Pro-Gun, Anti-Gun, and One Church


Recommended Posts

Have you ever seen ‘The Matrix’? Of course, you haven’t, its rated “R”. But I have it on good authority that there is a scene where Neo, the main character, is about to have an all-out good vs. evil battle. He is asked what he needs as he prepares for combat.  via giphy It's an iconic scene. The need for guns is a hot topic throughout the world. What makes it applicable to this article is that many members of the church feel just like Mr. Neo here. They like the idea of having, well, lots of guns. These people have rational explanations as to why their gun ownership is proper. They do not have a monopoly on rational explanations, however. There is a contingent of church members that take issue with guns and any kind of violence. The absolutely crazy thing about members of the church falling on either side of the debate is that they can exist as members of the same church. How can two people who are...

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find little openly objectionable about this article, and I agree with Tanner's conclusion that obedience to God trumps all. But the way he presents the issue contains "tells" that suggest he's in the anti-gun camp and that he thinks those in the pro-gun camp are simply wrong.

Why is this discouraging? Why do I even care? Because lip service is not enough for societal discourse, including in Church society. Arguments for or against a position, if presented, should be reasonably representative of those groups who hold them. In this, Tanner fails when he cites the people of Ammon (Anti-Nephi-Lehies) as an example of how it's righteous to completely disarm.

Let's be clear. By their own admission, and uncontradicted by anyone else, the people of Ammon were filthy murderers. They had literally had the blood of innocent Nephites on their hands. Killing Nephites was sport to them. These people were lost to such a degree that surely their redemption must stand as one of the greatest miracles in all of scripture.

Why did they abandon their weapons of war? Because they were desperate to do anything—ANYTHING—to rid their garments of the blood they had spilt. They were perfectly willing to suffer death at the hands of their enemies (brothers) than ever to kill anyone else, ever, for any reason. It's worth noting that they almost transgressed this covenant, but not because they personally were threatened. They were worried about the Nephites who were dying to protect them as they refused to lift a finger. And so, of course, we get the equally miraculous history of their sons, the so-called Stripling Warriors.

Is the example of the people of Ammon burying their weapons of war and utterly refusing to lift a finger in defense of themselves or anyone else worthy to emulate? Sure, if you're a depraved murderer seeking expiation of your many murders. Otherwise, not so much.

This paragraph in particular irked me:

Guns are not implements of righteous enforcement for all people, however. For these people forgiving enemies and turning backs to smiters are more than platitudes, they are principles for living the peaceable life of a disciple of Christ. The people of Ammon are commonly cited as perfect examples of forsaking weapons of war.

The clear, unavoidable implication is that pro-gunners take the teachings to forgive enemies and turn your back to smiters as mere "platitudes". This is so false and unfair as to be criminal really, really frustrating. For that matter, I am convinced that a non-insignificant minority of the anti-gunners are simply cowards, looking to justify their cowardice by painting it as peacemaking.

I am a pro-gunner in principle, and actually do own some rifles. I am ill-trained and would be at a great disadvantage if I had to use a rifle to defend myself or my family. I am not a "gun nut" or a "gun lover". But I understand perfectly well the Second Amendment argument: Possession of defensive weapons is a God-given right that any righteous government must defend. Sometimes that makes me a little uncomfortable; frankly, I don't trust my next-door neighbors quite that much.

But "living with risk" has another name: "living". Is firearm possession a God-given right? The US Constitution says so, and until that amendment is repealed or modified, I don't see how the issue can proceed forward. It's easy enough, anti-gunners: Just get a majority in 38 states to agree with you, and modify the Constitution. Don't take the vomitous, dishonest, and nation-destroying path of Roe v Wade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Don't take the vomitous, dishonest, and nation-destroying path of Roe v Wade.

