Mormons’ New Policy Officially Prohibits Carrying Firearms in All Churches

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH - Mormon Salt Lake Temple. Built be

Bigstock

Declaring that their churches should be places of peace and havens from the outside world, leaders of the Mormon church have officially prohibited worshippers from carrying firearms in any of their houses of worship. Carrying guns had only been discouraged in the past. The new policy makes an exception for law enforcement officers.

Perhaps LDS leaders would have benefitted from talking to Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein of Chabad of Poway. While we’re sure the rabbi considered his sanctuary a place of peace, too, he was realistic enough about the realities of the outside world to know that such prohibitions do nothing to stop evil individuals who mean to do his congregation harm.

There was nothing to stop a man from opening fire in a Fallon, Nevada Mormon church last year and the new policy won’t stop anyone else who’s similarly bent on murder.

Read: Security Strategies for Your Church Safety Team

Here’s the Associated Press’s report on the new Mormon edict (which notably avoids mentioning the Poway shooting when listing other recent incidents in houses of worship) . . .

By Brady McCombs

Most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints already knew they were discouraged from taking their guns to church on Sunday, but the church is making sure that message is crystal clear by tweaking the policy to prohibit all lethal weapons.

The previous policy called it inappropriate to have weapons on church property. It still includes an exception for law enforcement officers.

The clarification comes one year after a fatal shooting inside one of its churches in rural Nevada and as religions around the country grapple with how to deal with gun violence that has spread to places of worship.

The change went into effect the first week of August and a letter explaining it was first sent to local leaders in Texas and shared with members there, said church spokesman Daniel Woodruff. The impetus was a new Texas law that takes effect soon that makes it clearer in state law that licensed handgun holders can carry weapons in churches, synagogues and other houses of worship.

The same letter will be sent elsewhere to local leaders, who will be responsible for sharing it with their congregations, Woodruff said.

“Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world,” the revised policy says. “With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited.”

Woodruff didn’t immediately answer questions about why the change was made now and how it would be communicated to members.

The handbook where the language was changed isn’t commonly read by church members so how this is disseminated will affect how much impact it has at the congregational level, said Matthew Bowman, an associate professor of history and religion and Howard W. Hunter Chair in Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California.

The move is likely driven by rising awareness of gun violence in the U.S. Bowman said it also seems to fit with the church’s attempt to adapt to being a more global religion, representative of cultures other than the American West that is steeped in hunting and guns.

“It is illustrative of the church’s slow evolution away from being a largely Western rural church which it has been for a long, long time toward a more cosmopolitan, international organization,” Bowman said.

Today, more than half of the religion’s 16 million members live outside the United States. Church President Russell M. Nelson is currently on another global ministry trip, this time to Latin America.

Scott Gordon, president of FairMormon, a volunteer organization that supports the church, said it’s pretty rare for people to bring weapons to church but that the faith seems to want to eliminate any ambiguity about the rule.

“In any organization, you have people who might desire to protect or take the law into their own hands, and I think the church in this policy is saying, ‘Please don’t. Church is a place of peace,'” Gordon said.

Recent shootings in places of worship include a gunman who killed 11 during services last October at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. More than two dozen people were killed by a gunman in 2017 at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. In Charleston, South Carolina, eight black parishioners and their pastor were killed in a racist shooting in 2015.

The fatal shooting in the Latter-day Saints church occurred in July 2018 in Fallon, Nevada, when a man opened fire during Sunday services and killing one man and wounding the victim’s brother.

We don’t know what the carry policy was at the Centro Cristiano De Columbia Church in Columbia, South Carolina, but whatever it was, it didn’t prevent a man from walking in Sunday morning and shooting a parishioner.

The Forest Acres Police Department is on the hunt for a gunman who shot a parishioner early Sunday morning after an attempted robbery.

At approximately 6:15 a.m., the gunman entered Centro Cristiano De Columbia Church in Columbia, South Carolina. The suspect demanded money and fired two shots into the air with a small silver semi-automatic pistol before turning his gun on 23-year-old Esvin Perez.<

Perez was shot in the torso, and he was taken to a local hospital with a life-threatening gunshot wound, according to the Forest Acres Police Department. He was immediately taken into surgery, and he is listed in critical but stable condition.

comments

  1. avatar Aaron says:

    In my mind that said Morons:)

      1. avatar Microlead says:

        As an apocalyptic cult that never planned to see the twentieth century when it was founded, the Mormons, who believe they turn to God’s when they die and be given their own planet to rule over, have no fear of guns. But like what they did to Boy Scouts, their idea of being prepared is non existent.

        1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

          They are really into stockpiling food. If you are into that sort of thing you can buy cheap good stuff from them

    1. avatar kevin says:

      Rather than ban guns, why don’t they ban self-defense in all its forms? You know, turn the other cheek and all that. Or is self-defense permitted, but armed self-defense is not? Can I hit an attacker with a bible, or my shoe? Isn’t a cane or an umbrella a “lethal weapon?”So are canes and umbrellas banned, or just shant be used as weapons?

      I’m so confused.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      the mormons seem pretty good with security….just ask bill maher….

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      All they have done is to let the crazies know they can get their victims in their churches.

  2. avatar Biatec says:

    I’m surprised a bit. I have very Mormon family members I wouldn’t expect them to agree with this. Well they did ban gay people from being part of the church and the kids of gay people lol (because you know blame the kids for things you disagree with of the parents). So I don’t know just more silliness.

  3. avatar enuf says:

    Without exception every church, every house of worship of every faith in the USA should have a security plan. That must include at least several parishioners who volunteer to train up and be armed in different locations at every service.

    That’s the minimum of good sense in this era of nutjobs wanting to make a statement or start a war or some other crazy mass murder reason for shooting up a church.

