7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
So this is a State Law? AT first I thought the Church passed this down.
Enforcement will be interesting. Metal Detectors at all entrances? Wand?
Enforcement will be interesting. Metal Detectors at all entrances? Wand?
(UT) Firearms Banned from LDS Church Buildings
- Thread starter mowgli
- Start date
- Status
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Guns just happen to be the current item but it boils down to CONTROL.
Control of its members and their way of life and thinking by power hungry church leaders wanting to make sure everyone tows the line to their way of thinking.
No more no less than what the government does to its citizens everyday.
If you believe in God, he is no more a member of one denomination than another.
I was raised a Presbyterian. When they supported gun control, I bolted. It went against the very freedoms that this country was founded on that give us the right to freely worship.
Control of its members and their way of life and thinking by power hungry church leaders wanting to make sure everyone tows the line to their way of thinking.
No more no less than what the government does to its citizens everyday.
If you believe in God, he is no more a member of one denomination than another.
I was raised a Presbyterian. When they supported gun control, I bolted. It went against the very freedoms that this country was founded on that give us the right to freely worship.
BHPshooter
Member
Yes, I just love moral dilemmas.
And for the second part... sort of. The gun ban is a policy, not doctrine. If it was doctrine (what we would believe is the Prophet's inspiration from God) then we'd hear about it at General Conference. They can change policies all they want -- and they do.
I highly doubt it. It will probably be on an "as-seen" basis. It gives new meaning to the phrase "Concealed means concealed."
While I suddenly can't find George's post anymore, I'm inclined to agree with what he said, if you read his post in time.
Apologies to the mods regarding my previous post... I'm still trying to get a handle on my angry language. I'm very sorry.
Wes
TheOtherOne
Member
Yeah, I guess you are right. There's always an out.
I agree BUT the problem now is that thanks to the new law we would all be criminals.
BHPshooter
Member
Too true. It just goes to show you that the label of "criminal" is not all it's cracked up to be. Ever broke the speed limit? I have. Therefore I'm a criminal.
I refuse to go solely by whether or not a person is a "criminal" -- I'd rather go by whether or not a person is evil. As an example, if they ever sound the "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" alarm, I'm NOT turning in my guns. That will make me a criminal, but the law and all those who support it are evil. Who are you going to side with? Me (a criminal), or them (the evildoers)?
It's much more complicated than "criminal" or "not criminal."
I know.
Disgusting, isn't it? 
Wes
The law doesn't ban anything, it gives the right for a church to give notice that they will not allow weapons. The website is now an official form of notification, not reflected below in paragraph (2)
I certainly won't argue with a private property owner's right to enforce their beliefs, I will however do no business with them if they do.
The point is, the single most powerful force in politics in the state of Utah just formally said they don't care about your right to defend yourself.
If you don't see a need to carry a gun in church, click this link and see how many of the perpetrators names are mentioned with words like unstable or mentally ill.
Whatever your beliefs regarding the sanctity of Holy Ground, it is demonstrable that there are plenty of bad guys who don't care about who owns the walls their bullets are hitting.
The following from this site.
76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after having received notice as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
(a) transport a firearm into:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence; or
(b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence.
(2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be made by:
(a) personal communication to the actor by:
(i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
(ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
(iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii); or
(b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence.
(3) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
(4) A violation of this section is an infraction.
I certainly won't argue with a private property owner's right to enforce their beliefs, I will however do no business with them if they do.
The point is, the single most powerful force in politics in the state of Utah just formally said they don't care about your right to defend yourself.
If you don't see a need to carry a gun in church, click this link and see how many of the perpetrators names are mentioned with words like unstable or mentally ill.
Whatever your beliefs regarding the sanctity of Holy Ground, it is demonstrable that there are plenty of bad guys who don't care about who owns the walls their bullets are hitting.
The following from this site.
76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after having received notice as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
(a) transport a firearm into:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence; or
(b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence.
(2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be made by:
(a) personal communication to the actor by:
(i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
(ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
(iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii); or
(b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence.
(3) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
(4) A violation of this section is an infraction.
