No guns allowed in our chapels (LDS).

[OC for ME]

...And if you want to label the LDS Church "anti-liberty" you might as well know that their gun policy is the least intrusive policy they maintain. They don't care for alcohol, lit candles, or Halloween costumes with masks in their buildings either. In fact, I admit to drinking a little alcohol, not believing in modern prophets, or have sex with anyone other than my wife, they won't let me enter their temples at all. I would still be welcomed in regular church buildings for Sunday services and other activities. But I might well be excommunicated for certain private conduct in my own home that the church finds disagreeable. That is all far more intrusive than being asked not to bring a gun into a church.

But, I guess we all have our own limits of what it is that we think infringes our liberties.

Charles

I believe that God given rights trump church policy, though I will not push the issue and will abide by the requirements of my church if my preacher changes his position. Liberty demands that I respect that decision. I will make my choice then if that comes to pass, a tough decision to be sure. Would my church then be anti-liberty, yes.

I extend my highest level of respect to you Sir.

Be well and my God bless you and yours.

 

[utbagpiper]

Holy cow. I came back to see this post after being gone for awhile and found a whole crap storm fell out of the sky on this topic. ...

I won't go into many specifics, but I will say that the church policies regarding firearms on their property are not inspired by, given or handed down by our father in heaven. These are the policies and guidelines of men, and those are derived from how men of authority and power within the institution interpret the irrational fears of other men and women in our society.

....

This is just how I feel, and this is how I see it. It makes me sad to see how society is becoming and how our rights and freedoms are slowly being stripped away day by day and year by year, and it is the self-righteous and powerful who will bring about the ultimate destruction in the end of days.

And just to be clear, when I write of what some hold sacred, I was referring to the building or sanctuary itself, not to any particular policy, nor even denomination.

I'm pretty sure the local Catholic Church also bans guns. I wouldn't dare presume to try to determine whether that policy derives from Catholic doctrines or something less divine. I know Jews are generally prohibited, as a matter of keeping Kosher, from carrying weapons on the Sabbath. I don't know what effect that might have on gentiles attending their services. And let's just say I won't be the least bit surprised to someday learn with absolute knowledge that the current LDS gun policy was not derived from any doctrine or revelation. (Of course, nor will I be shaken if I somehow learn it was revelation. After all, God's ways are not my ways and I don't presume to know His reasoning.)

But if a church has a stated policy, I intend to obey it, one way or another, out of simple respect for what others consider to be holy ground.

Note that the National Park Service takes measures to let people know of American Indian beliefs regarding certain natural arches in Utah. These arches are on public land and it is our right to access them. But many, of out respect for American Indian religious beliefs will limit where they go and what they do to avoid or limit giving offense. It is just good manners to the extent possible, even on public land.

Within private religious property, not even a question, in my mind.

This contrasts with business property where I have no qualms about adding lawful possession of guns to the ever growing list of reasons or traits for which businesses cannot discriminate.

Charles

 

[NewZealandAmerican]

Holy cow. I came back to see this post after being gone for awhile and found a whole crap storm fell out of the sky on this topic. I wanted to clarify in response that I have been inactive ever since my divorce years ago and have not set foot inside of a church in quite some time. I'm not worried about getting charged for carrying inside of one because I will never go in one again.

That being said, I still have my faith in the religion, but my confidence and faith in the institution is lost. I won't go into many specifics, but I will say that the church policies regarding firearms on their property are not inspired by, given or handed down by our father in heaven. These are the policies and guidelines of men, and those are derived from how men of authority and power within the institution interpret the irrational fears of other men and women in our society. The fact that police can carry there and not another law-abiding righteous person is strictly discriminatory, as the only difference between one rational person and the other is a uniform and a badge that grants him/her special privileges and rights. God does not operate this way. He looks upon the heart and the soul of a man. For you to even insinuate that the church policy on firearms in their houses of worship comes from a divine source such as God is questionable at the very least.

In all of the bible and Book of Mormon, and throughout all of recorded history, all of the religious leaders and their followers were armed to the teeth with sword and garb. To say now that, all of a sudden, it is unholy or disrespectful or improper to carry a "lethal" weapon into a house of worship makes my head spin. I am deeply sorry that this view may offend some men of the faith. I do not mean this as a disrespect or a jab. This is just how I feel, and this is how I see it. It makes me sad to see how society is becoming and how our rights and freedoms are slowly being stripped away day by day and year by year, and it is the self-righteous and powerful who will bring about the ultimate destruction in the end of days.

