Just_A_Guy

No Guns in Sacrament Meeting—We Mean It This Time!!!

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, laronius said:

The statement also says: “Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world..." Bringing your gun to church is not leaving your concerns of the world behind. Can violence find us at church? Sure, but the last I checked the Lord is more concerned about how we live than how long we live.

Yeah, taking your insulin with you into the church is not leaving concerns of the world behind either. 

The Lord is indeed concerned about how we live.  And we've got sufficient scriptoral and prophetic utterances on the topic of self defense, not to mention the latest policy including fighting back, to make me not too impressed with this line of thinking.

If you've got a People-of-Ammon-esque agreement with the Lord which has you being a good disciple by being a pacifist even unto death, that's fine with me.  But you lose me when you say I've got to follow that same path.  Here's one of my favorite Joseph Smith quotes: 

"Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. [But] Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a bastard."
-- Joseph Smith Jr., journal entry, January 29, 1843. Source: "An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith," 1989, p. 298

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alma 48:17   Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Alma 48:17   Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

 

Moroni never carried guns.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=13603124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

 

Moroni never carried guns.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=13603124

You certain.

I'm told his guns were actually really large. 

Not sure if they were larger than Arnold Schwarzenegger's guns/muscles...but the paintings/pictures in some of the Book of Mormon indicates they may have been.

Talking about guns...

[Video may not be completely appropriate as it shows Schwarzenegger's competition for Mr. Universe and he is clothed appropriately for the competition...so...a lot of flesh is shown...hence why you'll have to copy and paste the url

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a34qHw5TzEk

It is sort of inspirational though...]

 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

 

Moroni never carried guns.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=13603124

Moroni was a warrior.  Probably the greatest "LDS" warrior ever.  He probably carried a sword every where he went.

Edited by mirkwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, taking your insulin with you into the church is not leaving concerns of the world behind either. 

The Lord is indeed concerned about how we live.  And we've got sufficient scriptoral and prophetic utterances on the topic of self defense, not to mention the latest policy including fighting back, to make me not too impressed with this line of thinking.

If you've got a People-of-Ammon-esque agreement with the Lord which has you being a good disciple by being a pacifist even unto death, that's fine with me.  But you lose me when you say I've got to follow that same path.  Here's one of my favorite Joseph Smith quotes: 

"Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. [But] Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a bastard."
-- Joseph Smith Jr., journal entry, January 29, 1843. Source: "An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith," 1989, p. 298

Comparing insulin to guns doesn't jive for me, but whatever.

So I have a question for you. Do you feel it appropriate to pack a gun as you participate in ordinances in the temple, the endowment for example? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, laronius said:

Comparing insulin to guns doesn't jive for me, but whatever.

So I have a question for you. Do you feel it appropriate to pack a gun as you participate in ordinances in the temple, the endowment for example? 

Okay, I'm probably one of the strongest gun control advocates on this forum. But this is just silly. 

policies regarding carrying guns in places of worship have nothing (let me make that stronger...NOTHING) to do with ordinances, or religion, or reverence. This is a debate between very strong feelings about the conflict between public and personal safety. Priesthood ordinances don't give a flying squirrel turd whether you are carrying a weapon or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, laronius said:

So I have a question for you. Do you feel it appropriate to pack a gun as you participate in ordinances in the temple, the endowment for example? 

Not really, no.  Nor necessary:  Temples have controlled entry and armed security.   Our meetinghouses do not.

At least, not any sort of formal organized security.  My bishop (who always wears his suit coat, even in the hot summer, even though he's not really a suit coat kind of guy), is pretty transparently clear that he favors permit holders carrying in the meetinghouse.  He is adhering to the policy by telling us all if he sees a member with a gun, he will ask them to leave and come back when he don't see the gun any more.   He tells me our Stake President feels similarly.

(Full disclosure - I'm in a ward where a sister once was asking around, looking for another sister to go with her to get conceal carry permit training.  She couldn't find one - she kept hearing "oh you'll love it - I got mine last year".)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Okay, I'm probably one of the strongest gun control advocates on this forum. But this is just silly. 

policies regarding carrying guns in places of worship have nothing (let me make that stronger...NOTHING) to do with ordinances, or religion, or reverence. This is a debate between very strong feelings about the conflict between public and personal safety. Priesthood ordinances don't give a flying squirrel turd whether you are carrying a weapon or not. 

