Just_A_Guy

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

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Even the  church? 

Absolutely.  I am being expected to forsake a God given right established by the constitution which is upheld by the scriptures themselves.  If they are not providing adequate protection to coincide with and justify their policy and I or my family are harmed when we might otherwise been able to be protected, I would have no qualms in pursuing legal action.

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s because going into a gun-free zone is an assumed risk—no one’s making you be there.

Now, if you were someplace where you (believed) you had to be—a government office, or school; or a church that represents itself as being God’s Only True Church—the issues do potentially get more interesting. 

That was exactly where my line of thinking went.  We are expected to attempt to attend all meetings, and the Church represents itself as being the only true Church, thus, I would find it difficult for them to get away with suggesting that I didn't have to be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And they call ME the heathen?! 

😝

🤷‍♂️  I still intend to be obedient to the policy, which is why I believe I would be justified in taking such action.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, person0 said:

Absolutely.  I am being expected to forsake a God given right established by the constitution which is upheld by the scriptures themselves.  If they are not providing adequate protection to coincide with and justify their policy and I or my family are harmed when we might otherwise been able to be protected, I would have no qualms in pursuing legal action.

That was exactly where my line of thinking went.  We are expected to attempt to attend all meetings, and the Church represents itself as being the only true Church, thus, I would find it difficult for them to get away with suggesting that I didn't have to be there.

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be a pretty silly lawsuit.  You aren't required to be on private property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be a pretty silly lawsuit.  You aren't required to be on private property. 

That's just the thing, the Church teaches that you do have to be there.  @Just_A_Guy is a lawyer, and he at least thinks there would be interesting implications.

Quote

Handbook 2
18.2.2.10

Sacrament Services in Unusual Situations

Every member needs the spiritual blessings that come from partaking of the sacrament. If members are unable to attend sacrament meeting because they are confined to a home, nursing home, or hospital, the bishop may assign priesthood holders to prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament to these members.

Occasionally members may be unable to attend sacrament meeting because of distance to the meetinghouse. Under unusual circumstances, the bishop may occasionally give authorization for a sacrament service to be held away from the meetinghouse. He may authorize such a service only within his ward boundaries.

The Church claims that I as a member NEED to partake of the sacrament.  Because I am able bodied, it would be denied to me should I choose to stay home because of their gun policy.  The only way to participate in something the Church claims that I NEED is to physically be present during Sacrament meeting.  Not sure why it would be a silly lawsuit, all things considered.

More examples where attendance is required in order to receive required/needed blessings can be found in the temple recommend questions, and other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, person0 said:

That's just the thing, the Church teaches that you do have to be there.  @Just_A_Guy is a lawyer, and he at least thinks there would be interesting implications.

The Church claims that I as a member NEED to partake of the sacrament.  Because I am able bodied, it would be denied to me should I choose to stay home because of their gun policy.  The only way to participate in something the Church claims that I NEED is to physically be present during Sacrament meeting.  Not sure why it would be a silly lawsuit, all things considered.

More examples where attendance is required in order to receive required/needed blessings can be found in the temple recommend questions, and other areas.

I see your point.  It would be interesting. Does the State recognize your "need" to be a member of the Church?  I suppose that would be a large piece of it, no?

 

ETA:  Have any schools been sued after a mass shooting?  This would be an easier case, I assume.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to imagine how the lawsuit would play out:

Lawyer: person0, why do you feel that you are required to be at a church building that prohibits carrying lethal weapons?

person0: The Church represents itself as the one true church on the face of the earth, and expects us to attempt to attend all meetings.

Lawyer: Do you accept the premise that the Church is the one true church on the face of the earth?

person0: I do.

Lawyer: Do you accept the premise that the leaders of the Church convey the express will of God?

person0: I do.

Lawyer: Do you accept the premise that the prohibition of deadly weapons on Church owned property was the express will of God?

 

And at this point, the trap is laid.  If you answer yes, then the corollary is that any carnage that followed was the will of God, and the Church is absolved of responsibility.

If you answer no, then you've indicated that, despite claiming that Church leaders  convey the will of God, that you don't actually believe that. In which case, why are you risking the safety of yourself and your family by going to a location that is in peril due to known errancy of God's spokesmen?