HABU
Member
Well, the way I see it is that the prophet got hornswaggled by the state. The state passed a law that the church is obliged to obey. Church leadership isn't weak or power hungry. If they were power hungry, it would be a church wide rule, not just in Utah. According to the 12th Article of Faith we believe in ...honoring and sustaining the law. See, LDS members believe in obeying the laws of the land. If the Prophet gave Utah the bird on this issue, he wouldn't be obeying the law of the land. Thus its only a Utah issue. I'm glad I don't live in Utah.
TheOtherOne
Member
Incorrect. The state passed a law that said churches MAY ban ccw holders. The law doesn't say they have to and in fact if a church decides they want to enforce a ban, it even makes them follow a few steps to make it legal.
Simply, the state of Utah allows people to carry in private homes and churches if the home owner or responsible person does nothing to say that they cannot.
There was no compulsion by the state on this issue. The LDS church among others made a choice to, through their own actions, (in this case commiting to register online) a self imposed ban.
If the LDS church had simply done nothing, no one with a permit carrying a gun into church would be violating the law. The LDS church through its actions has made the act illegal.
Guys, the law does not take a stand on carrying in churches, it only allows the churches the right to prohibit firearms by choice, and there are a lot of churches in Utah not on that list.
There was no compulsion by the state on this issue. The LDS church among others made a choice to, through their own actions, (in this case commiting to register online) a self imposed ban.
If the LDS church had simply done nothing, no one with a permit carrying a gun into church would be violating the law. The LDS church through its actions has made the act illegal.
Guys, the law does not take a stand on carrying in churches, it only allows the churches the right to prohibit firearms by choice, and there are a lot of churches in Utah not on that list.
George Hill
Member
I've been thinking about this all night. You all know my feelings about guns... If you read MadOgre.com, you know my feelings about the Church.... To say the least, I am conflicted.
Here is what I'm going to do - I'm going to ignore it. If I feel the need to pack my heater with me to church, I will.
This is what CONCEALMENT is all about, right? No one else has to know... no one else will know. You cats with the Kel-Tecs and the Guardians will have an easier time of it... but this is the only way.
I think now more than ever, you SHOULD carry in church. Especially if they just made a nationwide official announcement that LDS Churches are now safe targets for the badguys to hit... and in light of increased hatred against Christians of all flavors - heck - just say Americans Period... we are in a dangerous world. To quote Jack Nicholson, this world has walls and on those walls are men with guns. Not all the men have to actually stand on the wall. Some are sitting in the rows, with arms folded and heads bowed like a penitent Air Marshal.
This is a personal matter... Compliance, or Civil Disobedience. It's your personal choice. What offends me the most is the official legal paperwork to make me a criminal. That is the slap in my face. Especially when this is the very same Prophet who was under the protection of my SIG P225 a decade ago.
Here is what I'm going to do - I'm going to ignore it. If I feel the need to pack my heater with me to church, I will.
This is what CONCEALMENT is all about, right? No one else has to know... no one else will know. You cats with the Kel-Tecs and the Guardians will have an easier time of it... but this is the only way.
I think now more than ever, you SHOULD carry in church. Especially if they just made a nationwide official announcement that LDS Churches are now safe targets for the badguys to hit... and in light of increased hatred against Christians of all flavors - heck - just say Americans Period... we are in a dangerous world. To quote Jack Nicholson, this world has walls and on those walls are men with guns. Not all the men have to actually stand on the wall. Some are sitting in the rows, with arms folded and heads bowed like a penitent Air Marshal.
This is a personal matter... Compliance, or Civil Disobedience. It's your personal choice. What offends me the most is the official legal paperwork to make me a criminal. That is the slap in my face. Especially when this is the very same Prophet who was under the protection of my SIG P225 a decade ago.
M1911Owner
Member
El Tejon asked:
The "ready pack" you mention would be your friend's term for the recommendation that one have an easily-accessible, 72-hour kit of essential items, including food, water, needed medications, sanitation supplies, and the like, for use in the case of a disaster. Typically, in the case of an earthquake, hurricane, or other disaster, it can take as long as 72 hours for outside help to arrive; these supplies can help sustain life until help arrives.
