Utah's top catholic leader and governor say na to no permit


PDA






wild cat mccane
March 22, 2013, 05:50 PM
In case anyone was watching, Gov Herbert in Utah vetoed the pending law to allow concealed carry without a permit.

Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.
http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2505/250588/25058844.pdf

Pretty good public reaction to the Gov's decision here in Utah.

This is the most red state in the US. See? There is room for compromise.

If you enjoyed reading about "Utah's top catholic leader and governor say na to no permit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PabloJ
March 22, 2013, 05:52 PM
In case anyone was watching, Gov Herbert in Utah vetoed the pending law to allow concealed carry without a permit.

Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.
http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2505/250588/25058844.pdf

Pretty good public reaction to the Gov's decision here in Utah.

There is room for compromise.
That goes well along with 'Thou shall not kill'.

jim243
March 22, 2013, 06:08 PM
Gov Herbert in Utah vetoed the pending law to allow concealed carry without a permit

How much money would they LOSEE from out of state permit holders????

Jim

Steve H
March 22, 2013, 06:11 PM
I don't understand why they wrote the proposed law so that if passed you would have to carry "unloaded". :eek::eek:

wild cat mccane
March 22, 2013, 06:12 PM
I believe Utah is the highest exporter of permits?

I have also read our state loses money because the permit administration costs more than the fee.

baz
March 22, 2013, 06:41 PM
Sounds to me like media just trolling for some negative news. I cannot imagine that Catholics are all that common in Utah, especially as compared, say, to another denomination. ;)

Nanook
March 22, 2013, 06:44 PM
Sounds to me like media just trolling for some negative news. I cannot imagine that Catholics are all that common in Utah, especially as compared, say, to another denomination. ;)

Yeah, that was my first thought as well. Catholics in Utah? How many can there be?

wild cat mccane
March 22, 2013, 06:50 PM
Media trolling? I don't figure. It is the top story on ksl.com, our larger news source...

Steve H
March 22, 2013, 06:55 PM
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. Catholics in Utah? How many can there be?

You would be surprised.............Utah is starting to look a lot like southern California, TJ north.

MarshallDodge
March 22, 2013, 07:03 PM
The Catholics are not pro-gun and the Mormons won't let you carry in their church buildings. It is the reason I have faith in God, not religions or government.

Currently it is legal to open carry "unloaded" in Utah without a permit. What this means is that you can have ammo in the gun but it requires two actions to fire-
Semi-Auto: Rack the slide and pull the trigger.
Revolver: Pull the trigger twice.

This law would make it legal to carry concealed under the same rules.

Kind of silly really, especially when you still have to deal with school zones. Due to the federal laws, you cannot carry a gun into a school zone. In Utah if you have a permit then it is allowed.

PlaneJain
March 22, 2013, 07:43 PM
I thought this bill was getting enough votes in the senate that somehow would over-ride any veto their governor signed. I'm unfamiliar with Utah law, but was that correct in they (the Utah senate) can do that? Anybody know more about this???

morcey2
March 22, 2013, 07:52 PM
Remember that "Unloaded" in Utah is a specific legal term that does _not_ mean "no ammo in the gun". It means that the gun must be two discrete actions away from firing and one of those can't be the safety. There also can't be a round in the firing position regardless of whether it would be fired on the subsequent trigger pull. That affects DA revolvers primarily.

I can't believe he vetoed it because there is about a 95% chance of it being overriden in a special session. He should have just let it become law without signing it if he didn't agree with it.

He said something like "I understand the value of the permit [CFP] when it comes to the 2nd Amendment." :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Um. No. You don't.

Matt

morcey2
March 22, 2013, 07:53 PM
I thought this bill was getting enough votes in the senate that somehow would over-ride any veto their governor signed. I'm unfamiliar with Utah law, but was that correct in they (the Utah senate) can do that? Anybody know more about this???
Even though it got enough votes to override a veto, he can still veto it and force a re-vote on it as per the Utah Constitution.

InkEd
March 22, 2013, 07:56 PM
I am sorry but Utah is going to be more influenced by the Mormon voters than Catholic voters. It's a numbers game simply.

Bio-Chem
March 22, 2013, 08:58 PM
Salt Lake is currently less than 50% LDS. FYI. Salt lake also has a very large Catholic and Greek Orthodox population.

Outside of Salt Lake the rest of Utah is of course still very highly LDS populated, but there is surprising diversity in SLC.