    Less than that and the church leadership is living in a fantasy world of their own making. One where love and kindness make you bullet proof.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “The previous policy called it inappropriate to have weapons on church property. It still includes an exception for law enforcement officers.”

      ****
      Here in CA, we’re already accustomed to LE being exempted from everything the unwashed masses have to adhere to. If it’s “inappropriate” to have weapons on their property, then any exemptions are an oxymoron.

      Besides, simply being a LEO doesn’t make a person “appropriate”. Look at the LASD Deputy who was found yesterday to have made up the entire story of being shot by a sniper, or the group of LEOs that shot up the truck of innocent women while looking for Michael Dorner.

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        Haz,

        You beat me to it on your “inappropriate” comments…

        I have aunts, uncles and cousins that are LDS. I’ll have to ask them what they think of it (a couple are retired DoD Service members, LEO’s, and avid hunters).

        Sad to see the LDS leadership kowtowing to social media and the Globalists.

        A bit of paraphrasing here…if it’s bad for the goose than it should be bad for the gander…

        LEO’s are not supermen / women…merely humans with all the same weaknesses, prejudices and foibles as everyone else…some are diligent officers and some are the Cowards of Broward.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Old Guy in Montana,

          LEO’s are not supermen / women…merely humans with all the same weaknesses, prejudices and foibles as everyone else…some are diligent officers and some are the Cowards of Broward.

          I am so going to steal that quote — and use is shamelessly and often!

        2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Thank you. It’s not that often that I come up with something original.

          You are welcome to use any words I post here.

  4. avatar MB says:

    If they choose to be sitting ducks that’s their choice. I carry a gun everywhere I go including church. Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one, but I refuse to become a victim because of someone’s feelings and unjustified fear of inanimate objects.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I doubt it’s a fear of guns themselves. More like fear of an overly-litigous society.

  5. avatar PeterK says:

    That’s…. weird…

    Why was this only sent to Texas if it’s an official policy change for the church?

    As a gun-loving member, I can still say I’m okay with this. The people you have to worry about aren’t going to worry about what this policy is, and the ones who carry probably will regardless of the policy, and the ones I’d want carrying will be circumspect anyway.

    So yeah. Commence the flaming now I guess.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      While it is the church’s policy everywhere, how it is announced is different in Texas.
      Under Texas law, it is legal to carry concealed weapons in places of worship. However, churches can bar weapons on religious premises by giving “effective notice” verbally or thorough building signs.

  6. avatar Bullwinkle says:

    Knute(ken), if you’re reading this, keep close watch. Something is coming.

    – A Friend

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      you didn’t knock me down, ray.

    2. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      I’m reading. Can’t figure why I would care about anything mormon though.
      I just lump all religious fanatics into the same pile. I could care less about any dogma, be it Muslem, any christian offshoot, Democrip, Rebloodlican, etc.
      “All dogma belongs in a garbage can.” -The Gospel of Knute, chapter 1, verse 1.
      🙂

      1. avatar Tiny says:

        If there is no God then where does law come from? If a human says something (thou shalt not kill for example) it is just an opinion.

      2. avatar TickTalk says:

        Crom is strong. If I die I have to go before him, and he will ask me “What is the riddle of steel?” And if I don’t know it he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me! That’s Crom – strong on his mountain!

    3. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      “Try ignoring whatever rule book and THINK instead” – G.O.K. chapter 1, verse TWO

      1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

        BTW, no offense meant to any one. I’m not thinking of any one, just sheeple in general. Plus it sounds like a cool follow up to the first…

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I thought that the Mormons were supposed to be prepared or something. Maybe I got that wrong.

  8. avatar Dan says:

    Thou shalt not defend yourself in church.

  9. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Absolutely baffled at how the Mormon church equates enhanced vulnerability with peacefulness.

    1. avatar Brewski says:

      Indoctrinated helplessness and full dependence on “the church” = full coffers.

      Church is nothing more than group therapy and moral / value theater to feel better about the reality of human nature.

  10. avatar Dave in Houston says:

    Well, it’s an extremely dangerous to declare you are a gun free zone, and dumber to ban all lethal weapons but it is their property and they have the right to set the rules.

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Hopefully this will cause people to recognize how dumb this is and prompt them to seek the truth, leading to them leaving that false religion.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Muslims claim all other religions are false. So do Catholics. So do Baptists. So do……

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          Lol. Yep.

        2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Yeah, that’s how truth works. If one thing is true then anything which contradicts is necessarily not true.

          As with any truth claim, figuring out what the truth is requires examining the evidence.

    2. avatar Brewski says:

      The most lethal weapon has been and always will be human nature. You would think religion that tells us how we are all sinners would put two and two together.

      Hypocrisy and religion go hand in hand.

  11. avatar Steven Lynch says:

    Now dammit!! And I was going to show off my new holster for my .50 BMG SBR tomorrow!! No sex and no guns?

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      I thought the Mormons supported sex as long as it was with one of your wives.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        Ha ha

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints … prohibit[s] all lethal weapons [on church property].

    [Church policy] still includes an exception for law enforcement officers.

    (1) Hands/feet are murder weapons more often than rifles and shotguns — and are thus clearly lethal weapons. So the church is clearly NOT prohibiting all lethal weapons, just the weapons that it does not like.

    (2) If lethal weapons are wrong in a place of “peace” and “worship”, why do they allow law enforcement to carry “lethal weapons”? Either it is wrong or it is not wrong.

    (3) Since parishioners cannot have “lethal weapons” on church PROPERTY, that means they cannot transport their firearms to/from church even to leave them in their vehicle while attending church service. Therefore the church opposes effective self-defense even outside of church in clear violation of Scripture.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…in clear violation of Scripture.’

