Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 120

Thread: Theology and Guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    I'll try to be short, but a bit of back story.

    Religion has not been a part of my life for better than 25 years. My wife on the other hand has been searching for a Christian church to attend and maybe join since she moved to Utah about 13 years ago. About 2 years ago she started attending one she enjoyed and felt good about.

    Wifey had always asked me to go with her on Sunday's and talked highly of the people, the message and I had met several of the members. 8 weeks ago I attended a service for the first time, as wifey was singing in the choir. Since then I have attended every Sunday service, and a few weekday activities.

    Now, on the the question. The first service I attended as I was walking in the door I looked for the no weapons sign and didn't see one, and I thought "thats good",

    SO last week, I was at a function and carrying, towards the end of the get together, the Pastor got me alone and asked that I not carry to the services, it was a very cordial discussion, and I don't really have a problem with it. but it got me to looking deeper into the "political" ideas of the church, and found that they are STRONG ANTI-GUN advocates Church wide and nationwide(except as they word it, they are fine with sporting rifles and shotguns) But spell out NO handguns.

    Should it not be a big deal? I can't/won't ask wifey to leave, BUT,,,,,,,,
    In the great wisdom of this board, what say the Armed Christians of America?




  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    One has to wonder about the underlying viewpoint(s) behind a "no handguns" policy--a policy which would necessarily restrict the basic human right of self-defense.

    One would also have to worry how those underlying attitudes might affect themessage orcounseling.

    Can you leave the gun in the car while attending services and functions?

    Does it seem worth it to try to convert the pastor with biblical citations and rational discussion?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    I myself am LDS and though my church has asked that people not bring weapons into buildings of worship, it is not a doctrinal stance. As a fellow Christian I always ask the what would Jesus do. I am compelled to remember that the apostles of Jesus carried weapons for self defense. When Judas and others came for Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of one who came out against Christ. I don't remember Jesus getting mad that peter had a sword, the deadliest personal defense weapon ofthe day, but he did get a bit upset that peter cut off the ear which he healed. I can't imagine that if Jesus were not upset that peter was prepared to defend himself with a weapon, that he would be so upset with me for doing the same. I hope I have not touched off a theological storm of which religion is better as this is not the intent of this post. To each his or her own.

  4. #4
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    First, here in Utah, Concealed is concealed is concealed. You are breaking no laws unless it is the LDS church. They're the only church that's registered with the BCI to illegalize guns in their houses of worship. This may change if other churches register with the BCI, but no others have, yet. The LDS church has also passed down guidance to the church leadership (ward level) to warn once or twice, then if it persists to notify law enforcement.

    It is not illegal to carry in any other religion's houses of worship, but they may press charges for trespassing. Pressing charges doesn't mean you'll be convicted, it just means they're going to give you a big headache.

    As far as morally? God will help you survive. Perhaps he's doing that by convincing you to get your permit. Only you can answer that.

    Again, concealed is concealed is concealed. My first recommendation is http://www.smartcarry.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    UtahJarhead wrote:
    First, here in Utah, Concealed is concealed is concealed.

    Again, concealed is concealed is concealed.
    There is NO requirement to conceal in Utah. In Utah, a Concealed Firearm Permit ALLOWS concealed carry, it does not require it.

    You are breaking no laws unless it is the LDS church. They're the only church that's registered with the BCI to illegalize guns in their houses of worship. This may change if other churches register with the BCI, but no others have, yet.

    It is not illegal to carry in any other religion's houses of worship, but they may press charges for trespassing. Pressing charges doesn't mean you'll be convicted, it just means they're going to give you a big headache.
    While the LDS church is the only one that has registered their objection with BCI using UCA 76-10-530(2)(e), that does not make it the only church where carry is illegal:

    UCA 76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
    (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after 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.
    (4) (a) (i) Within 30 days of giving or revoking any notice pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e), a church or organization operating a house of worship shall notify the division on a form and in a manner as the division shall prescribe.
    (ii) The division shall post on its website a list of the churches and organizations operating houses of worship who have given notice under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
    (b) Any notice given pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e) shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first.
    (5) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
    (6) A violation of this section is an infraction.
    The LDS church has also passed down guidance to the church leadership (ward level) to warn once or twice, then if it persists to notify law enforcement.
    Cite please. Being in a position where I regularly have access to and review LDS Church written policy, I have never seen anything to support this claim.