I note that civil authorites in California have more recently started to advise the same thing, specifically out of concerns about "The Big One" (the expected replay of an 8+ magnitude earthquake similar to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake).
The church also advises that families keep a year's supply of food, clothing, and, where possible, fuel. This is in preparation for possible times of need, whether through individual problems (such a medical disability), general economic calamity (such as the Great Depression), war, or other circumstances.
There are certain members of the church who seem to be under the impression that this includes "a year's supply of guns and ammunition" with which to protect your other supplies. As far as I know, that is not the policy of the church; I have never seen any such thing in any document from the church, nor in any other communication. Rather, my understanding is that, in the case of a major calamity, members would share with their neighbors who are not members of the church.
There certainly was a time when the church asked its members to be armed. In the trek to Utah, Brigham Young directed that those journeying to the west be armed. In fact, he called one Johathan Browning, the father of John Moses Browning, to be the armorer to the Saints for the western migration .
At that time, there was a need for the Saints to be armed. Many had been murdered through persecution. Also, as they traveled west, they would potentially be exposed to hostile Indians, and to outlaws.
At the present, I'm not aware of any rash of attacks on members of the church at church meetinghouses that would require that members be armed to protect themselves. And my own personal feeling is that, yes, coming to church armed detracts from the spirit of the Lord, which is a spirit of peace, love, harmony, and caring for the wellbeing of one's neighbor. I agree, therefore, with the First Presidency's direction not to bring leathal weapons to houses of worship.
The actual letter from the church, which mowgli links to, above, is quite enlightening. It makes reference to the use of guns in Scouting, and, while affirming that Scouting activities should not bring guns to houses of worship, it also puts a stamp of approval on Scouting activities involving guns at places other than houses of worship. Clearly, the First Presidency is not anti-gun, but merely feels that implements of violence detract from the spirit of worship.
I note that the buildings called out in the letter are specifically houses of worship; it does not appear to contemplate a carry ban at church properties that are not specifically used for worship services.
I also note that the letter makes it clear that local church leaders are to deal with the matter a very friendly, non-confrontational manner.
As others have mentioned in this thread, this is the current policy of the church; it is not doctrine, and as such is subject to change. If the time were to come that persecution were to again arise, and members of the church were being attacked on church grounds, I strongly suspect that the policy would change to reflect current circumstances.
El Tejon, the church does strongly counsel members to be prepared for emergencies.
The "ready pack" you mention would be your friend's term for the recommendation that one have an easily-accessible, 72-hour kit of essential items, including food, water, needed medications, sanitation supplies, and the like, for use in the case of a disaster. Typically, in the case of an earthquake, hurricane, or other disaster, it can take as long as 72 hours for outside help to arrive; these supplies can help sustain life until help arrives.
I note that civil authorites in California have more recently started to advise the same thing, specifically out of concerns about "The Big One" (the expected replay of an 8+ magnitude earthquake similar to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake).
The church also advises that families keep a year's supply of food, clothing, and, where possible, fuel. This is in preparation for possible times of need, whether through individual problems (such a medical disability), general economic calamity (such as the Great Depression), war, or other circumstances.
There are certain members of the church who seem to be under the impression that this includes "a year's supply of guns and ammunition" with which to protect your other supplies. As far as I know, that is not the policy of the church; I have never seen any such thing in any document from the church, nor in any other communication. Rather, my understanding is that, in the case of a major calamity, members would share with their neighbors who are not members of the church.
There certainly was a time when the church asked its members to be armed. In the trek to Utah, Brigham Young directed that those journeying to the west be armed. In fact, he called one Johathan Browning, the father of John Moses Browning, to be the armorer to the Saints for the western migration .
At that time, there was a need for the Saints to be armed. Many had been murdered through persecution. Also, as they traveled west, they would potentially be exposed to hostile Indians, and to outlaws.