      The fact that they ban the consumption of alcohol is enough to tell me that ‘scripture’ isn’t what they base their beliefs on. Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine for a group of people who had just drank their entire supply and Jesus’ detractors labeled him a glutton and a drunk. Clearly Jesus condoned it’s consumption, even to excess on occasion. To claim that drinking even a small amount of alcohol isn’t Christian is to tear a few pages out of the New Testament and burn them.

      Also, aren’t cars lethal weapons? Seems someone in France once killed 86 people with one. Guess the parking lots will be empty at the tabernacle and everyone will be wearing their walking shoes.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Governor,

        Also, aren’t cars lethal weapons? Seems someone in France once killed 86 people with one. Guess the parking lots will be empty at the tabernacle and everyone will be wearing their walking shoes.

        Well their walking shoes better be slippers since many gang members and other sordid individuals make it a point to wear hard shoes and boots for the explicit purpose of enhancing their ability to seriously injure and/or kill someone with their feet.

      2. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

        “Guess the parking lots will be empty at the tabernacle and everyone will be wearing their walking shoes.”

        Walking shoes? On weapons so dangerous they consistently kill more people annually than evil black ‘assault rifles’ do?

        No ‘walking shoes’ allowed, soft slippers *only*… 🙂

  13. avatar Dude says:

    “the church’s attempt to adapt to being a more global religion, representative of cultures other than the American West”

    Can some Mormon explain how they represent American West culture? I’m imagining preachers wearing cowboy hats. Is this about right?

    Maybe the Mormon leaders should watch that video of the cop accidentally killing that lady while trying to take out her scary dog.

    1. avatar Tiny says:

      Don’t consider just any source as the truth. The person that said that isn’t correct.

  14. avatar Jr says:

    Moroni will protect them I’m sure

  15. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    This should turn out well….

  16. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…churches should be places of peace…’

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  17. avatar NORDNEG says:

    If you carry concealed, they won’t know will they,
    & since most of their parishioners are in out her country’s, maybe they should just move their headquarters somewhere that has no weapons,,, good luck with that…

  18. avatar Texas Gun Vault says:

    The mormons are such lost people. They believe things that have scientifically been proven false (Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel), they follow the teachings of a man who obviously just wanted a church of his own and made a lot of crazy and unverifiable claims in a post-enlightment world, and find a way to legally marry a bunch of women.

    While I believe they have the right to worship as they please, live in a peaceful way and in the civil society with all rights, this rule just demonstrates how unwelcome they are in my personal life and home.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Everything you say applies equally to Christianity, Judaism and Islam as well as the rest of the world’s religions that involve supernatural deities.

      The Mormons have no monopoly on delusion.

      1. avatar Jabberwockey says:

        I’m not religious or “spiritual” but I respect the Branch Davidians for having the ultimate pro gun policy.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Miner49er,

        Everything you say [Mormons believe things that have scientifically been proven false (Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel) …] applies equally to Christianity …

        Um, no. Christianity has not claimed that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel. Furthermore, I am not aware of anything in the Bible that Science has proven false. Please provide examples where Science has proven the Bible wrong.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          To my knowledge there’s nothing in the Bible that science has proven to be wrong. Realistically science can’t prove a negative proposition other than as a by-product of proving something that’s mutually exclusive is true.

          Now there are certainly common claims about the Bible that science has discredited but those claims are not made by or in the Bible itself, they’re created by people who read the book and drew unsupported conclusions. The most obvious being the young Earth Creationist’s claim that the world is ~6000 years old. That idea isn’t in the Bible and wasn’t popular until the past century. It doesn’t even exist as an idea within Christianity until the early 1600’s (1100’s if we want to be very generous to the young earthers and twist the words of some people who wrote back then).

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Strych9,

          You are correct that the Bible does not explicitly set the age of Earth nor of the universe.

          It is important to note that Science has not proven the Earth to be millions, much less billions, of years old. To the contrary, we are discovering countless new facts in recent decades that support the assertion that Earth is thousands of years old, not millions of years old. Whether Earth is 6,000 years old or 60,000 years old I do not know. What evidence does tell us is that Earth should NOT be millions of years old.

          As for claims that the Universe is billions of years old — to explain the apparent distance of distant objects — all such ages are based on unverifiable assumptions. For example one such assumption is that interstellar space if infinitely transparent. That may be true. And it may not be true. Since we have no way of definitively measuring (as in with a giant tape measure) the distance to a point that is thousands of light years away and measuring the luminosity of our sun from that point, we cannot definitively say whether or not the universe is infinitely transparent.

          Another assumption is that the universe never expanded faster than the speed of light which puts an upper limit on expansion and hence a minimum limit on the size of the universe. However, no one was around to measure the expansion of the universe at its creation and tell us definitely how fast it expanded. Furthermore, the most recent calculations tell us that the universe HAD to have expanded faster than the speed of light after the Big Bang or else the universe would have collapsed back on itself fractions of a second after the Big Bang into a singularity and disappeared from existence. The problem with that explanation: Cosmologists ASSUME that the time period which allowed for the universe to expand faster than the speed of light coincides with, wait for it, their preconceived notion that the universe is approximately 13 billion years old. As you can probably imagine, Cosmologists cannot explain the Physics that allowed the fabric of space-time and matter/energy to expand faster than the speed of light, nor can they explain why the Physics allowing that rapid expansion would only be limited to a tiny fraction of a second versus hours, weeks, or years. And, as if that wasn’t an insurmountable problem, Cosmologists cannot tell us how much faster than the speed of light that the early universe was able to expand.

          Thus, distant objects could very well be 13 billion light years away and simply got there within seconds after the Big Bang, moving at a billion times the speed of light. (Why not?)

