or when thinking about guns.  Or even when the notion that guns exist is brought to their attention.  The church may be here to help sinners feel uncomfortable, but startling people who aren't doing anything wrong isn't helpful.

Edited October 23, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

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

 

No, really, I do.  Being able to defend yourself against a bad guy often requires guns.  I get it.  :)

 

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.

 

But the whole property of "rights" is that they are not subject to the whims of a majority.  I shouldn't have to explain, or repeat, my desire to keep guns out of my house just because I happen to live in a red state; any more than you should have to explain or repeat your desire to own a firearm just because you live in a blue state.  

 

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

 

Fair enough; but "don't ask don't tell" ≠ "fine and dandy".  The Church clearly doesn't want firearms in its meetinghouses.  What each of us chooses to do with that information, is up to us.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

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.

Christ is the person who ordered Israel to slaughter everyone in the promised land. He is also the one who forgave his murderers.

The lord giveth and he taketh away.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Blackmarch

[David13]

I am not pleased with the church's policy of "inappropriate" to carry a firearm to the church.

I like the idea that there are good people with guns at the church.  And I think it is quite appropriate in this day and age to think of the church's statement of inappropriateness as precatory.  Not mandatory. 

And that therefore when I go to Sacrament meeting and classes that, if a BAD GUY shows up with a gun, he being the type to have an illegal gun, under illegal ownership, and without regard to any law, background check, probation or parole or other admonition against him bringing that gun, that somebody can do something about it (LIKE MAYBE SAVE MY LIFE!!) if that bad guy gets out of line (STARTS SHOOTING).

Thank you very much.

dc

[Bini]

I quite like how the handbook outlines Church gun policy. I don't feel any safer knowing someone is carrying, whether it's concealed or not, I just don't. I can appreciate the sentiment to keep "holy places" holy and not of the world or its worries. But, I don't go to church so I needn't concern myself over such a debate.

[mirkwood]

I always carry a gun.  Nobody has ever asked me not to come to their homes without it.

 

 

(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. 

 

 

As for this person.  They are an idiot.  I hope you told them to secure their weapon properly.  That person is not the norm among gun owners.

[Palerider]

My son in law carries when he is off duty. He has on him on a Sunday. Other than my daughter I am probaly the only that knows he has it.

[JojoBag]

 

 

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

 

It will be inappropriate until someone walks into a chapel and starts killing Mormons because he was set up to do it.  Once that happens, you can be guaranteed that the Church will change its policy.  At that time, any former military or law enforcement will be asked to provide security.  I would not be surprised to see this happen within the next year.

[Crypto]

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?

What about turning the other cheek being a sign of non-violent resistance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

(Okay, i'm not really up to argue this  ...just stirring the pot a little  . Feel free to refute it though    )

[Vort]

What about turning the other cheek being a sign of non-violent resistance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

 

This is what we call "Trying too hard".

 

EDIT: Not talking about you, Crypto.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Vort

[kapikui]

What about turning the other cheek being a sign of non-violent resistance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

(Okay, i'm not really up to argue this  ...just stirring the pot a little  . Feel free to refute it though    )

 

Turning the other cheek was about insult, not potentially deadly assault.  While our society doesn't seem to differentiate much between an open handed slap across the face, and a mini sledge to the side of the head, there is a significant difference.

 

The saying was in reference to a much lesser insult and minor pain for a few minutes, not potentially deadly force.  Christ did not say "If a man chops off your arm with a sword, offer him the other."  

[Guest]

No, really, I do.  Being able to defend yourself against a bad guy often requires guns.  I get it.   :)

 

Nope.  I was not talking about the practical aspect of it which you've outlined here, and others have said ad nauseam to the deaf ears of liberals.

 

Reality aside, intentions aside, practicality aside -- when I hear someone say "In the name of peace, love, and harmony we need to make sure everyone is unarmed" I get the willies.  Reality aside, intentions aside, hearing that makes me feel as creeped out as a liberal seeing an open carry AK-47.

 

But the whole property of "rights" is that they are not subject to the whims of a majority.  I shouldn't have to explain, or repeat, my desire to keep guns out of my house just because I happen to live in a red state; any more than you should have to explain or repeat your desire to own a firearm just because you live in a blue state.  

 

1) It's not that the rights change.  It's that the expectation changes.

2) No, actually you do have to repeat yourself if you live in Texas -- if that's really how you feel.  If it is the same friend, then you probably don't need to tell him every time.

3) If I live in a blue state I often don't have the right to carry anyway.  The LAW forbids it.  

4) In a red state, I could say it depends on the culture (and that is true in some ways).  But the laws specifically state that if you don't want guns brought in to a business, you have to have a sign or something outside stating that.

 

As for a home, I was using it as an example.  I think it's a red herring.  I don't think I would be in a practical situation where anyone would ask me to keep my gun out of their house.  I don't currently have friends like that (either don't want them or would ask me to keep them out)

 

Fair enough; but "don't ask don't tell" ≠ "fine and dandy".  The Church clearly doesn't want firearms in its meetinghouses.  What each of us chooses to do with that information, is up to us. (emphasis added)

 

"Clearly doesn't want..."  Really?  Why is there no sign out front as the law states?

 

I'd say you're right about the "fine and dandy".  That's why I don't open carry.  I believe it is a matter of perception.  If a congregant finds guns scary and sees my weapon, then runs away from the church, I could have done something to avoid the problem.  When concealed, we're both happy.

[Blackmarch]

I highly recommend a good read of section 98.

For turning the other cheek i hope to be some day as anti nephi lehis or the people of alma were, but i am nowhere near there yet. I am not that strong nor have that kind of faith.

