No guns allowed in our chapels (LDS).

[OC Freedom]

Charles, This sums up my views of the Mormons. I do have friends that are Mormon, but we agree to disagree on spiritual doctrine.


WHAT DO MORMONS BELIEVE?

Mormons are some of the most exemplary human beings, especially in regard to their behavior patterns and their adherence to the fundamental values of our society. But their religious beliefs are, to put is simply, wrong. They believe that an angel named Moroni left some gold tablets in upstate New York and that these tablets were discovered by a man named Joseph Smith. From these tablets, Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon, which is the foundation upon which Mormonism is built. Mormons also consider two other books, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, to be divinely inspired.

Mormonism differs from biblical Christianity in several areas. Mormons do not believe, for example, that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons must work their way to heaven. (B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City:1958), p. 191.)

Mormonism teaches that God is not the only deity and that we all have the potential of becoming gods. (Ibid., p. 576.) (Remember that Satan's fall came about because he wanted to be like God.) God, according to Mormons, is not just Spirit but has "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man's." (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22.) They teach, "As we are, he was. As he is, we shall become." (Joseph Smith, "The King Follett Discourse," p. 9.) There has been constant revision of Mormon doctrine over the years, as church leaders have changed their minds on a number of subjects including polygamy, which was once sanctioned by the church.

In summary, the Mormon church is a prosperous, growing organization that has produced many people of exemplary character. But when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth.

 

[OC for ME]

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

This issue, no guns in the "church" so to speak, has absolutely nothing to do with religion and I suspect that you know this. I have no bones to pick with the LDS as a institution and my comment is very clear on this point, though not explicitly stated. LDS is a big church and those who disagree with their anti-liberty policy have one of two choices to make and you have made yours.

It is odd that some are deemed worthy to provide security while the vast majority are not so blessed...for the lack of a better word.

Your points are well reasoned and logical. You owe me no justification just as you deserve no ill will for voicing your choice.

 

[J_dazzle23]

This issue, no guns in the "church" so to speak, has absolutely nothing to do with religion and I suspect that you know this. I have no bones to pick with the LDS as a institution and my comment is very clear on this point, though not explicitly stated. LDS is a big church and those who disagree with their anti-liberty policy have one of two choices to make and you have made yours.

It is odd that some are deemed worthy to provide security while the vast majority are not so blessed...for the lack of a better word.

Your points are well reasoned and logical. You owe me no justification just as you deserve no ill will for voicing your choice.

No matter your opinion on the faith(which I think is a bit hypocritical in your copy/paste at the end, as the Catholic Church among many others seem to change doctrine quite frequently at the whims of politics, but I digress...you are correct. We don't like the policy, but have a choice to make.

My point in this, quite honestly, has nothing to do with the "who" so to speak. I don't care if it is a church or a business or a home, I WANT these private non-governmental institutions to be able to pick and choose who they allow in the front door by any standard not protected by civil rights laws. I feel this is a freedom nearly, if not as important as RKBA.

I don't mind everyone here disagreeing with the policy of this organization, in fact, I welcome and expect it, as it leaves us all scratching our heads. What raises the hair on the back of my neck is the statement that any private party is "infringing on our rights" by simply exercising theirs. As much as we don't like it, we all know this to be true. The bill of rights was set forth to protect the government from violating out freedoms, not to give us a card-carrying excuse to do as we please on anyone else's property. No one would complain that their freedom of speech was being infringed by vulgarity being sensored on this site, or if I did not let someone in my home simply because I don't like the way they look.

As far as the MMM, I don't know if this makes a difference in your opinion, but in a us history university level course at montana state university, the brief attention they gave to MMM in the text reflected basically what Charles noted. For what it's worth. Honestly held comment, on my part.

I don't have much of any problem with what you have said, but others in this thread have nearly made it impossible for the rest of us to have a thoughtful and appropriate discussion.

 

[davidmcbeth]

WHAT DO MORMONS BELIEVE?

