Brother Jones and anyone else who thinks like that. I know how strong the indoctrination is of "follow the prophet" but can't you see how damning that is? Damning because if you hang on to that sacred cow too long you will turn off your brain and miss the best part. Would you follow the prophet as he jumped off the UN lemming cliff? Where is common sense? and where is follow the spirit? You probably jumped at getting the Gadianton Globalist vaccine too just to be obedient. How far left will church policy have to go before you wake up and smell the postum? @@donaldjones9830
@@teinelaumeI got the vaccine. I never got COVID. You are the one who thinks the prophet will let the Church be led astray. Sorry, your opinion is invalid
I pack every day, Sunday is no exception end of story! There are several others that do as well. If I was ever told by a member of the church to disarm I would politely tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. I will never be a sitting duck.
I have been a member in multiple wards in CA where I knew specifically some of the men who habitually sat next to the doors of the chapel with concealed weapons. I also know a woman who still always carries in her purse. Now living in UT I know of this going on also. I’m grateful for these members who are aware of the “policy” and yet also continue to Follow Him and what the Spirit has inspired them to do. I thank you for bringing this up as we all have to sort thru what is in place due to non-liability atty advice and what is common sense and common consent.
I didn’t know there was a policy against legal concealed carry. I don’t like the idea of a free for all; some people can be pretty reckless with guns, but society needs law-abiding, responsible carriers.
@@rickyde0255 I’ve had friends who don’t safeguard their firearms and ammunition with children in the home. I don’t mess around with that. I’ve also had some friends and acquaintances get into stockpiling heavy weapons. That’s much more of a gray area, but just IMO there’s potential for excess. But it’s especially bad when stockpiling is combined with careless custody.
@@donaldjones9830I suspect there are armed guards, likely from a private security agency which makes them NOT "current law enforcement," surrounding President Nelson when he attends sacrament meeting.
@@joyce7892 I do. The prophet REPRESENTS CHRIST, DESPITE NOT BEING PERFECT AS HE IS. Nobody is perfect. EVERYONE DOES GET JUDGED REGARDLESS OF THEIR CHOICES
I have always chalked this policy up to the corporate side of the church. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that we Priesthood holders are responsible for defending our families physically as well as spiritually!!! This was taught as a DOCTRINAL issue, not a policy issue!!!
Do you worry that if you were to shoot someone accidentally during a shooting spree at the church, they would sue you and the church would not stand behind you bc the rules are you can't have a gun at church?
@@cboyackWhy do the Deacons and Teachers have a role with the sacrament when the scriptures prohibit it? D&C 20: 58 And why don’t the Deacons and Teachers learn their duties as the scripture says? D&C 20:53-59 And why doesn’t the church kneel when the elder or priest when he prays the sacramental prayers?
@@beoneB1The Bishop is the head of Aaronic priesthood and presides over the Priest’s Quorum. That is why. The bishop delegates the Aaronic priesthood assignments. So that means deacons and teachers don’t make assignments by authority over the sacrament. The Bishop assigns priests to make sure there is enough bread and water for teachers to prepare it. Because the priests bless it and give them the trays. The deacons and teachers fulfill their assignment and if there isn’t manpower available then the Melchizedek priesthood steps in.
@cboyack I worry when visitors or investigators are in attendance on “Open mic Sunday”. I cringe at some people say as a “testimony”. It would be helpful if there is an insert in the printed program with what the General Handbook (29.2.2) has to say about bearing a testimony, “To bear testimony means to declare gospel truths as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Testimonies should be brief so that many people can participate. Young children are welcome to bear testimony in fast and testimony meeting. It may be best for them to learn to do so at home until they can bear testimony without help from others.” And Topics and Questions says, “A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.” “Testimony bearing is not preaching. Do not exhort each other; that is not a testimony. Do not tell others how to live. Just tell how you feel inside. That is the testimony. The moment you begin preaching to others, your testimony ended. Just tell us how you feel, what your mind and heart and every fiber of your body tells you. " The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.138 Or the one conducting could give some guidelines before he gives his testimony.
In Luke 22 we read: Then said He unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his pack; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. In many states, a concealed carry permit is a license which the local sheriff encourages you to use and protect those around you, which meets that requirement in the church handbook for affiliation with law enforcement. Per the CDC over 40% of mass shootings are stopped by civilians. Thank you to everyone who carries at church to protect their families and congregations.
There’s also this scripture in Mathew 26:52 where Peter chops the ear of a guard “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” So which is it?
I live in a ward where there isn’t a single law enforcement officer. So does that mean that my ward can’t protect itself under this policy? Let’s just say I also live in TX where we have “constitutional carry.” I know many are carrying. I also know someone who carries while walking into the temple. They don’t carry during the session but their firearm enters the building with them.
They are not the only ones. Just saying. When I was being introduced to procedures & protocols as a new Ordinance 'Worker', I was told if a threatening person came to the doors (besides getting the attention of one of the brothers !), there is this metal thingamajig we were to [go out one set of double glass doors] slip over the handles of the outer set of doors. Temple -related or not, that was/Is ridiculous. On several levels. I asked about type of glass in doors, panic buttons, etc... Got the "thou are a faithless heathen" expression. [ btw, there are red buttons here and there in the Temple] The days are almost on us our people and buildings will be molested. Missouri & Nauvoo may be Birthday parties in comparison.
@@l7846 Wow. I am really glad to hear this about Temple security and I have often wondered. I don't like the thought of our people and buildings being molested.
I think this needs to be a new calling, "ward protection calling." It could be someone that only the Bishop knows. But it would be so good, considering the huge increase in crime in many areas.
Never heard this before in my life. If I thought there was a risk, I'd have a gun in my purse, bag, or pocket. Nobody would ever know unless there was reason to defend lives.
10 or 12 years ago in an undisclosed rural location in the united states. I worked for the county. A guy i worked with was also a member of the LDS church moved to another state and then called me and threatened to come back to town and start shooting people in the community including church members. I happened to get it recoreded and took it to the sheriff. He told me that i better start carrying a gun to work to protect the people in my charge since the building wasnt very secure and anyone could get in. I told him that the county doenst allow firearms inside the building. He said that if i kept it concealed nobady would ever know, but that i better be ready to defend my people. I asked him if i should get a ccw permit and he said i wouldnt need one becaise the state law allow open carry. So if i ever got pulled over i could just lift up my shirt to expose the weapon and i would be legal. He was an awesome Sheriff! I happened to be called to be the bishop at about the same time as this. My first Sunday i was surprised that several people came to me and showed me a gun under their suit coats or purses amd asked if they had my permission to carry at church. The state law was that church goers had to get permission from the pastor to carry in churches. I told them well you know the policy of the church, but if anyone brought in a wepon and conceled it then nobody would ever know right? Wink...nod. i was so relieved to have so many members armed at church. Especially since there was a very real threat of this person who later ended up in prison in another state. I've left out alot of details about this individual with whom i worked and the type of jobs we had at the county, but just trust me, he was crazy and the threat was real!
Remember the painting of the pilgrim people walking in the snow on the way to church. In the painting pilgrims were shown as carrying muskats over shoulders which i understood was the reality they lived under. I first saw that painting in first grade. This was before the days of revisionist history though it was certainly starting. The teacher said in those days it was important to have guns with them. With controls on the educational system that conversation would never have happened today. I am thankful to have been part of before the system changed its attitudes. I remember also a discussion following looking at the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. Nowdays this would be considered wrong. If we carry a weapon to church we are doing the same our early american pilgrim ancestors had to do
I remember attending a stake conference with a visiting apostle and there were clearly armed bodyguards there concealing firearms. Rules for thee and not for me?
@@donaldjones9830Anecdotally, I was recently talking to the proprietor of a suit shop in Utah about fitting slacks for a pistol, and they told me about accounting for the gun when fitting a friend in Church security.
I didn’t know this was at issue. I’ve never heard the church state that guns are not allowed, and I’ve never seen my ward do checks for guns etc. That said, the story about Bishop Sanders being shot is incredibly sad. Such a tragedy.