Sincerely,

Kevin

G'day Kevin! This is also my sentiment how I feel about the church's policy on guns not allowed in chapels and I despise it, but I also choose to abide by it as a member of the church who sustains my leadership and exercises to the best of my ability my faith in God and my savior Jesus Christ and BTW I am blown away by how big my thread has gotten. I don't think I have ever had a thread I started exceed 20 posts Thankyou to all who have participated and put some good thought into your posts and a special shout out to UTBagPiper for your eloquence in explaining and expressing things articulately!

 

[LovesHisXD45]

G'day Kevin! This is also my sentiment how I feel about the church's policy on guns not allowed in chapels and I despise it, but I also choose to abide by it as a member of the church who sustains my leadership and exercises to the best of my ability my faith in God and my savior Jesus Christ and BTW I am blown away by how big my thread has gotten. I don't think I have ever had a thread I started exceed 20 posts Thankyou to all who have participated and put some good thought into your posts and a special shout out to UTBagPiper for your eloquence in explaining and expressing things articulately!

+1
I also wish to acknowledge the professional and rational response and explanation given by Charles relating to my posts. I am glad that we can discuss such a highly- debated topic and stay professional at the same time.

 

[Logan 5]

But you might consider on whether what you are typing is advancing the goals of a pro-RKBA forumn, or hindering them by creating divisions among folks would otherwise be perfectly happy to work together.

I fail to see how I am creating divisions. On the other hand, I also fail to see how it furthers the RKBA goals when RKBA supporters take long arms into a Starbucks. If that cup of coffee really scares ya that much, by all means, don’t go in there! But I assure you that in a Starbucks or even a Target if someone draws down on you, you will not respond in a safe & timely manner with the long arm displayed in manner it has been. I could out shoot you with a slingshot under those conditions.

And you inability to find much good to say about any religion might suggest something wrong with you, rather than everyone else. After all, hundreds of millions of persons find fellowship, comfort, and a closeness to deity among the various religions you've listed and lambasted. As I heard someone once say, "The one common denominator in all your prior, failed relationships is...YOU."

Food for thought.

I've also noticed that our own perception greatly colors our reality. I think the more accurate description of your experience is that all of the business owners who engaged in conduct you didn't personally like happened to be LDS or active in some other religion. I suspect this means that business owners who are not active in church are more likely to behave in ways you find agreeable.

While I agree with the first part of this, I do not agree with the last part. But that really is not the issue.

On the other hand, would you consider it bigoted for a business owner to decline to provide services to a payday lender business (they prey on the poor, you know), or to a multi-level-marketing company (all dishonest crooks, I'm told), or to any herbal supplement company (snake oil not regulated by the FDA)?

Nope.

On yet the third hand, I find that sometimes we are prone to hold folks to very different standards based on who they are. We recognize that business can be cutthroat and accept that most businessmen will behave in ways that we might find morally troubling. But if a businessman does that and he happens to be a churchgoer, we come down much harder on him because he is now not just a ruthless businessman, but also a hypocrite.

Yes the business world is pretty much a dog-eat dog world. I know that. I only hold people to the very same standards they advertise that they hold themselves to.

I recall the old story about the fellow who stopped in a small town and told a local man, "I've got to move and am considering this town. What can you tell me about the people here." The local said, "Well, tell me about your current neighbors." The visitor replied, "Best people in the world. Give you the shirt off their back if you needed it. I hate to leave them, but work compels me to move." The local man said, "I think you'll find the folks here are every bit as nice as your current neighbors and you'll very much enjoy living here if you choose to make this your new home."

A short time later another man stopped in the same small town and talked to the same local. He had a similar story, "I've got move and am considering this town. What can you tell me about the people here." Once again the local said, "Well, tell me about your current neighbors." The visitor replied, "Nasty terrible people. I can't wait to move away from them." The local man shook his head and frowned, "I'm sorry to tell you this, but I'm afraid you'll find the folks here are just as unpleasant as your current neighbors. I'd suggest you look for a better place to relocate."

And that is very true, though there are exceptions. I have kept a list of all of my travels in my previous career field, and I found I have relocated about 120 times in 27 years. That comes to an average of 2.7 months per location. Though some really were as short as 2-1/2 weeks to as long as 4-1/2 years and 95+% of those were small towns. So for the most part I have to agree with what you said, however I found that there are exceptions.

And what property besides churches and temples do you think churches don't pay taxes on?

Ranches, farms, camps, and the like as they are church properties (and I am not being specific to the LDS on that either as there are other churches that have those, too).

I guess some folks are just not as righteous as you are.

That is inappropriate and uncalled for. In this exchange we have had I made NO jabs at you personally. We can discuss this like adults without having to make personal comments like that. If you feel that I have made those, please point them out so I can see the error of my ways and duly apologize.