  6. #6
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    UtahJarhead wrote:
    First, here in Utah, Concealed is concealed is concealed.

    Again, concealed is concealed is concealed.
    There is NO requirement to conceal in Utah. In Utah, a Concealed Firearm Permit ALLOWS concealed carry, it does not require it.
    It's a way of saying if you're carrying concealed, then they won't know you're carrying to begin with. When carry of any kind is frowned upon (and where they can do something about it), not everybody is comfortable being unarmed.

    You are breaking no laws unless it is the LDS church. They're the only church that's registered with the BCI to illegalize guns in their houses of worship. This may change if other churches register with the BCI, but no others have, yet.

    It is not illegal to carry in any other religion's houses of worship, but they may press charges for trespassing. Pressing charges doesn't mean you'll be convicted, it just means they're going to give you a big headache.
    While the LDS church is the only one that has registered their objection with BCI using UCA 76-10-530(2)(e), that does not make it the only church where carry is illegal:

    UCA 76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
    (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after 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.
    (4) (a) (i) Within 30 days of giving or revoking any notice pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e), a church or organization operating a house of worship shall notify the division on a form and in a manner as the division shall prescribe.
    (ii) The division shall post on its website a list of the churches and organizations operating houses of worship who have given notice under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
    (b) Any notice given pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e) shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first.
    (5) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
    (6) A violation of this section is an infraction.
    The LDS church has also passed down guidance to the church leadership (ward level) to warn once or twice, then if it persists to notify law enforcement.
    Cite please. Being in a position where I regularly have access to and review LDS Church written policy, I have never seen anything to support this claim.
    http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?act=ST&f=120&t=28249&st=16#e ntry170374 is the links origin as far as I could find a copy of it, but it was distributed to the church leadership Jan 16, 2004. I got this link from the UCC forum thread here: http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/vi...a&start=60

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    One has to wonder about the underlying viewpoint(s) behind a "no handguns" policy--a policy which would necessarily restrict the basic human right of self-defense.

    One would also have to worry how those underlying attitudes might affect themessage orcounseling.

    Can you leave the gun in the car while attending services and functions?

    Does it seem worth it to try to convert the pastor with biblical citations and rational discussion?
    This is what I am questioning and also,
    I am one of those guys, who will do everything I can to NOT support any group or business or person, that donates to or supports anti 2nd Amendment, anti-hunting, anti-multiple use, this is where i'm running into the quandary.
    http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-gun .
    For some reason when loading the page, it places "htm" at the end of the address and doesn't link. copy and paste seems to work.

    Thats the link to the Church's position concerning guns.


    Converting the Pastor appears not to be an option(I don't know if he is anti or not, personally)

    Since the LDS was brought up, Let me ask this. Hypothetically; If the LDS church changed their stance and posted up a similar "gun control" attitude. what would you as a member do, or think?



    I could leave my gun in the truck during the service, but I won't leave my gun unattended except at my house. I was kindly asked not carry, and it will be respected, But it may be respected in that I may never be back.




  8. #8
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    PeeShooter wrote:
    http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-gun.htm
    They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.
    (Amos 8:12)

    Which is kinda funny for a 404 - file not found.

    Edit: Nevermind. Looks like my browser copied a space after the .htm... Bad Firefox.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    This is quite an interesting topic and has got quite a few different views in different threads.

    As for religion it is a very personal thing and again is different for different people, so to answer as I see it here goes.

    For me religion is of course a belief and is somewhat faith based, since God doesn't dwell amongst us. And some don't believe in Him at all.

    I however do believe in God and therefore I am concerned with my salvation. My salvation is more important to me than any temporal thing. So I go to a church that I beleive teaches what I feel is true. So any policy that they may have will not cause me to leave whether it is I can't carry a gun to service or I can't wear red on sunday. If I leave a church because I can't carry a gun or join a church just because I can, I wouldn't even go because it doesn't meen to me what I think a church or religion is supposed to be.

    If that is not of concern to you but your wifes happiness is that is also a major factor as to what is more important to you. Doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. If I had no belief of anything I would gladly do what would make my wife happy, because she is the most important thing to me next to God.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    Peter drew his sword
    THAT's the ticket!