Nanook
March 22, 2013, 09:08 PM
Salt Lake is currently less than 50% LDS. FYI. Salt lake also has a very large Catholic and Greek Orthodox population.

Outside of Salt Lake the rest of Utah is of course still very highly LDS populated, but there is surprising diversity in SLC.

I didn't realize that, when you think of Utah, you think LDS automatically. Sorry to hear your freedom is being diluted like the rest of us. I always thought of Utah as one of the last bastions of freedom, it looks like no place is free from leftist contamination.

Not for the first time, I'm glad I'm 60 rather than 30.

Bio-Chem
March 22, 2013, 09:13 PM
well he will be having a call from me monday telling him my disappointment in his veto.

MarshallDodge
March 22, 2013, 10:03 PM
Even though it got enough votes to override a veto, he can still veto it and force a re-vote on it as per the Utah Constitution.
You are correct.

I would still have a permit if it went through because of the school zone issue.

EHL
March 22, 2013, 10:15 PM
the Mormons won't let you carry in their church buildings.

Really??? I've been carrying for years while church services are going on and I've never been told anything nor have I ever seen anything written that states that this is the official policy. Where did you get this information from?

MarshallDodge
March 22, 2013, 10:24 PM
Really??? I've been carrying for years while church services are going on and I've never been told anything nor have I ever seen anything written that states that this is the official policy. Where did you get this information from?

In Utah, churches can post here (http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html) on the BCI site if they prohibit carry on the premises

wild cat mccane
March 22, 2013, 10:36 PM
yes. Carrying in an LDS church in utah is illegal.

Also, yes "the rest of the state is LDS"...but the rest of the state is less than half of the population of Salt Lake County.

Matno
March 22, 2013, 11:03 PM
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. Catholics in Utah? How many can there be?

150,000

Many of them Hispanic (not that it matters, well, since overall Hispanics vote at least 70% liberal, maybe it does). Not sure how Catholics tend to vote re: gun stuff. I know there are plenty of other "moral" issues on which most Catholics vote contrary to the church leaders' teaching...

Matno
March 22, 2013, 11:07 PM
yes. Carrying in an LDS church in utah is illegal.

Also, yes "the rest of the state is LDS"...but the rest of the state is less than half of the population of Salt Lake County.
The rest of the state is about equal in numbers to Salt Lake.

Carrying in an LDS church is illegal because it's private property and the church says not to (unless you're LE).

cluck
March 23, 2013, 12:35 AM
Really??? I've been carrying for years while church services are going on and I've never been told anything nor have I ever seen anything written that states that this is the official policy. Where did you get this information from?
It has been publicly released by the LDS church that ALL of their meeting houses are gun free zones. Of course, this hasn't stopped shootings on temple grounds or ward house parking lots. (duh)

After reading the text of the legislation, HB 76S01 doesn't replace the existing CFP program. People could still get a Utah CFP and carry red even in school zones with the exception of private property that is posted "No Firearms". Trolley Square Mall is a perfect example of one of these locations.

Matno
March 23, 2013, 01:48 AM
All I know is one thing I really like about my kids' school in Utah is that they have three adults on campus at all times who carry concealed. They haven't armed teachers yet, because they don't feel it's necessary at the moment, but they at least discussed it and haven't ruled it out as a future possibility.

Takem406
March 23, 2013, 02:06 AM
The Catholics are not pro-gun and the Mormons won't let you carry in their church buildings. It is the reason I have faith in God, not religions or government.

Currently it is legal to open carry "unloaded" in Utah without a permit. What this means is that you can have ammo in the gun but it requires two actions to fire-
Semi-Auto: Rack the slide and pull the trigger.
Revolver: Pull the trigger twice.

This law would make it legal to carry concealed under the same rules.

Kind of silly really, especially when you still have to deal with school zones. Due to the federal laws, you cannot carry a gun into a school zone. In Utah if you have a permit then it is allowed.

Catholics aren't progun? I just got done serving as an alter boy for Lenton Friday night devotions while carrying... At Sunday Mass there's at least four or more of us who carry.

And there's only a couple of our priests who don't enjoy shooting.


Explain to me the Cristeros... Pretty sure they all had a gun in one hand an a Rosery in the other.

We are Catholics not Quakers. We carry guns not oatmeal!

The problem is Vatican II. That gutted the Church. So now the Pope's can't even agree on homosexuality or Purgatory.