When I served in the bishopric, we knew who were carrying firearms in the ward. The bishop did not try to prevent them from carrying. It is sickening to me that they will allow people to carry unofficially, but officially won't stand up for them legally. They want to eat their cake and eat it too. If a member rescues them, good, but then they can get excommunicated or prosecuted on top of it.
@cboyack I didn't infer that was meant. I thought he ment Constitutional BoR allows and supports the right of individual to act in defense of their life thru the militia clause.
You don’t like Church rules, then give up your right to be a member. When you got baptized, you agree to obey the Lord and follow the dictates of the Church. The Church can tell you no weapons in a Church building. Just because your tithing or taxes build buildings doesn’t give you sovereignty over the rules established for it. Businesses are the same way, when you are the user, the employee or employer. Bringing a gun into a Church building is a sin because the Church said no. You are not God and not the prophet. Allowing weapons will lead to lawsuits. It is why employees can’t fight or stop criminals like shop lifters or robbers.. Leave the response to authorized people. The Church doesn’t authorize its members to do so. So doing so means you are disobeying the Church. Same with first aid. Leave all medical responsibilities to authorized personnel. Your job is to keep your job, or membership or life or whatever the situation you’re in.
@@donaldjones9830 not sure this is a very good argument.. this is like telling a smoker that they need to give up their membership if they want to smoke because it's a sin and the brethren have said not to... We would never say that, hopefully we are still encouraging sinners (all of us) to come to church.. hopefully you didn't mean it that way but if you did, maybe find a horse thats not so high to sit on...
@@MisfitOBS Well, sometimes a response is bad also. I’m not telling people to leave the Church, but we can’t be judgmental and hypocritical about what we choose to do in regards of beliefs and how others see us. Most of those responding to me come across as judgmental because they are above the rules, hence why you hear the hypocrites in the Democrat party say so about Trump.
The Constitution restricts the government from taking away our firearms. The Church can legally restrict guns at Church. I think it is a bad decision which we should voice our concerns. In the meantime I keep a Byrna pepper gel launcher with me.
Members need to realize that policies the church have are for protecting the Corporate organization not to protect the individual members. The right to protect oneself is a God given right and is doctrinal. Members should read D&C 134:11 11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
So you’re advocating the merger of Church and State? You want civil government telling the Church what to do with guns on their property? That is so unconstitutional.,,,………
@@SethTurnerPrinting I’m not sure what either of you are trying to prove. I’m all for appealing to civil law for fixing wrongs and I agree with self defense. There has to be a line drawn. People aren’t allowed to carry military style weapons and guns aren’t allowed in many places. My comment was meant to say that using the courts to force churches to allow guns so you can protect yourself with carrying a gun seems like a bad idea. If one wants to carry and the Church left it to local bishops and stake presidents on a per person decision only than that makes more sense. It’s either nobody does or it’s on a personal basis approved by your bishop with permission. Something the government tries to do when people apply to buy a gun.
@@donaldjones9830 I didn’t try to prove anything here. I don’t think the OP did either. My take is that government has no place. And no institution can simultaneously protect its leaders with weapons without allowing members to do similar. And further it can’t claim to represent God while devaluing the lives of God’s children by telling them those lives aren’t worth defending unless they are a high ranking authority. I’m a believer, but this is an apostate policy.
@@SethTurnerPrinting Fair point. The Church has many regulations to follow government wise, and that is why no candles are allowed. Every person is valued child of God, I get that, but I’m not offended if they protect the leadership and not allow us to bring in weapons. But the Church has many jurisdictions to consider. Local, state, national, international etc. It is fine if left to local leaders and local law. I’m not saying the Church should have no say vs the government but I’m not for the Church getting sued. I go to Church to partake of the sacrament as you do. I don’t think about guns or self defense.
I have to wonder if the church means law enforcement officers on duty - those that come to church in uniform. My husband attended sacrament meeting for years on duty and would obviously be armed.
Previous iterations of the policy seemed to give that impression: "except as required by officers of the law." The current policy seems to get away from that and just makes it about their current standing as LEO. Which would mean they are allowed to carry whether they are on duty or off duty.
I've been a bishop. during my tenure i would carry. felt like i needed to for my safety due to having to do some hard things with not so stable members. i would do it again no matter the policy.
This has long been a burr under my saddle. The authorities all are protected by armed guards. Their lives are no more valuable (and in truth are less valuable) than the lives of my children.
My son was a police officer when this policy was put in place. He thought it was ridiculous because as a police officer he was often at work during church hours and when he was at church he wouldn't be carrying his gun issued by his PD. He would essentially be like any other member carrying a gun.
I personally know of an incident in a ward where several people in a family who were yelling, etc, were escorted out by two members who were law enforcement officers, who happened to be in the audience. Another time, a person who was very knowledgeable with guns, (not a law enforcement officer) was designated to be on guard in case anyone would act out their anger. Perhaps, a number of bishops, are quietly handling this problem, and thus avoiding opposition, which would surely happen if the church publicly changed their policy. Just a thought. This is a very sticky situation. Glad I am not in charge.
I'm not sure how many people know that the top 15 (I don't know about the rest) leaders of the Church travel with at least one armed guard. One of my very close family members has been a part of that security group for many years. They have an automatic holstered under their suit coat. It seems to me that if it's a good idea for them to have protection then it's also a good idea for regular members. Hopefully we're not considered expendable?
I agree. I've been at events where a member of the 15 has their security detail. I didn't see the gun, but I'm almost certain the security guard was armed. Disarming all of us while our tithing pays for their protection seems very similar to what I see in California. The politicians are heavily protected with armed security paid by taxpayers as they pass legislation to disarm residents. Not good optics.
I carry. Not just Sondays, but to activities. There are a good handful of us who do. I began sitting on the back pew regularly after the Idaho chapel shooting. There are "less than lethal" options developing which are an option... so, there's that. I have asked the Bishop and after no answer, but a blank stare, I moved up line to the Stake President: also blank stare and a mumbled, "Ah, yes. We need to be thinking about that." ....and some of my Sisters still cant quite understand why I wear slacks to Church. Our political views may not always match up, Connor, but in this, we certainly seem to. Btw. I am retired LEO.
It is in fact constitutional. Only the Fed is restricted by the constitution. But that document has nothing to do with the church. And that still doesn’t mean they can restrict your right to self defense. That is an inherent right to all people.
As a current cop and huge 2nd Amendment advocate, I feel it's your right to protect yourself and others, but here is the problem: Not all who pack are responsible gun owners. It's not uncommon for someone to use the restroom and leave a loaded handgun on the toilet paper dispenser. In my opinion I feel the church's policy puts a distance between them and legal action in the event someone is injured by that unattended firearm. Like it or not, it boils down to CYA from the entity with deep pockets.
Minute 12:00. The Church policy about concealed weapons was, obviously, written by Church Lawyers. In the event of a shoot-out with an assassin, the Church can say "the policy is to hide or run away, not to shoot back". As good Latter Day Saints, we are called to fight evil and since assassination is evil, we are called to fight it. This ain't complicated.
Seems the church expects us to throw a hymn book at the assailant. 🤣😒 Very inspired. 🙄 I guess following policy is more important than defending ones life. 🤷
I've always respected the LDS's convictions and discipline. That being being said, it sickens me that you're not allowed to be armed. If Joseph Smith was allowed to be armed then things might've gone differently.
Joseph Smith hated guns. He reluctantly used one for self defense when one was smuggled into Carthage Jail in late June 1844. Although there was nothing wrong with defending himself, he knew his time was up.
He was armed, just not well enough to prevent his own death. Maybe if he had had an AR-15. He used a "pepperbox" pistol to fire on the mob as they broke into the jail he was in. It is possible that his resistance saved the lives of two of his companions though.
He died because (1) he was not wearing the garment (Hyrum also died for the same reason) - those who survived were wearing garments). The reason given by the survivors is that Joseph and Hyrum were feeling hot. (2) they were drinking alcohol too.