At the present, I'm not aware of any rash of attacks on members of the church at church meetinghouses that would require that members be armed to protect themselves. And my own personal feeling is that, yes, coming to church armed detracts from the spirit of the Lord, which is a spirit of peace, love, harmony, and caring for the wellbeing of one's neighbor. I agree, therefore, with the First Presidency's direction not to bring leathal weapons to houses of worship.
The actual letter from the church, which mowgli links to, above, is quite enlightening. It makes reference to the use of guns in Scouting, and, while affirming that Scouting activities should not bring guns to houses of worship, it also puts a stamp of approval on Scouting activities involving guns at places other than houses of worship. Clearly, the First Presidency is not anti-gun, but merely feels that implements of violence detract from the spirit of worship.
I note that the buildings called out in the letter are specifically houses of worship; it does not appear to contemplate a carry ban at church properties that are not specifically used for worship services.
I also note that the letter makes it clear that local church leaders are to deal with the matter a very friendly, non-confrontational manner.
As others have mentioned in this thread, this is the current policy of the church; it is not doctrine, and as such is subject to change. If the time were to come that persecution were to again arise, and members of the church were being attacked on church grounds, I strongly suspect that the policy would change to reflect current circumstances.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Join the club, guys. You would have already been getting flack over your RKBA if you were Reform Jews, Unitarians, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians or members of any of twenty other sects. I wonder if the LDS church has joined the National Counsel of Churches, that rabidly anti-RKBA group?
I would also wonder if the time might be ripe for someone to start a Layman's Ecumenical Council for RCBA?
I would also wonder if the time might be ripe for someone to start a Layman's Ecumenical Council for RCBA?
Orthonym
Member
Oh, wow, guys, this goes back to 19th Century politics,
and 19th Century religion, which was often the same.First, let me declare my interest;
I'm a grumpy-old-bachelor,lapsed-Methodist, freethinking heathen Deist kind of guy
(Like Elizabeth the First, I have a taste for ritual, but have not the religious temperament).
As far as I know, the Mormons got into fights with the other people in the US, and decided it would be better for them if they lit out for the territories and started their own polity. Well, Manifest Destiny came along, not to mention the Lincoln War, and here came the people they'd walked hard and far to get away from! So, they gritted their teeth and made necessary practical compromises, NEVER compromising on the important stuff, until this thing came along.
Hasn't anyone read any history? Do not people know that there was a time at which you could be shot for being a Mormon? Do not people know that there was a place at which you could be shot for NOT being a Mormon. (Mountain Meadows, look it up!)
Alright: Humans are dangerous! We are the only critters on the planet who will kill you because we think you you have bad taste in music, or because we disagree with your (mostly silly, I think ) religious opinions. (Myself, I think SF literary criticism is more important, but am afraid Pax would shoot me if she thought I were about to rant on THAT subject).
O... K.....
I thought we'd solved this problem, about a hundred years ago, when Utah was admitted to the Union. Everyone pretended to get along with, and love, his neighbor. The Mormons had an anti-polygyny revelation, which made everything else about them hunky-dory, so they had been Real Americans all along, and their State could be admitted to the Union. Well, guess what, guys! Mormons are not exactly like other people! Well, guess what, I, Orthonym, am not exactly like you! It's a FEDERAL Republic! What's the point of having different States if the laws and the people are exactly the same in all of the States?
Alright, to try to get back onto the topic:
JUST WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF THE SECULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF UTAH WHETHER OR NOT LDS PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT CARRY DEADLY WEAPONS INTO THE BUILDINGS IN WHICH THEY DO DIVINE SERVICES? (seeing as how the state of Utah was mostly founded by LDS people) Snork.
Don't think me a Mormon sympathizer! I only think that they should have the same free-for-all opportunity to make their case as is granted to expositors of any theological proposition.
Myself, I agree with Disraeli:
Interviewer: What is your religion?
Disraeli: All sensible men are of the same religion.
Interviewer: And just what religion is that?
Disraeli: Sensible men never say.
Another Disraelism:
"I am not a pillar of the Church; I am a buttress of the Church. I support it from the outside".