I guess I shouldn't be too hard on you since even many active LDS have a hard time clearly explaining the difference between the LDS "Law of Consecration" or "United Order" and communism/socialism.

Ah, the United Order. IIRC they still have a really nice colony over in Eskdale Utah. Fine people, they are.

Now, would you care to drop the religious discussion and get back to RKBA where our agreement is likely to be much larger?

Reflecting on the previous comment, you have no need to explain anything. This is not an attack on the LDS church, but instead on the stupid idea that churches should have privileges that businesses do not. I brought up the LDS and their standards because it was brought up several times about respecting what they consider sacred.

But I ask again, but what reason should non-Mormons respect what the Mormons consider sacred when even the Mormons don’t adhere to their own principles? I don’t care how you cut it. Your church has standards they want respected. Then they need to honor them as well. If they cannot honor them, then do not expect non-Mormons to.

 

[utbagpiper]

I fail to see how I am creating divisions.

Religion is one of the topics always likely to create divisions. And since it is, by definition, based on personal beliefs and faith, no one can point to objective facts. It is a topic best avoided except in forums where everyone is present specifically to discuss it.

On the other hand, I also fail to see how it furthers the RKBA goals when RKBA supporters take long arms into a Starbucks.

I don't disagree if those guns are unwelcome.

I know that. I only hold people to the very same standards they advertise that they hold themselves to.

Then you need to always bear in mind that every Christian denomination of which I'm aware also holds a basic tenet that we are all imperfect, we are fallen, we sin, we make mistakes.

For some, the only way to avoid charges of hypocrisy is to have no standards at all. Lazy men with no desire to improve take that course.

Better men will strive for a standard they know they won't perfectly achieve. While there are hypocrites, to beat up every man who fails to adhere to his advertised standards is an unjust standard of itself.

That is inappropriate and uncalled for. In this exchange we have had I made NO jabs at you personally. We can discuss this like adults without having to make personal comments like that. If you feel that I have made those, please point them out so I can see the error of my ways and duly apologize.

My apologies if you took it as a personal jab. Not my intent. But something about "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" comes into my mind. As does, "first cast the beam out of your own eye and they will see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother's eye." If you wish to criticize men of faith for failing to live up to their standards, you either better be living up perfectly to equally challenging standards, or demonstrate why their conduct is hypocrisy rather than honest failings as they strive to improve.

Ranches, farms, camps, and the like as they are church properties (and I am not being specific to the LDS on that either as there are other churches that have those, too).

In Utah, I presume the LDS Church owns a lot of land including such properties as you mention here. And as much as they own, I'm certain it is a tiny fraction of the vast tracts owned by the Federal government, kept off tax rolls, and unavailable for any development or much good use at all. Imposing full business taxes on all religiously owned land would do ZERO for the national debt or even the State budget.

But if you're going to go after those properties, don't forget to go after all the property owned by secular charities including concert halls, grand pianos and priceless art, YMCA recreation centers, etc.

Reflecting on the previous comment, you have no need to explain anything. This is not an attack on the LDS church, but instead on the stupid idea that churches should have privileges that businesses do not.

It is not a stupid idea. It is constitutional law. 1st amendment. The idea originated with a bunch of rabble rousers in some English Colonies back around about 1776 and codified for our nation in the early 1790s. Just like firearms ownership and possession has rights not granted to the ownership or possession of alcohol.

I brought up the LDS and their standards because it was brought up several times about respecting what they consider sacred.

But I ask again, but what reason should non-Mormons respect what the Mormons consider sacred when even the Mormons don’t adhere to their own principles? I don’t care how you cut it. Your church has standards they want respected. Then they need to honor them as well. If they cannot honor them, then do not expect non-Mormons to.

And religious people of all stripes tend to consider their houses of worship and other religious sanctuaries as sacred. That some, even many, fail to demonstrate that in a way you personally find appropriate, is entirely irrelevant.

Your understanding of LDS values and conduct is---to be most charitable--"interesting" at best, seriously mistaken in many cases. You are entitled to it. You are not entitled to dictate exactly how others show respect. I show respect to LDS houses of worship by removing my hat when entering. When I enter a Jewish home or synagogue, I am provided a head covering so as to show proper respect. In these two cases, respect is shown in two completely opposite ways. But in both case, respect is shown, and mature, decent men, do their best to show respect in the way that owners/adherents want respect shown.

You are not entitled to judge LDS and then decide that their sanctuaries are not deserving of your respect because you deem LDS not to have shown proper respect themselves. That is arrogance beyond my ability to politely express.

Charles

 

[Logan 5]

For the most part all is good with what you said, even though I will continue to disagree (and I'm tired of the argument).

However....