    Ask the pastor if he'd mind if you carried a sword, like Peter, instead of a handgun.



  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    UtahJarhead wrote:
    First, here in Utah, Concealed is concealed is concealed. You are breaking no laws unless it is the LDS church. They're the only church that's registered with the BCI to illegalize guns in their houses of worship. This may change if other churches register with the BCI, but no others have, yet. The LDS church has also passed down guidance to the church leadership (ward level) to warn once or twice, then if it persists to notify law enforcement.

    To: Area Presidencies, Area Authority Seventies, Temple Presidents, Stake Presidents, Bishops, and Branch Presidents in Utah

    Dear Brethren:

    Firearms in Houses of Worship

    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.

    Utah law permits churches or other organizations operating houses of worship to prohibit firearms. Any person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm, who knowingly and intentionally transports a firearm into a house of worship or who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains in a house of worship where firearms have been prohibited, is guilty of a crime. An exception will be provided for law enforcement personnel, as contemplated by law.

    The church plans to invoke the Utah law and give public notice that firearms are prohibited in the church's houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and the Conference Center.
    Scouting merit badge and other activities where firearms are legitimately involved should be held in facilities other than houses of worship.

    Once such public notice is given, persons who bring firearms into a church house of worship should be informed of the church's position and politely asked to take their firearms to another safe location. Persons who refuse to take their firearms from the house of worship or repeatedly ignore the church's prohibition should be referred to local law enforcement officers for possible criminal prosecution. However, every reasonable effort should be made to avoid confrontation and to defuse emotional situations so as to prevent violence and misunderstanding. Questions regarding particular situations may be referred to the Church Security Department and the Church's Office of General Counsel at church headquarters.

    Sincerely your brethren,

    (signed)

    Gordon B. Hinckley

    Thomas S. Monson

    James E. Faust





    "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."

    The above statement from their church says it all. Plus they are listed on the Utah gov site as prohibitingfirearms.



    The other is Fisher, the guy in AZ who legally defended himself with a gun, is no longer welcome in their church.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sneads Ferry, ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    I am not familiar with the LDS book but am somewhat familiar with certain other writings on religion. I was not, however, familiar with a passage that one person chooses to close his posts ( Luke 22 verses 35-38 ) so I looked it up. Worth a read and discussion with the Reverend.

  13. #13
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    The other is Fisher, the guy in AZ who legally defended himself with a gun, is no longer welcome in their church.
    Cite, please? The church doesn't excommunicate members for defending themselves.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    utahjarhead wrote:
    Cite, please? The church doesn't excommunicate members for defending themselves.

    You need to get out of utah more...Not only will they have you arrested for carrying a handgun in church, but look what happened to Fish.


    Harold Fish article in the Arizona Capital Times 12-11-2009

    The thing I kind of resent is that I was always active with the Boy Scouts, and I can’t do that right now. They didn’t say that I can’t, but you have to pass a criminal background check. I can’t go to our Temple in Mesa. You have to have a recommendation, and right now the church is saying, “No. We’re going to wait until everything is worked out.”



    Harold Fish defense website

    His website says, "for exercising your God given right to protect yourself."


    This guy went through hell. he defended himself from an attack. not even his church stood by him. He went to prison. His sentence was reversed and he still has no privilege in his Mormon / church of jesus christ of latter-day saints church.





  15. #15
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    buzzsaw wrote:
    I am not familiar with the LDS book but am somewhat familiar with certain other writings on religion. I was not, however, familiar with a passage that one person chooses to close his posts ( Luke 22 verses 35-38 ) so I looked it up. Worth a read and discussion with the Reverend.
    Buzzsaw, you probably meant me when you refer to the "other person" and you are right. I should have cited to authority, and boy what an authority the Bible is. I am referencing the following passages. John 18 verses 7-11, Matthew 26 verses 48-54, Mark 14 verses 42-48, and Luke 22 verses 49-51. I also think it is worth a conversation with the pastor.

  16. #16
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    utahjarhead wrote:
    Cite, please? The church doesn't excommunicate members for defending themselves.
    You need to get out of utah more...