 

The only way I can see the Church becoming liable is if you can objectively demonstrate that it is the only True Church (TM).  Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I see your point.  It would be interesting. Does the State recognize your "need" to be a member of the Church?  I suppose that would be a large piece of it, no?

 

ETA:  Have any schools been sued after a mass shooting?  This would be an easier case, I assume.

The problem with suing a school (or a church) I would imagine is demonstrating negligence. To show negligence, I think you'd have to demonstrate that there was reason to believe the building was going to be the target of a shooting. Given how rare the events are, it's hard to claim that on any given school day (or any given worship service), that someone is going to come in and shoot up the place. 

On the other hand, if a school receives a threat that there is going to be a shooting, and then they do nothing about it, that presents a case for negligence. But without a reasonable expectation of a threat, I don't think you can win that case. (IANAL disclaimers apply)

Share this post


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

I see your point.  It would be interesting. Does the State recognize your "need" to be a member of the Church?  I suppose that would be a large piece of it, no?

 

ETA:  Have any schools been sued after a mass shooting?  This would be an easier case, I assume.

I don't know if any schools have been sued in such a case, but I agree it would probably be a simpler case.   As far as the state is concerned, my membership in the church and attendance would likely not be recognized as a need. That said, in that same vein it could be argued that despite the secular view of need, the psychological effect of the Church's teaching regarding the need and expectation to be there and to participate, especially in connection with the teaching that any other form of worship is inadequate as it pertains to salvation after death, imposes said need upon me.  Just a thought.

EDIT:  Looks like schools have been sued for this.  Specifically in the Parkland incident.

Edited by person0

Share this post


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

The problem with suing a school (or a church) I would imagine is demonstrating negligence. To show negligence, I think you'd have to demonstrate that there was reason to believe the building was going to be the target of a shooting. Given how rare the events are, it's hard to claim that on any given school day (or any given worship service), that someone is going to come in and shoot up the place. 

On the other hand, if a school receives a threat that there is going to be a shooting, and then they do nothing about it, that presents a case for negligence. But without a reasonable expectation of a threat, I don't think you can win that case. (IANAL disclaimers apply)

Not sure about that:

Quote

School Liability and Child Accident

Students are protected while at school under legal stipulations for all injuries due to accidents. The administrations and teachers of a school have a legal duty of care that is obligated to the students while they are on the premises. This means that all possible reasonable actions that may be taken by the school must be accomplished to ensure protection to students for any possible harm, injury or death that could be foreseeable. This also means that the school property should be a safe environment for all students. All authority figures must provide for all dangerous or hazardous situations to be resolved or eliminated within a timely fashion so that proper supervision may be given to these youths on the school grounds to include the buses and at school events and activities.
(source)

Quote

Parkland Victims’ Families Sue, Claiming Negligence in Mass Shooting
(NYT article)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, person0 said:

I don't know if any schools have been sued in such a case, but I agree it would probably be a simpler case.   As far as the state is concerned, my membership in the church and attendance would likely not be recognized as a need. That said, in that same vein it could be argued that despite the secular view of need, the psychological effect of the Church's teaching regarding the need and expectation to be there and to participate, especially in connection with the teaching that any other form of worship is inadequate as it pertains to salvation after death, imposes said need upon me.  Just a thought.

But what has the Church promised you in return for your adherence to it's precepts.  Has it promised you physical safety and security? What is the connection between the physical safety of your family and salvation after death?

What's more, we don't even have to go into modern scriptures to find examples of church members and leaders who lost their lives because they followed the requirements of their faith. If God and his church weren't willing to protect earlier leaders and believers, why should they be expected to do so now?  What has changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

If God and his church weren't willing to protect earlier leaders and believers, why should they be expected to do so now?  What has changed?

Until now, there was no rule or regulation preventing previous leadership from protecting themselves as they saw fit.  There was even a time when an arrest of Joseph Smith was thwarted by members with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, person0 said:

Until now, there was no rule or regulation preventing previous leadership from protecting themselves as they saw fit.  There was even a time when an arrest of Joseph Smith was thwarted by members with guns.