If the government tries to disarm the populace it's going to destroy the nation in ways that Row v Wade couldn't even imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun rights vs. control is one of those issues that truly is political. Chances are that churches and religious leaders which choose to weigh in on the issue from a spiritual angle happen to work in communities that have a consensus on the issue. For the other 98% of us keeping the church focused on Jesus, and allowing members to discern for themselves on the matter would seem to be the wisest course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Gun rights vs. control is one of those issues that truly is political. Chances are that churches and religious leaders which choose to weigh in on the issue from a spiritual angle happen to work in communities that have a consensus on the issue. For the other 98% of us keeping the church focused on Jesus, and allowing members to discern for themselves on the matter would seem to be the wisest course.

And this is fine. For example, I accept President Nelson as a true prophet of God. If he were to instruct us to disarm and work toward gun control or even abolition—something I don't think is a remote possibility—then I would follow his lead. Until that time, I accept the foundational US Constitution as a divinely inspired document, including the Bill of Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Gun rights vs. control is one of those issues that truly is political.

I, for one, do not believe that any political things are only political.

At the very least, God has warned us (commanded us) to be wise. I think it behooves us to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Guns, Lots of guns”  Seen it.

About a month ago this guy woke me up trying to get into my house at 2 AM.

F67E19BB-5E0F-4E97-A583-13679E32C57E.thumb.jpeg.674e622926f1d66dfb6b3edd0a3bfa7c.jpeg

I woke up and flipped on the outside lights.  It startled him for a few seconds and he ran off about 15’ then he just sauntered right back and pushed open a trash door and started going thru the garbage. There was Little Caesars Pizza crust jackpot that he was interested in.

Anyways I stepped out onto the patio and told him that he better take his business elsewhere.  He just looked at me for a few seconds then went back to the Pizza Pizza.

I told him that I’d be right back.  I am a law abiding California resident so I got my gun case keys and pulled out my S&W 22 handgun.  Then I opened my separate ammo container and loaded 5 rounds.  

Despite vociferous objections from the wife, I stepped outside in my Gs and while he casually watched me, I took a single head shot from 30’ and dropped him.

I called Fish & Game at 8 AM and they came out and picked up the carcass.  When they first arrived they were ready to give me quite the lecture.  But they noticed that I hadn’t touched the animal.  It died right by the house where I shot it.  And all the children in their PJs around the bear probably helped too.  

64B6E472-7809-4680-BC45-C1DE40CAB550.thumb.jpeg.eba59fb5ea9fcd29115d72cc755f73fd.jpeg

Anyway they were impressed with the .22 kill shot and said they would use the bear to teach a class and that the skin would be used for school children education.

 

I felt no remorse.  We have had problem bears in the neighborhood previously.

 

Im not a big proponent of food supply as found in cans.  But we have a garden and I know how to use my firearms.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, for one, do not believe that any political things are only political.

At the very least, God has warned us (commanded us) to be wise. I think it behooves us to do so.

Things can be "truly" political without being "only" political. I am thankful that both of our churches allow us to determine God's wisdom on this matter, rather than declaring/proclaiming for all how that wisdom will look inside the balloting booth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Things can be "truly" political without being "only" political.

I'm not sure what one means by "truly" if one isn't implying "only". So I'm not following.

But either way, I thing when the government takes away our guns, and thereafter takes away our rights to worship, it'll be pretty easy to see how it wasn't just some political preference game we're playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Folk Prophet government may try to take away our guns, or control them, or register users, etc. It may also try to take away worship rights. Both of these are Bill of Rights issues. One goes to the heart of our faith. The other...well, the majority of members of both of our churches live in lands that control guns to a far greater extent than we experience here. That may be foolish, bad, unwise, and it may create a less safe environment for the faithful. However, government attacks on worship would be a direct assault, and only the most obtuse and anti-religious would balk at spiritual leaders publicly and vehemently opposing such intrusions. Maybe I am naive, but I just cannot see the gun debate being a matter of spiritual life or death. On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised if some voters choose to be "single issue" over the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
12 hours ago, Vort said:

I find little openly objectionable about this article, and I agree with Tanner's conclusion that obedience to God trumps all. But the way he presents the issue contains "tells" that suggest he's in the anti-gun camp and that he thinks those in the pro-gun camp are simply wrong.