The ultimate insult is taking everything a man cares for and destroying it. Conversely the ultimate turning the other cheek, is forgiving your enemy, during their very act taking everything you care for.

As for guns in churches that is ultimately up to the bishop- ask him before you do so if he says yea then no problem. If he says nay, then respect that intrepretation.

[Still_Small_Voice]

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

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

To my understanding Jesus overthrew the tables and drove people before Him out of the temple. It was the account of James Talmage that said He did not actually do violence to anyone. I will look up the account and post it later in here.

But I really do not see what the fuss is with trained people carrying a concealed handgun in church. It happens a lot in Utah I am sure. Probably over three hundred thousand people carry on Utah roads every day. Armed security officers carry on Salt Lake City temple square every day. Good people who are trained and armed with firearms can prevent harm to innocent people.

[Guest]

To my understanding Jesus overthrew the tables and drove people before Him out of the temple. It was the account of James Talmage that said He did not actually do violence to anyone. I will look up the account and post it later in here.

But I really do not see what the fuss is with trained people carrying a concealed handgun in church. It happens a lot in Utah I am sure. Probably over three hundred thousand people carry on Utah roads every day. Armed security officers carry on Salt Lake City temple square every day. Good people who are trained and armed with firearms can prevent harm to innocent people.

I think you're straining at the gnat.  But at least you're not swallowing the camel.

[Just_A_Guy]

Reality aside, intentions aside, practicality aside -- when I hear someone say "In the name of peace, love, and harmony we need to make sure everyone is unarmed" I get the willies.  Reality aside, intentions aside, hearing that makes me feel as creeped out as a liberal seeing an open carry AK-47.

Be that as it may, that's essentially the approach that the Church has expressed, at least with regard to its meetinghouses.  

 

This business of suggesting that the GA's don't really mean what they actually said, and creating ambiguity where there is none in the name of justifying a pre-determined course of action; is IMHO a game that is beneath us as Latter-day Saints and is best left to sort of folks who created it.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

So you believe the GAs are saying that a concealed carry pistol is as disturbing as an open carry AK-47?

[Just_A_Guy]

So you believe the GAs are saying that a concealed carry pistol is as disturbing as an open carry AK-47?

OK, lemme try again:

Reality aside, intentions aside, practicality aside -- when I hear someone say "In the name of peace, love, and harmony we need to make sure everyone is unarmed" I get the willies.

Be that as it may, that's essentially the approach that the Church has expressed, at least with regard to its meetinghouses.

This business of suggesting that the GA's don't really mean what they actually said, and creating ambiguity where there is none in the name of justifying a pre-determined course of action; is IMHO a game that is beneath us as Latter-day Saints and is best left to sort of folks who created it.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

OK.  I guess the debate is over -- at least in the State of Utah.  The Church has taken steps ( in 2004) to outright ban them per Utah state law.

 

Ironically, I believe this supports my view that "inappropriate" indicated a preference rather than a ban.  Here's why.

      1) Utah law states that an announcement over the pulpit is sufficient

           to legally ban the carrying of firearms into the buildings.

      2) The "inappropriate" wording has been read over the pulpit, and

           if I'm correct, the handbook has it in it as well.  Thus, that is all that was needed to ban them by law.

      3) Instead, they felt it necessary to register with the state CBI,

          which has an organizational registry to prohibit firearms.

 

So far, I know of no other states that the Church has made such a move (take the required legal means to ban them from the Church buildings).  It has been over 10 years since they did it in Utah.

 

Now here is a considered question.  What will the Church do in other states?  Or will they do anything?

 

If they do this only in Utah, that makes me wonder, why just Utah?

If they do go forward to each state, and eventually to Texas, I'll have a serious question to ask myself.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Guest

[mirkwood]

This debate has raged a long time.  To my knowledge, Utah is the only state that has done this. 

 

As a side note, my gun and I attended church today.  I can't speak for the gun, but I was edified.

Edited October 26, 2015 by mirkwood

[Guest]

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.

Who told you that?  The law says differently.  The only method provided by current state law is that they have to put a sign by the door.

 

There is also some discussion about some other facilitites such as hospitals which are covered by federal laws and other legalistic leger-de-main that  muddies up the requirements.  But as far as I know it does not cover churches.

[Crypto]

This debate has raged a long time.  To my knowledge, Utah is the only state that has done this. 

 

As a side note, my gun and I attended church today.  I can't speak for the gun, but I was edified.

Pretty sure you also have a very good reason to be carrying, and are exempted from the ban as well.

oh just a little off topic...

I'm surprised I'm not seeing a countdown from you this month for a particular day.

[NeuroTypical]

How about a nice sign like this?

 

 

The pro-gun-free-zone folks get a nice sign with a gun with a ban line through it, to help them feel safe, and the legal carriers get to carry concealed.

 

(Giraffes not necessary - I took this photo at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs recently.)

Edited October 26, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

Yes I am exempt.

 

Yes, I forgot to start the countdown here.  I've been doing it on facebook.

 

Here is a sample

 

[Guest]

How about a nice sign like this?

 

 

The pro-gun-free-zone folks get a nice sign with a gun with a ban line through it, to help them feel safe, and the legal carriers get to carry concealed.

 

(Giraffes not necessary - I took this photo at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs recently.)

Actually, in Texas we have a LOT of places that have a sign that says no OPEN carry, but concealed carry is completely welcome.  That says the establishment is fine with you carrying.  They just don't want to scare kids or "gun virgins" away from the restaurant.

 

In Colorado, that gun-circle-slash is the sign that is required by law to forbid any weapons.  But no minimum size is defined.  So, you could have a sign that is 1/4" diameter and it would satisfy the law.  But most people have it around 4" dia or more.

 

I appreciate the added text on the sign that says it is only forbidding the open carry.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Guest