<snip> They believe that an angel named Moroni left some gold tablets in upstate New York and that these tablets were discovered by a man named Joseph Smith. From these tablets, Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon, which is the foundation upon which Mormonism is built. Mormons also consider two other books, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, to be divinely inspired.


.

Did it say not to allow carry in those tables that were found? I doubt it..that rule was made by antis.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Did it say not to allow carry in those tables that were found? I doubt it..that rule was made by antis.

Property preferences by a private organization =/=religious or divinely inspired doctrine.

 

[utbagpiper]

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.

Your choice to focus on the MMM speaks far more loudly than your choice of individual words. As I noted, the events at Haun's Mill or the forced expulsion from Nauvoo would make your points far more clearly as current church policy affects church members primarily. It has zero effect on those who choose not to enter LDS houses of worship.

If you can provide a shred of even half-way credible evidence that Brigham Young ordered the murders at Mountain Meadow, you will have achieved what federal investigators in the 19 century failed to do, what every author and historian since then has failed to do, and what all geographic evidence says is almost certainly impossible. You linked to a site that attempted to claim a letter in Lee's hand proves Young ordered the attack. Yet it is long known history that Lee made such claims and was never able to substantiate them. Neither has anyone else.

When you believe the worst of an organization despite all logical and factual evidence available, you are showing bigotry.

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.

And I fully support your right to make such a decision. I will, however, call out bigotry when i see it manifest.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

Your choice to focus on the MMM speaks far more loudly than your choice of individual words. As I noted, the events at Haun's Mill or the forced expulsion from Nauvoo would make your points far more clearly as current church policy affects church members primarily. It has zero effect on those who choose not to enter LDS houses of worship.

If you can provide a shred of even half-way credible evidence that Brigham Young ordered the murders at Mountain Meadow, you will have achieved what federal investigators in the 19 century failed to do, what every author and historian since then has failed to do, and what all geographic evidence says is almost certainly impossible. You linked to a site that attempted to claim a letter in Lee's hand proves Young ordered the attack. Yet it is long known history that Lee made such claims and was never able to substantiate them. Neither has anyone else.

When you believe the worst of an organization despite all logical and factual evidence available, you are showing bigotry.



And I fully support your right to make such a decision. I will, however, call out bigotry when i see it manifest.

Charles

You are calling everyone a bigot today? Well, as a point of history...who did order the murders and where is your proof? If you cannot name a person then you have to concede that Young could have been the one that did. It seems more likely than not that he did order the murders to me.

 

[utbagpiper]

Charles, This sums up my views of the Mormons. I do have friends that are Mormon, but we agree to disagree on spiritual doctrine.

And nothing wrong with that. But if you're going to tell me what I believe, would you at least try to be accurate?

Furthermore, why the desire to get into a doctrinal discussion on a pro-RKBA list? We disagree on some doctrines. Fine. But why dig into them and tell me "I'm wrong".

Shall I tell you that you are wrong? Shall our Catholic and Jewish and Eastern Orthodox friends chime and tell us all that we are wrong? Hardly a civil way to discuss things and one more evidence of bigotry on your part.

WHAT DO MORMONS BELIEVE?

Mormons are some of the most exemplary human beings, especially in regard to their behavior patterns and their adherence to the fundamental values of our society. But their religious beliefs are, to put is simply, wrong. They believe that an angel named Moroni left some gold tablets in upstate New York and that these tablets were discovered by a man named Joseph Smith. From these tablets, Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon, which is the foundation upon which Mormonism is built. Mormons also consider two other books, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, to be divinely inspired.

We believe that an ancient prophet named Moroni buried sacred records about 600 AD. About 1830 AD, this same person, now a ressurrected being, an angel, appeared to Joseph Smith and delivered the plates to him to be translated.

We believe the Bible to the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.

Neglecting to include our belief in the divinity of the Holy Bible (and the official edition for use in English language areas it the King James version) imparts a false impression that we are not Bible believers.

Mormonism differs from biblical Christianity in several areas. Mormons do not believe, for example, that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons must work their way to heaven. (B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City:1958), p. 191.)