        3. avatar MB says:

          @uncommon_sense, Yup, the dinosaurs died off and fossilized themselves back when the Egyptians were building the pyramids 4,500 years ago, right after they banned SUV’s and Freon. Do you know Carbon14 decays at a very specific rate that can be measured and used to date living creatures and plants back 50,000 years very accurately, to within 20-50 years. To date rocks, soil or a fossil,. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon to date ancient events. The earth is billions of years old, the known universe is several times older, around 13.8 billion years, give or take a few weeks.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          *Glances at telescope in corner*

          **As for the Earth being thousands of years old, outside of religious circles, I’ve seen zero evidence for this. I’d be interested to see what information you’re discussing here.**

          So, that’s a lot to unpack and I haven’t even heard of, never mind read about, all the stuff you mention here in terms of counter-claims.

          So there are a few things to note right off the bat. The first is that science is based on theory. The number of things we call “facts” and “laws” is a pretty small portion of the overall volume of human knowledge. I would also preface the whole thing by saying that the general layman reporting on science sucks. It’s flat-the-fuck-out awful. Journalists know fuck all about science and act as a filter for the public, the public thereby gains a lot of their understanding from people who don’t know shit about what they’re talking about. Kinda like… guns.

          The second thing to note is that aberrations don’t necessarily negate a theory unless they come with their own theory that explains the aberration and can also explain everything that the commonly accepted theory does. They may simply mean that the theory needs to be refined because it’s not entirely correct or has pieces missing. That’s where something like the Flat Earth Theory falls on it’s face. People say “Well science can’t explain X, so science must be wrong!”. Science never claimed to be “right” and the counter-theory of Flat Earth explains X but fails to explain literally everything else we can observe. So, which is more likely to be on the right track? The one that explains everything except a couple anomalies we can’t figure out yet or the theory that explains a single anomaly and nothing else?

          The third thing to note, specifically about astronomy, is that yes, the numbers are kinda squishy because they’re HUGE. Usually anything within an order of magnitude is an acceptable answer at this point because we’re not trying to make exact calculations such as how much star-ship fuel you need to get somewhere. Since at this point we can’t get to another galaxy if it’s 135 million or 134.42389679384754 LY away doesn’t matter. Really, in the bigger scheme of things, at this point it doesn’t matter if it’s 100, 135 or 190. We can figure it out way, way better than that but generally in astronomy order of magnitude calculations are considered acceptable. An acquaintance of mine actually does this kind of stuff studying the magnetic fields on Mars as they’re trying to nail down how much water might have been there originally.

          Forth when it comes to astronomy we base a lot of what we say in that field on math. For example, math and physics predict, and explain rather well, the theory of star-system (and on a larger scale galaxy) formation really quite well. We can observe proto-star systems and proto-galaxies and these line up with our expectations. However, these theories cannot explain everything.

          For example, in our own solar-system both Venus and Uranus have retrograde sidereal rotation whereas the rest of the large objects in the system tends to have a prograde rotation. Why? Truthfully no one knows. Impacts are a hypothesis, same as our moon’s existence and the oddball orbit of Pluto outside the expected plane of our accretion disk but no one really knows because no one was around to observe what happened.

          Then there are other oddites like HD 140283, a star called “The Methuselah Star”. It’s been calculated to be older than the universe. 16 billion years old. However, that calculation was in error. Further research on that star indicates that it’s 13.7BY old. “AH HA!” some said, scientists know nothing! This is proof! Yeah, well they didn’t bother to report that that 13.7 billion number is +/- 800 million years old. Meaning the star may be as young as 12.9 billion years. That’s a Margin of Error that was IN THE PAPER. On top of that, no one bothers to point out to the general population that 13.5 billion years is the commonly accepted, yet admittedly unrefined estimate of the age of the universe. Literally no one has ever claimed, in serious astronomy circles, to KNOW the age of the universe. In fact, that number is constantly revised. In 2012 two different calculations were run and both produced numbers within a stated margin of error. One was 13.82 billion and the other was 13.772 billion.

          Go read any of the actual literature on this and you find that while these numbers get bandied about in non-science circles the actually accepted ideas are that the universe cannot be less than 11 billion years old but how much older it is than that is unknown. When people state these numbers in astronomy it’s supposed to be understood that “for the purposes of this discussion based on the work we did which is based on these assumptions we get…” is before everything else. Journalists fuck that part up.

          Those assumption sometimes fall. “Hot Jupiter” exo planets were once thought impossible. A gas giant inside the frost line? UNPOSSIBLE. Then we found them. Lot’s of them. Oh, well, inside a certain distance from a star there cannot be vapor condensation. Too hot, gasses ONLY. Oh, shit, what? These planets have VAPOR? DAFUQ?

          Science is a constant refinement. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong in science, it’s actually kind of the point, to eliminate that which is demonstrably wrong. We create a theory and then we test it. If it fails, it’s gone. If it survives we keep testing it until it either fails or becomes commonly accepted but even commonly accepted theories fail.

          Just ask Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren. They figured out back in the 1980’s that it wasn’t stress that caused ulcers, but rather bacteria, specifically Helicobacter pylori in most cases. They were laughed at and ridiculed until the late 1990’s. In 2005 they both got the Nobel for that discovery. After a couple decades of being made fun of.

          But, given a long enough time line we’ll eventually figure it out by eliminating the things we think that are wrong.

        5. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Kudos for one of your best posts ever on TTAG.

          V/R,
          OGiM

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Strych9,

          Kudos for describing the true nature of Science as well as the fact that many Astronomy numbers are ballpark numbers.