I'm not certain you're being fair to Tanner.  The gun debate does not simply have a line and you're on one side or the other.  There are gradations.  While you know I'm pro-gun, there are many I know who are so much more so that I strongly disagree with some of their proposals.

People "in the middle" can recognize the right to gun ownership while personally not being willing to own one.  They can also recognize that "some" legislation against arms is still acceptable and Constitutional (As the late, great Justice Scalia stated).

12 hours ago, Vort said:

The clear, unavoidable implication is that pro-gunners take the teachings to forgive enemies and turn your back to smiters as mere "platitudes". This is so false and unfair as to be criminal really, really frustrating. For that matter, I am convinced that a non-insignificant minority of the anti-gunners are simply cowards, looking to justify their cowardice by painting it as peacemaking.

Again, I'm thinking you're being unfair.  I'd say that a great many of them are not cowards, but simply ignorant of all the issues, implications, etc.

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I am a pro-gunner in principle, and actually do own some rifles. I am ill-trained and would be at a great disadvantage if I had to use a rifle to defend myself or my family. I am not a "gun nut" or a "gun lover". But I understand perfectly well the Second Amendment argument: Possession of defensive weapons is a God-given right that any righteous government must defend. Sometimes that makes me a little uncomfortable; frankly, I don't trust my next-door neighbors quite that much.

I'm a gun nut.  And I'd highly advise that you go to a range and learn how to use those arms as much as time and money permit.  But you might have more trouble than I do considering where you live. :) 

12 hours ago, Vort said:

But "living with risk" has another name: "living". Is firearm possession a God-given right? The US Constitution says so, and until that amendment is repealed or modified, I don't see how the issue can proceed forward. It's easy enough, anti-gunners: Just get a majority in 38 states to agree with you, and modify the Constitution. Don't take the vomitous, dishonest, and nation-destroying path of Roe v Wade.

Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mikbone said:

About a month ago this guy woke me up trying to get into my house at 2 AM.

I have a story that starts the same way.  And it ends basically the same way, with one big difference.  Here's how I told the world on Facebook:

Quote

 

We just had a fatal shooting at my house, about an hour ago. My daughter was looking out the window, and saw the trespasser. I confronted him on my front porch, and fired one shot from my 9 mm Glock.

Though the wound was instantly fatal we think, the skunk still managed to fire his weapon. They told me that when you take a life you pay for it, I just finished a vinegar bath, and probably won't be able to go to work tomorrow because of the smell. My neighbors, 2 acres away, didn't hear the shot, but the smell brought them out of their house.

This was the skunk that had killed my daughters favorite roosters. He won't be killing any more of our chickens.

All things considered, it probably would have been much worse if I have used a shotgun.

The whole neighborhood rejoiced - it had been killing their chickens too.   We live outside city limits, and the Sheriff is quite clear about not giving a crap about stuff like this, so we disposed of the little guy ourselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the topic of the thread, Vort's take is 80% of the mic drop on the subject.   For the other 20%, I submit the following:

We get to choose on what side we fall.  The tent of Zion is big enough to hold both folks.  The innocent sheep get to peacefully graze in the sun and snooze in the grass, and read their scriptures and have callings and worship God and go to the temple and all that.  And the shepherds and sheepdogs get to stand watchful and prepared, ready to engage in deadly combat, doing all the same things as the sheep.   And if the sheep get offended at the sheepdogs, or vice versa, that's their problem.  It's on them to love their neighbor and be able to sit next to them at the temple without being all ticked off about their stand on guns. 

Engage in debate all you want.  It's our duty to propose and support just leaders and just laws, and we'll end up arguing a lot with each other about what is best.  But when it becomes an issue of "what stand must a righteous disciple of the Lord take", you get to choose for yourself, and when the other guy chooses something else, y'all do your best to love 'em.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:
Quote

For that matter, I am convinced that a non-insignificant minority of the anti-gunners are simply cowards, looking to justify their cowardice by painting it as peacemaking.

Again, I'm thinking you're being unfair.  I'd say that a great many of them are not cowards, but simply ignorant of all the issues, implications, etc.