Wrong, we believe that salvation comes through the grace of Christ after all we can do. "For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).

We believe that we must emulate our Savior to the extent possible by fallible, fallen humans including following him into the waters of baptism.

Indeed, one cannot find anything in Mormonism that is incompatible with Biblical text. Admittedly, in some important cases our doctrines rely on a different understanding of Biblical text than has arisen in the post Nicean Creed world. But if one puts off the extra-Biblical traditions of Nice and focuses entirely on the text of the Bible, one finds nothing in mormonism incompatible with the text. In some cases, our beliefs go beyond what is in the Bible, but they do not contradict perfectly legitimate readings of the Bibles.

Mormonism teaches that God is not the only deity and that we all have the potential of becoming gods. (Ibid., p. 576.) (Remember that Satan's fall came about because he wanted to be like God.) God, according to Mormons, is not just Spirit but has "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man's." (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22.) They teach, "As we are, he was. As he is, we shall become." (Joseph Smith, "The King Follett Discourse," p. 9.) There has been constant revision of Mormon doctrine over the years, as church leaders have changed their minds on a number of subjects including polygamy, which was once sanctioned by the church.

In summary, the Mormon church is a prosperous, growing organization that has produced many people of exemplary character. But when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth.

Why don't you believe the Bible? Paul clearly tells us we are children of God and if His children, then joint heirs with Christ. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17).

What do you think a joint heir is? What do you think it means to be an heir of God? Do not heirs receive what their Father has? Cannot an infinite God impart to us without being at all diminished Himself?

And if the entire Bible points us toward the death and resurrection of Christ, if it was important for him to show his body to his disciples and to eat with them, why the desire to dispose of that body later? The bible does not teach us that God and Christ have no body. Indeed, the Bible contains multiple, post-crucifixion and post-resurrection accounts of the Savior showing himself to His faithful followers. In each case He was embodied. And showing His body was crucial to proving who he was. Christians look forward to the Savior's second coming when He will rule and reign on earth personally. Do we expect he will do so without a body?

No, the disembodied God and Son is not taught by the Bible, but is part of Nicean tradition.

Now, such doctrinal differences have no place on a non-religious discussion board. But your posting of half truths about my beliefs, declaring as fact that the doctrines of the LDS church are "wrong" in such a forum is highly offensive.

I do not religiously proselyte in these forumns. I do not attack nor much even mention the doctrines of other faiths.

But I certainly won't let lies, lies through omission, half truths, and such offensive conduct go unanswered.

Charles

 

[Logan 5]

If a Catholic 15 years ago broke down and used birth control and still went to mass, nobody cared. 10 hail Mary's and your good.

I am not Catholic. But from what I know about the Catholic from when I went there and checked out converting to...let’s just say I have a lot worse to say in a lot shorter post about them. So let’s not cover Catholics, ok?

If a Hindu person broke down and had a burger, not a big deal, happens often. Nbd.

I’m not Hindu.

If a Jewish guy doesn't give 33 percent to god, nobody even blinks.

I’m not Jewish. I did check them out briefly, but found they were less accepting of converts than even Muslums. Go figure that one out.

Yet an LDS person breaks down and has a couple drinks on the weekend and still goes to church and tries to make themselves better however they can and everybody loses their minds.

I was Mormon for a long time. And that, I feel, gives me justification to speak openly in criticism about them.

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

A matter of opinion, clearly. But truly irrelevant right now.

Good point .. at least I'm consistent !

MY GAWD!!!! You actually agree with me?!?!?!
What the hell did I do wrong this time?

I've lived from California to Massachusetts, Illinois to Virginia, and traveled all over this big, beautiful nation and bit of the world. What I've found is that people differ a lot less than we think.

I have never been fortunate to go to even Canada or Mexico, though I used to live in California (do they still qualify as a separate country? And in a good part of the US as well.

I must say the best place I ever lived, not counting the stupid laws, was clearly California. The people I met were all totally cool. And somehow the women just seemed far more attractive than those elsewhere (or is my fond memory of David Lee Roth’s “California Girls” video still haunting me?). Hmmm....