It is not a stupid idea. It is constitutional law. 1st amendment. The idea originated with a bunch of rabble rousers in some English Colonies back around about 1776 and codified for our nation in the early 1790s. Just like firearms ownership and possession has rights not granted to the ownership or possession of alcohol.

Exactly. The First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So in giving churches more rights than businesses, they are violating the same amendment.

 

[J_dazzle23]

So in giving churches more rights than businesses, they are violating the same amendment.

This is a common misconception, probably due to a difference in speech nowadays.

The first part of that quote is the establishment clause. In making no law respecting religion, the purpose was not to even the playing field between religion and private business, rather, it was to avoid having a religion given priveledge over another religion. I assume this was due to a politically instituted religion in england, or a government sponsored religion. It is not stating that a religion should not have different governing rules than any other organization.

Also, a side note- I just paid much closer attention to your user profile pic- hilarious. LOL. I want the bumper sticker

 

[utbagpiper]

Exactly. The First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

So in giving churches more rights than businesses, they are violating the same amendment.

Nope. The 1st amendment prevents congress from making ANY laws that affect the establishment of a religion. They could neither create a national religion, nor could they prevent the several States from having official State religions. And several States did have official, taxpayer supported churches well after the 1st amendment was adopted. With the adoption of the 14th amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the States, States lost the power to have official State churches. With this, government cannot give preference to one church over another.

Now, move on to the second phrase, "[n]or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. And what is the free exercise of religion? Well, to define that might be to restrict it. And so within the very broadest term possible, government has to keep out of the business of churches.

As the courts have ruled, congress can make it illegal for Joe Random citizen to use Peyote for recreational purposes. But congress must not attempt to punish a Native American who uses Peyote as a sacrament of his religious beliefs.

Congress can force regular businesses to hire, promote, fire, and provide services in a non-discriminator manner. Congress can exercise no such authority over churches or religiously orientated businesses. To do so would impede the free exercise of religion. Catholics only hire men as paid clergy. This is clearly sexual discrimination. But as a doctrinal tenet of their faith, Catholics must be permitted to hire whom they will for clergy without regard to anti-discrimination laws. So says the courts based on clear, 1st amendment requirements.

Churches and religious beliefs and practices HAVE rights that businesses or mere secular beliefs and practices do not have. The constitution recognizes and protects these pre-existing rights just as it does with our RKBA.

Atheists, secularists, and others who are hostile to religion and churches are greatly bothered by this. But it is a fact written into our constitution and recognized by numerous rulings from the highest courts in our land. And if we allow that fact to be ignored or altered through mere social convention or changing mores, rather than through proper, formal constitutional amendment, we risk losing the protections our RKBA enjoys.

Charles

 

[Logan 5]

Actually Charles & J, I agree with you more than you may suspect.
I just have this opinion that if we are going to respect a church's wishes on this matter without boycotting or protesting them, if we can openly accept their decision, why can we not show businesses the same respect.

In fact, I am willing to bet there's a good percentage of the businesses that have said "no firearms" that would be on our side had a few loose cannons hadn't tried shoving it down their throat.

 

[utbagpiper]

Actually Charles & J, I agree with you more than you may suspect.
I just have this opinion that if we are going to respect a church's wishes on this matter without boycotting or protesting them, if we can openly accept their decision, why can we not show businesses the same respect.

In fact, I am willing to bet there's a good percentage of the businesses that have said "no firearms" that would be on our side had a few loose cannons hadn't tried shoving it down their throat.

Again, a business is not a church and I don't feel the least bit compelled to show the same deference level to a business as I do to a church. I will never support any legal requirement for a church to permit guns.

I'm more than happy to see lawful possession of a gun added to the ever growing list of reasons for which a business can't discriminate. In fact, if we see Utah law ever changed to force business owners to provide services and goods to homosexual events despite the owners' deep moral objections to promoting or condoning homosexual conduct, you can bet I'll be working to see that lawful possession of guns is in the same bill, given the same protection as male-on-male sodomy.

Now, that doesn't mean I have any intention of being any part of an unwanted rally in a business.

It just means that while I will take time to disarm when visiting a church, out of respect for both the law and the policy, I feel no such compulsion at a business. I might untuck my shirt and casually conceal. Or I might boycott, depending on the degree of hostility to my RKBA. But a business is not a church just like a parking lot is not a burial site. And neither are a private residence. Different degrees of deference for different circumstances.

Sorry if that is hard for anyone to understand. If anyone is offended by churches getting special treatment, tough. I'm every bit as devoted to the 1st amendment as I am the 2nd. Indeed, while the 2nd amendment is primarily a means to defending the 1st amendment (along with life and limb), the 1st amendment is one of the primary reasons we need the 2nd amendment.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

All "churches" are a business.