I don't think that works in your favor. Because between the early Christian martyrs, the Anti Nephi Lehis, the Nephites that protected them, and the modern day stories such as the one you cite, it seems that your Church teaches of a God that is arbitrary about who He protects and who He doesn't.  So again, why do you think you have any expectation that physical safety should be encompassed in the prospect of salvation after death? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, person0 said:

That's just the thing, the Church teaches that you do have to be there.  @Just_A_Guy is a lawyer, and he at least thinks there would be interesting implications.

The Church claims that I as a member NEED to partake of the sacrament.  Because I am able bodied, it would be denied to me should I choose to stay home because of their gun policy.  The only way to participate in something the Church claims that I NEED is to physically be present during Sacrament meeting.  Not sure why it would be a silly lawsuit, all things considered.

More examples where attendance is required in order to receive required/needed blessings can be found in the temple recommend questions, and other areas.

I’ll just add a caution against over-reading my post.  Yes, it’s interesting implications, but it’s also interesting implications if the Church permits guns on its premises, and then some idiot drops or otherwise mishandles his gun in the men’s room and it discharges, wounding or killing a bystander who also believed they HAD to be there.

The Church is sort of darned if it does and darned if it doesn’t here.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ll just add a caution against over-reading my post.  Yes, it’s interesting implications, but it’s also interesting implications if the Church permits guns on its premises, and then some idiot drops or otherwise mishandles his gun in the men’s room and it discharges, wounding or killing a bystander who also believed they HAD to be there.

The Church is sort of darned if it does and darned if it doesn’t here.

I recognized this, which is why I did my best to make sure not to 'over quote' you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, person0 said:

Not sure about that:

And pulling from the next paragraph in your source

Quote

It is when these administrations fail to protect children from harm, injury and death that they are legally at fault for negligence. This act means the law sees the school as responsible for the actions that lead to or caused the injury and it is liable for damages to the student involved. These damages may be for medical bills, therapy for traumatic events, a chiropractic doctor, medication that is purchased and all possible equipment needed for medical care. Other funds lost due to recovering may be covered to include parking, lost income, pain and suffering and similar issues.

The only way I can see the school being liable is if they had a knowledge that it would be targeted, or a reasonable expectation that it might.  The question is at what risk profile does it become reasonable to expect it might be targeted? Ultimately, I'd have to guess that this would translate into a probability threshold, because fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and meteor strikes are all possible. When is a risk probable enough that the school should do something about it? 

Share this post


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

It's important to remember that the USA is still very safe. Your odds of being a victim of a shooting are higher here, but your odds of getting into a car crash are much, much, much better. 

I've responded to a whole lot more crashes then shootings.  Note, I'm not saying I haven't been to a bunch of shootings either, the crashes just significantly outnumber the shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, person0 said:

That's just the thing, the Church teaches that you do have to be there.  @Just_A_Guy is a lawyer, and he at least thinks there would be interesting implications.

The Church claims that I as a member NEED to partake of the sacrament.  Because I am able bodied, it would be denied to me should I choose to stay home because of their gun policy.  The only way to participate in something the Church claims that I NEED is to physically be present during Sacrament meeting.  Not sure why it would be a silly lawsuit, all things considered.

More examples where attendance is required in order to receive required/needed blessings can be found in the temple recommend questions, and other areas.

To me, this seems similar to the arguments that some BYU students make when they complain that the Honor Code restricts their agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I don't think that works in your favor. Because between the early Christian martyrs, the Anti Nephi Lehis, the Nephites that protected them, and the modern day stories such as the one you cite, it seems that your Church teaches of a God that is arbitrary about who He protects and who He doesn't.  So again, why do you think you have any expectation that physical safety should be encompassed in the prospect of salvation after death? 

For all secular intents and purposes God IS arbitrary about who he protects in mortality, hence, we should plan and prepare to protect ourselves.  There is no expectation of physical safety from the Church, which is why making policies that knowingly inhibiting my God given right to fully protect myself are a problem, since they are not also providing a guarantee of safety in return.

2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

When is a risk probable enough that the school should do something about it? 

Schools provide training to students and teachers and drills for best safety measures to enact during natural disasters.  Not providing adequate training (i.e. lock the door and teacher is allowed to pull out a gun to protect students - or bulletproof walls & doors) for an equally unlikely event (mass shooting) seems like something they need to fix, or be liable.

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