          Here are some problems with the universe and Earth being billions of years old.
          1) There is only a tiny amount of dust (on the order of one inch) on the moon’s surface. Billions of years of micrometeoroid impacts should have resulted in several meters (or more) of dust. Claims that meteoroid impacts would coalesce into rock-like quality could be true. And they could just as easily be false. No one knows since no one was there when the moon formed.
          2) Earth’s molten core, for the history of mankind, has been just right to generate the magnetic field that we need to shield our planet from nasty space stuff. However, given the half-life of the radioactive materials that generate the heat which melts our core, Earth would have been a molten ball far too long to support spontaneous generation of life. And if our molten ball of a planet cooled sufficiently long ago for spontaneous generation of life, then we would not have enough radioactive material left to keep our molten core today and shield us from nasty space stuff. (Our planet would have become “cold” long ago and all that nasty space stuff would have wiped out life on Earth.)
          3) If Earth were billions of years old, our oceans should be far, far saltier than they are and they should have filled with sediment millions of years ago.
          4) Geological aging techniques for dating Earth at four billion years old rely on sedimentary as well as erosion processes which take hundreds of millions/billions of years. And yet we have actually observed such processes occur anywhere from almost instantly to within a few decades, which means Earth could very well be several thousand years old rather than billions of years old. But if Earth is only several thousand years old, our solar system cannot be billions of years old and, most likely, the universe is not billions of years old.

          There are other examples as well. These examples should provide enough reason to question the “conventional wisdom” and research further.

          And let’s be candid. There are simple and highly plausible explanations for distant objects appearing to be so distant even though they have only existed for less than 100,000 years. The REAL reason why so many scientists keep pushing numbers which require the universe to be billions of years old is because that age underpins macro-evolution hypotheses. Saying it another way, they NEED the universe to be billions of years old so they cook up explanations to support numbers of that magnitude.

          Final thought for you. I have been keeping this to myself hoping to use it as part of a package of materials that I might be able to use for a speaking tour some day. You mentioned some planets in our solar system that rotate in the wrong direction which does not jive with the accretion disk theory. Let me tell you why the accretion disk theory is silly from the get-go. Earth has heavy elements. That is an indisputable fact. Cosmology claims that the only naturalistic process which creates those heavy elements on a large scale are star life cycles which create ever heavier and heavier elements in their cores. Then one day the star goes nova or supernova and distributes those heavy elements into the universe. Finally, those heavy elements were in our solar system’s accretion disk. And therein is the insurmountable problem. Stars that go nova or supernova eject those heavy elements at speeds approaching relativistic velocities. Furthermore, that matter travels through the purported vacuum of interstellar space without any resistance whatsoever. That means those particles travel forever at those same hyper-velocities, spreading out quickly to densities on the order of one sand-grain size particle per cubic astronomical unit. Thus, there could never be a nice, dense, pretty much motionless cloud of light and heavy elements, approximately the size of our solar system, which then begins to spin and collapse on itself to form our sun and planets.

          This simple flaw in Cosmology brings down the entire house of cards. Quite simply, there is no naturalistic explanation for the presence of planets made of heavy elements. Thus, why would we trust Cosmology’s claims about the age of the universe when Cosmology got such a basic detail so wrong?

        7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          MB,

          Sure, we know radioactive carbon (carbon14) decay rate and we can determine with respectable accuracy the ratio of radioactive carbon to stable carbon in an object today. What we do NOT know (and have no way of knowing) is the ratio of radioactive carbon to stable carbon in our environment several thousand years ago. If Earth is only 9,000 years old and the ratio of radioactive carbon to stable carbon was a tiny fraction of today’s value, samples that are 9,000 years old would appear to be much older. Thus, carbon14 dating is only as accurate as our knowledge of the initial conditions which we absolutely have NO way of knowing prior to about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. Once again, we see that a dating method depends entirely on an assumption (that the ratio of radioactive carbon to stable carbon has always been the same) when, in fact, we have absolutely no data one way or another that said assumption is accurate. That assumption could just as easily be true as it is false.

          This same fact applies to other radiometric dating methods as well. All such methods fit exponential decay curves to an assumed initial condition without actually knowing the initial condition. I have news for you. Give me any segment of an exponential decay curve and I can define an equation which accommodates that curve and any initial condition I want.

          This is the problem with ancient dating methods: people base ALL of them on arbitrary, unverifiable assumptions. And they have to because NO ONE WAS THERE when everything started. Even worse, those unverifiable assumptions are all circular. Cosmologists define calculations which fit observable data to expected time scales (billions of years) because Geologists tell us that Earth is billions of years old. And Geologists define calculations which fit observable data to expected time scales (billions of year) because Cosmologists tell us that the universe is billions of years old. Finally, Cosmologists and Geologists tell us that everything is billions of years old because macro-evolution proponents tell us that everything has to be billions of years old.

          And now I will drive the point home that ancient dating methods are utterly and totally unreliable. We all know that dinosaurs became extinct something like 200 million years ago, right? And we also know that soft tissue cannot possibly exist in the ground for 200 million years, right? Therefore, a dinosaur bone cannot possibly have soft tissue, right? Then please explain the soft tissue that a scientist discovered in a dinosaur bone after soaking the bone in weak acid for several hours to remove some of the mineralization? This discovery brings down several houses of cards. If soft tissue cannot survive for millions of years, then this dinosaur was alive a few thousand years ago. Another possibility that is almost as problematic for ancient dating practices: processes which supposedly take eons to happen (fossilizing a bone) can actually happen in very short order, on the order of days or years. Since those processes can happen so quickly, we cannot use the existence of such objects/processes to claim that Earth is hundreds of millions or billions of years old.

          At the very least, these facts should cause all of us to question the “conventional wisdom” and dig deeper. Or so I hope.