Yep, that is I! I support my own childhood religion from the outside, no matter how much the shade of H.L. Mencken might tease me and slap me.
! I am not a Mormon, but I do support them from the outside.
Now I'll get serious. I promise!
I have always thought, and I believe a look into any serious book will bear me out, that Mormons, because of their disagreeable violent experiences with the rest of us, have laid particular emphasis in their practice, if not in their doctrine, on being well and heavily armed,and that said practice has stood them in good stead: i.e., "Don't be rude to that Mormon, he might shoot you!"
Now to my conclusion:
The Mormons established themselves in the first place by being well-armed with firearms,by which they defended their lives,grabbed a nice piece of land, and made themselves a force to be reckoned with among the United States.
I don't know if I would have gotten along with Brigham Young, had I met him, but I can, and do, wholeheartedly agree with his most famous statement,
KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!
and 19th Century religion, which was often the same.First, let me declare my interest;
I'm a grumpy-old-bachelor,lapsed-Methodist, freethinking heathen Deist kind of guy
(Like Elizabeth the First, I have a taste for ritual, but have not the religious temperament).
As far as I know, the Mormons got into fights with the other people in the US, and decided it would be better for them if they lit out for the territories and started their own polity. Well, Manifest Destiny came along, not to mention the Lincoln War, and here came the people they'd walked hard and far to get away from! So, they gritted their teeth and made necessary practical compromises, NEVER compromising on the important stuff, until this thing came along.
Hasn't anyone read any history? Do not people know that there was a time at which you could be shot for being a Mormon? Do not people know that there was a place at which you could be shot for NOT being a Mormon. (Mountain Meadows, look it up!)
Alright: Humans are dangerous! We are the only critters on the planet who will kill you because we think you you have bad taste in music, or because we disagree with your (mostly silly, I think ) religious opinions. (Myself, I think SF literary criticism is more important, but am afraid Pax would shoot me if she thought I were about to rant on THAT subject).
O... K.....
I thought we'd solved this problem, about a hundred years ago, when Utah was admitted to the Union. Everyone pretended to get along with, and love, his neighbor. The Mormons had an anti-polygyny revelation, which made everything else about them hunky-dory, so they had been Real Americans all along, and their State could be admitted to the Union. Well, guess what, guys! Mormons are not exactly like other people! Well, guess what, I, Orthonym, am not exactly like you! It's a FEDERAL Republic! What's the point of having different States if the laws and the people are exactly the same in all of the States?
Alright, to try to get back onto the topic:
JUST WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF THE SECULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF UTAH WHETHER OR NOT LDS PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT CARRY DEADLY WEAPONS INTO THE BUILDINGS IN WHICH THEY DO DIVINE SERVICES? (seeing as how the state of Utah was mostly founded by LDS people) Snork.
Don't think me a Mormon sympathizer! I only think that they should have the same free-for-all opportunity to make their case as is granted to expositors of any theological proposition.
Myself, I agree with Disraeli:
Interviewer: What is your religion?
Disraeli: All sensible men are of the same religion.
Interviewer: And just what religion is that?
Disraeli: Sensible men never say.
Another Disraelism:
"I am not a pillar of the Church; I am a buttress of the Church. I support it from the outside".
Yep, that is I! I support my own childhood religion from the outside, no matter how much the shade of H.L. Mencken might tease me and slap me.
! I am not a Mormon, but I do support them from the outside.
Now I'll get serious. I promise!
I have always thought, and I believe a look into any serious book will bear me out, that Mormons, because of their disagreeable violent experiences with the rest of us, have laid particular emphasis in their practice, if not in their doctrine, on being well and heavily armed,and that said practice has stood them in good stead: i.e., "Don't be rude to that Mormon, he might shoot you!"
Now to my conclusion:
The Mormons established themselves in the first place by being well-armed with firearms,by which they defended their lives,grabbed a nice piece of land, and made themselves a force to be reckoned with among the United States.
I don't know if I would have gotten along with Brigham Young, had I met him, but I can, and do, wholeheartedly agree with his most famous statement,
KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!
