No guns allowed in our chapels (LDS).

[OC for ME]

"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."

Never a more anti-liberty statement was ever made.

It's their property though. If I were a member and I'm not, I'd boycott them, the whole lot of them. LDS is a big church and would not notice my absence I suspect, nor would I miss them.

My little church has a wee bit more respect for liberty. My preacher held a similar view point. I asked him a simple question; does God not want me to carry (CC out of respect for others) or is it a problem you have with a LAC carrying? I carry into church...CC only of course.

Side note: Then why does every church bring the cares and concerns of the world into the church during every "Sunday?"

 

[J_dazzle23]

Perhaps your specific church is incorporated in Delaware ... to avoid taxes.

Beats me where they file their business filings but they do somewhere.

Why not ask them to inspect their books. After all, they are all friendly and all, right?

Quack quack.

The "books" are not at all a secret, actually.

broad strokes don't work for specifics.

This is a pro-rkba site, you have failed to back your claim that this church somehow restricts your rights.

 

[utbagpiper]

Perhaps your specific church is incorporated in Delaware ... to avoid taxes.

Beats me where they file their business filings but they do somewhere.

Why not ask them to inspect their books. After all, they are all friendly and all, right?

Quack quack.

Aw yes. And the true feelings towards the LDS Church come out. It is not merely some disagreement over doctrines or offenses from imperfect members that keeps some out. But rather ever growing feelings of hostility. This is made clear by the logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts." I point out the obvious error of your posted data--errors that any cub reporter who didn't want to fired would have avoided had he filed a story--and rather than admitting the error, you change the topic. Classic case demonstrating that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Businesses owned by the LDS Church file business taxes in whatever jurisdiction they are located, just like any other business.

The LDS Church, like other churches do not do "business filings" per se. They certainly register names and maintain ownership of intellectual property. In each county where they own property I expect they file appropriate tax exemption forms with the county assessor or other proper official.

But if you can find evidence the LDS Church, as a church, is required to file "business" filings, pass it along. Otherwise, you will look less foolish asserting things for which the pitiful "evidence" you've so far supplied does not support.

I am quite comfortable with how the LDS Church handles its finances. Were I not comfortable, I would reconsider my membership, donations, and other affiliations with the church.

As you are, by your own admission, no longer LDS, the matters of the finances of a purely private, religious organization are, frankly, none of your business.

Now, do you want to talk about and work together on RKBA? Or do you want to let your hatred of all things LDS divide us needlessly on the issue for which we gather on this board?

Charles

 

[Rusty Young Man]

SNIP...Truly Charles, anyone for that matter- Can the OC community be trusted to honor this, when they cannot (and even openly and vocally refuse to) honor the same request of a business?

So is it then whether or not the OC community approves of a church or if they approve of a business? They can decide which law to obey and which to not obey? My point is simple- RESPECT. If you respect a church's request to not carry on premises, why not respect a business' request?

And so no one responds because they know in their heart that they are so full of crap.
If you'll honor a church's request, why must you be so antagonistic about businesses that make the same request? Unless it's really not about the right to keep and bear arms, but instead your right to bully and harass businesses that merely disagree?

Speak for yourself; I refuse to be the source (direct or indirect) of monetary gain for any entity which requires me to disarm as a qualifier for entry onto their property.
A great example of this is my refusal to deal with Pro's Ranch Markets: I still miss the crispy, spicy shrimp I used to enjoy there PRIOR to discovering their stance, and later being asked to leave when I accompanied my parents (who still shop there occasionally). I'd like to be consistent, and I hope they eventually allow the law-abiding to be armed for self-defense.

I do not bully anti-gun businesses; unlike MAD moms, I respect their Right to do business with whom they choose, just as I expect others to respect my Right to engage in commerce with those I choose. I do not force them or coerce them, I simply try to remind them that magical stickers do little to stem the entry of Unlawfully-armed individuals who, by their very nature, disregard the law's intent.