I did say "a non-insignificant minority" are cowards. I stand by that assessment. It's easy to bleat the PC line when Hollywood, the media, most politicians, and general society cheer you on and hail your "bravery". When the tides shift, how many of them will stand strong by their supposed "convictions", and how many will instead experience an Obaman evolution in their thinking that—wonder of wonders!—just happens to keep them exactly in line with Establishment goodthink?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@The Folk Prophet government may try to take away our guns, or control them, or register users, etc. It may also try to take away worship rights. Both of these are Bill of Rights issues. One goes to the heart of our faith. The other...well, the majority of members of both of our churches live in lands that control guns to a far greater extent than we experience here. That may be foolish, bad, unwise, and it may create a less safe environment for the faithful. However, government attacks on worship would be a direct assault, and only the most obtuse and anti-religious would balk at spiritual leaders publicly and vehemently opposing such intrusions. Maybe I am naive, but I just cannot see the gun debate being a matter of spiritual life or death. On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised if some voters choose to be "single issue" over the matter.

I'm a bit surprised when people cannot see the connection, particularly Americans whose nation developed out of breaking the chains of religious oppression, and the casting off of government through violent means.

It's one thing to say that God will protect our religious freedoms, but quite another to say the same after having given away the means God gave us to protect those freedoms. If a government comes in and simply takes away the people's ability to defend their rights then that's on the government. But then if people actually support the government disarming them it's on the people when their more precious rights are later stripped.

Yes, one is direct, the other is not. But the requirement for the protection of rights draws a clear connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have a story that starts the same way.  And it ends basically the same way, with one big difference.  Here's how I told the world on Facebook:

The whole neighborhood rejoiced - it had been killing their chickens too.   We live outside city limits, and the Sheriff is quite clear about not giving a crap about stuff like this, so we disposed of the little guy ourselves.  

Last month I changed out the garage fluorescent lights to LEDs with motion activated sensors.  They are so much better!   

Anyway I walked into the garage 2 weeks ago, it was empty and quiet, but one of the kids had left the back door to the garage open and the lights were on.  I knew something or someone had either just left or was still in there.  So I just stood there and started talking.  Couple seconds later a good sized skunk popped out from behind the trash can.  I gave him a wide berth and had a good talk with the kids about open doors and leaving out the d@mned cat food.

My condolences.  I can’t even imagine participating in a ‘fresh’ spray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably just gun-shy (pun intended) after watching a documentary about Sanctuary Church (PA). The spiritual leader is one of Rev. Moon, Sunmyung's (Unification Church) sons. He wears a camo-suit, and insists "the rod of iron" in the Bible means rifles. His parishioners attend church with their rods of iron, while wearing 'crowns' made out of bullets. Personally...I'm a gun rights guy. Can't shoot though...so, I'm thankful for those that aim and shoot well and righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Time to remind everyone of this poll!  If you haven't voted, go vote.

 

 

Good reminder.

Also good to pull part of my reply on that thread:  "Not having a firearm because you rely on police officers and soldiers to defend your life is the highest degree of eliticism.  It’s a lot higher than leaving the cleaning of your toilet to the maid service.”

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the 2nd Amendment.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Also good to pull part of my reply on that thread:  "Not having a firearm because you rely on police officers and soldiers to defend your life is the highest degree of eliticism.  It’s a lot higher than leaving the cleaning of your toilet to the maid service.”

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the 2nd Amendment.

Who knew this petite example of Asian femininity would be so bloodthirsty?  :animatedlol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Who knew this petite example of Asian femininity would be so bloodthirsty?  :animatedlol:

My great great great great grandfather killed Magellan who had guns and cannons with a spear.  ;)

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Time to remind everyone of this poll!  If you haven't voted, go vote.

 

I don't like the idea of answering that poll.  I'd much prefer people suspect without ever knowing. :evilbanana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Who knew this petite example of Asian femininity would be so bloodthirsty?  :animatedlol:

When the poop hits the fan and the new evil regime comes a knockin' at yer door, you want @anatess2 on your side!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...