 

[J_dazzle23]

All "churches" are a business.

please, show me where the LDS church leaders have taken profit dividends from church activities.

Where are the profit sharing reports?

I'm wondering, since I can go buy apple, microsoft, or amazon stock, can you please point me to where I can buy stock in the LDS church?

If that doesn't work, maybe you can show me where the US government classifies churches as businesses.

I get it. Bill Maher has some interesting points. But that's an awfully broad brush you are painting with.

It this was a thread about how a friend of your's nonprofit business didn't allow guns, would you be trying to discredit his nonprofit?

Or would you leave the non-related matters aside and focus on RKBA?

 

[Logan 5]

Wow. Charles, J, you two work hard trying to protect something that needs no protecting. A few folks here including myself express their opinions and you get your nylons in a wad. Seriously. I as well, reflecting on my experience in the LDS, feel it is more of a business than a church. Not just spouting off, either. No one can bring up the church's books for the public to view. They have the books they show the federales, and then they have the real books. Just the way it is. And it happens with a lot of other churches as well, not just the LDS. And I don’t care if it does get your hackles up. Your church is true to you. To me and others it’s a business. To me and others they should not have any more rights than businesses.


And yes Charles, the LDS is a perfect church made up of imperfect people. Just as you said. What you miss is if people held to their standards in nearly every Christian church known to mankind, they'd be perfect as well. A church is only as perfect as the people that go there.

And on those terms, if your church is a true church, then why are they violating AoF 11 & 12? Members, ok. They are imperfect. But leaders? That’s not religious, or hackling on your church, not for it’s prophecy at least. But as I said, and this holds true about any church, what value are they if they cannot keep to the standards they publically announce they believe in?

For those unaware.

Articles of Faith
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

In this discussion and others I have found that Mormons don’t like it when the AoF card is pulled. Hey, it’s not my call. It’s yours. And you getting your hackles up doesn’t scare me one bit. Get your hackles up. Then read AoF 11.

I tried bowing out of this issue because I was feeling pretty crummy with some nasty bug. But I’m better now and there is nothing that pisses me off as well as when a man or woman thinks they’re right just because they’re Mormon.

Myself and a few others stated our opinions that you and J don’t approve of. Ok, that happens. But in this you have gone out and verbally attacked individuals, myself included, without us attacking you. Instead we state our views and you instead attack us. Is there a reason why you think you’re so special? You have been outright abusive of me in particular with what you said and how you said it.

I believe the LDS is a business. And I’m not the only one.

I know for a fact from back when I held the Melchezidek Priesthood I saw leaders pull crap that in any other church would get leaders/pastors removed from their posts at the least and upto excommunicated and criminally charged at the most. But then I know first hand, that means nothing to the leadership. Even in light of AoF 12. One of the reasons why I left. I may not have been a perfect Mormon, but I held to the AoF and the Word of Wisdom like the laws of gravity.

As for the comment you made that was direct and unfair, I don't have a problem with churches in general. If I don't like the Word the pastor preaches, then I ain't going. Period. The fun part of being a Christian is that we can go to whatever Christian church we want and not get in trouble. LDS, they shove down your throat which ward of which stake you're in, and that's that. Again, I done been there, homey.

Now let's get this back on topic about the LDS and guns. I think this is something that will never be finished, especially since some of us remember so well how hard the LDS pushed on the Prop. 8 issue. And considering the level of violence in churches now, you'd think they'd welcome guns. What are they going to do if a man pulls out a Mac-9 during sacrament? That is a very real possibility. This is an advantage I feel I have now, because Charles , J, and I (and others that are LDS or former LDS) know the scheduling and layout of services. Not allowing guns is a major mistake. Truly, a person could go in with a small semi-auto (or full auto if they care to convert it), score 20+ kills and walk out. I'm saying 20+ because the real numbers would scare ya.

This can happen in nearly any church. But we're not talking about any other churches. We're talking about LDS. And the other ones (which I don't recall the names of at the moment) as well.

I know from when I was in the LDS the Bishopric was packing. Non-designated elders as well. And yes that was the rule back then as well, no firearms. But they made exceptions, which I feel should be done if they hold to their standard. And don't hide it either. Better to scare the nutjobs away from a possible slaughter than to invite them in using deception.

 

[OC for ME]

please, show me where the LDS church leaders have taken profit dividends from church activities.

Where are the profit sharing reports?

I'm wondering, since I can go buy apple, microsoft, or amazon stock, can you please point me to where I can buy stock in the LDS church?

If that doesn't work, maybe you can show me where the US government classifies churches as businesses.

I get it. Bill Maher has some interesting points. But that's an awfully broad brush you are painting with.