I only saw your post today, else I would have answered sooner.

SNIP...
I get it, I've known and few jack Mormons in my life. And it is lame. But they are everywhere in any social group. To judge a groups doctrine and purity of heart based on sins of a few is hilarious to me.

Any church is a hospital for sinners, not a bragging ground for how righteous one is. Just my .02.

As for the OP, I don't CARE if it is a business or a nonprofit (which legally, it's NOT a business, just to be clear). They are making a poor choice, but are violating NO ONES rights to disallow firearms. like you said, no one is forcing you to go to this church, and as a private entity, I fully endorse the idea that a private entity should be able to say what goes.

+1 Agree.

I don't usually talk about religion (gets folks up in a tizzy), but Jesus Christ himself explained why he spent so much time around sinners (the doctor analogy, which you allude to so well with your hospital analogy; I appreciated that).
If we are to bear the title of "Freedom-loving" individuals, we must be constant in the defense of Freedom for anyone and everyone; as the saying goes "What can by done unto anyone may be done unto everyone". We do more harm to the cause of Liberty when we choose to back laws which force a PRIVATE entity to permit a group of people onto their property; would we be equally supportive of a law requiring US to allow MAD moms and the other Bloomie groups into our private homes?

IMO, public establishments are not being "forced", they are being retaken. As they are meant to be "public", they have no voice so long as the funding comes from the taxes of the people.

Private establishments, on the other hand, are to be persuaded to our side (support OC and carry), persuaded to neutrality (simply abiding by state law), or avoided. MY $.02.

 

[davidmcbeth]

. And the true feelings towards the LDS Church come out. <snip> Or do you want to let your hatred of all things LDS divide us needlessly on the issue for which we gather on this board?

Charles

The only thing I don't like about your church is that it does not allow people to carry. Seems like you are the one with the religious prejudices from your acidic writings defending an organization that will not allow you to carry.

I think that you have to get beyond the fact that it is more than just a church but also a business and go from there.

They are peddling something ... just like every other church.

 

[J_dazzle23]

The only thing I don't like about your church is that it does not allow people to carry. Seems like you are the one with the religious prejudices from your acidic writings defending an organization that will not allow you to carry.

I think that you have to get beyond the fact that it is more than just a church but also a business and go from there.

They are peddling something ... just like every other church.

a. Nobody here agrees with the church's decision. But they are not infringing on anyone's rights. There IS a difference.

b. It is by every definition possible, a religion, It is legally a 501c3, anything but a for - profit business. But again, here you are making unfounded assertions.

c. What are they "peddling?" I'm interested, please, tell me more.

 

[J_dazzle23]

From 1985 - 2009, $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid was given throughout 178 countries.

Sounds more like a humanitarian organization than a business to me.

 

[HPmatt]

I don't know if you're too ignorant, stupid, or arrogant to understand the difference between a church and a business.

Charles

There certainly is a business side to every church - paying the bills, making payroll, keeping donations straight for individual contributors, managing payables, forwarding on payments to various affiliated charities, offering health insurance, Xerox machine leases, maintaining the church property, setting up chairs and tables, email and phones for church workers. Is the budget being met? capital campaigns, etc. If you've been associated with a small church, you get to do lots of those duties; if a large church they've got resources to have people handle them.

Then you've got the spiritual side of the church - but you certainly can't do the latter in an effective manner if the former is a mess.

 

[OC Freedom]

The last time LDS pushed for disarmament, let's just say it didn't go so well for the disarmed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1386232/Mormon-leader-ordered-massacre-of-settlers.html

Government or Religious organizations pushing for disarmament in any way should be a red flag to all of us.

 

[J_dazzle23]

The last time LDS pushed for disarmament, let's just say it didn't go so well for the disarmed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1386232/Mormon-leader-ordered-massacre-of-settlers.html

Government or Religious organizations pushing for disarmament in any way should be a red flag to all of us.