In Ferguson, the vast majority of rioters and other criminals were and are black. In Peru, the vast majority of crime is committed by...wait for it....Hispanics. Strange coincidence? Only to someone too dense to understand anything of freshman statistics. Would I expect anyone other than Hispanics to make up the majority of any group in an area that is 90+ Hispanic? Anyone who drew any conclusions about blacks generally based on Ferguson would be rightly called a bigot.

I won’t say that at all. I think that Ferguson was certainly an important issue, but while I support the protests (even though I think that Wilson is innocent), the vandalizing and looting was only an act committed by anarchist human trash.

To point out that most businesses in Utah are owned by members of the LDS church is about as insightful and useful and pointing out that most businesses in Peru are owned by Hispanics most of whom happen to be Catholic.

I am not saying that. I am saying, however, that of all of the bigot-businesses I have encountered in Utah and literally EVERY state I have been to, the majority ARE owned by Mormons. Is that attacking the church? Not really. Just something I also see in other churches- people are so spiritual and clean on Sunday, then the rest of the week they act like “Satan Spawn”. Ok, a bit extreme in description. However, true spirirual cleanliness is not a one or two day a week thing. It’s a 24/7/365 deal.

What mostly leaves me scratching my head is what point you're making here.

I’ll get to that.

First and foremost, the LDS Church has been very clear the last 10 or so years. Excepting their own security personnel, they don't want private citizens carrying guns into their houses of worship. Whether one holds the priesthood or not makes no difference. I posted the policy from the General Handbook of Instruction. And the law is clear.

Funny how I can go through both vol. 1 & vol. 2 of the GHO and point out so many inconsistencies and violations made by so many different levels of LDS leadership...not to mention the members themselves. But the members are not the issue.

As for married Baptist women and homosexuals, I have no idea what point you're making.

If you didn’t understand what I said then I guess I can’t help you much further with that. Sorry.

I've never heard of any such discussion among LDS congregations and I've spent at least as much time serving in leadership positions and attending various leadership meetings over the last 20 years as I've spent not in such positions and meetings.

I have- last one was the LDS priesthood meeting in Colorado Frisco Chapel back in 2010 (and it wasn't the first time, either). I was invited to church by a man I know in that ward (he lives & works in Silverthorne). Unless the “security precaution/training” they took was truly done to intimidate me. Which has me baffled as I have never posed as a threat to the LDS (though I have had a few altercations, one with a stake president that called my then-wife a “call girl from Vegas” and another time when LDS missionaries from the Colorado Vail ward harassed a next door neighbor into tears and a couple neighbors and myself physically escorted them to their car with a firm warning of what will happen if they come back). Does that bother the Mormons? Then...do...not...invite...me.

Or like the time I hitched a ride from Leadville to the Frisco Ward once with a young Mormon couple that kept inquiring about my income, and repeatedly ignored my request to stop their car and let me out (technically that is very illegal, but not the bishopric didn't seem to give a hoot). And having to put up with that from Fremont Pass to Frisco, makes me want to puke. I have tales, buddy! I have TRUE tales! Does that bother the Mormons? Is it my response to their behavior that bothers them, or the truth?

In contrast, under a proper holding of the 2nd amendment (and the courts have not yet fully done this), guns could be banned only under the strictest of needs. The government would have to show a compelling reason AND demonstrate that the banning of guns was the least restrictive means of achieving those compelling needs.

I agree 10,000%.

But, and this is key, I've spent nearly 20 years working on RKBA in Utah with the very successful theory that we only need 2 things in order to work together on RKBA:

1-Agreement on RKBA.

2-Mutual respect on areas where we don't agree.

Businesses and anti-discrimination comes up only in the sense of how gun owners ought to react to "no gun" signs. Are they tantamount to "No Irish" or "No Coloreds" signs? Or are they more like "No shirts, no shoes, no service" signs?

Thank you for your work.