But the true believers who still say "Holy Ghost" and not "Holy Spirit", still don't eat meat on Friday year round, and go to Mass where the priest has his back to the people and says every prayer in Latin believe in the 2nd Amendment!

What happened in Mexico can and will happen in America!

In God and Glock we Trust

MikeS.
March 23, 2013, 03:25 AM
I need to call my best bud Saxon in Ogden and let him know he needs to drop a dime.

morcey2
March 23, 2013, 11:53 AM
People could still get a Utah CFP and carry red even in school zones with the exception of private property that is posted "No Firearms". Trolley Square Mall is a perfect example of one of these locations.

"No Firearms" signs carry no weight of law in Utah, with the exception of houses of worship, private _homes_, and a couple other places I don't remember off the top of my head. They are completely pointless on publicly-accessible private property such as stores, malls, etc.

Now, if you're asked to leave by someone with authority to do so such as a mall security guard or management, you must leave or you'll get a ticket for trespassing. On-duty LEO's aren't allowed to ask you to leave on behalf of the management although it happens.

I won't frequent any business with a "No Firearms" sign unless I don't have a whole lot of choice. It helps that I hate malls and movie theaters, which are the most common places that have them posted.

Matt

420Stainless
March 23, 2013, 12:09 PM
What happened in Mexico can and will happen in America!

Not to derail the thread, but what happened in Mexico?

Averageman
March 23, 2013, 01:14 PM
Sounds to me like media just trolling for some negative news. I cannot imagine that Catholics are all that common in Utah, especially as compared, say, to another denomination.

I'm sure that did an awful lot to help the Catholics in Utah also?
I'm not a student of theology, but I think it is time for Christians to begin to understand the Left could really care less about their opinions unless they favor the Left, even if those opinons go directly against Church doctrine, i.e. Abortion.
I could write something about having a cloak and not having a sword, but I would be preaching to the Choir here.
The Coffee is brewing, who else is going to wake up and smell it?

sonick808
March 23, 2013, 06:38 PM
constitutional carry had NO effect on AZ. UT really should have studied harder.

Leanwolf
March 23, 2013, 07:07 PM
PABLOJ - "That goes well along with 'Thou shall not kill'."

The original Commandment is "Thou shall not murder ," according to a good friend of mine who is Jewish, plus has a PhD. in Linguistics from UCLA.

There was and is a distinct difference between "murder" and "justified killing."

L.W.

MarshallDodge
March 23, 2013, 08:06 PM
constitutional carry had NO effect on AZ. UT really should have studied harder.
Yep. The Senate passed it but the Governor is the one being ignorant.

Hopefully we still have enough votes to override the veto.

Catholics aren't progun?
I should have phrased my original quote better. It is the leadership of both churches that do not come across as pro-gun due to some of the policies that I have read.

There are many people in their congregations that are pro-gun and that I can appreciate. :)

wild cat mccane
March 23, 2013, 08:43 PM
no no no. don't rewrite history based on "a friend."

Christians went to the Colosseum (how briefly it was used for death) because they wouldn't fight in the Roman army because Jesus taught NO killing. That was written by the world's leading Roman historian, Edward Gibbon quite a few years ago (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

Arkansas Paul
March 23, 2013, 08:55 PM
Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.

Who gives a flying flip what Utah's top Catholic leader, or any other religious leader for that matter, has to say about the laws that govern our society? They don't get to make the rules for everybody else. That's kind of why a lot of people came to this country in the first place. People talk about "freedom of religion" but for the founding fathers it was more like "freedom from religion". The church governed every aspect of their lives and they were sick of it.

Now, I'm not an atheist or anything. I attend church regularly but if they started trying to limit my freedom and horn in on secular matters, what I would tell them would definitely not be fit to repeat on THR. They are there for spiritual guidance, nothing more.

Sam Cade
March 23, 2013, 09:02 PM
That was written by the world's leading Roman historian, Edward Gibbon quite a few years ago (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

...what volume and page si est non molesti?

Sam Cade
March 23, 2013, 09:08 PM
I cannot imagine that Catholics are all that common in Utah

10% according to the intarwebs.

digsigs226
March 23, 2013, 09:28 PM
Okay I'm sure I will catch a lot of flak here for this, but to be honest I was kind of lukewarm on the idea to begin with.