I think it's quite clear that the LDS church is not pushing for general disarmament.

In a state where the political offices are largely the majority LDS church members, we enjoy arguably some of the most relaxed gun laws of nearly all states in the nation. As charles said, if the LDS church were pushing disarmament, this would not be the reality.

 

[OC Freedom]

I think it's quite clear that the LDS church is not pushing for general disarmament.

In a state where the political offices are largely the majority LDS church members, we enjoy arguably some of the most relaxed gun laws of nearly all states in the nation. As charles said, if the LDS church were pushing disarmament, this would not be the reality.

If the LDS church cannot trust me to be armed upon entering the church bldg. then how can I trust the LDS church. I did say "disarmament in ANY WAY should be a red flag to all of us", in my posting.

 

[J_dazzle23]

If the LDS church cannot trust me to be armed upon entering the church bldg. then how can I trust the LDS church. I did say "disarmament in ANY WAY should be a red flag to all of us", in my posting.

Fair assertion-that's the point I'm trying to make. If you don't want to go to the church, as you don't feel it's worth disarming yourself, that's your choice. I agree that I don't like the policy, but any policy requiring a business or no profit to not be able to put limitations on the people they provide service to should also be a red flag, imo.(excepting case of race, gender, religion, etc)

 

[utbagpiper]

Never a more anti-liberty statement was ever made.

It's their property though. If I were a member and I'm not, I'd boycott them, the whole lot of them. LDS is a big church and would not notice my absence I suspect, nor would I miss them.

My little church has a wee bit more respect for liberty. My preacher held a similar view point. I asked him a simple question; does God not want me to carry (CC out of respect for others) or is it a problem you have with a LAC carrying? I carry into church...CC only of course.

I suspect that in the long history of anti-liberty statements, the LDS Church's policy on guns doesn't make the top 50%. I mean, do you really want to suggest that a private property owner, a church no less, banning the possession of guns inside their sanctuaries is worse than Chuck Schumer and his ilk in Congress imposing legal bans on the sale of new firearms based on cosmetic features (the gun ban of '94), or what was said during the debates that lead to passage of the GCA of '38 or GCA of '68?

Maybe just some literary hyperbole on your part.

In any event, I get it. None of us here much like the policy of the LDS church.

But I find most interesting is that those using the strongest language against it are precisely those who have the least cause to be hanging out in an LDS building in the first place.

Guys, I spend 3 hours every Sunday attending my regular meetings there. When serving in recent prior callings, those 3 hours were complimented by an additional 3 hours of early morning bishopric meetings. I routinely spend an hour or two in the building on a Saturday morning cleaning in preparations for Sunday services. Then there is a couple of hours one night each week either working with the youth (scouts, young women), or helping with something for the kids (primary), or in various other leadership or organizational meetings. A couple times a year I spend a couple hours inside the Temple at midnight cleaning it in preparations for the next day's services. And then there is a couple of hours a month attending temple worship services. On top of all this, I live close enough to my church building that I usually walk over rather than driving, so it isn't like I even have a car in the parking lot in which to leave my gun. I'm hardly unique in the number of visits I make to or total number of hours I spend inside LDS houses of worship each week.

I greatly appreciate any sincere concern for my welfare and my rights. But please trust me when I tell you that I've made peace with this issue. Any concerns I have are strictly private between me, my church, and my God.

And if you're looking for a reason not to be LDS, trust me when I tell you that their anti-gun policy is the least of the various reasons available to you. Should I ever choose to disassociate from the LDS Church, I hope I have a much better reason for leaving an organization that has done so much good for me, my family, and my community, than a disagreement over whether it is appropriate to carry gun into worship services or houses of worship.

But I certainly respect your rights to pick and choose religious affiliation (or lack thereof) for whatever or even no reason, may suit you.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The last time LDS pushed for disarmament, let's just say it didn't go so well for the disarmed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1386232/Mormon-leader-ordered-massacre-of-settlers.html

Government or Religious organizations pushing for disarmament in any way should be a red flag to all of us.