I would disagree. When Jesus said that those who live by the sword perish by the sword he was not commenting about whether we should defend ourselves or not but where do we put our trust in the end. Is it in the Lord or in ourselves? In priesthood ordinances, especially in the temple, we are being asked to leave the world behind and to stand in holy places, recognizing that only the Lord can save us in the way that matters most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not really, no.  Nor necessary:  Temples have controlled entry and armed security.   Our meetinghouses do not.

At least, not any sort of formal organized security.  My bishop (who always wears his suit coat, even in the hot summer, even though he's not really a suit coat kind of guy), is pretty transparently clear that he favors permit holders carrying in the meetinghouse.  He is adhering to the policy by telling us all if he sees a member with a gun, he will ask them to leave and come back when he don't see the gun any more.   He tells me our Stake President feels similarly.

(Full disclosure - I'm in a ward where a sister once was asking around, looking for another sister to go with her to get conceal carry permit training.  She couldn't find one - she kept hearing "oh you'll love it - I got mine last year".)

I know there is security at temples but I have never seen them at the entrance (at least the ones I've been to). Though perhaps it depends on where the temple is located. I personally have no problem with someone who open carries as they are usually the ones who can be trusted with them. And in some locations, such as your ward, it's not a big deal. But in most wards it would be a distraction. I guess my bigger beef is with the idea that is implied in all this that this policy could not have been inspired. That puts us on ground far more dangerous than not being able to pack a gun for two hours out of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, laronius said:

I would disagree. When Jesus said that those who live by the sword perish by the sword he was not commenting about whether we should defend ourselves or not but where do we put our trust in the end. Is it in the Lord or in ourselves? In priesthood ordinances, especially in the temple, we are being asked to leave the world behind and to stand in holy places, recognizing that only the Lord can save us in the way that matters most. 

You're going to have a really hard time making a religious argument in Mormonism. Or any Christian religion, for that matter. There are plenty of stories in scripture to justify the use of violence in self defense, and plenty to justify pacifism. There are also a lot of ways to interpret the words that get included in the scriptures. For instance, "those who live by the sword perish by the sword" can be interpreted in light of when it was said--Jesus needed to be put on trial, and fighting their way out was going to thwart God's plan. His instruction could just as well be interpreted as a caution that those who follow power and strength will be consumed by power and strength. It need not have been a call to pacifism.

So, no, I don't think you can make a strong religious case for either policy on firearms in church buildings. You may proceed to make the case here if you wish, but I won't attempt to stop your arguments from being ripped apart. The simple matter is, the scriptures are--when read in their entirety--ambiguous on the matter.

4 minutes ago, laronius said:

I know there is security at temples but I have never seen them at the entrance (at least the ones I've been to). Though perhaps it depends on where the temple is located. I personally have no problem with someone who open carries as they are usually the ones who can be trusted with them. And in some locations, such as your ward, it's not a big deal. But in most wards it would be a distraction. I guess my bigger beef is with the idea that is implied in all this that this policy could not have been inspired. That puts us on ground far more dangerous than not being able to pack a gun for two hours out of the week.

I'll be completely blunt in stating that I do not believe this is an "inspired" policy (even though its one I agree with). You'll have a very hard time convincing me that this policy isn't about insurance. Honestly, I don't see why that should be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, laronius said:

I know there is security at temples but I have never seen them at the entrance (at least the ones I've been to). Though perhaps it depends on where the temple is located.

Good security is not noticed, but quickly there if needed.

 

Quote

I personally have no problem with someone who open carries as they are usually the ones who can be trusted with them.