My reasoning:
- Non-permit holders can already open carry in Utah without one in the pipe.
- Utah is a "shall issue" state and obtaining a permit is relatively painless. I got mine in less than two months.
- Concealed Carry classes contain a lot of great information such as firearms safety, stand your ground laws, and where and where not you can carry in Utah. I understand many responsible citizens will take the time to educate themselves on there own, but many won't. I believe the permit process is valuable at ensuring people that choose to carry are responsible and informed.

On the other hand, I think the legislation that bars police from charging open carriers with disorderly conduct is step in the right direction and i support it fully.

::ducks::

EHL
March 23, 2013, 11:57 PM
It has been publicly released by the LDS church that ALL of their meeting houses are gun free zones.

I'm willing to bet that this has more to do with liability insurance rather than just being anti.

Of course, this hasn't stopped shootings on temple grounds or ward house parking lots. (duh)


Nor will it ever. Free agency is not retracted because of policy dictating that temples or meeting houses be gun free. I guess this is one policy that I will be ignoring while I attend worship services.

MarshallDodge
March 24, 2013, 12:10 AM
I'm willing to bet that this has more to do with liability insurance rather than just being anti.
That is pretty bogus if that is the true reason. Maybe they don't know about the lady who was brutally attacked in her church in Illinois and is suing the state because they won't allow her to carry.

I am not a sue happy person but I have always told my wife, that if I am injured or killed because of a law that prevents me from protecting myself, to call the best lawyer she can find,

mljdeckard
March 24, 2013, 05:45 PM
There are Catholics in Utah, and they may oppose carry, but all they have to do to ban carry in their churches is post them on the BCI website, and they haven't done it.

I really don't know what Herbert was thinking. He thinks he will look bad if he approves the measure, but if his veto is overridden, does ht think that will make him look GOOD?!

I don't know how thrilled I was about the measure in the first place. They changed it, specifically because it was rumored that Herbert wouldn't sign it if it was straight Constitutional Carry. So they changed it to unloaded concealed carry, and he didn't sign it anyway. What was the point of changing it? In changing it to unloaded carry, it was a compromise that would have put us in between permitted carry and Constitutional carry, and I don't know if it would have been a step in the right direction or a dead end compromise, in that they have already given some, and wouldn't feel like they need to give any more.

I SAY, if they have a veto-proof vote on it, WHY CHANGE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

bonza
March 25, 2013, 08:20 AM
EHL said:"Really??? I've been carrying for years while church services are going on and I've never been told anything nor have I ever seen anything written that states that this is the official policy. Where did you get this information from?"

It's in the LDS Church's 'Handbook 2: Administering the Church'. Section 21.2.4 reads:

Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

I'm also LDS (not in Utah), & regularly carried at church, but have not done so since I read this in the manual a year or so ago. Our buildings here in WA aren't posted, so I don't think it would be a legal issue here, just Church policy.....frankly, I'm a little disapointed by the decision, just doesn't make any sense other than possibly being being PC.

mljdeckard
March 25, 2013, 10:05 AM
It's a guideline, not a hard rule. The reason I don't carry is that it's illegal. If I lived in a state where it was legal, I would.

morcey2
March 25, 2013, 01:39 PM
It's a guideline, not a hard rule. The reason I don't carry is that it's illegal. If I lived in a state where it was legal, I would.
Same here. Just remember that the parking lot and outside areas of the church property are not covered by the policy or the law.

Biggest irritation for me is that it makes it really hard to teach Rifle or Shotgun merit badge courses at Merit badge pow-wow's held in church buildings. :banghead:

Matt

mljdeckard
March 25, 2013, 01:42 PM
I believe there is fine print that allows the building's custodian to make an exception for approved activities. I am able to teach a concealed carry class without having any actual guns on-premises.

It makes me scratch my head over where I would rather live: Arizona, where I CAN carry to church but I CAN'T carry to pick my kids up from school, or UT, where it's the opposite. (I have no plans to move anytime soon.)

morcey2
March 25, 2013, 02:00 PM
I believe there is fine print that allows the building's custodian to make an exception for approved activities. I am able to teach a concealed carry class without having any actual guns on-premises.

It makes me scratch my head over where I would rather live: Arizona, where I CAN carry to church but I CAN'T carry to pick my kids up from school, or UT, where it's the opposite. (I have no plans to move anytime soon.)