I see the BIGOTS and ignorant are out in full force. It has long been known that Lee tried to claim he was acting on orders from Brigham Young. A note in his own hand is not really new news on this front. What remains entirely unexplained is exactly how President Young managed to issue such orders from nearly 300 miles away prior to the telegraph being available. History clearly shows that a rider was dispatched to SLC to get President Young's view on the matter and returned with orders from Young to let the wagon train pass in peace. He arrived too late to make a difference But don't let a little thing like indisputable geographic facts, or well accepted historical matters deter you from your bigotries. The US government spent so much effort trying to pin the Mountain Meadow Massacre on Young that several folks who were responsible probably escaped justice with John D Lee being the only man to be convicted (and ultimately executed) for the crimes at MMM.

And it clearly is bigotries because the far more relevant example for LDS is when the government disarmed LDS members and left them to the mercy of the mobs and militias in Missouri, Illinois, etc. But LDS children having their heads bashed in at Haun's Mill, or women and children being run from their homes in dead of winter from Nauvoo don't convey nearly the story that anti-LDS bigots want to portray. So they focus on MMM instead.

Most importantly, I'm quite certain that if the LDS church were to push for "disarmament" we would quickly find Utah with very bad gun laws. Or have you failed to notice our gambling laws, alcohol laws, and the success of the LDS church on Cali's Prop 8?

Always amazing to me that the same folks who bitch and complain about how the church runs everything turn around and claim the LDS church is trying to disarm us or attacking guns or is hostile to guns when Utah has the best overall laws respecting RKBA in the entire nation.

I don't care in the least whether someone loves or hates the LDS church. But I do take great offense when bigots attack my chosen religion.

The LDS Church has done exactly ONE thing regarding guns in my lifetime. They have banned guns from their houses of worship. I've never heard them lobbying the legislature for general laws limiting RKBA. So far as I know they've strictly abided the terms of the deal we made 10+ years ago and stayed out of gun issues not directly related to their religious property.

The Utah legislature is chock full of LDS members, the majority of whom have pretty consistently voted in favor of RKBA, while the non-LDS have been likely to vote against RKBA. The rare exceptions such a Curt Oda (non-LDS, solid pro-RKBA) are notable.

Finally, it is the LDS Church and its members that have been largely responsible for the overall culture of Utah that has made this such a good place to live. That influence is diminishing. But those who hate the LDS church make a very curious choice to live in Utah. I can't imagine choosing to live someplace where those I hate are the far and away majority. But some folks just seem to love to have something to hate.

Keep the bigotry to yourselves.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

Someone has a chip on his shoulder .... who cares about a person being a mormon or not?

get over it ... or convert to another religion-this one seems to be making you a little wacko

Scientology next?

 

[J_dazzle23]

Someone has a chip on his shoulder .... who cares about a person being a mormon or not?

get over it ... or convert to another religion-this one seems to be making you a little wacko

Scientology next?

I'm calling bs. You are simply here to stir the pot.

You have shown your true colors in this thread. You cannot back up your initial assertion, so you have resorted to backhanded quips, ad hominem attacks and strawman arguements.

Don't come in a thread throwing crap and expect those it hits not to give you a piece of their mind.

 

[utbagpiper]

The only thing I don't like about your church is that it does not allow people to carry. Seems like you are the one with the religious prejudices from your acidic writings defending an organization that will not allow you to carry.

********. You are troll and a liar. And a bigot to boot. My civility has run out and I'll be as ugly and direct as you haters are. I'm sick of it.

In this very thread you've tried to make hay about the LDS Church not opening their books. You've intimated that my church might do something to skirt tax payments. So you certainly have problems beyond just the LDS Church's policy on guns. And now you lie about it. And you're too stupid and ignorant to even understand that a church has no need to "incorporate in Delaware" to avoid paying taxes. Churches do not pay income nor property taxes on religious funds nor property.