        8. avatar MB says:

          @uncommon_sense: Much of what your reply is totally incorrect, I suggest you read >>
          http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-radiocarbon-dating-and-how-does-it-work-9690.
          BTW, dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid 65 million years ago, not 200 million years.
          Also Egyptology has traced the linage of the pharaohs with fairly good reliability, yes nobody from the present was there to record it, but the scribes of the time did, and they did a competent job of it. The geology of the planet, the movement of the continents, all these things when added together completely destroys your theory of 6,000 years…. God’s timeline does not have to match earth’s rotation, so how do you know if God said he created the earth in 6 days, it could have been 600,000 earth years

        9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          MB,

          My point with dinosaurs is that “conventional wisdom” tells us that dinosaurs were here 10s of millions of years ago and have been extinct for 10s of millions of years … which is not true if dinosaur bones still have soft tissue. Whether the alleged extinction date was 200 million or 65 million years ago does not matter to my argument.

          I never claimed that Earth is only 6,000 years old. It might be. And it might be 12,000 years old. And it might be 20,000 years old. I put the age of the Earth at several thousands of years old. At any rate, all available data refutes the proposition that Earth is tens or hundreds of millions of years old, much less billions of years old.

          As for radiocarbon dating, it is a process of attempting to define the equation of an exponential decay curve and extrapolating backwards to an origin. And I am telling you unequivocally that you cannot extrapolate backwards to an origin if you do not know the initial conditions. That is simple Mathematics. (In this case the initial condition is how plentiful carbon14 was in the environment when the living thing stopped ingesting carbon14 from the environment, which could be considerably higher or lower than at other points in the past or present since we have no way of knowing.)

          I provided several examples that clearly show all of the end results used to define the age of Earth and the universe are 100% dependent on unverifiable assumptions, assumptions that could just as easily be correct, significantly higher, or significantly lower. Saying it another way, all of our end results are extrapolations, which are by their very nature unreliable. That is a basic fact of Mathematics, especially as you extrapolate several orders of magnitude beyond your known data set.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      always like to tease them about their “magic underwear”…maybe that’s what they’re counting on?….

  19. avatar Reason says:

    Oh no Glen Beck will have to leave his gun at home when he goes to church.

    Think he will follow the churches orders and disarm himself and his body guards?

  20. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Their Church, their rules. I guess when you can’t trust your members,guns should not be allowed. Not my problem.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Randy Jones,

      I guess when you can’t trust your members …

      That is an interesting angle. I think I am going to use that.

  21. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    I no longer attend services as I am unwelcome at any of the local churches with my pistol and Georgia law says the church has to specifically allow them. I avoid places where it is illegal for me to be armed. The church I was raised in has become so left-wing that the worldwide organization kicked them to the curb, so for now my religion is between God and myself.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The way it should be. Any activity that gets organized and ran by people becomes corrupt. Without exception. Especially religions and their institutions.

      I am not an atheist. But anybody that puts his faith in men is going to be disappointed.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Good God (pun intended) you finally said something that makes logical sense.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You and your fascist buddies in the antifa are prime examples. You’re the victims of your upper ‘management’ in the left. They hope you all get killed in the streets to give their ’cause’ credibility and public sympathy. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit that they arranged the killing themselves.

        2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          A kind of Clintonesque solution to sycophants and squealers… Epstein was only the latest in a long string of sudden death-syndrome Clinton confidantes. If Hilly’s mind (and health) can last a bit longer maybe the Powers That Be will let her be Empress for a day after the USA succumbs to Soc…, Comm…, Globalism.

        3. avatar Vlad's dad says:

          Strictly speaking, the boy does not have any “buddies”. Just last week, I discovered him in the back yard with a group of antifa thugs. They were bouncing bottles off his head, beating him with sticks and kicking him. I asked them if they were practicing for a protest. They said “no, we just don’t like him”.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          You think Clinton was an Epstein confidant?

          I see many more pictures of trump and Epstein together with a whole Lotta young girls, how about that party with just the two bully boys and 28 girls?

          Interesting, Trump and Epstein party together many times, the Clintons just rode the airplane a few times and yet you think he’s a Clinton confidant?

          Fascinating.

  22. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Isn’t the Mormon religion the same religion that shot and killed , murdered, non-Mormon settlers wishing to settle in Utah since they believed that Utah was the Mormon’s promised land?
    I believe they sometimes would escort settlers through the territory just in case the settlers might change their mind and stay. At a price, I’ll bet.
    There is a reason why many Americans are leery of Mormons and it isn’t because they are a peaceful group. Most of the naughty history involving Mormons has been quietly erased.
    Who are they kidding? Then again, only Mormon cops would attend Mormon services and I imagine that there is no shortage of Mormon cops and Mormons are service oriented people, shortages at individual meeting places will be identified and filled as a service requirement. That’s how they operate. Just so you know the truth behind the fake facade.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Wars have been fought for reasons pushed by organized religion. Human sacrifices have occurred because of organized religion.

      The mormons left their homes in the states because church leaders of other religions riled the people up against them. They then separated themselves from the US and started their own independent city state. They were ahead of the confederacy by a few years. Mormons were defending what they thought of as their country and their way of life.

      The mormons did what a lot of ttag’ers wish they could do. They stood up against the US .gov and in many respects they won.

    2. avatar DesertDave says:

      Early Mormon history is marked by many instances of violence, which have helped to shape the church’s views on violence. The first significant instance occurred in Missouri. Mormons who lived there tended to vote as a bloc, which often lead to the unseating of the local political leadership.[3] Differences culminated in hostilities and the eventual issuing of an executive order (often called the Extermination Order) by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs declaring “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State.” Three days later, a militia unit attacked a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill, resulting in the death of 18 Mormons and no militiamen. The Extermination Order was not formally rescinded until 1976.
      — Wikipedea

      There was a lot of violence perpetrated on the LDS folks back in the day. That’s why they moved to Utah. I can understand their mistrust of those that tried to do them in due to their religious beliefs. Generally all of the LDS folks I have ever known seem to be great people, hard workers and upstanding citizens.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Look up blood atonement and baptism by proxy.