My condolences to Clay Sanner's family. Leaving 6 sons behind.. Such a tragic event.. Thanks for doing something. You guys are a powerhouse! As for guns in churches, thanks for clearing the air that the LDS church does have people able and ready to defund their family, members and themselves. As for myself for self defense, to protecting my family, and/or innocent, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Utah legislators could let Utah Churches carry guns in Utah, but the Church can still say no to its members. If they say yes, it would only apply to Utah if the Church agreed to it. The problem is, the Church would never do that.
@@donaldjones9830 I think it is the church's lawyers more than the church. Liability paranoia. And the church is sued a lot, so it's not just theoretical.
@@daveduncan2748 Probably. Obviously the Church consults lawyers for many things, including building temples etc, as they require permits, adherence to zoning laws and regulations. Also to buy insurance for buildings. The Church avoids risky practices including with the prohibition of guns in buildings
I'm not sure the argument or the point is that there is a way to overcome the element of surprise. The point is that we shouldn't leave congregations to be sitting ducks with no real way to defend themselves.
"For whosoever will save his life, must be willing to lose it for my sake; and whosoever will be willing to lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." Luke 9:24
Conner, I was of the incorrect evaluation of your character until the very last part of your video. Now I say Good Job!!!!! The best kind of patriot; a help the members read between the lines to be able to protect themselves,friends and family patriot. I related muse. All of the depictions of Christ's apostles show His apostles as unarmed, when the reality is they were heavily armed. They were packing. Evidence is statements made by Christ, to take up the sword, literally speaking, and Peter cutting the ear off of the guard. I would like to see some paintings and movies of the apostles with swords on their side.
I'm not sure it was intended as a don't-ask-don't-tell policy, or the LDS Church wouldn't have opted to make it illegal to carry in their churches in Utah. Utah Code 76-10-730 makes it an infraction to enter or remain in a house of worship with a firearm after receiving public or personal notice from the church that firearms aren't allowed there. According to the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification website, the LDS Church “made public notice on January 9, 2019 in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News of their intent to prohibit firearms”, and is one of only three churches in the state to “have notified BCI of their intent to prohibit firearms in their ‘houses of worship’ in Utah”.
I believe they are required by law to renew this notice yearly for it to be in effect. And other signage on buildings might also be required, but I’m a touch hazy on that.
No, they are certified security guards who are paid like the police are. The Church hires them as paid employees. They are Church members with a calling to do so.
@@SethTurnerPrinting I don’t agree. If the Church pays for it like government taxpayers do for the president and other important people, they should be protected. They are professionals, members in good standing and are trusted and vetted in knowing what to do. If most civilians were as dedicated as them and practiced at a range and knew how to handle it while being obedient upstart citizens of the land, then yes, I would trust them at Church to protect me and others. Just because I know you wouldn’t do anything rash, doesn’t mean that an accident wouldn’t happen. It’s not just about trust. It’s about following good self defense training.
@@donaldjones9830 most gun enthusiasts are very well training. I’ve received a ton of formal and informal firearms training. Probably as much as the vetted security. And I personally don’t think government officials should be protected because they always advocate to disarm citizens. Let them live in fear. But church officials should be protected, so long as they don’t advocate for members to be disarmed at church.
@@donaldjones9830 I have to admit, you sound like a statist. You love government and trust it, based on your views. Good upstanding citizens do not make for good followers of Christ. You cannot serve Christ and Caesar.
Good topic. It is something I have agonized over, as I’m not a law enforcement officer but I do feel comfortable carrying. The LEOs I have known personally tell me church is the one place they are not required to carry while off duty. I am an army veteran though, if that makes anyone feel better about it. When I got an out of state Utah permit (for reciprocity in the majority of states), this topic was discussed, that it was a judgement call one had to make to either refrain from carrying out of respect for what church leaders request, or to quietly carry for safety’s sake. I used to fall on the side of respecting the leaders’ wishes because I thought that was a good default position. The pandemic made me rethink that. I got the initial jab and masked up because church leaders asked me to. I regret doing so. It’s an example of corporate policy that I don’t think was inspired revelation. The church asked people to mask up for the same reason they apparently promote Run Hide Fight. Every large American corporation does this because they don’t want liabilities. And we have a church culture of trying to show that we are good citizens who will not cause trouble. Maybe I am wrong, but from where I stand now I think quietly carrying is the correct answer. People that refused to mask up were still allowed to attend church meetings once they resumed. I do know we have a few brothers who openly conceal carry, by which I mean they have tactical man purses that are obviously housing concealed pistols. I do wonder what conversations happened with bishops, but they haven’t told me. If I am wrong I’ll just have to learn to repent damn fast like J Golden said.
If one were to be found with a firearm at church, what are the legal consequences to the carrier if reported? Do you think the church does it with only allowing officers because they feel they would be more protected by the law and covered by the state versus the church having to cover the non police member?
I agree with your analysis, but I still think the church policy, as stated, is good. If I were bishop, I'd feel much more comfortable talking to members and letting them know a blanket rule that guns are not allowed, rather than singling out someone who is making others uncomfortable. While law enforcement officers aren't a special class, there are pretty heavy psychological requirements to continue to be employed as a law enforcement officer, so it rules out the weirdos. I'm very pro-gun, but there are always some of those gun-loving weirdos that will genuinely make others uncomfortable when they're packing. I would hate to put it on the bishop to confront people and decide who is "fit" to have a gun and who isn't. The blanket policy allows the bishop to deny everyone. And yet, there is no policy for church discipline or enforcement of the no-gun rule, so people can follow the spirit and do what they need to do, without "being commanded in all things."
The Spirit isn’t going to tell you to violate Church policy. Maybe the Church has a no discipline policy for it, but what you said is correct. The bishop shouldn’t decide who can or can’t. That isn’t part of his calling. And most likely, a Stake President or higher would overrule him as it could be perceived as favoritism or discrimination. The bishop is only qualified in his calling and not for things professional people do. Be careful of what you wish for. I don’t want people packing guns inside any Church building, especially with children around.
If the spirit can command Nephi to kill Laban, it could prompt someone to violate a church policy that has no basis in scripture and doesn't violate any moral law.@@donaldjones9830
Crime rate for law enforcement officers is 700% higher than that of concealed carry permit holders. The numbers have been holding for decades and among millions people (hundreds of thousands of officers and tens of millions of concealed carry permit holders.
I live in Canada so we don't have as many rights as my American friends to the South. If an armed intruder entered, I would rush them and take fire to protect my family. The hope would be that others are rushing behind me as well.
That is not true because there are no metal detectors. When Elder Boyd K Packer spoke in our stake conference a member had a pistol to defend him and the bishop knew about it. So the lesson is that since there are no metal detectors we don't really know how many have pistols.
Another thought, what would we do if a Muslim walked into our sacrament meeting and through his prayer rug down and started praying out loud in arabic?
It’s both. Corporations are businesses. The Church requires paid employees including lawyers, security guards and professors at Church owned businesses that make money to further Church members including Deseret News and Book, BYU and the Church Office Building. The Church business requires money to teach the gospel, including canneries, paying bills, owning buildings like museums, genealogy and more. This also includes visas and diplomatic services for missionaries and military members of the Church, plus also for the Brethren. The Church isn’t about making money, therefore it’s a tax exempt organization. But it requires money to further the cause of the Lord.
Look into the church's "force on force" training center. They had it planned to build at welfare square, but I think they scraped it for PR reasons. The SL Tribune did a story on it a few years ago.
I need help if anyone can find this reference! 🙏🏼 What does the handbook say if you’re… for instance… held at gunpoint by an *imaginary* assailant in Africa who pulls the trigger but the firearm doesn’t discharge and you’re magically protected because you’re an apostle? I can’t find the reference but from what I recall it says, “Make up 5 contradictory, increasingly more juicy versions of the tale and publish each of those in separate articles so that everyone knows you’re special when you’re called as the prophet.” Can anyone confirm this???
How successful would the Church be at gainig entry into almost any otner country in tne world if it had any taint of bellicosity or lack of subservience to civil authority? The "no firearms" policy is probably as much for its reputation outside the US as within.