It is clear you just can't fix stupid.

I think that you have to get beyond the fact that it is more than just a church but also a business and go from there.

I think you have to get beyond your religious and LDS bigotries and accept that a church is not a business no matter how much you'd like to think they are. So says our laws, our customs, our constitution, and a slew of Supreme Court decisions. Nor does any man with two functioning braincells and any sense of history ever want to see churches not given the preferential legal treatment we give to churches.

They are peddling something ... just like every other church.

Every church I've attended seems to be doing its level best to help people lead better lives, to have hope, and to treat their fellow men decently.

Granted, I've never had inclination to attend the Westboro's church, nor any black liberation churches. But among LDS, Catholic, Jewish, and various Protestant services, I've never seen anything but positive.

I can look around the nation and see no shortage of hospitals (LDS, Primary Children's, Shriners, and a host of names with "Saint" or "Presbyterian" in their names), colleges (University of Utah, BYU, Notre Dame, Hillsdale, etc), and charities (YMCA, Salvation Army) founded by churches or by members of churches acting on the teachings of their churches. I see a lot of food banks and homeless shelters run by churches and individuals motivated by faith. I know of countless sums of money, hours of labor, and food and clothing donated by church members and distributed by churches (LDS Humanitarian Services, Catholic Relief Society, LDS Bishop's Storehouses, etc) to both our neighbors in need as well as victims of natural disaster half a world away. I know of tremendous good done by church run jobs training programs (including Deseret Industries), addiction recovery services (notice the overt reliance on God in the Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step program), adoption services, and other social service programs. I know that churches provide a community that enables people to know and help each other when otherwise it is common to be far too anonymous.

I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I believe it is what it claims to be. But I hold in the highest regard my brothers and sisters in all the various churches that do so much good in this world. And I'm tired of the secularists, socialists, communists, atheists, and others who feel a need to constantly tear down churches over some minor policy disagreement or even some mistake, sin, or crime.

Churches do this good based on voluntary associations, voluntary donations, and largely voluntary labor pools. The total of secular organizations don't come close on their best days. And when left without any religiously imposed limits or bounds, we tend to get the atrocities of the Nazis and Communists.

So the anti-church bigots should wise up and at least adopt the views of those among our founding fathers who didn't necessarily care for organized religion in their own lives. If religion is the opiate of the masses, it is an opiate the masses need.

Stop tearing them down. Or at least have the decency to stop doing it among those who belong and believe and with whom you share common cause on RKBA. It is rude. It is divisive. It makes it more difficult for us to work together to our common goals.

Knock it off.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Someone has a chip on his shoulder .... who cares about a person being a mormon or not?

get over it ... or convert to another religion-this one seems to be making you a little wacko

Scientology next?

Shut your pie hole and move along troll. You throw bombs and then claim not to care about affiliation?

Get lost.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

There certainly is a business side to every church - paying the bills, making payroll, keeping donations straight for individual contributors, managing payables, forwarding on payments to various affiliated charities, offering health insurance, Xerox machine leases, maintaining the church property, setting up chairs and tables, email and phones for church workers. Is the budget being met? capital campaigns, etc. If you've been associated with a small church, you get to do lots of those duties; if a large church they've got resources to have people handle them.

Then you've got the spiritual side of the church - but you certainly can't do the latter in an effective manner if the former is a mess.

You are referring to the "Administration" side of the church. Or the temporal matters. And while you are correct about the necessity of such things, that they exist doesn't create a "business".

