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

[person0]

10 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

But the more research I do, the more convinced I become that widespread carrying is not the gateway to a crime free utopia.

I don't think it takes any research at all to do that.  Just take a look at the Family Proclamation, then take a look at society; the degradation of the family unit is the primary force in the degradation of society, from victimhood culture, to criminality.  Until Satan is given the boot, there will always be evil actors in mainstream society.

Widespread carrying of firearms in mainstream society works like medicating an incurable disease: it protects the individual for as long as possible until they ultimately succumb to the effects of the illness.  In the case of guns, if everyone in society becomes wicked, people will kill each-other with anything.  Eventually, only Zion will be a place of refuge.  In the meantime, I will protect myself while I await the day I am called to go.

Edited August 30, 2019 by person0

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

 

This is where things get really interesting. Because carrying a weapon might make you safer in very rare circumstances, but it isn't clear that widespread carrying makes society safer. Which means this whole issue has just boiled down to a vaccination debate.

Not it hasn't.  It's boiled down to an individual liberty debate.  

[Grunt]

38 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

 

But the more research I do, the more convinced I become that widespread carrying is not the gateway to a crime free utopia.

Nothing will make a crime free utopia.  That's why I have a duty to protect myself and my family.

[Just_A_Guy]

@MarginOfError, may I ask what you’re including as “defensive gun use”?  Does it include

—killings

—woundings

—shots fired at someone, which missed

—warning shots fired into the air

—brandishing?

Are the studies consistent in how they define the term?

Thanks—

Edited August 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

Personally speaking...I have never felt threatened in a Church meeting from those who are Concealed weapons holders and are carrying.

I don't mind them in Sacrament and to a degree feel that they do not threaten the safety of others and overall, can make the place safer in general if certain nefarious things occur.

HOWEVER...

I have not carried ANY guns on me in recent times, nor have I carried a gun in the church with the previous statements to advise against it.

In that same light I plan on following the same item presently, speaking only for me personally, in that I am not going to carry a gun in the church. 

I probably would prefer NOT to go to church meeting houses in some areas of Mexico or other violent places in the world with this policy in effect, but overall, I'll follow the policies as set forth regardless of my personal feelings on the matter in some situations.

At times, obedience is the best thing to do.

Each of us can make our own minds up on what is best for us personally.  It is something that addresses a strong personal debate, as this thread demonstrates, and probably is not as clear cut as we might think it is.

[john4truth]

Now that the Church policy has made national news I feel other actions should follow. I'm a member of several non-profit organizations and this week I was at a meeting where a letter was read ...warning people who live in East Texas of a current risk. A major law enforcement group sent out letters, warning of people who have been identified as dangerous going to non profits ...trying to be accepted and claiming to be a member. Investigation reveal the "visitor" will be well armed.

This non profit asked members to lock all doors but one during meetings. Assign someone to watch those entering and if a concern is identified call 911.

I would like it if the Church would have common sense guidelines to reduce risk. It is good that, since peace officers can carry, signs can not be posted. I am concerned that this nation wide news story may identify the Church as a target on Sunday.

In Texas if a sign is not present it's not illegal. I never carry, but some have already said they would rather take a chance on discipline than risk there family's safety. Glenn Beck stated he believes people will be afraid to attend a Christian church within 5 years. It is is important that everyone understand nationwide we are rapidly becoming a different country and being nieve is not the best policy. You don't have to Google far to see we do have haters out there. One other Church in my tiny town has 4 unidentified armed persons at every meeting.

😆 Of course if implementation of this is like the policy that class rooms for youth and primary have windows in the doors, I will not be alive to see it implemented. PFR in our area only do what is necessary to have services due to budget restraints.

[NeuroTypical]

On 8/27/2019 at 10:12 AM, NeuroTypical said:

"I suspect that is what the church is trying to do with their policy: avoid the potential for institutional liability in the event that something goes wrong. So, when the church's risk-management (and possibly insurance) teams look at the chance of there being a mass shooting in a church building as opposed to the likelihood of their being a negligent discharge, the smart decision is to hedge your bets against the most likely outcome."

 

On 8/27/2019 at 5:10 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Moreover—and I know I’ve been guilty of this myself in the past—but vis a vis the quotation that @NeuroTypical brings in from his friend Amulek; it’s probably not the best practice for us to start assuming that any policy in the CHI that we don’t like is merely the result of the Church’s liability attorneys having won an argument against the First Presidency.  We’ve known what the First Presidency thought about this, for a long time.

I thought about this for a few days.  Then caught a cold and slept for 2 days.  But now I'm back and still thinking about this.

I consider it possible that the 1stPres didn't lose any argument, but that they were appraised of everything by everybody, thought/pondered/prayed, concluded unanimously the notion had merit, and ran with it.  No reason to assume that just because it's lawyerly that it would be instantly opposed by the brethren.  The brethren have stewardship over the church's temporal matters too, and all that.

[NightSG]

On 8/27/2019 at 2:08 PM, NeuroTypical said:

True.  At the cost of the increased risk of having your firearm stolen out of your car.

Haven't had the chance to ask the DA lately, but as best I can recall, all the firearms stolen around here this year have been from cars.

Edited September 2, 2019 by NightSG

[NeuroTypical]

Yep.  If you have made the decision to carry, along with the training and mindset such responsibility demands, then the two safest most responsible places for your gun are either locked in your home safe, or in your holster on your hip.  Any third option is less than optimal.