        Blood atoning their unbelieving neighbors is exactly what got the Mormons run out of Ohio, Illinois, etc.

        My favorite is the Mormons who baptized Anne Frank into the Mormon faith.

        The Mormons perform their genealogy research so they can steal your ancestors from Christianity and baptized by proxy them into the Mormon faith so they must serve the Mormon gods once they’ve died and attain their own planet.

        They have a large hidden bunker in the Wasatch Mountains where they keep all the genealogical research they have stolen from around the United States and the world.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          So maybe you believe a camera will steal your soul?

  23. avatar Brandon says:

    This is unfortunate. Until state compliant signs go up at all entrances I will continue to carry.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      IIRC the Utah law is that you need permission to carry in church in the first place, rather than them being required to proactively put up signs like Texas does.

      Not a Utah-an (?), but IIRC from the UT CHL class.

      1. avatar Brandon says:

        Kansan here temporarily living in Nebraska (which I do believe prohibits carrying in any place of worship). I’m not familiar with UT laws.

  24. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

    That is strange considering John M. Browning (1855-1926) was a devout Mormon who resided in Ogden, Utah. The 1964 book:
    “John M. Browning American Gun Maker” is interesting historical
    reading.

  25. avatar Hank says:

    Seems to me the church hierarchy is hedging it’s bets on its ability to control. As someone who does believe in a creator, I also acknowledge much of organized religion, just like government, revolves around its ability to control people for its own power and continued existence. It’s come to the realization that becoming more “cosmopolitan” and “global” and “liberal” is in fact the best route to maintain control. Conservatism and individualism are in rebellion to this control.

  26. avatar billy-bob says:

    Did someone stick his head in a hat to find this new revelation?

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    CHURCH= The BODY of CHRIST. Mormon’s have ” temples”. And guy’s get their own planet😄😋😏I’m sooooo happy Mitt Romney wasn’t President…

  28. avatar Rocketman says:

    Question: Are you sure that the potential mass murder is going to give a flying fig for your edict that no guns are going to be brought into your church? I’m going to go with NO.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Obviously this is not about stopping mass murderers, it’s more about liability exposure from accidental discharge by amateur gun handlers.

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        Nice to know that you’re one of The Twelve and speak for the Church…

  29. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    i could see this leading to fewer gorgons.

  30. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    I have a lot of respect for the Mormon people- overall these are great people who practice what they preach and their leadership recognize the evils of socialism. This is also a very pro-constitution, pro-2nd amendment people. When the SHTF- they show up- big time!

    That said, if I’m attending any church meeting and feel the desire to cc then I’ll quietly do so. Bible cases and church dress are very cc friendly. Carve outs for LE completely negate any arguments against other civilians exercising their 2nd amendment rights. LE are not “super citizens” with special rights.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      You do know that Mormons strip all their clothes off before they go into tabernacle, and wear a very special suit of clothes into the holy of holy’s. I imagine when you’re taking your clothes off in the group dressing room someone might notice your hog leg and raise objections.

      Of course, you could have a secret holster sewn inside your magic Mormon underwear, the sacred garments might be loose enough to conceal a pocket 25.

  31. avatar Dennis says:

    Till the next shooting in the Mormon chuch!? Who ya gonna blame, Trump?

  32. avatar Hydguy says:

    The third craziest cult (first craziest is the RO’p’, second is Scientology) can do what they want. Won’t affect me in the slightest.

  33. IT’S ALL about the “Authoritarianism!” Where only Law Enforcement and the Government have Firearms and /or Lethal weapons! Any of carrying a lethal weapon can NOT be trusted! For those of the unwashed masses are ALL possibly guilty of a potential crime! Hence, the use UN-Weaponized “Red Flag Laws/Extreme Risk Protection Orders” against individuals in the general population! Trust no one, for Goverment Use ONLY!!!! (Lol!)

  34. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Wow, an LE carve-out and everything! New York and California should be proud! Seems like all churches are trending leftward. Who knows, maybe they’ll even allow gay marriage at some point!

  35. avatar Rich Nascak says:

    Using one fundamental right to infringe upon another.

  36. avatar Booter says:

    #WWNFD
    What Would Nutnfancy Do?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Expect whatever he does to take at least 45 minutes.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        “Philosophy of use”

  37. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Mormon church is now officially just as stupid as the gun grabbing atheists.

    The Mormon church now is just as stupid on purpose, about the bible, as any of these so called Liberal christian churches.

    Now the Mormon church is just as foolish as the Synagogue and black churches use to be.

    The Mormon church is now just as dangerous as Liberal christians and the godless atheists.
    It took only one attack on a black church to convince black people to arm up.

    The jews are really hard headed and they needed two attacks on their houses of worship before they started to consider arming up.

    How many armed attacks are necessary on a Mormon church before they start to arm up???

    I know in California Mormon temples have been fire bombed. Homosexuals have sprayed swastikas on the buildings.

    The Mormons and the Jews really think God will send the government police to save them? As least white conservative and black christians no longer believe this.

    For those that need it. There are Links that discuss “guns and killing in self defense” in the bible. Also “open carry” and “church carry” in the bible as well. “Gun control” is in there as well.

    Any religion that says you can’t defend yourself is worthless. And any religion that says it’s ok to attack non-believers, is dangerous to everyone.

    Now I hope I have offended everyone.

    1. avatar UPS Driver says:

      Nope, just laughed. Try harder.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Any religion that says you can’t defend yourself is worthless. And any religion that says it’s ok to attack non-believers, is dangerous to everyone.

      I think that’s most of them these days.