Your household has many of the same concerns: How is the budget? Is the home being properly maintained? Do we buy or lease a car, or simply ride mass transit. Make sure we pay the mortgage and utilities on time. Does this mean your household is a "business"? Certainly not in any legal or constitutional sense of the word. You file personal income taxes and avail yourself of the personal residential exemption on your property taxes rather than filing business taxes. (A home office may blur this somewhat but in general my point remains.) You are not subject to anti-discrimination or ADA laws in your own home. Nobody has a 1st amendment right to speak, preach, or publish in your home. Excepting the police with proper legal authorization, you have absolute control over who comes into and remains in your home, what TV or radio broadcasts or magazines you invite in, etc. You are the king of your castle, no?

In contrast, the LDS Church does run actual, for-profit businesses including KSL TV/Radio, Desert News newspaper, Deseret Book, a real estate development company, and a couple of large cattle ranches. These are businesses run with the full intent of making a profit or at least breaking even while supporting some mission of the church. They are run under the same laws as any other for profit business.

These are distinct from the operation of church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, missions, colleges, welfare farms, welfare square, and other religious operations. These operations are given specific, preferential treatment under the tax and other laws of the US, just as they would be if run by any other church.

That a church has to deal with temporal or administrative matters to keep the lights on and otherwise function, is not at all the same thing as being "a business."

Charles

 

[OC Freedom]

I see the BIGOTS and ignorant are out in full force. It has long been known that Lee tried to claim he was acting on orders from Brigham Young. A note in his own hand is not really new news on this front. What remains entirely unexplained is exactly how President Young managed to issue such orders from nearly 300 miles away prior to the telegraph being available. History clearly shows that a rider was dispatched to SLC to get President Young's view on the matter and returned with orders from Young to let the wagon train pass in peace. He arrived too late to make a difference But don't let a little thing like indisputable geographic facts, or well accepted historical matters deter you from your bigotries. The US government spent so much effort trying to pin the Mountain Meadow Massacre on Young that several folks who were responsible probably escaped justice with John D Lee being the only man to be convicted (and ultimately executed) for the crimes at MMM.

And it clearly is bigotries because the far more relevant example for LDS is when the government disarmed LDS members and left them to the mercy of the mobs and militias in Missouri, Illinois, etc. But LDS children having their heads bashed in at Haun's Mill, or women and children being run from their homes in dead of winter from Nauvoo don't convey nearly the story that anti-LDS bigots want to portray. So they focus on MMM instead.

Most importantly, I'm quite certain that if the LDS church were to push for "disarmament" we would quickly find Utah with very bad gun laws. Or have you failed to notice our gambling laws, alcohol laws, and the success of the LDS church on Cali's Prop 8?

Always amazing to me that the same folks who bitch and complain about how the church runs everything turn around and claim the LDS church is trying to disarm us or attacking guns or is hostile to guns when Utah has the best overall laws respecting RKBA in the entire nation.

I don't care in the least whether someone loves or hates the LDS church. But I do take great offense when bigots attack my chosen religion.

The LDS Church has done exactly ONE thing regarding guns in my lifetime. They have banned guns from their houses of worship. I've never heard them lobbying the legislature for general laws limiting RKBA. So far as I know they've strictly abided the terms of the deal we made 10+ years ago and stayed out of gun issues not directly related to their religious property.

The Utah legislature is chock full of LDS members, the majority of whom have pretty consistently voted in favor of RKBA, while the non-LDS have been likely to vote against RKBA. The rare exceptions such a Curt Oda (non-LDS, solid pro-RKBA) are notable.

Finally, it is the LDS Church and its members that have been largely responsible for the overall culture of Utah that has made this such a good place to live. That influence is diminishing. But those who hate the LDS church make a very curious choice to live in Utah. I can't imagine choosing to live someplace where those I hate are the far and away majority. But some folks just seem to love to have something to hate.

Keep the bigotry to yourselves.

Charles

I have never used a derogatory remark to any one on this site and I do not appreciate it when someone does it to me. I don't believe the Mormons version of History of the Mountain Meadows massacre, so that makes me a bigot? Think what you wish.

Government, Church, Business, or person, if you do not trust me to be armed then I find that a red flag and I will not associate with said person(s) or organization.