Couldn't the policy simply be "obey the law of the land in which you live"? That is why this reasoning also fails as applied to how they handled covid. It wasn't necessary.
The relevant Utah law is 76-10-530 and the church was a big reason that law exists. However, and interestingly, violation of that law is merely an infraction, akin to getting a speeding ticket.
I agree with all your points. I believe we should be able to protect ourselves as is etched in the title of liberty. A point I do wish to bring up is that many states in the US have laws against concealed weapons carry in religious centers and churches with certain exceptions. This could be the root of the GHB stance on the issue. In my state the church can give authorization to carry and I was approved to do so by the bishop and stake president. It would appear as though the church is finding the middle ground to appease "being subject to and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" vs. the title of liberty doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon... In my opinion. Great musing.
My son is actually hired as security for the Orthodox Church and his presence is obvious. I love this church but the administrative process has become too corporate, too cookie cutter, too administrative and not individualized. socialization has been reduced to subscribed hours, chapel use is overly restrictive. We need to address the needs of the ward, stake. Stop with overreaching policies.
The policy is purely an issue of liability. If there was no policy, the Church would be liable for any shooting occuring. Having the policy allows the Church to separate from anyone who would violate the policy.
I’m not a big gun person, but I think so, so highly of those who treat guns with due respect and caution with licensing, training, certification etc. As for attacking an armed assailant, without question. If there are kids in the building anything is on the table. If nothing else I’m a biter.
Church policy is designed to prevent the Church from lawsuits. Nothing more, nothing less. Most businesses are the same with policies for their employees vs anyone committing a violent or non violent crime. While we worship weapons of war, the Lord does permit us to practice self defense and wants us to obey the law of the land. Also the Church has armed security guards who aren’t law enforcement. They are employed by the Church and are paid. The Church, like most pro sports, have policies where all Church officers don’t all travel together. That makes them easier targets. I believe we should follow Church policy, but if one prays about it and they follow the Spirit, they will be led in what to do.
@@indiuckymonkey2137 Yes, but my statement referred to what we do as Americans. We worship the gun, bomb, etc. You see our military spending outlay? We shouldn’t worship them. Which is what you want me to say.
That exception ("unless your only intent is to use it for self-defense") does not exist. That's a generous interpretation, but not one supported by the text of the policy.
@@cboyack I think I have an answer to your question. Please respond so that I know you got this message: "And he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take." Alma 43:30. In other words, do not believe that gun policy and take weapons in the Church for self-defense. Obviously the Church is fighting secret combinations that we do not know and has to tread carefully.
The scriptures are clear about self-defense. Luke 22: 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
The hardest part of retiring after 35 years in Law Enforcement was moving into the unarmed portion of the congregation. Training is a huge issue here. While working I spent time in class doing tabletop scenarios about active shooters and other things we could find in a public setting. I also spent time on the range maintaining my ability to shoot and to integrate when to shoot and not to shoot. The lack of training does scare me for people who carry cancelled. There are a lot of people who have never been in law enforcement who have taken the responsibility for getting the training to be as much of an asset as Law Enforcement. I worry that a Bishop would have a hard time knowing which was which. Your position on fish in a barrel is accurate and shows in the after action on real life active shooters. A good example is the Colorado shooter who went past 3 theaters showing Batman selecting the 4th based on that theater being the only one that advertised the theater as a gun free zone.
Yes I would. I carry all the time. I have been carry The entire time I was a Police officer and nearly the entire time since. There is another LDS person in Nevada who was shot and killed at church during the Sacrament meeting. Can the church or will the church excommunicate those us former law enforcement officers or off duty law enforcement who are carrying or who use our fiearms to stop a deadly assault? That is what I was told 7 years ago by a sitting Bishop. The ban only allows "on duty police officers" to carry at church.
Once you retire as law enforcement officer, you are still considered a law enforcement officer. You would have to identify yourself as a retired officer with your credentials to assist in a crime investigation if you wanted to help. You just aren’t considered on duty when retired. You would still be considered an officer by Church standards
I think what it comes down to is liability. If the cop takes action, their agency takes liability because he is acting within the scope of his job. If a cop leaves his gun somewhere at church and a kid finds it and shoots someone, ita on the cop and his agency and that's where the lawsuit will go to. That's why former LEO are not allowed to because they don't have the agency behind them. This is just my assumption but I'd say it's all about liability and keeping the church out of a lawsuit if some idiot leaves his gun on the toilet after pulling up his pants.
Sometimes we need to use common sense. Our leaders have security guards. They definitely are carrying a gun. Has anyone considered carrying a disabling a disabling gun?
Police often don’t have the range practice time built into their work day. Like a SF friend of mine says, there’s always going to be a plumber from the country that will shoot better, that’s the beauty of our country.
Because the Church is a worldwide church, I understand why they don't allow weapons in the handbook. But laws are different everywhere in the world. It should say, Abide by the laws of the land where you live, instead of a blanket statement. When we lived in Wisconsin there was a man who had crashed a car into a gun shop and stole a ton of guns close to our building. Some members of the bishopric had several men armed with concealed carry by the doors for our entire service. Now THAT is how you do it.
No where in doctrine does it say I have to be a soft target in church to gain the celestial kingdom. I carry. My family’s safety is more important than some PC feel good nonsense.
Don't certain members of the LDS church have body guards and protected from a shooter. I guess the general population lives aren't quite important as their lives.
I will carry and protect my family despite what policy may be in place.
Yup, I carry every Sunday. I’m definitely not alone. I don’t need permission from anyone.
Same here......
Absolutely.
Wrong. So you’re advocating disobedience to the prophet.
Brother Jones and anyone else who thinks like that. I know how strong the indoctrination is of "follow the prophet" but can't you see how damning that is? Damning because if you hang on to that sacred cow too long you will turn off your brain and miss the best part. Would you follow the prophet as he jumped off the UN lemming cliff? Where is common sense? and where is follow the spirit? You probably jumped at getting the Gadianton Globalist vaccine too just to be obedient. How far left will church policy have to go before you wake up and smell the postum? @@donaldjones9830
@@teinelaumeI got the vaccine. I never got COVID. You are the one who thinks the prophet will let the Church be led astray.
Sorry, your opinion is invalid
I pack every day, Sunday is no exception end of story! There are several others that do as well. If I was ever told by a member of the church to disarm I would politely tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. I will never be a sitting duck.
If there were metal detectors installed at the entrance doors to my ward's building the attendance would drop by about half.
I have been a member in multiple wards in CA where I knew specifically some of the men who habitually sat next to the doors of the chapel with concealed weapons. I also know a woman who still always carries in her purse. Now living in UT I know of this going on also. I’m grateful for these members who are aware of the “policy” and yet also continue to Follow Him and what the Spirit has inspired them to do. I thank you for bringing this up as we all have to sort thru what is in place due to non-liability atty advice and what is common sense and common consent.
I didn’t know there was a policy against legal concealed carry. I don’t like the idea of a free for all; some people can be pretty reckless with guns, but society needs law-abiding, responsible carriers.
, where have you seen a "free for all" happen?
Just something to think about.
@@rickyde0255 I’ve had friends who don’t safeguard their firearms and ammunition with children in the home. I don’t mess around with that.
I’ve also had some friends and acquaintances get into stockpiling heavy weapons. That’s much more of a gray area, but just IMO there’s potential for excess. But it’s especially bad when stockpiling is combined with careless custody.
My advice is to keep it concealed and then DON'T TALK ABOUT IT.
And don’t take it to Church. Just follow the prophet.
@@donaldjones9830I suspect there are armed guards, likely from a private security agency which makes them NOT "current law enforcement," surrounding President Nelson when he attends sacrament meeting.
@@donaldjones9830follow the prophet behind his security team maybe?
@@donaldjones9830 Follow Christ. The prophet is a regular man and not perfect, that can and does make mistakes.