Cosmoline
Member
"A spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Utah praised ... "
Well that's pretty much the Kiss of Death theologically speaking.
Well that's pretty much the Kiss of Death theologically speaking.
HankB
Member
May I suggest that all members of a church that goes out of its way to ban guns ought to STOP donating $$ to that church? And, let the church elders/ministers/priests/rabbis/etc. know WHY you've stopped donating.
Tell them that by making a political policy decision, and seeking enforcement by secular authorities, they've strayed from their religious purpose, and you choose not to financially support secular causes you don't agree with.
Better yet, take your periodic church donations and start giving them to a pro-RKBA organization, like NRA, GOA, JPFO, etc. And let the church leaders know where your money is going.
Tell them that by making a political policy decision, and seeking enforcement by secular authorities, they've strayed from their religious purpose, and you choose not to financially support secular causes you don't agree with.
Better yet, take your periodic church donations and start giving them to a pro-RKBA organization, like NRA, GOA, JPFO, etc. And let the church leaders know where your money is going.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
I'mSpartacus!
Member
Prthonium, let me correct you. The LDS Church NEVER had an anti polygamy revelation. The revelation was that it was better to stop allowing polygamy -- but it wasn't anti polygamy. I would compare the ceasation of polygamist unions with the Ashkenazi (European) Jewish rabbinical leaders several centuries ago doing exactly the same thing -- Judaism allows polygamy and in some cases makes it manditory. I could get into a theological discussion here about Christianity actually being an extension of Judaism (not a new religion) but I won't for now. Point is, the Jews discontinued polygamy in Europe due to the threat of persecution for continuation of it. They hoped that they would better be able to fit into European society that adopted monogamy from Pagan Rome and Greece (slave societies that allowed for only one wife, but multiple slave girls). The Mormon Church revelation was sort of a "stand down" revelation that discontinued a practice that most the Old Testament prophets engaged in.
As for LDS policy in Utah on guns in church, perhaps this regulation (not revelation) is an attempt to make sure that some wacko doesn't open fire in an LDS church and then have the anti-Mormon crowd run to Michael Moore and encourage a hit piece film about how the LDS leaders refused to listen to political leaders in Utah and allowed some insident to occur.
As for LDS policy in Utah on guns in church, perhaps this regulation (not revelation) is an attempt to make sure that some wacko doesn't open fire in an LDS church and then have the anti-Mormon crowd run to Michael Moore and encourage a hit piece film about how the LDS leaders refused to listen to political leaders in Utah and allowed some insident to occur.
I am not LDS, but do reside in Utah. What troubles me most is that the Church went SO public with the announcement. I hope that those inclined to do harm to any church-goer aren't paying attention. This lets them know that the entire congregation is defenseless. Perhaps they can throw hymnals...
When I attend or pick up my son after boy scout meetings, I'll still be armed (thank goodness, due to my profession).
Does anyone know if Church security is armed in the Temple? They are not sworn police officers, I wonder if the Prophet has deigned them to be exempt?
When I attend or pick up my son after boy scout meetings, I'll still be armed (thank goodness, due to my profession).
Does anyone know if Church security is armed in the Temple? They are not sworn police officers, I wonder if the Prophet has deigned them to be exempt?
Orthonym
Member
What's the point of all this?
I believe that the reputation of LDS people among us other folks (well, lately) is that they are famously well-armed and equally-famously well-behaved. Should not all of us be well-armed and well-behaved?
I believe that the reputation of LDS people among us other folks (well, lately) is that they are famously well-armed and equally-famously well-behaved. Should not all of us be well-armed and well-behaved?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Nor am I LDS, but I enjoy the comfort of being among well-armed and well-behaved folks here. This does not directly affect me, but it does affect the majority of the populace. What next, liberals in charge?
We may not all be LDS, but we are all Utahns.
We may not all be LDS, but we are all Utahns.
BHPshooter
Member
Amen to that.
I just caught KSL news, in which they interviewed several people of different faiths regarding the LDS Church's policy. Not a one of them (that they showed
) disagreed with the policy. Each and every one of them had a typical soccer-mom response like "A church is no place for a firearm" or "I feel perfectly safe in my US-based church." So basically, it's just the "It can't happen here" disease.Utah has plenty of armed folks, but make no mistake, we've still got our fair share of soccer-moms and blissninnies.
