• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No guns allowed in our chapels (LDS).

Status
Not open for further replies.

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
Can you or anyone else tell me more what you know about this?

The statements made are usually general in nature. And since I don't see such a statement yet that can be verified as legitimate, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

What I know for certain is the requirements set for priesthood holders will be different than those set for members. Those that hold the priesthood are considered, usually, more responsible and trustworthy.

Also, one common position I found with the LDS, from back when I was LDS, is it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission. So let's pretend that you have some whacked out nut job come to church and starts gunning people down. Three shots and the fourth goes right in the whackos head from the Elder's Quorum President's gun. The EQP gets chastised, but because he saved lives he'll be forgiven and admonished on any further infractions. IOW nothing would happen.

In such a situation I wouldn't expect anything to happen. However, they'll pass a statement like this for liability reasons.
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Can you please resend? Looked in my inbox and don't have it. Thanks. Maybe we can get help from all the Utah gun groups and Connor Boyack's "Libertas" organization to get the church's policy changed

Dion

Tried to send it again!

Anyway, if you go to the Utah site you used to be on and use the advanced search for "letter to church leaders" you will find it. One of the pages it links to with have the title starting with "update on" or something similar... go to the first page of that thread!
 

Niland

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2
Location
Oklahoma
No force of law until you refuse to leave, then it becomes tresspassing.

Actually, the law in Utah is written so that a house of worship can submit a notice of intent to prohibit to the BCI and that once notification is received, the prohibition carries the force of law. The LDS church has submitted such a notice.

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

Sorry gents. I think we are stuck, and I disagree with it as much as anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LovesHisXD45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
580
Location
, Utah, USA
76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
(1)A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
(a)transport a firearm into:
(i)a house of worship; or
(ii)a private residence; or
(b)while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
(i)a house of worship; or
(ii)a private residence.
(2)Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
(a)personal communication to the actor by:
(i)the church or organization operating the house of worship;
(ii)the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
(iii)a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);
(b)posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;
(c)announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;
(d)publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or
(e)publication:
(i)in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state; and
(ii)as required in Section 45-1-101.
(3)A church or organization operating a house of worship and giving notice that firearms are prohibited may:
(a)revoke the notice, with or without supersedure, by giving further notice in any manner provided in Subsection (2); and
(b)provide or allow exceptions to the prohibition as the church or organization considers advisable.

This issue has bothered me for years as well. Contradictions about the responsibility to "defend your lives and your property, even unto bloodshed" and the article of faith rattling off "obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" don't exactly agree with one another. Just like fact that the church harbors illegal aliens and supports them financially is not requisite with the requirements of the law. Here is the way I look at it. What they don't know won't hurt them, and if you feel you need to carry a concealed firearm on your person to feel safe while executing your religious duties, then go for it. I don't think our heavenly father is going to hold that one against you. That's just my two cents. At the risk of an "infraction", which is just like a speeding ticket, I would think that your life is worth it should you ever need to deploy lethal force in order to protect it while on church property. People may not agree with this sentiment, but that is to be expected. Take it for what you like.
 

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
This issue has bothered me for years as well. Contradictions about the responsibility to "defend your lives and your property, even unto bloodshed" and the article of faith rattling off "obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" don't exactly agree with one another. Just like fact that the church harbors illegal aliens and supports them financially is not requisite with the requirements of the law. Here is the way I look at it. What they don't know won't hurt them, and if you feel you need to carry a concealed firearm on your person to feel safe while executing your religious duties, then go for it. I don't think our heavenly father is going to hold that one against you. That's just my two cents. At the risk of an "infraction", which is just like a speeding ticket, I would think that your life is worth it should you ever need to deploy lethal force in order to protect it while on church property. People may not agree with this sentiment, but that is to be expected. Take it for what you like.


My sentiment at least about the Article of faith of sustaining the law is this: meaning to sustain Constitutional law, that is if there are any laws which are incongruent to (unconstitutional) repugnant or in opposition to the Constitutional law, Bill of Rights (unalienable rights) AKA natural law (common law) then I am abiding by the article of faith in a faithful obedient manner when I only support laws which are Constitutional. many courts have upheld that any law repugnant to the Constitution is not law!
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
A little history and some corrections

I don't have time today to retype it all or even go looking for it, but a search of the archives here and/or at utahconcealedcarry.org should turn up a couple of posts from me about the history of this particular law.