@@joyce7892 I do. The prophet REPRESENTS CHRIST, DESPITE NOT BEING PERFECT AS HE IS. Nobody is perfect. EVERYONE DOES GET JUDGED REGARDLESS OF THEIR CHOICES
I had a dream last night about an armed intruder at Church, then I find this on my UA-cam page. A little paranoid now
I absolutely agree and I personally know a few people who come to church packing. I'm grateful for those people. ❤
I used to carry at church. Then stopped for a while. But this vid reminds me to start again.
I carry everyday and every Sunday. No permission needed or expected.
I have always chalked this policy up to the corporate side of the church. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that we Priesthood holders are responsible for defending our families physically as well as spiritually!!! This was taught as a DOCTRINAL issue, not a policy issue!!!
Do you worry that if you were to shoot someone accidentally during a shooting spree at the church, they would sue you and the church would not stand behind you bc the rules are you can't have a gun at church?
Don't you worry about being killed by an intruder and not being able to protect yourself and familiy? If you are not, you better be. @@boysrus61
Jesus christ taught it first. The son of God who rose from the dead and the only way to heaven.
@@boysrus61No. Fear should not be your guide.
You’re not obeying the laws of God when you go against Church doctrine or policy.
I keep it concealed, but I always pack. I also sit at the back and watch the entrances.
After 20+ years… never heard this before…I’m old school…don’t ask…don’t tell… all I can prey is that it is not ever needed…
I doubt that the people who accompany the 12 and First Presidency aren't packing. Rules for thee and not for me?
Right? And they aren’t “current law enforcement”…
Exactly!!
@@cboyackWhy do the Deacons and Teachers have a role with the sacrament when the scriptures prohibit it? D&C 20: 58
And why don’t the Deacons and Teachers learn their duties as the scripture says? D&C 20:53-59
And why doesn’t the church kneel when the elder or priest when he prays the sacramental prayers?
@@beoneB1The Bishop is the head of Aaronic priesthood and presides over the Priest’s Quorum. That is why. The bishop delegates the Aaronic priesthood assignments. So that means deacons and teachers don’t make assignments by authority over the sacrament. The Bishop assigns priests to make sure there is enough bread and water for teachers to prepare it. Because the priests bless it and give them the trays.
The deacons and teachers fulfill their assignment and if there isn’t manpower available then the Melchizedek priesthood steps in.
@cboyack I worry when visitors or investigators are in attendance on “Open mic Sunday”. I cringe at some people say as a “testimony”. It would be helpful if there is an insert in the printed program with what the General Handbook (29.2.2) has to say about bearing a testimony, “To bear testimony means to declare gospel truths as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Testimonies should be brief so that many people can participate. Young children are welcome to bear testimony in fast and testimony meeting. It may be best for them to learn to do so at home until they can bear testimony without help from others.”
And Topics and Questions says, “A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.”
“Testimony bearing is not preaching. Do not exhort each other; that is not a testimony. Do not tell others how to live. Just tell how you feel inside. That is the testimony. The moment you begin preaching to others, your testimony ended. Just tell us how you feel, what your mind and heart and every fiber of your body tells you. "
The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.138
Or the one conducting could give some guidelines before he gives his testimony.
In Luke 22 we read: Then said He unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his pack; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
In many states, a concealed carry permit is a license which the local sheriff encourages you to use and protect those around you, which meets that requirement in the church handbook for affiliation with law enforcement.
Per the CDC over 40% of mass shootings are stopped by civilians.
Thank you to everyone who carries at church to protect their families and congregations.
There’s also this scripture in Mathew 26:52 where Peter chops the ear of a guard “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
So which is it?
I live in a ward where there isn’t a single law enforcement officer. So does that mean that my ward can’t protect itself under this policy? Let’s just say I also live in TX where we have “constitutional carry.” I know many are carrying. I also know someone who carries while walking into the temple. They don’t carry during the session but their firearm enters the building with them.
They are not the only ones. Just saying.
When I was being introduced to procedures & protocols as a new Ordinance 'Worker', I was told if a threatening person came to the doors (besides getting the attention of one of the brothers !), there is this metal thingamajig we were to [go out one set of double glass doors] slip over the handles of the outer set of doors. Temple -related or not, that was/Is ridiculous. On several levels.
I asked about type of glass in doors, panic buttons, etc... Got the "thou are a faithless heathen" expression. [ btw, there are red buttons here and there in the Temple]
The days are almost on us our people and buildings will be molested. Missouri & Nauvoo may be Birthday parties in comparison.
@@l7846 Wow. I am really glad to hear this about Temple security and I have often wondered. I don't like the thought of our people and buildings being molested.
Of course I would. Should we just watch as others are killed? Never.
Very good point.
I hope the term “assault cheerio” comes to more common use in every day conversation
I think this needs to be a new calling, "ward protection calling." It could be someone that only the Bishop knows. But it would be so good, considering the huge increase in crime in many areas.
Nah. That notion may open the door for more Adrian-types.
Sorry, but all members in a stake or ward is entitled to know who holds what calling. That is where common consent comes in.
It could be an assignment then.
He was killed in the line of duty so the church should have come up with the money to help the family. Good for you to take that step of love.
Thank you for speaking common sense.
Never heard this before in my life. If I thought there was a risk, I'd have a gun in my purse, bag, or pocket. Nobody would ever know unless there was reason to defend lives.
That awkward situation where the church is in conflict with your human "God-given" right to defend yourself by any means necessary, esp firearms.
10 or 12 years ago in an undisclosed rural location in the united states. I worked for the county. A guy i worked with was also a member of the LDS church moved to another state and then called me and threatened to come back to town and start shooting people in the community including church members. I happened to get it recoreded and took it to the sheriff. He told me that i better start carrying a gun to work to protect the people in my charge since the building wasnt very secure and anyone could get in. I told him that the county doenst allow firearms inside the building. He said that if i kept it concealed nobady would ever know, but that i better be ready to defend my people. I asked him if i should get a ccw permit and he said i wouldnt need one becaise the state law allow open carry. So if i ever got pulled over i could just lift up my shirt to expose the weapon and i would be legal. He was an awesome Sheriff!
I happened to be called to be the bishop at about the same time as this. My first Sunday i was surprised that several people came to me and showed me a gun under their suit coats or purses amd asked if they had my permission to carry at church. The state law was that church goers had to get permission from the pastor to carry in churches. I told them well you know the policy of the church, but if anyone brought in a wepon and conceled it then nobody would ever know right? Wink...nod. i was so relieved to have so many members armed at church. Especially since there was a very real threat of this person who later ended up in prison in another state. I've left out alot of details about this individual with whom i worked and the type of jobs we had at the county, but just trust me, he was crazy and the threat was real!
Remember the painting of the pilgrim people walking in the snow on the way to church. In the painting pilgrims were shown as carrying muskats over shoulders which i understood was the reality they lived under.
I first saw that painting in first grade. This was before the days of revisionist history though it was certainly starting. The teacher said in those days it was important to have guns with them. With controls on the educational system that conversation would never have happened today. I am thankful to have been part of before the system changed its attitudes.
I remember also a discussion following looking at the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. Nowdays this would be considered wrong. If we carry a weapon to church we are doing the same our early american pilgrim ancestors had to do
Yes.
I remember attending a stake conference with a visiting apostle and there were clearly armed bodyguards there concealing firearms. Rules for thee and not for me?
Never seen that. So no, I don’t believe that.
@@donaldjones9830Anecdotally, I was recently talking to the proprietor of a suit shop in Utah about fitting slacks for a pistol, and they told me about accounting for the gun when fitting a friend in Church security.
I didn’t know this was at issue. I’ve never heard the church state that guns are not allowed, and I’ve never seen my ward do checks for guns etc.
That said, the story about Bishop Sanders being shot is incredibly sad. Such a tragedy.
When I served in the bishopric, we knew who were carrying firearms in the ward. The bishop did not try to prevent them from carrying.
It is sickening to me that they will allow people to carry unofficially, but officially won't stand up for them legally. They want to eat their cake and eat it too. If a member rescues them, good, but then they can get excommunicated or prosecuted on top of it.
Isn’t the constitution an inspired document? The bill of rights is also inspired. Policy does not usurp rights.
Nothing in the Constitution requires an organization to allow people to carry firearms on its property.