Wes
Fair 'n Square
Member
I don't know (repeat know) if LDS Church security carry firearms, but the only two guys I know there are POST qualified (former LEO's). So I would be very surprised if they and some others who work there did not carry.
I recall the announcement by the LDS Church in the newspaper makes exception for people who are required to carry. I think there are enough of them in their membership that many of their chapels will have people there who carry. And of course there will be some who just say concealed is concealed and who will know.
I don't think any goblins can safely think their worship places are defense free.
I recall the announcement by the LDS Church in the newspaper makes exception for people who are required to carry. I think there are enough of them in their membership that many of their chapels will have people there who carry. And of course there will be some who just say concealed is concealed and who will know.
I don't think any goblins can safely think their worship places are defense free.
jimpeel
Member
How is a person to know which churches are "registered"? Is there a big sign that says "This church is registered" on the front lawn?
It has apparently been lost on them that is was only within the last ten years, or so, that Oklahoma repealed its law against Mormonism and the "shoot to kill" attitude.
12 Volt Man
Member
This has got a lot of thoughts going in my mind. As a Utahn and Mormon (who needs repentance LOL), this concerns me. I am always concerned when places "advertise" to the bad guys "Hey there is nobody in here with guns, come on in and shoot people safely." The beauty of people with CCW licenses is the "unknown" factor. Criminals should be scared and think twice about commiting violent acts when there is the possibilty that a CCW permit holder is around. I feel a little unsafe when I go places where permit holders are "banned" from carrying. The Delta Center for a Jazz game or concert for example is one place that I hate going.
I have never felt the need to carry to church services, but I know others that do. I have carried to other activities like Boy Scout meetings etc... just because I was carrying that day and didn't feel the need to disarm. I have been in Merit Badge classes at the church where firearms were present for teaching the scouts. I even remember growing up there were a couple of old bolt action 22 rifles that belonged to our Scout troop. They were locked in a storage closet right in the church.
Here is another thought I have had. In a SHTF scenerio, we as Utahns Mormon's and Non. Should look to the local Church Houses as a place of security and a place to evacuate to if needed. There are all kinds of situations I can think of where I might feel more comfortable knowing there are armed people around. If fact if I grab my Bug out Bag or 72 hour kit as they call it, it will have a weapon in it.
I still have to mull this over a while to know how I really feel about it. For now, I am with George. Concealed means concealed.
I have never felt the need to carry to church services, but I know others that do. I have carried to other activities like Boy Scout meetings etc... just because I was carrying that day and didn't feel the need to disarm. I have been in Merit Badge classes at the church where firearms were present for teaching the scouts. I even remember growing up there were a couple of old bolt action 22 rifles that belonged to our Scout troop. They were locked in a storage closet right in the church.
Here is another thought I have had. In a SHTF scenerio, we as Utahns Mormon's and Non. Should look to the local Church Houses as a place of security and a place to evacuate to if needed. There are all kinds of situations I can think of where I might feel more comfortable knowing there are armed people around. If fact if I grab my Bug out Bag or 72 hour kit as they call it, it will have a weapon in it.
I still have to mull this over a while to know how I really feel about it. For now, I am with George. Concealed means concealed.
mephisto
Member
I can only hope this is a Utah thing. In Arizona, where I dwell, I know of 3 “ brethren†who ccw at church. I too am somewhat disappointed that it was made a very public deal. It would seem to me that this would have been better if it was on the “hush-hush†i.e. made in a sacrament meeting. To infuse a thought into the mind of a “terrorist†or any nut case that a Mormon Church is a gun free zone is bad, well it does not bode well with me. And in that thought who well really know if said persons, nut cases and the like, would be able to differentiate that this could well be a Utah thing and not a church as a whole thing, banning guns in church. If the church is thinking of safety, well hell, outlaw bringing in a basketball in than. (I hope people get that)
- Status