    Harold Fish article in the Arizona Capital Times 12-11-2009
    I know well of Hal Fish, but you said 'Fisher' and that's who I had no clue about. However, the church only has the LEGAL system to go off of and that's currently still in limbo. The sentence was reversed and the charges haven't been dropped. Assuming the legal system truly says he acted in self defense, by your own words he will again be able to renew his recommend. It's the same reason someone that has had sexual relations outside of marriage must wait 1 year to ensure there is no child out of wedlock (and a few other reasons) because that, like murder, are against the teachings of the church. If the court finds he truly acted in self defense, then it's good to go.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    utahjarhead wrote:
    Cite, please? The church doesn't excommunicate members for defending themselves.

    You need to get out of utah more...Not only will they have you arrested for carrying a handgun in church, but look what happened to Fish.


    Harold Fish article in the Arizona Capital Times 12-11-2009

    The thing I kind of resent is that I was always active with the Boy Scouts, and I can’t do that right now. They didn’t say that I can’t, but you have to pass a criminal background check. I can’t go to our Temple in Mesa. You have to have a recommendation, and right now the church is saying, “No. We’re going to wait until everything is worked out.”



    Harold Fish defense website

    His website says, "for exercising your God given right to protect yourself."


    This guy went through hell. he defended himself from an attack. not even his church stood by him. He went to prison. His sentence was reversed and he still has no privilege in his Mormon / church of jesus christ of latter-day saints church.



    Are you mad at the boy scouts too? He can't participate there either until "everything is worked out". And how about teachers and Schools? He can't teach until "everything is worked out". Nothing you have referenced validates your claim that the church did not stand by him, and nothing you cite validates your claim that he has no privilege in his church. Many members for many reasons cannot go to the temple until certain things are resolved, but the temple is different than the chapels and other houses of worship. He is free and welcome to attend every Sunday service. I don't know what your problem or hatred is of mormons but this is not the place for bigotry. What happened to this man is a shame, but he also goes on to say "Don’t get me wrong. I am not complaining". If he is not complaining why are you? Spew your hatred of Mormons somewhere else.

    Edit: This was a response to kiwknru's earlier post which contained the following "Mormons.". Hisearlierpost appears modified to not reflect his initial comments and sentiments.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote: The other is Fisher, the guy in AZ who legally defended himself with a gun, is no longer welcome in their church
    kwikrnu wrote: This guy went through hell. he defended himself from an attack. not even his church stood by him. He went to prison. His sentence was reversed and he still has no privilege in his Mormon / church of jesus christ of latter-day saints church.
    I went to the sites that you listed and see no where that is indicates what you say in the statements above. He said he can't have a temple recommend right now. If you knew anything about the LDS church this doesn't mean he is not welcome and can't attend or hold positions. As far as scouting is concerned it is BSA policy to pass a background check. And he states that he is still listed as a fellon so he probably can't work with any youth groups.

    He did not say anything about being dissfellowshipped or excommunicated. You can have your temple recommend withheld for alot of reasons that are much milder than taking a mans life. Such things as not being a full tith payer, not being active, and other things. He said that they just want to wait to see how things work out as far as getting his recommend back.

    From what I read he was totally justified and I hope it proves to be true for him and he will be fully exonerated. If that happens I am sure he will get his temple recommend back. However I cannot say what else he has told his clergy. That will also be in consideration.

    Anyway we are both just guessing, since only he knows what is being said and we are making assumtions on what we read on the internet.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    UtahJarhead wrote:
    I know well of Hal Fish, but you said 'Fisher' and that's who I had no clue about. However, the church only has the LEGAL system to go off of and that's currently still in limbo.
    I'm LDS, and that's an issue I struggle with. I know some people who've received church discipline because of convictions in the legal system, and it's crap. Acquittal doesn't guarantee innocence, conviction doesn't guarantee guilt, and guilt of a crime doesn't always mean a sin has been committed.

    What the state judicial system does is so far removed from justice that it doesn't make any sense to me that the church, which has access to inspiration and doesn't have all of the weird rules the court system does, would pay it any attention at all. Beyond that, there's really no reason for the church to discipline a man who continues to maintain his innocence -- the purpose of church discipline is supposedly to assist the person disciplined to find forgiveness and redemption, and a man who lies to his church leaders about his guilt won't be helped because he's not ready, while excommunicating an innocent man until he "repents" for something he didn't do is ridiculous and counterproductive.