@cboyack
I didn't infer that was meant. I thought he ment Constitutional BoR allows and supports the right of individual to act in defense of their life thru the militia clause.
You don’t like Church rules, then give up your right to be a member. When you got baptized, you agree to obey the Lord and follow the dictates of the Church. The Church can tell you no weapons in a Church building. Just because your tithing or taxes build buildings doesn’t give you sovereignty over the rules established for it.
Businesses are the same way, when you are the user, the employee or employer.
Bringing a gun into a Church building is a sin because the Church said no. You are not God and not the prophet.
Allowing weapons will lead to lawsuits. It is why employees can’t fight or stop criminals like shop lifters or robbers..
Leave the response to authorized people. The Church doesn’t authorize its members to do so. So doing so means you are disobeying the Church. Same with first aid. Leave all medical responsibilities to authorized personnel. Your job is to keep your job, or membership or life or whatever the situation you’re in.
@@donaldjones9830 not sure this is a very good argument.. this is like telling a smoker that they need to give up their membership if they want to smoke because it's a sin and the brethren have said not to... We would never say that, hopefully we are still encouraging sinners (all of us) to come to church.. hopefully you didn't mean it that way but if you did, maybe find a horse thats not so high to sit on...
@@MisfitOBS Well, sometimes a response is bad also. I’m not telling people to leave the Church, but we can’t be judgmental and hypocritical about what we choose to do in regards of beliefs and how others see us.
Most of those responding to me come across as judgmental because they are above the rules, hence why you hear the hypocrites in the Democrat party say so about Trump.
The Constitution restricts the government from taking away our firearms. The Church can legally restrict guns at Church. I think it is a bad decision which we should voice our concerns. In the meantime I keep a Byrna pepper gel launcher with me.
Thanks Connor for presenting your opinion which has good logic and common sense.
Members need to realize that policies the church have are for protecting the Corporate organization not to protect the individual members. The right to protect oneself is a God given right and is doctrinal. Members should read D&C 134:11
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
So you’re advocating the merger of Church and State? You want civil government telling the Church what to do with guns on their property?
That is so unconstitutional.,,,………
@@donaldjones9830they didn’t say anything remotely like that. Maybe you meant to respond to someone else?
@@SethTurnerPrinting I’m not sure what either of you are trying to prove. I’m all for appealing to civil law for fixing wrongs and I agree with self defense. There has to be a line drawn. People aren’t allowed to carry military style weapons and guns aren’t allowed in many places.
My comment was meant to say that using the courts to force churches to allow guns so you can protect yourself with carrying a gun seems like a bad idea.
If one wants to carry and the Church left it to local bishops and stake presidents on a per person decision only than that makes more sense. It’s either nobody does or it’s on a personal basis approved by your bishop with permission. Something the government tries to do when people apply to buy a gun.
@@donaldjones9830 I didn’t try to prove anything here. I don’t think the OP did either. My take is that government has no place. And no institution can simultaneously protect its leaders with weapons without allowing members to do similar. And further it can’t claim to represent God while devaluing the lives of God’s children by telling them those lives aren’t worth defending unless they are a high ranking authority. I’m a believer, but this is an apostate policy.
@@SethTurnerPrinting Fair point. The Church has many regulations to follow government wise, and that is why no candles are allowed.
Every person is valued child of God, I get that, but I’m not offended if they protect the leadership and not allow us to bring in weapons. But the Church has many jurisdictions to consider. Local, state, national, international etc. It is fine if left to local leaders and local law. I’m not saying the Church should have no say vs the government but I’m not for the Church getting sued. I go to Church to partake of the sacrament as you do. I don’t think about guns or self defense.
I have to wonder if the church means law enforcement officers on duty - those that come to church in uniform. My husband attended sacrament meeting for years on duty and would obviously be armed.
Previous iterations of the policy seemed to give that impression: "except as required by officers of
the law." The current policy seems to get away from that and just makes it about their current standing as LEO. Which would mean they are allowed to carry whether they are on duty or off duty.
@@TubularMag Exactly. Except when it comes to the medical or police, you’re always on call, Sundays or not.
I've been a bishop. during my tenure i would carry. felt like i needed to for my safety due to having to do some hard things with not so stable members. i would do it again no matter the policy.
This has long been a burr under my saddle. The authorities all are protected by armed guards. Their lives are no more valuable (and in truth are less valuable) than the lives of my children.
My son was a police officer when this policy was put in place. He thought it was ridiculous because as a police officer he was often at work during church hours and when he was at church he wouldn't be carrying his gun issued by his PD. He would essentially be like any other member carrying a gun.
I personally know of an incident in a ward where several people in a family who were yelling, etc, were escorted out by two members who were law enforcement officers, who happened to be in the audience. Another time, a person who was very knowledgeable with guns, (not a law enforcement officer) was designated to be on guard in case anyone would act out their anger. Perhaps, a number of bishops, are quietly handling this problem, and thus avoiding opposition, which would surely happen if the church publicly changed their policy. Just a thought. This is a very sticky situation. Glad I am not in charge.
I don't need permission to be armed at church- My responsibility is to keep my family safe..... you figure the rest out-
How many armed security folks are in the conference center each conference?
Exactly.
I'm not sure how many people know that the top 15 (I don't know about the rest) leaders of the Church travel with at least one armed guard. One of my very close family members has been a part of that security group for many years. They have an automatic holstered under their suit coat. It seems to me that if it's a good idea for them to have protection then it's also a good idea for regular members. Hopefully we're not considered expendable?
I agree. I've been at events where a member of the 15 has their security detail. I didn't see the gun, but I'm almost certain the security guard was armed. Disarming all of us while our tithing pays for their protection seems very similar to what I see in California. The politicians are heavily protected with armed security paid by taxpayers as they pass legislation to disarm residents. Not good optics.
I carry. Not just Sondays, but to activities. There are a good handful of us who do. I began sitting on the back pew regularly after the Idaho chapel shooting.
There are "less than lethal" options developing which are an option... so, there's that.
I have asked the Bishop and after no answer, but a blank stare, I moved up line to the Stake President: also blank stare and a mumbled, "Ah, yes. We need to be thinking about that."
....and some of my Sisters still cant quite understand why I wear slacks to Church.
Our political views may not always match up, Connor, but in this, we certainly seem to.
Btw. I am retired LEO.
I always carry............... raised in a LEO family and defender of the 2A.
"When you're ready, you won't have to."
-Samuel Morpheus the Lamanite
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Isn't self-defense a God given right???
It is in fact constitutional. Only the Fed is restricted by the constitution. But that document has nothing to do with the church. And that still doesn’t mean they can restrict your right to self defense. That is an inherent right to all people.
As a current cop and huge 2nd Amendment advocate, I feel it's your right to protect yourself and others, but here is the problem: Not all who pack are responsible gun owners. It's not uncommon for someone to use the restroom and leave a loaded handgun on the toilet paper dispenser. In my opinion I feel the church's policy puts a distance between them and legal action in the event someone is injured by that unattended firearm. Like it or not, it boils down to CYA from the entity with deep pockets.
💯
Those problems are just as common with cops as with non cops.
Minute 12:00. The Church policy about concealed weapons was, obviously, written by Church Lawyers. In the event of a shoot-out with an assassin, the Church can say "the policy is to hide or run away, not to shoot back".
As good Latter Day Saints, we are called to fight evil and since assassination is evil, we are called to fight it. This ain't complicated.
Seems the church expects us to throw a hymn book at the assailant. 🤣😒 Very inspired. 🙄
I guess following policy is more important than defending ones life. 🤷
I've always respected the LDS's convictions and discipline. That being being said, it sickens me that you're not allowed to be armed. If Joseph Smith was allowed to be armed then things might've gone differently.
Joseph Smith hated guns. He reluctantly used one for self defense when one was smuggled into Carthage Jail in late June 1844. Although there was nothing wrong with defending himself, he knew his time was up.
He was armed, just not well enough to prevent his own death. Maybe if he had had an AR-15. He used a "pepperbox" pistol to fire on the mob as they broke into the jail he was in. It is possible that his resistance saved the lives of two of his companions though.