It was only about 110 years ago that the LDS church was nearly bankrupt and in danger of losing its property including its temples. To LDS, temples are not merely property, but are essential for administration of sacraments. Unlike a business or investment, temples do not generate income, but require constant money to maintain them. Have you any idea the monthly electric bill for a single, large temple like Jordan River (almost 150,000 square feet) or Salt Lake (over 250,000 square feet)? No wonder then, that the LDS Church maintains cash reserves that might seem excessive to some.

IMO this country’s financial woes would be far less if the only property that churches didn’t have to pay taxes on was the chapel and temple. Everything else taxed normally. IMO.

You're entitled to whatever opinion you like. But decent men give some regard to what others hold sacred.

THAT is the point I was trying to make. How can I or anyone have any regard for what others hold sacred when those that allege to hold such stuff sacred truly themselves do not act as if they hold it sacred? How can a Mormon priesthood holder justify partaking of the sacrament or hold a temple recommend when he knowingly breaks the law and/or disregards the very tenets set forth by the First Presidency? THAT is what I’m trying to point out. If it’s so sacred, why don’t they obey it and honor it? If they want others to respect it, why don’t they respect it?

We in the gun community often claim to subscribe to Heinlein's belief that "an armed society is a polite society." Do we really believe and live that? Or do we think it is limited only to not engaging in crime? Read the rest of that quote and it is clear that Heinlein was not limiting himself to just crime, but to the totality of our conduct and words.

I have always thought that was John Wayne. IIRC wasn’t it in “True Grit” with Kim darby (I’m in love with her still to this day!) and Glen Campbell? Maybe I’m wrong, I dunno.
I’m still in love with Kim, though!

Yes. My mistake and my apologies.

No problem, we all make mistakes (Mormons included! )

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.

IMO the best answer for dealing with MAD Moms is a few cases of Motrin and some beer. But then I digress....

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

No problem, I was a bit hot at the time, so my apologies to one and all for that (except Primus. I will never apologize to him).

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

Salvation for a dollar. Havn’t you been to church lately? ROFL!

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.

Agreed.

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.

Dude, chill out. It is not bigotry itself that you are hearing, but lack of understand or simple discontent. You’ll see bigotry when it’s men in bedsheets burning crosses.

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.

Some of them are attacks, yes. I only speak what I know to be factual first hand. So I hope you are not including me in the bigot picture.

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.

Except...originally wasn’t the LDS a true communist church/colony? Private ownership was a minimum, and the community as a while owned everything...? IIRC that’s what I learned when I was there. So I’m baffled how they can profess to be Republican. I have asked Mormon friends about this and they tell me because it’s the closest to their real political beliefs than any other political group. Which, as a Republican, scares the hell out of me.

It is clear you just can't fix stupid.

But you can duct tape it (courtesy of Larry the Cable Guy)!

But among LDS, Catholic, Jewish, and various Protestant services, I've never seen anything but positive.

You and I clearly disagree.

I do not religiously proselyte in these forumns. I do not attack nor much even mention the doctrines of other faiths.

That is something I respect about you, actually.

 

[J_dazzle23]

THAT is the point I was trying to make. How can I or anyone have any regard for what others hold sacred when those that allege to hold such stuff sacred truly themselves do not act as if they hold it sacred? How can a Mormon priesthood holder justify partaking of the sacrament or hold a temple recommend when he knowingly breaks the law and/or disregards the very tenets set forth by the First Presidency? THAT is what I’m trying to point out. If it’s so sacred, why don’t they obey it and honor it? If they want others to respect it, why don’t they respect it?

Here we go...... The point you are trying to make about what others hold sacred. I'm going to disassemble this again, since I must not have been clear the first time. I hope you don't mistake this as personally attacking you, but as an individual that has traveled, belonged to more than one and no church at times in my life, I get quite tired debunking this often - perpetuated misconception.

1. You are talking to people PERSONALLY in this board, not in a general manner, so for you to presume to know what our actions are in our daily lives, or what we hold sacred, is extremely short-sighted.