To be brief, churches have long had the legal ability to ban guns from their property in Utah, they just had to post signage to that effect. Some 10 or 12 years ago, shortly after we strengthened State preemption to make clear that public school teachers and most other government employees were protected against anti-RKBA discrimination in the workplace (ie allow them to carry on the job), a citizens' petition was started to ban all private guns--including those carried by persons with permits--from both schools and churches: "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship" they called it. The LDS Church considered joining the petition so as to keep guns out of their churches without having to post signs. I was involved in a meeting with the LDS legal counsel and lobbyist, along with other leading pro-RKBA organizations and a solid pro-RKBA legislator to see if we could work out a deal to keep the LDS Church from throwing its considerable political weight behind that effort.

We arrived at the current law that allows churches to give notice in several different ways, including the BCI public web page. Last I checked, the LDS and one other church were using that method, while a couple of downtown SLC churches had signage posted. True to their word, the LDS Church did not get involved in the petition drive and it failed to make it onto the ballot.

When we pushed for "Parking Lot Preemption" we specifically exempted religious employers so as to keep the LDS (and Catholic and other) church(es) from having any legitimate dog in the fight. Once they saw they were exempted, they stayed out of that one and we managed to win that battle against the gun grabbers and business interests.

I have never understood why the LDS church wants to ban private guns in their Houses of Worship. I could speculate, but I doubt it would add anything of value to the discussion, and of course, we all here would certainly disagree with whatever reasons (short of direct revelation) might be given anyway. Neither the legal counsel nor the lobbyist could or would ever give any reason beyond church leadership wanting it. They did want a stiffer penalty than infraction to encourage compliance. We pushed back against that and argued that gun owners and permit holders were not only law abiding, but also polite and respectful and those who knew the policy would abide it regardless of the level of legal penalty, and we didn't want a rare, unintentional violation to cause someone to lose his permit or worse. We won that discussion and the penalty for violation has remained at the infraction level.

The policy is contained in the Handbook of Instruction, Book 2, on page 192, available at <https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf?lang=eng>.

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

My personal view on the matter is this:

This is not the policy I would set were it my right or obligation to set such policies. But it isn't. And as an active LDS, three or four times a year I sustain Thomas Monson as not only the Lord's Prophet on the earth, but also as President of the LDS Church. In other words, it is his right and duty not only to receive revelation and declare the official doctrines of the church, but also to set mundane temporal policies so long as those policies do not conflict with doctrine or eternal salvation. As President Woodruf taught in the excerpts from talks on the Manifesto (Notes on Official Declaration 2 in the Doctrine & Covenants), the Lord will not allow His Prophet to lead His people astray.

So for active LDS, there is really not much room for questioning here. Whether the policy was based on some revelation from the Lord, or is simply a mundane administrative policy, it is not contrary to the Lord's will. Nor will adherence to it negatively affect eternal salvation. I believe active LDS have an obligation to follow the policy in the absence of direct, personal revelation to the contrary. Not merely some different understanding of various scriptures and doctrines, but an actual, direct revelation. I firmly believe and hope that by sustaining the prophet by following a policy I don't care for, I will be in a position to be warned what day not to be in church, rather than needing to use deadly force. That is my view.

Non-LDS are not obliged to believe anything about Thomas Monson or LDS beliefs. But a decent respect for what others hold sacred should give them serious pause before violating both stated requests and statutory law regarding guns in LDS houses of worship. I believe the policy should be followed, one way or another. One easy way to follow the policy is to simply not enter an LDS house of worship. That is pretty sure to keep your gun outside. If one is going to enter an LDS house of worship, I believe one should obey the policy by leaving the gun out.

That all said, if one is going to make a deeply personal decision to violate a gun law--any gun law, no matter how mundane--it should go without saying that one should not broadcast that intent (even in veiled hypotheticals) on an open, publicly readable board. Not only could it harm your legal case if ever charged, but it harms the image of the entire community of gun owners. If a man has received personal revelation to carry despite the policy, such things are deeply personal and should be kept personal: pearls and swine kind of thing.

I would not expect petitions or letters to make any change in the policy. And unlike some other issues, the media certainly is not friendly to RKBA in churches or darn near anywhere else.

If someone is a personal friend or close relative to a general authority, that might be a place to start a discussion and I'd love to be involved if anyone wanted me to be.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
UTBAGPIPER: Well said, well written, well thought out. Thanks very much for taking the time to write that here.

I agree with much said and that the behind-the-scenes (of the general public or not being highly politicized) history is certainly interesting.

I think that its a simple administrative issue, not one related to anything close to being divine, as Jesus said not to toss away your ability to defend oneself and to honor the Old Testament's lessons on this point.