It this was a thread about how a friend of your's nonprofit business didn't allow guns, would you be trying to discredit his nonprofit?

Or would you leave the non-related matters aside and focus on RKBA?

I'll play along...does the LDS have employees, employees that are paid? If not I retract, if so, then the burden is on you, or others, to prove my claim that a church is not a business. Discredit is different than boycott, please do no conflate the two terms.

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations

A church is a "business" under the revenue code that enjoys exemption(s).

The LDS is using to their advantage the power of the state to infringe upon our RKBA. This is squarely on the shoulders of the law, not the LDS. I challenge the policy of LDS, not the LDS as a organiztion or its members.

One post claims that a business is not a church and I claim that a church is a business. The LDS anti-gun policy is no different than any "non-church" business anti-gun policy. Supporting laws that would compel a private entity to recognize our RKBA while giving a pass to another entity, due to their mission statement, is hypocrisy. A very dangerous hypocrisy to be sure.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Wow. Charles, J, you two work hard trying to protect something that needs no protecting. A few folks here including myself express their opinions and you get your nylons in a wad. ....... They have the books they show the federales, and then they have the real books.

It's good that you're understanding what I'm getting at.

You're thought on the matter is an OPINION. Just so we are clear. I'm simply pointing out that by legal definition as well as the sniff test, the LDS church is NOT a business, but a religion. It does not have full time employees for religious services. It contracts out for cleaning and building maintenance services, as well as any other needed PR, security, online security, and other services it needs to fill. It is legally defined at a 501c-3 by the federal government, a non-profit charitable organization. By every LEGAL definition, that I can see, it's not a business.


I don't agree with the policy. NOT ONE bit. But you and I BOTH know a private entity is NOT infringing on our rights to ask us not to bring our guns. The rights infringement is on the government.

I'm not mad at you for your opinion. But if your opinion is that the church has aspects of it that are in many ways similar to a business....yeah that can fly. But to say it IS a business and then cornerstone your whole point off of that incorrect opinion, that does not fly for me. It's not a business by legal definition, or by any measure of the Websters definition of the word. You can have that opinion if you like, just like I can point out its wrong. And don't be suprised if charles gets offended by calling it a business. The definition of a business is an organization started FOR A PROFIT, and in my book if that's not an insult to the follower of said religion, it's walking the line pretty dang close.


If only people hated costco like this.

I'm not here to put you down. You know that. But while you have said we are "protecting something that needs no protecting" then I would reply that for you to say or allude that the church is a profit driven, hoax of a religion(which seems exactly what you are doing), which opinion plays NO PART of RKBA(because truly, the discussion of wether an organization is for profit or not does NOT matter, although there legally IS a difference) it pretty much points to the fact that you

A. Either have a problem with the LDS church that extends far beyond RKBA, that doesn't belong here,

Or

B. You have a problem with organized institutions as a whole.



I'll say it again. I don't agree with the policy, but it's not infringing on a greeny ones rights for a (ok, I won't say religion) PRIVATE ENTITY to not allow firearms on their private property.

^that part applies to RKBA. The other gunk in this thread? We all know it doesnt.

 

[utbagpiper]

I'll play along...does the LDS have employees, employees that are paid? If not I retract, if so, then the burden is on you, or others, to prove my claim that a church is not a business. Discredit is different than boycott, please do no conflate the two terms.

Of course the LDS Church has paid employees. Virtually every church does.

That is not the definition of a business for either legal nor common usage. Those who attempt to diminish churches by calling them businesses are revealing an anti-church bigotry. That has no place here.

And it is upon you to prove your assertion, not upon me to disprove it.

But nice try.

A church is a "business" under the revenue code that enjoys exemption(s).

Show me the code, or give me a link to it. Churches enjoy so many exemptions that to call them a "business" is laughable.

Exemptions from income taxes, from property taxes, from paying social security in many cases, and from all anti-discrimination laws, ADA laws, to exemptions from contraceptive mandates, that it looks like something decidedly different than "a business" especially when contrasted with actual business entities that are owned and operated by the LDS church and are fully subject to all regular business laws as if they were owned and operated by any secular group.

Again, your anti-religious bigotries have no place here. Churches enjoy higher status in this nation than do businesses, just as guns enjoy higher status than other run-of-the-mill personal property. The 1st and 2nd amendments both apply no matter how much mad mommies or religious bigots hate either one. And yes, I do hold both groups in equal contempt.

The LDS is using to their advantage the power of the state to infringe upon our RKBA. This is squarely on the shoulders of the law, not the LDS. I challenge the policy of LDS, not the LDS as a organiztion or its members.