2. I understand exactly the burr under your saddle, from personal experience. You do not appreciate seeing specific people in the LDS church partake in sacrements on sunday, then knowingly break some of the rules and disregard what happened on sunday. Yet here is the fallicy. First, find me a church or religion where people obey exactly the precepts taught. I won't hold my breath. Secondly, again, church is for sinners. We are all imperfect. That is why *the vast majority* attend Sunday services. Thirdly, if you are familiar with some of the covenants made as you develop your faith, you would know that the church specifically condemns those that mock the lord by breaking the promises made to live a righteous life, which without me getting into details, are very specific.

Lastly, I am sorry to hear that you have seen human error in this church and observed people making mistakes that you do not agree with. And yet, having attended church services in many areas across the globe, I firsthand can assure you this is the minority (Sunday mormons, if you will).

Trying to discredit what many hold sacred (4th largest christian sect in the U.S.) based on the actions of the few you mentioned is alarmingly similar to characterizing all gun owners based on the actions of Adam lanza and other violent sociopaths.(or the couple of people in Chicago daily, for that matter)



If you have made it this far without wanting to rip my head off through the internet, I'll thank you for following and add one last sincere thought.

I have been guilty of the EXACT same thoughts you have expressed here, especially when I found that I did not fit the mold of some LDS church members I knew. I certainly have not been active in this church my whole life, and have seen both sides of the coin. I have literally had to work through very similar issues you have mentioned.

I don't presume to think you should be a part of this church, or to tell you what you should believe. But I do feel strongly that you may want to reconsider how you feel about this organization as a whole, as well as the general membership and what they hold dear as sacred religious tenants. If you truly want some honest feedback and an open objective discussion comparing notes and experiences of the sort, and some honest feedback as to how I approached these concerns, please don't hesitate to PM me. I certainly am not offering to shove any beliefs down your throat.

lastly, the church does not officially, or unnofficially (afaik) profess one political party or another. In fact, every election year it publicly makes it very clear that the church organization does not subscribe to a political party.

 

[Logan 5]

Here we go...... The point you are trying to make about what others hold sacred. I'm going to disassemble this again, since I must not have been clear the first time. I hope you don't mistake this as personally attacking you, but as an individual that has traveled, belonged to more than one and no church at times in my life, I get quite tired debunking this often - perpetuated misconception.

1. You are talking to people PERSONALLY in this board, not in a general manner, so for you to presume to know what our actions are in our daily lives, or what we hold sacred, is extremely short-sighted.

2. I understand exactly the burr under your saddle, from personal experience. You do not appreciate seeing specific people in the LDS church partake in sacrements on sunday, then knowingly break some of the rules and disregard what happened on sunday. Yet here is the fallicy. First, find me a church or religion where people obey exactly the precepts taught. I won't hold my breath. Secondly, again, church is for sinners. We are all imperfect. That is why *the vast majority* attend Sunday services. Thirdly, if you are familiar with some of the covenants made as you develop your faith, you would know that the church specifically condemns those that mock the lord by breaking the promises made to live a righteous life, which without me getting into details, are very specific.

Lastly, I am sorry to hear that you have seen human error in this church and observed people making mistakes that you do not agree with. And yet, having attended church services in many areas across the globe, I firsthand can assure you this is the minority (Sunday mormons, if you will).

Trying to discredit what many hold sacred (4th largest christian sect in the U.S.) based on the actions of the few you mentioned is alarmingly similar to characterizing all gun owners based on the actions of Adam lanza and other violent sociopaths.(or the couple of people in Chicago daily, for that matter)



If you have made it this far without wanting to rip my head off through the internet, I'll thank you for following and add one last sincere thought.

I have been guilty of the EXACT same thoughts you have expressed here, especially when I found that I did not fit the mold of some LDS church members I knew. I certainly have not been active in this church my whole life, and have seen both sides of the coin. I have literally had to work through very similar issues you have mentioned.

I don't presume to think you should be a part of this church, or to tell you what you should believe. But I do feel strongly that you may want to reconsider how you feel about this organization as a whole, as well as the general membership and what they hold dear as sacred religious tenants. If you truly want some honest feedback and an open objective discussion comparing notes and experiences of the sort, and some honest feedback as to how I approached these concerns, please don't hesitate to PM me. I certainly am not offering to shove any beliefs down your throat.

lastly, the church does not officially, or unnofficially (afaik) profess one political party or another. In fact, every election year it publicly makes it very clear that the church organization does not subscribe to a political party.

Thank you for your reply. However, I see that you in serious error.

The issue is not, originally, my disgust for the LDS. The church earned my hatred very well. As a whole. Even then I firmly support the right of them to be a church, and attend meetings and what-not. You wanna be a Mormon? Be a Mormon. The first Amendment ain't just for Christians, but others as well, ranging from Mormon to Catholic to Satanic and even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I once gave my oath to fight to protect that right, and such as I will no matter how much I dislike them.

However....the issue originally is the church's request for no firearms. If they say no guns, then so be it. But just as people respect the LDS wishes, they should have the same respect for businesses as well. If others wish to do a long-arm entry into an LDS chapel because they disagree with that request just as they have businesses, then so be it. They'll be in for a world of hurt, guaranteed.

In short a church's wishes should be respected just as much as a business' wishes. And vice versa. THAT IS MY POINT. and if you look throughout every gosh darned pot I have made on this subject you'll see I have yet to deviate from it.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Thank you for your reply. However, I see that you in serious error.

The issue is not, originally, my disgust for the LDS. The church earned my hatred very well. As a whole. Even then I firmly support the right of them to be a church, and attend meetings and what-not. You wanna be a Mormon? Be a Mormon. The first Amendment ain't just for Christians, but others as well, ranging from Mormon to Catholic to Satanic and even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I once gave my oath to fight to protect that right, and such as I will no matter how much I dislike them.

However....the issue originally is the church's request for no firearms. If they say no guns, then so be it. But just as people respect the LDS wishes, they should have the same respect for businesses as well. If others wish to do a long-arm entry into an LDS chapel because they disagree with that request just as they have businesses, then so be it. They'll be in for a world of hurt, guaranteed.

In short a church's wishes should be respected just as much as a business' wishes. And vice versa. THAT IS MY POINT. and if you look throughout every gosh darned pot I have made on this subject you'll see I have yet to deviate from it.

Agreed, only there is one piece of this I would alter. I would feel that a church should actually be MORE protected than actually business, which is typically the case in the US.

That being said, I agree. You also insinuated that you were either an LEO or are a vet. I'd thank you for either.

 

[Logan 5]

Agreed, only there is one piece of this I would alter. I would feel that a church should actually be MORE protected than actually business, which is typically the case in the US.

That being said, I agree.

Ok, settled. We agree that we disagree. That works.

You also insinuated that you were either an LEO or are a vet. I'd thank you for either.

I was in the army for a short bit, but I never served in combat.

But calling me a cop....dude them's fighting words!
Volunteer firefighter, used to be.
13-1/2 years total in emergency response. Mostly volly, but some paid FF. Years ago when I wasn't a lard** like I am now.


BTW, you're welcome.

 

[OC for ME]

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?"

To ensure context is maintained.

No matter your opinion on the faith(which I think is a bit hypocritical in your copy/paste at the end, as the Catholic Church among many others seem to change doctrine quite frequently at the whims of politics, but I digress...you are correct. We don't like the policy, but have a choice to make.

I made no comment on the "faith." We are not discussing the Roman Catholic Church's policy on the carry of guns in church but the LDS policy.

My point in this, quite honestly, has nothing to do with the "who" so to speak. I don't care if it is a church or a business or a home, I WANT these private non-governmental institutions to be able to pick and choose who they allow in the front door by any standard not protected by civil rights laws. I feel this is a freedom nearly, if not as important as RKBA.

I addressed this.