Heh - actually I disagree with that notion.  A lot of open carriers are idealistic immature people, flaunting their rights and trying to get into arguments.  Sort of the 2nd amendment version of an 18 year old yelling at their parents about how they can get a tattoo and mom can't do anything about it.  The open carriers I trust when I see them are off-duty retired military/law enforcement, or people who work on ranches and stuff, and need to come in to town for something.   Any idealistic patriot militia gun nut people like me (and maybe MoE) are suspect until I get to know them personally. :)

All of my comments are about conceal carry permit holders - i.e., people who carry concealed.  I.E., people who you meet every day in grocery stores and movie theaters and gas stations (and church), and it never dawned on you that they may be armed until you read this post.  Depending on where you live, 2-10% of random law abiding people are permit holders.  Maybe one out of every 20 random people you walk past in a day is a permit holder. 

 

Quote

And in some locations, such as your ward, it's not a big deal. But in most wards it would be a distraction. I guess my bigger beef is with the idea that is implied in all this that this policy could not have been inspired. That puts us on ground far more dangerous than not being able to pack a gun for two hours out of the week.

Agreed.  I am not suggesting the policy is uninspired.  I am suggesting there are folks who look at the policy, consider the eternal consequences of kneeling in front of their Master and being asked "why did you violate that policy", and they figure they've got a reasonable answer.

 

53 minutes ago, laronius said:

When Jesus said that those who live by the sword perish by the sword he was not commenting about whether we should defend ourselves or not but where do we put our trust in the end. Is it in the Lord or in ourselves?

Again, I have absolutely zero problem with anyone who doesn't want to carry a gun.  I fully support everyone's rights to not arm themselves.  Glad to have ya.  You're ok in my book.  If you could have similar good thoughts towards those who carry for protection, it'd be good all around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know you personally.  😁

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

I'll be completely blunt in stating that I do not believe this is an "inspired" policy (even though its one I agree with). You'll have a very hard time convincing me that this policy isn't about insurance. Honestly, I don't see why that should be a problem.

Why not both?  Our leaders tell us that the process of the brethren unifying behind something, whether it becomes revelation or policy, starts with a lot of study and prayer, then a lot of discussion, sometimes argument.  

Not that much of a stretch to think the brethren started with a bunch of legal and insurance analysis by lawyers and risk managers, throw in scriptural analysis, prayer, discussion, arguments, and eventually the minds of the brethren, led by the spirit after all that study and work, aligned on what we now see as a revised policy?

A policy instituted to help manage institutional risk, avoid accidents, proclaim peace... and accompanied by the understanding that not everyone will abide by it, and lives may be saved because of that fact .  

 

(I wonder if the policy against using meetinghouse kitchens to cook food was easier or harder...)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

(I wonder if the policy against using meetinghouse kitchens to cook food was easier or harder...)

If you really want to see me get up in arms about something, talk to me about use of the kitchen.  I detest that policy.

 

Funny story: for the Fourth of July this year, we had a pancake breakfast at our ward building. We cooked the bacon at the church (gasp...horror). Two hours after we left, the fire alarm went off. The bishop of the other ward got called in to assist the fire department and they could still smell the remnants of bacon. We got a pretty nasty e-mail about how we triggered the fire alarm by cooking bacon in the building.

Here's the catch though...that was almost four months ago, and the fire alarm does. not. stop. We have to temporarily disable it every time we go into the building. The fire department has notified us that they will not respond to any alarms from our building until the issue is fixed.  Still not fixed.  

Despite all this, we still are under scrutiny because, clearly, cooking bacon in the church broke the fire alarm.  (I can't roll my eyes hard enough)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'll be completely blunt in stating that I do not believe this is an "inspired" policy (even though its one I agree with). You'll have a very hard time convincing me that this policy isn't about insurance. Honestly, I don't see why that should be a problem.

Why not both?  Our leaders tell us that the process of the brethren unifying behind something, whether it becomes revelation or policy, starts with a lot of study and prayer, then a lot of discussion, sometimes argument.  

Not that much of a stretch to think the brethren started with a bunch of legal and insurance analysis by lawyers and risk managers, throw in scriptural analysis, prayer, discussion, arguments, and eventually the minds of the brethren, led by the spirit after all that study and work, aligned on what we now see as a revised policy?