@@TubularMagAgreed.
He died because (1) he was not wearing the garment (Hyrum also died for the same reason) - those who survived were wearing garments). The reason given by the survivors is that Joseph and Hyrum were feeling hot. (2) they were drinking alcohol too.
I think as long as you also carry a trowel they couldn’t argue.
I was hired as armed security for a Church, and sometimes a Synagogue, in Colorado. I was primed for such.
There are folks carrying both invited and uninvited. Best most folks don’t know who they are and that works for me.
Haven't attended for almost a year now, but when we did we always carried.
A modified potato gun that shoots cheerios
My condolences to Clay Sanner's family. Leaving 6 sons behind.. Such a tragic event.. Thanks for doing something. You guys are a powerhouse!
As for guns in churches, thanks for clearing the air that the LDS church does have people able and ready to defund their family, members and themselves.
As for myself for self defense, to protecting my family, and/or innocent, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
How can we fix Utah Code 53-5a-103 to better address liability concerns by those who don't prohibit firearms on property they control?
I tried to replace "owner" with "owner or tenant" back in 2020, but my representative didn't follow through.
It should cover the church (for Utah buildings) as is, but might not cover a business that is merely leasing an office unless "or tenant" is added.
Utah legislators could let Utah Churches carry guns in Utah, but the Church can still say no to its members. If they say yes, it would only apply to Utah if the Church agreed to it. The problem is, the Church would never do that.
@@donaldjones9830 I think it is the church's lawyers more than the church. Liability paranoia. And the church is sued a lot, so it's not just theoretical.
@@daveduncan2748 Probably. Obviously the Church consults lawyers for many things, including building temples etc, as they require permits, adherence to zoning laws and regulations. Also to buy insurance for buildings. The Church avoids risky practices including with the prohibition of guns in buildings
I always thought the law enforcement loophole was to allow member cops to step in for the sacrament when on duty.
How does one overcome the element of surprise which always advantages the aggressor? There will yet be many martyrs.
I'm not sure the argument or the point is that there is a way to overcome the element of surprise. The point is that we shouldn't leave congregations to be sitting ducks with no real way to defend themselves.
Thinking about this one church member; John Browning.
😂 Cheerios and hymn books.
It's hard to respect leaders that are so ridiculously stupid.
"For whosoever will save his life, must be willing to lose it for my sake; and whosoever will be willing to lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
Luke 9:24
Conner, I was of the incorrect evaluation of your character until the very last part of your video. Now I say Good Job!!!!! The best kind of patriot; a help the members read between the lines to be able to protect themselves,friends and family patriot.
I related muse. All of the depictions of Christ's apostles show His apostles as unarmed, when the reality is they were heavily armed. They were packing. Evidence is statements made by Christ, to take up the sword, literally speaking, and Peter cutting the ear off of the guard.
I would like to see some paintings and movies of the apostles with swords on their side.
I'm not sure it was intended as a don't-ask-don't-tell policy, or the LDS Church wouldn't have opted to make it illegal to carry in their churches in Utah. Utah Code 76-10-730 makes it an infraction to enter or remain in a house of worship with a firearm after receiving public or personal notice from the church that firearms aren't allowed there. According to the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification website, the LDS Church “made public notice on January 9, 2019 in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News of their intent to prohibit firearms”, and is one of only three churches in the state to “have notified BCI of their intent to prohibit firearms in their ‘houses of worship’ in Utah”.
I believe they are required by law to renew this notice yearly for it to be in effect. And other signage on buildings might also be required, but I’m a touch hazy on that.
So is the security for the Brethren law enforcement?
No, they are certified security guards who are paid like the police are. The Church hires them as paid employees. They are Church members with a calling to do so.
No. It is hypocrisy.
@@SethTurnerPrinting I don’t agree. If the Church pays for it like government taxpayers do for the president and other important people, they should be protected. They are professionals, members in good standing and are trusted and vetted in knowing what to do.
If most civilians were as dedicated as them and practiced at a range and knew how to handle it while being obedient upstart citizens of the land, then yes, I would trust them at Church to protect me and others.
Just because I know you wouldn’t do anything rash, doesn’t mean that an accident wouldn’t happen. It’s not just about trust. It’s about following good self defense training.
@@donaldjones9830 most gun enthusiasts are very well training. I’ve received a ton of formal and informal firearms training. Probably as much as the vetted security. And I personally don’t think government officials should be protected because they always advocate to disarm citizens. Let them live in fear. But church officials should be protected, so long as they don’t advocate for members to be disarmed at church.
@@donaldjones9830 I have to admit, you sound like a statist. You love government and trust it, based on your views. Good upstanding citizens do not make for good followers of Christ. You cannot serve Christ and Caesar.
Good topic. It is something I have agonized over, as I’m not a law enforcement officer but I do feel comfortable carrying. The LEOs I have known personally tell me church is the one place they are not required to carry while off duty. I am an army veteran though, if that makes anyone feel better about it. When I got an out of state Utah permit (for reciprocity in the majority of states), this topic was discussed, that it was a judgement call one had to make to either refrain from carrying out of respect for what church leaders request, or to quietly carry for safety’s sake. I used to fall on the side of respecting the leaders’ wishes because I thought that was a good default position. The pandemic made me rethink that. I got the initial jab and masked up because church leaders asked me to. I regret doing so. It’s an example of corporate policy that I don’t think was inspired revelation. The church asked people to mask up for the same reason they apparently promote Run Hide Fight. Every large American corporation does this because they don’t want liabilities. And we have a church culture of trying to show that we are good citizens who will not cause trouble. Maybe I am wrong, but from where I stand now I think quietly carrying is the correct answer. People that refused to mask up were still allowed to attend church meetings once they resumed. I do know we have a few brothers who openly conceal carry, by which I mean they have tactical man purses that are obviously housing concealed pistols. I do wonder what conversations happened with bishops, but they haven’t told me.
If I am wrong I’ll just have to learn to repent damn fast like J Golden said.
You, as an individual, are responsible for your safety and well-being. Not the police or anyone else.
Keep that in mind when there is a no gun policy.
If one were to be found with a firearm at church, what are the legal consequences to the carrier if reported?
Do you think the church does it with only allowing officers because they feel they would be more protected by the law and covered by the state versus the church having to cover the non police member?
I agree with your analysis, but I still think the church policy, as stated, is good. If I were bishop, I'd feel much more comfortable talking to members and letting them know a blanket rule that guns are not allowed, rather than singling out someone who is making others uncomfortable. While law enforcement officers aren't a special class, there are pretty heavy psychological requirements to continue to be employed as a law enforcement officer, so it rules out the weirdos.
I'm very pro-gun, but there are always some of those gun-loving weirdos that will genuinely make others uncomfortable when they're packing. I would hate to put it on the bishop to confront people and decide who is "fit" to have a gun and who isn't. The blanket policy allows the bishop to deny everyone. And yet, there is no policy for church discipline or enforcement of the no-gun rule, so people can follow the spirit and do what they need to do, without "being commanded in all things."
The Spirit isn’t going to tell you to violate Church policy. Maybe the Church has a no discipline policy for it, but what you said is correct. The bishop shouldn’t decide who can or can’t. That isn’t part of his calling. And most likely, a Stake President or higher would overrule him as it could be perceived as favoritism or discrimination. The bishop is only qualified in his calling and not for things professional people do.
Be careful of what you wish for. I don’t want people packing guns inside any Church building, especially with children around.
If the spirit can command Nephi to kill Laban, it could prompt someone to violate a church policy that has no basis in scripture and doesn't violate any moral law.@@donaldjones9830
Crime rate for law enforcement officers is 700% higher than that of concealed carry permit holders.
The numbers have been holding for decades and among millions people (hundreds of thousands of officers and tens of millions of concealed carry permit holders.
Alabama is very wild lol was there working door to door all summer lol can't go to a lot of the neighborhoods or surrounding cities.