The LDS Church is doing nothing to infringe your RKBA. Their policies affect only the interior of their houses of worship, their sacred ground. You have no reason to enter such a location anyway and so will never be affected by their policy. You are certainly under no legal compulsion to enter. I believe roughly half the States in the union have gun laws that treat churches differently than businesses. The LDS did nothing unique here except to work with gun groups to find a mutually agreeable solution.

The LDS and other Church's anti-gun policy and the laws that provide some force to them is not materially different than the same law applied to every private residence in this State, whose owners/tenants give notice that guns are banned.

If I don't invite you into my home with your gun am I infringing your RKBA? Of course not. You are free to exercise your RKBA on your property and government property. On my property, I can exclude you for any or no reason including the fact I have not use for anti-religious bigots who are too arrogant to stop being offensive in how they refer to what others hold sacred.

One post claims that a business is not a church and I claim that a church is a business. The LDS anti-gun policy is no different than any "non-church" business anti-gun policy. Supporting laws that would compel a private entity to recognize our RKBA while giving a pass to another entity, due to their mission statement, is hypocrisy. A very dangerous hypocrisy to be sure.

There is no hypocrisy in treating two different things differently. Grab a dictionary and look up the actual definitions of hypocrisy. I know that is the favorite charge of anti-religious or anti-LDS bigots to levy. But it doesn't apply here.

The law treats churches and business differently. The law is based on solid constitutional language and multiple court precedence.

You can scream all you want about how you think there is no difference. But sensible men and even legislators and judges understand the clear difference.

The 1st amendment provides protections for the free exercise of religion that are not provided anywhere for business. The same men who penned the 2nd amendment also authored the 1st amendment.

I support an end to all anti-discrimination laws. Let the market rule. But so long as we have anti-discrimination laws, I believe the lawful possession of guns deserves the same level of protection as wearing a pro-homosexual T-Shirt, or any other currently protected category.

So long as you support anti-discrimination laws there is a dangerous hypocrisy in not extending those protections to the lawful possession of firearms to use your own language.

Now, quite trolling and either stay on topic with a gun policy you don't like or let it drop. Claiming "a church is a business" or telling me I need to treat a church the same as a business is off topic and offensive to those of us who hold religion and churches as sacred.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Wow. Charles, J, you two work hard trying to protect something that needs no protecting. A few folks here including myself express their opinions and you get your nylons in a wad

...

I know from when I was in the LDS the Bishopric was packing. Non-designated elders as well. And yes that was the rule back then as well, no firearms. But they made exceptions, which I feel should be done if they hold to their standard. And don't hide it either. Better to scare the nutjobs away from a possible slaughter than to invite them in using deception.

A couple of you have taken to expressing highly bigoted, and offensive opinions about the LDS church that have no place in a pro-RKBA forum. Your posts are no less offensive than if someone came on here talking trash about racial minorities based on badly he was treated by some of them while living in LA or Detroit. Bigotry is bigotry. You are entitled to your opinions and don't care what you think of me, my church, or how that church chooses to operate any more than I care what you think of blacks, Jews, Asians, women, or homosexuals.

But if you choose to express your bigotries in this forum, I will call them what they are.

And I don't care who you think was doing what back when you were a member of the LDS church. The policy on guns has changed from no policy to a ban on the possession of guns by private citizens since that time. LDS Church leadership gets to set and change policies for the LDS Church as they see fit. That is how it works. You've chosen to disassociate from the LDS Church which right I fully support. But having made your decision, the affairs of the LDS church including financial and internal policy are really none of your concern nor business.

If you ever enter an LDS church again, you would do so as an invited guest rather than a member anyway. So you really have no room to complain about policies. If you don't like them, or don't like the terms of any invitation to attend LDS meetings, you are perfectly free to decline.

Everyone on this thread, including myself, has made perfectly clear that we don't much like the anti-gun policy that some churches--including the LDS Church--have chosen to enact in Utah.

But the rational, sane, mature, thinking members of the forum recognize the legal and constitutional rights that churches have in Utah to set such policies.

Now, stop dragging up all your personal baggage with the LDS Church and stay on topic.

If you want to write a letter to the LDS Church expressing your unhappiness with their gun policy, have a ball. Feel free to contact your legislator to express your unhappiness with the statutes that treat churches differently than businesses. Write letters to the editor if you like. These are your rights. Don't think you're going to get any concessions from me, however.

Thoughtful, honest disagreement is fine. But a couple of you have made very clear you are as hateful and bigoted (and just plum nuts) as any sheet wearing klan member could be. That the target of your derision is not race, makes no difference.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

Of course the LDS Church has paid employees. Virtually every church does.

That is not the definition of a business for either legal nor common usage. Those who attempt to diminish churches by calling them businesses are revealing an anti-church bigotry. That has no place here.