    Fish's case is even more bizarre in that what he did is no longer even a crime, because the legislature changed the law! So if another church member defended himself in an identical situation today, he wouldn't be prosecuted -- and so the church wouldn't need to discipline him? Because a bunch of guys had a vote, God's law is now different? I know we believe in obeying the law of the land... but that the details of the language used by men to define a bright line in the broad and fuzzy range between justifiable homicide and murder should affect the judgment of God's church just seems crazy.

    In my opinion, the reality is that the good of the person's soul is not the only consideration, and maybe not even the primary consideration. The other factor is the church's public image. Not wanting to be seen as tolerant of sin/crime, the church distances itself from those who are convicted by disciplining them with disfellowshipping or excommunication. Whether or not that's what the individual needs, or whether they're guilty, or whether the crime as defined by the state is actually a sin in God's eyes are all irrelevant, because the action is in the service of the church's image in the eyes of men.


  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    If he is not complaining why are you? Spew your hatred of Mormons somewhere else.
    I don't hate mormons and I'm not a bigot. I disagree with how their churchtreats gun owners and their treatment of those who happen to defend themselves in a self defense situation.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    I don't hate mormons and I'm not a bigot. I disagree with how their churchtreats gun owners and their treatment of those who happen to defend themselves in a self defense situation.
    The LDS Church routinely imposes church discipline on those convicted of a felony. Whether it is tax evasion, assault with a deadly weapon, or other crimes it is the conviction of a felony, not singling out guns or self defense.

    I also notice that you single out the LDS church for attacks while giving the BSA a pass on their refusal to let Mr. Fish work with youth so long as his record shows him as a felon. What is the difference?

    Throughout its early history, members of the LDS Church and the Church itself were accused of treason, of not being loyal americans, and of similar crimes and sins. The LDS Church has doctrines and policies in place partly to counter these false claims. One of the basic tenants of our faith is that "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rules, and magistrates, and in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law." It is a "render under Caesar" position.

    To have a temple recommend suspended, but NOT be excommunicated over a felony conviction is pretty light penalty from the church. Felony convictions commonly result in full excommunication.

    You have misplaced your anger in this case. You should be angry with a "justice" system that has convicted a man you believe to be innocent (I have no info on the case and so have no opinion), NOT with a church that has taken the most mild of actions relative to a felony conviction to make clear that it does expect its members to obey the law.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    In my opinion, the reality is that the good of the person's soul is not the only consideration, and maybe not even the primary consideration. The other factor is the church's public image.
    There are three reasons for imposing church discipline:

    1-As a necessary part of the repentance process for certain sins;

    2-To protect the flock from wolves in sheep's clothing;

    3-To protect the good name and reputation of the church.

    I'm sure that #1, the welfare of the individual's soul is the most common reason. #2 comes into play most often when someone is preaching false doctrine or otherwise attacking the faith.

    But let us not discount the importance of #3. Church members and the church itself was routinely accused of being bad citizens, breaking the law, and even treason. It is important for the LDS Church to effectively counter these claims even to this day.

    Given the scant info I've gleaned from your post, I feel for Mr. Fish and hope he gets a reversal on his conviction or is otherwise able to clear his record quickly. At the same time, because I do believe in revelation to local church clergy, I am not too quick to criticize such decisions having not been privy to everything they are.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    Listen to your heart and gut what is it telling you? Only you know what is right for you.

    I don't like that my church does not allow me to carry in it's private building, but I understand their postition, even if I don't agree with it, but I am all right with it. I carry a triple combination weapon, and some pepper spray and a knive every sunday and my gun is locked in a TSA approve box in my car. I sit in pews that are close to the exits, and I know where my family members are located.

    To each his own, listen to yourself and you will knowwhat is best for you and the wifey.

    God Speed my brother.
    Utah Certified Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor
    NRA Pistol Instructor & RSO

    Lover of Freedom

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    UtahJarhead wrote:


    Mormons.One good reason not to go to their church.

    Kwikrnuhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTJhnXIYRDw



    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum50/37948.html

    Look up these links, Nuff said.....? :what::shock::?:X


    Utah Certified Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor
    NRA Pistol Instructor & RSO

    Lover of Freedom

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    utahjarhead wrote:
    Cite, please? The church doesn't excommunicate members for defending themselves.
    Look up this guy's posts, what a tool
    Utah Certified Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor
    NRA Pistol Instructor & RSO

    Lover of Freedom

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •