Posted on Aug 27, 2019
mormon-leaders-change-rules-and-ban-all-weapons-in-church-against-guns-in-church
699
2
2
1
1
0
I never saw this coming. Indeed, I have a hard time believing it. Self-reliance is as much a part of the Mormon life as religious dogma. (At least that's my view as an outsider - indeed, I have great respect for them in great part because of this attitude) Mormons in their early history were greatly reviled and persecuted. They were harried as they escaped to the West where they finally settled in Utah and fortified themselves so they wouldn't be pushed any further. They armed and organized themselves into militias, some of the most effective in America's history. Granted, the persecution of Mormons is nothing today compared to what it was in those early days, but to see them abandon their means of self-defense at the doors of their houses of worship surprises me. Were they inspired by just one incident?
mormon-leaders-change-rules-and-ban-all-weapons-in-church-against-guns-in-church
Posted from latimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Mormon
Mormon
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Further, I'm convinced we're going to see similar actions by other Christian faith communities in the near future...and here's why. Speaking as a Christian, weapons have always been a contentious point. Believe it or not, I actually "lost the first young love of my life" because of my choice to join the Military...she believed it was a sign I didn't respect Christ's teachings, or trust in His will...so no happily ever after (personally, I think I fared better in my eventual choice of spouse, but that's beside the point).
There's no way getting around the precedent set by the early Christian church...they went to their deaths largely without even trying to save themselves; some of our greatest heroes of the faith were martyrs. It was only once Christianity became the predominant faith, and the strategic aims of nations were intermingled with it, that we saw the rise of the "Christian warrior" ethos. That's not challenged much when leveraged against universally evil enemies...but it becomes a very controversial subject when applied to more ambiguous realities.
For myself, I made peace along time ago with the fact that the choice is really very simple; would I allow not only myself, but my wife, child, friends, neighbors, and other innocents to die...or would I risk my life to defend them? Since the odds are ALWAYS going to be on the "bad guy's" side (he knows what he's going to do, where he's going to do it, and how he's going to do it long before I will)...the choice to be armed is to voluntarily accept the mindset (and the responsibility) that I may have to put myself in harm's way for others. Maybe that fits what's being said in John 15:13...maybe it doesn't. The only alternative, in my mind, would be to accept that if death comes...I'm going to choose it not only for myself, but others around me. Frankly, that seems less in keeping with the intent of Christ's message of peace, than it does with hiding fear behind a false notion of faith-based pacifism.
Still, I won't condemn the Mormons for their choice...or anyone else who does the same; God said, "Thou shalt not kill". Whether than means (as some Biblical scholars suggest) "murder"...or whether it really means not ever, under any circumstance, is a choice for the individual to make.
There's no way getting around the precedent set by the early Christian church...they went to their deaths largely without even trying to save themselves; some of our greatest heroes of the faith were martyrs. It was only once Christianity became the predominant faith, and the strategic aims of nations were intermingled with it, that we saw the rise of the "Christian warrior" ethos. That's not challenged much when leveraged against universally evil enemies...but it becomes a very controversial subject when applied to more ambiguous realities.
For myself, I made peace along time ago with the fact that the choice is really very simple; would I allow not only myself, but my wife, child, friends, neighbors, and other innocents to die...or would I risk my life to defend them? Since the odds are ALWAYS going to be on the "bad guy's" side (he knows what he's going to do, where he's going to do it, and how he's going to do it long before I will)...the choice to be armed is to voluntarily accept the mindset (and the responsibility) that I may have to put myself in harm's way for others. Maybe that fits what's being said in John 15:13...maybe it doesn't. The only alternative, in my mind, would be to accept that if death comes...I'm going to choose it not only for myself, but others around me. Frankly, that seems less in keeping with the intent of Christ's message of peace, than it does with hiding fear behind a false notion of faith-based pacifism.
Still, I won't condemn the Mormons for their choice...or anyone else who does the same; God said, "Thou shalt not kill". Whether than means (as some Biblical scholars suggest) "murder"...or whether it really means not ever, under any circumstance, is a choice for the individual to make.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
CPT Jack Durish, the article indicates that LEOs would continue to carry. Seems like to me that the various churches could have a security force of off duty police officers wearing plainclothes inside the church. Many churches already employ off duty police officers to help with traffic management. It could get expensive, but it still seems like a possibility.
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google