And it is upon you to prove your assertion, not upon me to disprove it.

But nice try.I did.

Show me the code, or give me a link to it. Churches enjoy so many exemptions that to call them a "business" is laughable.

Look above for a link to the IRS code.

Exemptions from income taxes, from property taxes, from paying social security in many cases, and from all anti-discrimination laws, ADA laws, to exemptions from contraceptive mandates, that it looks like something decidedly different than "a business" especially when contrasted with actual business entities that are owned and operated by the LDS church and are fully subject to all regular business laws as if they were owned and operated by any secular group.

Chik-fil-a.

Again, your anti-religious bigotries have no place here. Churches enjoy higher status in this nation than do businesses, just as guns enjoy higher status than other run-of-the-mill personal property. The 1st and 2nd amendments both apply no matter how much mad mommies or religious bigots hate either one. And yes, I do hold both groups in equal contempt.

As you wish. You claiming it does not make it so. I have read words such as your from others here on OCDO. Emotional and grasping for straws to support a position that i have no arguments with. The LDS policy is my focus. Insults bely a sensitivity they paints your posts in a new light.

The LDS Church is doing nothing to infringe your RKBA. Their policies affect only the interior of their houses of worship, their sacred ground. You have no reason to enter such a location anyway and so will never be affected by their policy. You are certainly under no legal compulsion to enter. I believe roughly half the States in the union have gun laws that treat churches differently than businesses. The LDS did nothing unique here except to work with gun groups to find a mutually agreeable solution.

Not mine, true. I've addressed that issue.

The LDS and other Church's anti-gun policy and the laws that provide some force to them is not materially different than the same law applied to every private residence in this State, whose owners/tenants give notice that guns are banned.

The LDS is not a private residence. Nice try.

If I don't invite you into my home with your gun am I infringing your RKBA? Of course not. You are free to exercise your RKBA on your property and government property. On my property, I can exclude you for any or no reason including the fact I have not use for anti-religious bigots who are too arrogant to stop being offensive in how they refer to what others hold sacred.

Again, I addressed this issue. It is your prerogative to discard my previous posts.

There is no hypocrisy in treating two different things differently. Grab a dictionary and look up the actual definitions of hypocrisy. I know that is the favorite charge of anti-religious or anti-LDS bigots to levy. But it doesn't apply here.

Careful.

hy·poc·ri·sy noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

If there is armed security in, that is not LE...

The law treats churches and business differently. The law is based on solid constitutional language and multiple court precedence.

You can scream all you want about how you think there is no difference. But sensible men and even legislators and judges understand the clear difference.

The 1st amendment provides protections for the free exercise of religion that are not provided anywhere for business. The same men who penned the 2nd amendment also authored the 1st amendment.

I support an end to all anti-discrimination laws. Let the market rule. But so long as we have anti-discrimination laws, I believe the lawful possession of guns deserves the same level of protection as wearing a pro-homosexual T-Shirt, or any other currently protected category.

So long as you support anti-discrimination laws there is a dangerous hypocrisy in not extending those protections to the lawful possession of firearms to use your own language.

Ramblings of a citizen who see a slight to his faith where none is evident...OK.

Now, quite trolling and either stay on topic with a gun policy you don't like or let it drop. Claiming "a church is a business" or telling me I need to treat a church the same as a business is off topic and offensive to those of us who hold religion and churches as sacred.

Charles

Ah, the last refuge of those who hold a tenuous position...insults. My post in this thread are there for all to read. My respect for you seems to have been misplaced. I'll withdraw from further interaction with you. J_dazzle23 remains reasonable regarding the LDS firearm policy.

 

[J_dazzle23]

I would like to hopefully bring this back on topic.

The LDS church is NOT technically a busines. If you eant to believe otherwise, go for it. Thats fine. But regardless, it is a PRIVATE entity.

Being that it is a PRIVATE entity, is there any violation of rights by them preferring guns stay outside of their chapels?

I think this is the key issue here. There is no violation of rights, regardless of whether it is a business or not.

This whole thing about people throwing wound accusations that it is a for profit business is both a smokescreen and a red herring to the whole arguement, and should be an insult to the intelligence of anyone here, regardless of denomination.

It is absolutely pointless to base a point of view of RKBA on an issue that truly doesn't change the matter.

The only difference is that some of us DO hold this religion in both high regard and as sacred, so when someone drags in an irrelevant detail to make a point in a logical fallicy, it's pretty clear that it's just mud getting thrown to smear an organization that you don't agree with their policy.

Please, correct me if I am wrong. But I have yet to hear anyone insulting costco about anything OTHER than their no gun policy. Why is this church being treated with much more unnecessary critisism?