I don't mind everyone here disagreeing with the policy of this organization, in fact, I welcome and expect it, as it leaves us all scratching our heads. What raises the hair on the back of my neck is the statement that any private party is "infringing on our rights" by simply exercising theirs. As much as we don't like it, we all know this to be true. The bill of rights was set forth to protect the government from violating out freedoms, not to give us a card-carrying excuse to do as we please on anyone else's property. No one would complain that their freedom of speech was being infringed by vulgarity being censored on this site, or if I did not let someone in my home simply because I don't like the way they look.

I addressed this also. Read my initial post.

As far as the MMM, I don't know if this makes a difference in your opinion, but in a us history university level course at Montana state university, the brief attention they gave to MMM in the text reflected basically what Charles noted. For what it's worth. Honestly held comment, on my part.

Please do not drag me into the LDS bashing discussion. I did not and will not cast the first stone.

I don't have much of any problem with what you have said, but others in this thread have nearly made it impossible for the rest of us to have a thoughtful and appropriate discussion.

Again, address those folks directly.

The policy is what it is and could be changed if enough LDS members desired it to be changed. The "accept it and live with it" position just because it is the church seems to me to be a contradiction, hypocritical to a certain degree, when "we" regularly pressure other private entities to change their policy or we boycott them. Why does the LDS warrant a pass?

 

[davidmcbeth]

If a Catholic 15 years ago broke down and used birth control and still went to mass, nobody cared. 10 hail Mary's and your good.

<snip>.

Sins against the Holy Spirit? Jesus cannot absolve those.

Abortion? Say 1 million Hail Marys -- will not matter.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Sins against the Holy Spirit? Jesus cannot absolve those.

Abortion? Say 1 million Hail Marys -- will not matter.

Fairly big and also pointless strawman, though.

 

[J_dazzle23]

The policy is what it is and could be changed if enough LDS members desired it to be changed. The "accept it and live with it" position just because it is the church seems to me to be a contradiction, hypocritical to a certain degree, when "we" regularly pressure other private entities to change their policy or we boycott them. Why does the LDS warrant a pass?

I have not seen anyone here say that they agree with the policy, or it doesn't deserve us trying to get it changed. On the contrary, many people (most of us from a utah specific forum) in this thread have actively participated in pushing forth a change to this rule, as has been stated in this thread.

I am certainly not advocating a "pass" or "accept it and live with it."

 

[OC for ME]

... 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. ... Charles

For context.

I have not seen anyone here say that they agree with the policy, or it doesn't deserve us trying to get it changed. On the contrary, many people (most of us from a Utah specific forum) in this thread have actively participated in pushing forth a change to this rule, as has been stated in this thread.

I am certainly not advocating a "pass" or "accept it and live with it."

Not all, obviously, hold a similar position as you do.

I get it, some want it changed, others do not, and still others likely do not care one way or the other. This policy has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with a anti-liberty (in the name of safety) stance on guns.

Exercising your 1A, while being denied your 2A, and continuing to support the LDS...OK.

It will be interesting to read about the efforts to repeal the anti-liberty no gun policy in the local Utah papers. It will be interesting to read the LDSs' response to those who call for a repeal of the no gun policy.

Side question: Does anyone carry anyway?

 

[J_dazzle23]

For context.

Not all, obviously, hold a similar position as you do.

I get it, some want it changed, others do not, and still others likely do not care one way or the other. This policy has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with a anti-liberty (in the name of safety) stance on guns.

Exercising your 1A, while being denied your 2A, and continuing to support the LDS...OK.

It will be interesting to read about the efforts to repeal the anti-liberty no gun policy in the local Utah papers. It will be interesting to read the LDSs' response to those who call for a repeal of the no gun policy.

Side question: Does anyone carry anyway?

Charles may be able to provide you some links. he has done the most here to get policy changed. Over at ucc we had a large petition and letter (s) sent as well.

 

[utbagpiper]

You are calling everyone a bigot today? Well, as a point of history...who did order the murders and where is your proof? If you cannot name a person then you have to concede that Young could have been the one that did. It seems more likely than not that he did order the murders to me.

Go away troll. You're too ignorant and stupid to even understand the physical limits that make your preferred case untenable.

Charles