      1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

        Some, far more so than others…

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The Atheists are just as bad. Atheism worships the power of the state. And most Atheists don’t want you to have guns either. They also trust that the police will be there when they need them.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Guns and Christians Links

          1. Reverend Kenn Blanchard
          https://www.amazon.com/Black-Man-Gun-Kenn-Blanchard/dp/1618080873

          2. Ordained Minister John Corea of the Active Self Protection Youtube channel, one million subscribers.
          https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw

          3. Both Corea and Blanchard were pastors to churches for about eight to ten years each.

          4.Book Review: A Time to Kill, The Myth of Christian Pacifism
          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/book-review-time-kill-myth-christian-pacifism/

          5. The Armed Lutheran Podcast
          http://www.armedlutheran.us/

          6. God and Guns Podcast with Paul Markel as guest
          https://firearmsradio.tv/god-and-guns-podcast/116
          https://firearmsradio.tv/god-and-guns-podcast

          7. Deacons in church who carry guns and shoot bad guys.
          https://www.amazon.com/Deacons-Defense-Resistance-Rights-Movement/dp/0807857025/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1GQPJNABA0RQM&keywords=deacons+for+defense&qid=1567001384&s=books&sprefix=deacons+for+%2Cstripbooks%2C158&sr=1-1

    3. avatar RustyTheBoyRobot says:

      Any religion that says you can’t defend yourself is worthless.

      Just to split hairs: the Mormon church does *not* say you can’t defend yourself. In fact, it explicitly teaches that defense of liberty, family and religion is honorable. This is specifically a policy about what the Mormon church wants for it’s meetinghouses. As was said earlier, this is probably more about liability than doctrine.

      If Mormons on the whole had a doctrinal problem with self-defense, I don’t think they would be owning guns at so high a rate: http://www.city-data.com/top2/co8.html

      That said, I do find it odd that the doctrine seems to be at odds with this policy.

  38. avatar Joe says:

    I knew the second “M” was a typo.

  39. avatar TejasFriend says:

    To all you gun carrying folks who got kicked out of their church…
    Come on by a Southern Baptist Church, reject Mormonism, and accept Jesus as Lord… most SBC churches will let you carry.
    God Bless.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      ….just carry something smaller….

  40. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Man, that really surprises me. I know a lot of Mormons up in Idaho and they really don’t seem like the kind of folks that would put up with this.

  41. avatar Nanashi says:

    Considering Moroni armed EVERYONE, including women and children, I’m going to put this in another case of the leadership not knowing their own religion.

  42. avatar Urker says:

    WOW the vitriol anti Mormon sentiment is strong in here. I understand the church leaders are force ably making their congregations sheep, but more folks here are taking shots at the religion itself and the people who fallow it. Classy guys!

    1. avatar Brandon says:

      Yeah, I have to agree. Lots of unnecessary hate here. For a place full of people who want to embrace the “live and let live” philosophy of life there is a lot of concern about the beliefs of others. 🤷‍♂️

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Those of us non mormons do care about them. Just as those of us who are not catholic also care about catholics as well. The leader of the catholic church doesn’t want its members to have guns. And TTAG has been very critical of its leaders. TTAG has also been very critical of the Hebrew leaders as well. In fact any religious leader who is
        anti-armed self defense will receive negative commentary here. With no apologies.

        It was legal to kill white people in this country as long as they were white mormons. I know about mormon history. I wonder just how many mormons know their own history???

        Open season on mormons with a 45-70. The Mormon Execution order.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

  43. avatar adverse6 says:

    Killers, leave your firearms at the door.

  44. avatar RedOwl says:

    “Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
    “Nothing,” they answered.
    He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    Luke 22:35-36

  45. avatar Hannibal says:

    Perfectly reasonable decision. They want to see God sooner rather than later. This might speed that along for many of the congregants of one of their churches.

  46. avatar jt says:

    So one of the last groups to be systematically hunted down by their own government is going down the path of disarmament and setting up victim zones?

  47. avatar MIO says:

    This is what happens when you start to fear your own because of the power you seek

  48. avatar Regni9 says:

    Their magic underwear will protect them.

  49. avatar BusyBeef says:

    Great. Another bunch of disarmed victims who will be attacked by a psycho looking for maximum effect.

  50. avatar An actual Mormon says:

    As a Mormon myself, I have to say I’m very surprised, shocked even, at this new edict.
    Utah is the reddest of red states, Mormons are very conservative, very Republican, and EXTREMELY in favor of being prepared in terms of everything, from food storage (we’re all supposed to keep a year’s supply of food) to arming ourselves.

    However, I’m not at all surprised that the LDS Church is not leaving it up to the individual bishop (pastor), because all policies for the LDS Church are created in Salt Lake City, Utah, by the Prophet, Council of Apostles, or the other General Authorities, and passed down as orders from on high, to be absolutely obeyed by all wards (congregations) worldwide, with absolutely no discretion on the part of bishops.

    For example, as recently as 1976, an LDS bishop was excommunicated because he allowed a black man full membership in the church (all male Mormons are ordained to the priesthood at age 12, except for blacks, who were forbidden to hold the priesthood until 1978. This bishop ordained a black man to the priesthood in 1976, and was excommunicated for doing so). The same thing would happen today if a local bishop ordained a gay man, or if a bishop ordained a woman — the bishop would be excommunicated.

    Local LDS bishops must do whatever Salt Lake City orders them to do.

    1. avatar RustyTheBoyRobot says:

      Same here, really surprised.

      Most Mormon meetinghouses are used to host Scout meetings. A “lethal weapon” would definitely include a pocket knife.

  51. avatar W Mitchel says:

    and y’all don’t forget the Mountain Meadow Massacre … peaceful – yeah, right
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

  52. avatar Chuck Heston's love child says:

    But the 6 14 year old child brides are ok!

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Hello hypocrite. Homosexuals have been doing the same thing with children in San Francisco and other gay areas for decades now.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email