And Jesus gave us free will; I doubt that violating or following the rule would have any effect on your/one's soul's disposition.

And Jesus indicated that our political leaders are there by some level of divine providence. Does this mean that we must not disagree with our political leaders? No.

Most all church leaders of the various sects of religion say to help your fellow man, to feed the needy etc. Does this mean we must support government welfare programs? No.

And they certainly do not tell people not to vote for politicians who support abortion that I have noticed.

Next time your church leaders start ranting about gun control issues and getting publicly involved in this political issue, I would hit them up on the abortion aspect of the church's muteness. How many Catholic politicians who support abortion have been excommunicated? None that I am aware of.

Sooner or later Christian churches will have to get more involved as Islamic churches do involve themselves into politics, and many in a big way. As Muslims become a higher % of western populations, change must occur.
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
Many years ago when Gordon B. Hinckley was the First President and Thomas Monson was a counselor of his (IIRC second counselor? I forget...) I had the luxury of meeting both. Though I am no longer LDS I still hold both men in high regards. Both certainly are good men.
 

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
I don't have time today to retype it all or even go looking for it, but a search of the archives here and/or at utahconcealedcarry.org should turn up a couple of posts from me about the history of this particular law.

To be brief, churches have long had the legal ability to ban guns from their property in Utah, they just had to post signage to that effect. Some 10 or 12 years ago, shortly after we strengthened State preemption to make clear that public school teachers and most other government employees were protected against anti-RKBA discrimination in the workplace (ie allow them to carry on the job), a citizens' petition was started to ban all private guns--including those carried by persons with permits--from both schools and churches: "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship" they called it. The LDS Church considered joining the petition so as to keep guns out of their churches without having to post signs. I was involved in a meeting with the LDS legal counsel and lobbyist, along with other leading pro-RKBA organizations and a solid pro-RKBA legislator to see if we could work out a deal to keep the LDS Church from throwing its considerable political weight behind that effort.

We arrived at the current law that allows churches to give notice in several different ways, including the BCI public web page. Last I checked, the LDS and one other church were using that method, while a couple of downtown SLC churches had signage posted. True to their word, the LDS Church did not get involved in the petition drive and it failed to make it onto the ballot.

When we pushed for "Parking Lot Preemption" we specifically exempted religious employers so as to keep the LDS (and Catholic and other) church(es) from having any legitimate dog in the fight. Once they saw they were exempted, they stayed out of that one and we managed to win that battle against the gun grabbers and business interests.

I have never understood why the LDS church wants to ban private guns in their Houses of Worship. I could speculate, but I doubt it would add anything of value to the discussion, and of course, we all here would certainly disagree with whatever reasons (short of direct revelation) might be given anyway. Neither the legal counsel nor the lobbyist could or would ever give any reason beyond church leadership wanting it. They did want a stiffer penalty than infraction to encourage compliance. We pushed back against that and argued that gun owners and permit holders were not only law abiding, but also polite and respectful and those who knew the policy would abide it regardless of the level of legal penalty, and we didn't want a rare, unintentional violation to cause someone to lose his permit or worse. We won that discussion and the penalty for violation has remained at the infraction level.

The policy is contained in the Handbook of Instruction, Book 2, on page 192, available at <https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf?lang=eng>.

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

My personal view on the matter is this:

This is not the policy I would set were it my right or obligation to set such policies. But it isn't. And as an active LDS, three or four times a year I sustain Thomas Monson as not only the Lord's Prophet on the earth, but also as President of the LDS Church. In other words, it is his right and duty not only to receive revelation and declare the official doctrines of the church, but also to set mundane temporal policies so long as those policies do not conflict with doctrine or eternal salvation. As President Woodruf taught in the excerpts from talks on the Manifesto (Notes on Official Declaration 2 in the Doctrine & Covenants), the Lord will not allow His Prophet to lead His people astray.

So for active LDS, there is really not much room for questioning here. Whether the policy was based on some revelation from the Lord, or is simply a mundane administrative policy, it is not contrary to the Lord's will. Nor will adherence to it negatively affect eternal salvation. I believe active LDS have an obligation to follow the policy in the absence of direct, personal revelation to the contrary. Not merely some different understanding of various scriptures and doctrines, but an actual, direct revelation. I firmly believe and hope that by sustaining the prophet by following a policy I don't care for, I will be in a position to be warned what day not to be in church, rather than needing to use deadly force. That is my view.