I live in Canada so we don't have as many rights as my American friends to the South. If an armed intruder entered, I would rush them and take fire to protect my family. The hope would be that others are rushing behind me as well.
That is not true because there are no metal detectors. When Elder Boyd K Packer spoke in our stake conference a member had a pistol to defend him and the bishop knew about it. So the lesson is that since there are no metal detectors we don't really know how many have pistols.
You have a duty to do so
Sig Sauer dam right
Is policy law? Can not obeying policy get you charged?
Another thought, what would we do if a Muslim walked into our sacrament meeting and through his prayer rug down and started praying out loud in arabic?
Because it's not a church, its a corporation.
It’s both. Corporations are businesses. The Church requires paid employees including lawyers, security guards and professors at Church owned businesses that make money to further Church members including Deseret News and Book, BYU and the Church Office Building.
The Church business requires money to teach the gospel, including canneries, paying bills, owning buildings like museums, genealogy and more. This also includes visas and diplomatic services for missionaries and military members of the Church, plus also for the Brethren.
The Church isn’t about making money, therefore it’s a tax exempt organization. But it requires money to further the cause of the Lord.
"The church isn't about making money." LOL. Okay...
@@OmahaAreaLoya The Church emphasis is on souls, not making money. Although it takes money to run the Church. So my statement stands
@@donaldjones9830 True. The Church is about taking people's money, not making money. Your statement stands.
Look into the church's "force on force" training center. They had it planned to build at welfare square, but I think they scraped it for PR reasons. The SL Tribune did a story on it a few years ago.
I need help if anyone can find this reference! 🙏🏼
What does the handbook say if you’re… for instance… held at gunpoint by an *imaginary* assailant in Africa who pulls the trigger but the firearm doesn’t discharge and you’re magically protected because you’re an apostle? I can’t find the reference but from what I recall it says,
“Make up 5 contradictory, increasingly more juicy versions of the tale and publish each of those in separate articles so that everyone knows you’re special when you’re called as the prophet.”
Can anyone confirm this???
How successful would the Church be at gainig entry into almost any otner country in tne world if it had any taint of bellicosity or lack of subservience to civil authority? The "no firearms" policy is probably as much for its reputation outside the US as within.
Couldn't the policy simply be "obey the law of the land in which you live"?
That is why this reasoning also fails as applied to how they handled covid. It wasn't necessary.
The relevant Utah law is 76-10-530 and the church was a big reason that law exists.
However, and interestingly, violation of that law is merely an infraction, akin to getting a speeding ticket.
I agree with all your points. I believe we should be able to protect ourselves as is etched in the title of liberty. A point I do wish to bring up is that many states in the US have laws against concealed weapons carry in religious centers and churches with certain exceptions. This could be the root of the GHB stance on the issue. In my state the church can give authorization to carry and I was approved to do so by the bishop and stake president. It would appear as though the church is finding the middle ground to appease "being subject to and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" vs. the title of liberty doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon... In my opinion.
Great musing.
My son is actually hired as security for the Orthodox Church and his presence is obvious. I love this church but the administrative process has become too corporate, too cookie cutter, too administrative and not individualized. socialization has been reduced to subscribed hours, chapel use is overly restrictive. We need to address the needs of the ward, stake. Stop with overreaching policies.
The policy is purely an issue of liability. If there was no policy, the Church would be liable for any shooting occuring. Having the policy allows the Church to separate from anyone who would violate the policy.
My catholic church has been repeatedly vandalized. I think we need metal detectors. The office gets horrible hate mail.
i give myself an exemption. no prob.
I’m not a big gun person, but I think so, so highly of those who treat guns with due respect and caution with licensing, training, certification etc.
As for attacking an armed assailant, without question. If there are kids in the building anything is on the table. If nothing else I’m a biter.
Church policy is designed to prevent the Church from lawsuits. Nothing more, nothing less.
Most businesses are the same with policies for their employees vs anyone committing a violent or non violent crime.
While we worship weapons of war, the Lord does permit us to practice self defense and wants us to obey the law of the land.
Also the Church has armed security guards who aren’t law enforcement. They are employed by the Church and are paid.
The Church, like most pro sports, have policies where all Church officers don’t all travel together. That makes them easier targets.
I believe we should follow Church policy, but if one prays about it and they follow the Spirit, they will be led in what to do.
@@indiuckymonkey2137 Yes, but my statement referred to what we do as Americans. We worship the gun, bomb, etc. You see our military spending outlay?
We shouldn’t worship them. Which is what you want me to say.
The policy means do not bring weapons into church unless your only intent is to use it for self defense. No contradiction.
That exception ("unless your only intent is to use it for self-defense") does not exist. That's a generous interpretation, but not one supported by the text of the policy.
@@cboyack I see your logic. I think the wording really is about intent; it's okay to bring a gun for self-defense but not for other reasons?
@@cboyack I think I have an answer to your question. Please respond so that I know you got this message: "And he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take." Alma 43:30. In other words, do not believe that gun policy and take weapons in the Church for self-defense. Obviously the Church is fighting secret combinations that we do not know and has to tread carefully.
The scriptures are clear about self-defense. Luke 22: 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
The hardest part of retiring after 35 years in Law Enforcement was moving into the unarmed portion of the congregation. Training is a huge issue here. While working I spent time in class doing tabletop scenarios about active shooters and other things we could find in a public setting. I also spent time on the range maintaining my ability to shoot and to integrate when to shoot and not to shoot. The lack of training does scare me for people who carry cancelled. There are a lot of people who have never been in law enforcement who have taken the responsibility for getting the training to be as much of an asset as Law Enforcement. I worry that a Bishop would have a hard time knowing which was which. Your position on fish in a barrel is accurate and shows in the after action on real life active shooters. A good example is the Colorado shooter who went past 3 theaters showing Batman selecting the 4th based on that theater being the only one that advertised the theater as a gun free zone.
and by the way ... "law enforcement officers" are not required by law to protect anyone.
Yes I would. I carry all the time. I have been carry The entire time I was a Police officer and nearly the entire time since.
There is another LDS person in Nevada who was shot and killed at church during the Sacrament meeting.
Can the church or will the church excommunicate those us former law enforcement officers or off duty law enforcement who are carrying or who use our fiearms to stop a deadly assault? That is what I was told 7 years ago by a sitting Bishop. The ban only allows "on duty police officers" to carry at church.
Once you retire as law enforcement officer, you are still considered a law enforcement officer. You would have to identify yourself as a retired officer with your credentials to assist in a crime investigation if you wanted to help. You just aren’t considered on duty when retired. You would still be considered an officer by Church standards
Not correct - the verbiage is “current” law enforcement officers.
I think what it comes down to is liability. If the cop takes action, their agency takes liability because he is acting within the scope of his job. If a cop leaves his gun somewhere at church and a kid finds it and shoots someone, ita on the cop and his agency and that's where the lawsuit will go to. That's why former LEO are not allowed to because they don't have the agency behind them. This is just my assumption but I'd say it's all about liability and keeping the church out of a lawsuit if some idiot leaves his gun on the toilet after pulling up his pants.
Sometimes we need to use common sense. Our leaders have security guards. They definitely are carrying a gun. Has anyone considered carrying a disabling a disabling gun?
Police often don’t have the range practice time built into their work day. Like a SF friend of mine says, there’s always going to be a plumber from the country that will shoot better, that’s the beauty of our country.
💯
The reality is that this policy was created by lawyers and PR strategists. God had nothing to do with it.
Because the Church is a worldwide church, I understand why they don't allow weapons in the handbook. But laws are different everywhere in the world. It should say, Abide by the laws of the land where you live, instead of a blanket statement. When we lived in Wisconsin there was a man who had crashed a car into a gun shop and stole a ton of guns close to our building. Some members of the bishopric had several men armed with concealed carry by the doors for our entire service. Now THAT is how you do it.
No where in doctrine does it say I have to be a soft target in church to gain the celestial kingdom. I carry. My family’s safety is more important than some PC feel good nonsense.
Don't certain members of the LDS church have body guards and protected from a shooter. I guess the general population lives aren't quite important as their lives.