It's the Agent Bishop for the particular building that can grant exceptions, but from what I've been told when asking is that it gets very complicated with minors involved with real guns. I also know that my Bishop isn't that thrilled that firearms have anything to do with scouting in the first place. :confused:

Matt

benEzra
March 25, 2013, 02:08 PM
I'm not even Catholic, and I know he's going against the Catechism of the Catholic Church to some extent here.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

EHL
March 25, 2013, 09:03 PM
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.


What a load of crock! I'm as faithfull as the next guy, maybe more so, but until free agency is suspended and the Son of Man, Himself, reigns among us, I WILL continue to carry a firearm to protect my family. If the above bologna was actually true about churches being "havens from the cares and concerns of the world" then I'd like to see the General Authorities stop using armed security to really demonstrate this truth to us. Once again, I believe this has more to do with insurance and liability than anything else.

bonza
March 25, 2013, 11:28 PM
"If the above bologna was actually true about churches being "havens from the cares and concerns of the world" then I'd like to see the General Authorities stop using armed security to really demonstrate this truth to us."

I couldn't agree more.....afterall, it wasn't much of a 'haven' when Bishop Sannar was shot a killed after sacrament meeting in Visalia, CA a couple of years ago http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700061255/Mormon-bishop-fatally-shot-in-California-chapel-gunman-killed.html?pg=all
The Bishop was actually shot in the foot whilst in his office, then dragged out to the foyer for the coup de gras.....how long would that have taken?!, if there had been even one concealed handgun-carrying member in the building there would most likely have been enough time to intercede in his behalf.
Just thinking about that incident again makes me think I'm going to start carrying at church again (it's not illegal in this state), afterall no-one knew I was doing it before, apart from my wife, so who's going to be any the wiser?

Deaf Smith
March 25, 2013, 11:47 PM
Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.

That 'Catholic leader' is full of sh*t.

I am Catholic and our theology says self defense is not only acceptable but is necessary. As per the VATICAN:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."

'The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. "

So you see this 'Catholic leader' is FLAT WRONG. If you have the right to defend yourself then you have the right to the MEANS to defend yourself. I.E. arms such as guns.

Deaf

Fryerpower
March 25, 2013, 11:58 PM
Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.


Exodus 22:2
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.

Just sayin...

Jim

Sam Cade
March 26, 2013, 12:14 AM
Exodus 22:2
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.

Just sayin...


Dude.

Next verse, (NIV)

3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

Arkansas Paul
March 26, 2013, 12:51 AM
Yeah, lets not be taking old testament quotes and applying them literally today. Because it also says that if you marry a woman and later find out she's not a virgin, you stone her to death.
And you can't eat pork.
Or catfish.
And you can't wear clothes that are two different fabrics.
And you are killed if you pick up sticks on the sabbath.
And if you capture a woman in battle you marry her, whether she wants to or not.
And you can have hundreds of wives and girlfriends on the side to boot.
And if a man rapes a virgin, he pays her father off and she has to marry him.

It could go on all day brother. Moral of the story, keep religion out of it and it will go much smoother.
Just saying. :)

Prince Yamato
March 26, 2013, 12:58 AM
Another Catholic chiming in... That particular bishop has an agenda. I've almost NEVER heard a Catholic bishop speak on the issue of gun control. Catholics are well within the rights of their faith to use lethal force to defend themselves.

Chris-bob
March 26, 2013, 01:22 AM
It's in the LDS Church's 'Handbook 2: Administering the Church'. Section 21.2.4 reads:

Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.
Guess I'll have to answer to that come Judgement day. Fine by me.

Romeo 33 Delta
March 26, 2013, 01:33 AM
Well, I'm not a Doctor of Divinity, but after 8 years of Franciscan Nuns and another 8 of Jesuits, I guess I'm as qualified as the Bishop to voice MY OPINION!

He's nuts and a typical "Social Justice" wacko. I can certainly think of any number of Biblical texts that would support my right and duty of self-defense. While it might be inappropriate for him to carry ... it sure as heck ain't for me! :cuss:

EHL
March 26, 2013, 01:50 AM
Guess I'll have to answer to that come Judgement day. Fine by me.


I don't think you or any of us will have to answer for anything in there at all. It's a handbook, not the Standard Works and not an official declaration that is backed by the 1st presidency and the quorum of the 12 as well as the other GA's. My conscience is clear for not obeying this badly crafted policy.:cool:

Frank Ettin
March 26, 2013, 02:11 AM
Perhaps too much of a detour into the territory of religion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Utah's top catholic leader and governor say na to no permit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!