[dprh]

On 8/31/2019 at 6:59 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Personally speaking...I have never felt threatened in a Church meeting from those who are Concealed weapons holders and are carrying.

I've never felt immediately threatened by anyone at church I knew was carrying.  But from what I know of them, I'd say about half of them make me feel safer.  The other half, I feel less safe around them.

[person0]

2 minutes ago, dprh said:

I've never felt immediately threatened by anyone at church I knew was carrying.  But from what I know of them, I'd say about half of them make me feel safer.  The other half, I feel less safe around them.

Sounds like you now have an excellent excuse to throw a party, invite the 'other half', and get to know them!

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, dprh said:

I've never felt immediately threatened by anyone at church I knew was carrying.  But from what I know of them, I'd say about half of them make me feel safer.  The other half, I feel less safe around them.

I don't know who in the church is carrying because... well, that's the theory behind conceal/carry - nobody is supposed to know you're carrying.  But, thinking about everybody in my ward, I can't think of a single one of them that I'd be worried about if they are carrying.  Well, okay, maybe the pregnant women - I don't trust pregnant women with rationality.  Hah hah.

[person0]

I was thinking about this on Sunday.  I noticed that there was no announcement in our ward. I assume most people outside of Texas who carry concealed will continue because, without an announcement, they will be oblivious.

[mirkwood]

No announcement in our ward.

[anatess2]

No announcement in ours either. 

But somebody posted the article to the Stake FB page and now everybody is talking about it.  It has caused quite a stir.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

 assume most people outside of Texas who carry concealed will continue because

I think a lot of people will just ignore it. Texas or not. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I think a lot of people will just ignore it. Texas or not. 

I doubt it, and I certainly hope not. If Latter-day Saints can't be obedient in something as small and simple as leaving their firearm at home when they go to Church, what hope have we of establishing Zion? None.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I doubt it, and I certainly hope not. If Latter-day Saints can't be obedient in something as small and simple as leaving their firearm at home when they go to Church, what hope have we of establishing Zion? None.

It's a fascinating topic. They (the church) seem to have angered/irritated their "core" audience. Many, many, many LDS are gun owners and the church correctly preaches about self reliance and protecting your family. Now, they seem to not allow their members to do that in certain environments. 

[Grunt]

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's a fascinating topic. They (the church) seem to have angered/irritated their "core" audience. Many, many, many LDS are gun owners and the church correctly preaches about self reliance and protecting your family. Now, they seem to not allow their members to do that in certain environments. 

I don't think so.  They've angered/irritated the agitators on social media, who knows how many of them are active Saints.  Everyone seems to play one on television, but don't do active Saint things.  This really isn't any different than what the policy has been for faithful Saints, in my opinion.

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't think so.  They've angered/irritated the agitators on social media, who knows how many of them are active Saints.  Everyone seems to play one on television, but don't do active Saint things.  This really isn't any different than what the policy has been for faithful Saints, in my opinion.

Eh, I could be wrong. I see a lot of regular members angered over this though. 

And we agree on one thing, haters gonna hate. In 2019 everyone is agitated about something. 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It's a fascinating topic. They (the church) seem to have angered/irritated their "core" audience. Many, many, many LDS are gun owners and the church correctly preaches about self reliance and protecting your family. Now, they seem to not allow their members to do that in certain environments. 

I disagree... The core audience are those that follow God through his prophets..

I view it as yet another wheat and tares moment.  Some may fall away... and that is sad.. but the only ones drawing the lines and setting the limits are they themselves.

 

[person0]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

something as small and simple as leaving their firearm at home when they go to Church

It certainly is a small and simple action, but it's the logical and emotional aspect that make it much more than the action itself.

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, I could be wrong. I see a lot of regular members angered over this though.

I am upset about it and frustrated by it (in case you couldn't tell 😁), and if at some point my opinion is polled, I believe I'd vote in favor of repealing the change.  Until then I still intend to obey 100%.

40 minutes ago, Grunt said:

They've angered/irritated the agitators on social media

Have they really, with this gun issue? (sincere question, other than this forum, I don't participate in social media)

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In 2019 everyone is agitated about something.

I know!  The thing that bother's me most is that this change is the first time I have been truly upset and concerned about an action the Church has taken.  That said, my initial private reaction to my wife (even as I was blasting the decision in this forum) was to suggest that now all us conservatives can at least more thoroughly empathize with those who have been disaffected for reasons that we would think are ridiculous.  I'm just grateful that my testimony is stronger than a potentially inappropriate policy decision (emphasis on potentially).

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Some may fall away... and that is sad...

That would be really sad!  I mean, I'm sincerely concerned for the safety of my family, but hey, if I die, I have paradise and the celestial kingdom to look forward to, so 🤷‍♂️

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, person0 said:

I am upset about it and frustrated by it (in case you couldn't tell 😁),

And all this time I pegged you as a rabid anti gunner who belonged to Moms Demand Action. 

 

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

was to suggest that now all us conservatives can at least more thoroughly empathize with those who have been disaffected for reasons that we would think are ridiculous. 

When I was 20 I used to think that things like this would change perspective and help us grow and understand one another. Now, I know better. It'll do no such thing. 

[Grunt]

31 minutes ago, person0 said:

Have they really, with this gun issue? (sincere question, other than this forum, I don't participate in social media)

Some of the groups have been going batty.

 

[mirkwood]

I think there are those who have quietly continued to carry and will continue to do so.  I do not see a lot of agitation going on, and most of those that are, I already have the opinion that they are already fringe members at best.