That's what I was going to say.  I'd mentioned before that I've prayed about the new policy.  And I've personally gotten confirmation that it is inspired.  (Not that this means everyone ought to believe my personal revelation.)  I guess that makes me the mirror image of MoE.  I disliked with the policy.  But I DO believe it is inspired.

Elder Bednar actually answered this question.  He specifically talked about some advice your mother gave you that was a pearl of wisdom.  And at the moment when you needed it for an important decision, it came up in your mind.  Was it your mother's advice or was it the Spirit?  His answer:  Why can't it be both?  If it is a wise decision overall, then it would be the decision that the Lord would want you to make.

I guess people have the tendency to believe that "inspiration" is only the type where God is sitting on His throne and decides which prayer he's going to answer that day and specially pushes a button that dispenses an instruction to follow a certain route.  While it CAN happen that way, I don't believe it happens that way for the vast majority of the time.

I tend to think of inspiration more like sunlight.  The power of truth and wisdom is always present.  It is only a question of whether we'll focus on feeling the sun's warmth and/or looking for the light.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

If you really want to see me get up in arms about something, talk to me about use of the kitchen.  I detest that policy.

 

Funny story: for the Fourth of July this year, we had a pancake breakfast at our ward building. We cooked the bacon at the church (gasp...horror). Two hours after we left, the fire alarm went off. The bishop of the other ward got called in to assist the fire department and they could still smell the remnants of bacon. We got a pretty nasty e-mail about how we triggered the fire alarm by cooking bacon in the building.

Here's the catch though...that was almost four months ago, and the fire alarm does. not. stop. We have to temporarily disable it every time we go into the building. The fire department has notified us that they will not respond to any alarms from our building until the issue is fixed.  Still not fixed.  

Despite all this, we still are under scrutiny because, clearly, cooking bacon in the church broke the fire alarm.  (I can't roll my eyes hard enough)

A while back we had some homeless people coming into our building while we were having sacrament mtg and they would go into the kitchen and prepare themselves a meal. Then they would pop popcorn in the microwave. Imagine sitting in the chapel and the smell of popcorn comes drifting in. And you thought the sacrament bread tasted good, this was down right distracting. This went on for about three weeks before we realized what was happening and told them they can't turn our church into a movie theater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
33 minutes ago, Grunt said:

This latest White Settlement church shooting has my really thinking about the new policy.

Considering a good guy with a gun stopped a massacre, I imagine it would. I thought of this thread immediately when I heard of the story. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful about googling around for the video of this stuff.  You can find it, and when you watch it, you lose some innocence you never knew you had, and gain some burdensome knowledge that will be a weight for all your days on earth.

If you figure you're up for some sobering reality, you can see if you're right.

 

The West Freeway Church of Christ video is interesting, in that we see like 3-4 people carrying who all draw and point, but only the ex-FBI armed security guy actually shoots back.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Be careful about googling around for the video of this stuff.  You can find it, and when you watch it, you lose some innocence you never knew you had, and gain some burdensome knowledge that will be a weight for all your days on earth.

If you figure you're up for some sobering reality, you can see if you're right.

 

The West Freeway Church of Christ video is interesting, in that we see like 3-4 people carrying who all draw and point, but only the ex-FBI armed security guy actually shoots back.

Well, we only really see two good guys draw.  The first announced his intent without drawing, the second drew and took the shot.  There were 6 good guys with guns that we know of from the video, but we only see two of them as they react.  It's hard to tell where the other four were or what their reaction would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Grunt said:

Well, we only really see two good guys draw.  The first announced his intent without drawing, the second drew and took the shot.  There were 6 good guys with guns that we know of from the video, but we only see two of them as they react.  It's hard to tell where the other four were or what their reaction would have been.

Most of the others had a lot of people right under their line of fire.  Hard to blame them for hesitating; too much risk someone's going to panic and bolt just as you pull the trigger.  The one who fired wasn't in a much better situation, but did appear to have a better line and some well-earned confidence in his marksmanship under pressure.

The older woman ushering folks out with one hand while holding a large frame pistol in the other is proof it's Texas.  Those giant granny purses got a lot more useful when CHL laws came into effect.

Edited by NightSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now