Non-LDS are not obliged to believe anything about Thomas Monson or LDS beliefs. But a decent respect for what others hold sacred should give them serious pause before violating both stated requests and statutory law regarding guns in LDS houses of worship. I believe the policy should be followed, one way or another. One easy way to follow the policy is to simply not enter an LDS house of worship. That is pretty sure to keep your gun outside. If one is going to enter an LDS house of worship, I believe one should obey the policy by leaving the gun out.

That all said, if one is going to make a deeply personal decision to violate a gun law--any gun law, no matter how mundane--it should go without saying that one should not broadcast that intent (even in veiled hypotheticals) on an open, publicly readable board. Not only could it harm your legal case if ever charged, but it harms the image of the entire community of gun owners. If a man has received personal revelation to carry despite the policy, such things are deeply personal and should be kept personal: pearls and swine kind of thing.

I would not expect petitions or letters to make any change in the policy. And unlike some other issues, the media certainly is not friendly to RKBA in churches or darn near anywhere else.

If someone is a personal friend or close relative to a general authority, that might be a place to start a discussion and I'd love to be involved if anyone wanted me to be.

Charles
Very well articulated and written. maybe through mighty prayer and fasting also more petitioning we can get the Lord himself to correct this travesty of banning of carry guns in church, not just in Utah but in the Handbook too. I hope I have the chance to meet you open carrying in person as I have now finally escaped 23 yrs of living in the far north suburbs of Chicago, Illinois and now living the desire I have had since the late 90's to live in the American West here in beautiful Provo as of Fri 03 Oct 2014 this Utah Valley and the whole state is heaven on earth. My 2 favorite states of all time are Utah and Wyoming!. I already have met with another great Utah open carrier, Joe Sparky.

Happy Thanksgiving my dear brother in LIBERTY and in the GOSPEL!
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
I don't have time today to retype it all or even go looking for it, but a search of the archives here and/or at utahconcealedcarry.org should turn up a couple of posts from me about the history of this particular law.

To be brief, churches have long had the legal ability to ban guns from their property in Utah, they just had to post signage to that effect. Some 10 or 12 years ago, shortly after we strengthened State preemption to make clear that public school teachers and most other government employees were protected against anti-RKBA discrimination in the workplace (ie allow them to carry on the job), a citizens' petition was started to ban all private guns--including those carried by persons with permits--from both schools and churches: "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship" they called it. The LDS Church considered joining the petition so as to keep guns out of their churches without having to post signs. I was involved in a meeting with the LDS legal counsel and lobbyist, along with other leading pro-RKBA organizations and a solid pro-RKBA legislator to see if we could work out a deal to keep the LDS Church from throwing its considerable political weight behind that effort.
The entire piece is very well written. Though it does bring to mind recent events.

Non-LDS are not obliged to believe anything about Thomas Monson or LDS beliefs. But a decent respect for what others hold sacred should give them serious pause before violating both stated requests and statutory law regarding guns in LDS houses of worship. I believe the policy should be followed, one way or another. One easy way to follow the policy is to simply not enter an LDS house of worship. That is pretty sure to keep your gun outside. If one is going to enter an LDS house of worship, I believe one should obey the policy by leaving the gun out.
Truly Charles, anyone for that matter- Can the OC community be trusted to honor this, when they cannot (and even openly and vocally refuse to) honor the same request of a business?

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Many years ago when Gordon B. Hinckley was the First President and Thomas Monson was a counselor of his (IIRC second counselor? I forget...) I had the luxury of meeting both. Though I am no longer LDS I still hold both men in high regards. Both certainly are good men.

Good men don't deny your rights. So I would disagree.
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
The entire piece is very well written. Though it does bring to mind recent events.


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

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

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

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
Good men don't deny your rights. So I would disagree.
I'm sorry, I am as pro RKBA as it gets, but nobody is denying a right here. You don't have to go without your weapon if you don't want to.

If businesses or private churches choose to disarm their clients/worshippers, then that is their choice, one that is also an enumerated right. Their property, their choice. If you choose not to go, then these places will start to go away if enough people feel the same as you.

I can't stand that they don't allow guns, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Starbucks or target or the LDS church are catagorically BAD people because they aren't comfortable with guns on their property.

Uninformed? Totally. Bad people? Come on. our bill of rights protects us from the government infringing on us. Not private church/business.

If I shut a kid's mouth for exercising his free speech about my, say....wife or sister in a way I deem innapropriate, am I a bad person for denying his "right to free speech?"

Sorry, I'm not ready to label every misinformed group just bad people because they don't agree with me. Not everyone that doesn't allow guns is bloomberg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top