Shooting at church in Grand Blanc Michigan. Pray

[Devobah]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

After seeing all the comments from people in various comment sections, it’s split in half. People will adore the friendliness and neighborliness of Latter-day Saints, but then be met with (or even say themselves) “but they’re heretics, non-Christian, and unsaved.” 
 

It just makes me sick that sympathy and empathy come with an asterisk on this case. No matter how many people decry this action. Like they don’t actually care about it because “well it wasn’t someone on MY team. If it was someone on my team then this whole thing would be completely different.”

To the credit of a lot of people (perhaps an equal amount) in those comment sections, some of the comments are basically what Michael calls for above or even say:

- “Not the time for this” or “Read the room”

- “Is a Christian not a person who believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer?”

- Various other defenses accepting Latter-day Saints as Christians based on their actions.

Me personally, after looking around and seeing the responses, I’ve come to a few conclusions:

1) I don’t very much care if someone calls me a Christian or not. If my full sympathy for someone is contingent on their belief system, then I am no better than the Scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s day.

2) When lay Christians can’t even define what makes a Christian, then it’s no wonder why there needed to be a Restoration. The definition changes from person to person. If you say “believe in the Nicene Creed” then you must accept Catholics and Orthodox under that umbrella. And I know plenty of evangelicals who don’t because the Catholics believe other “heresies”. Nobody can really define it.

Sorry. I’m getting off topic. I pray that the people effected by this find the peace of Christ, and those who have passed find peace in Christ.

 

[manol]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

I’m a licensed concealed carry holder, but can’t carry in church due to church policy and state law. The reality is Salt Lake would rather I take a bullet than be prepared to defend my family and others.

My guess is that next Sunday there will be men who make the eyes-wide-open choice to discreetly violate Church policy and state law.   What was once a far-fetched hypothetical is now considerably less so. 

Edited September 30, 2025 by manol

[The Nehor]

I am surprised that so many seem surprised that other Christians don’t consider us to be one of them. I thought that was well known.

[ZealouslyStriving]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am surprised that so many seem surprised that other Christians don’t consider us to be one of them. I thought that was well known.

Average members, who don't deal with antis regularly, are surprised that Creedalist hatred runs so deep that in the midst of tragedy in our Church their very first instinct is to make sure to tell the world that we worship a "different Jesus" and we aren't "real Christians", or even cheering instead of offering condolences.

It is a wake-up call. They thought kindness and cooperation were making significant in roads towards acceptance- they are finding out that for a large swath of Creedalists we will always and only be a "demonic cult" that was "founded by demons" and is under "demonic dominion" (as Mark Driscoll puts it) no matter how accommodating/doormaty we try to be.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is a wake-up call.

So now what?  What happens now we are woke?

What do you think our response should be and why?

Edited September 30, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So now what?  What happens now we are woke?

What do you think our response should be and why?

Have zero expectations that Creedalists will reciprocate our efforts, avoiding the sad dismay members are experiencing upon seeing what they really think of us.

If you thought I meant to not continue to try to cooperate, you have yet again misinterpreted my comments. As I posted before- you can engage in a good cause without expecting that it will make much of a difference.

[gurn]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Or maybe they would rather someone not be accidentally injured by someone thinking they could effectively defend their family and others (not saying this is specifically you, but would not be surprised if it was a significant percentage) or lead more people to brings guns to confront others when words would have been seen as sufficient before, thus increasing violence, not deterring it.  There is debate whether conceal carry decreases or increases violence, studies for both positions are numerous.  Methodology can be problematic (self reporting is particularly trustworthy, inconsistent reporting across jurisdictions, etc).

I know two brothers that have worked armed security for GA’s. I realize prominent people are more at risk statistically, but they are willing to have guns in churches to protect them but not us.

I’d be happy to pay for and take higher level training beyond the two courses I’ve already taken to be authorized to work security at church. It doesn’t have to be free-for-all or nothing.

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Average members, who don't deal with antis regularly, are surprised that Creedalist hatred runs so deep that in the midst of tragedy in our Church their very first instinct is to make sure to tell the world that we worship a "different Jesus" and we aren't "real Christians", or even cheering instead of offering condolences.

It is a wake-up call. They thought kindness and cooperation were making significant in roads towards acceptance- they are finding out that for a large swath of Creedalists we will always and only be a "demonic cult" that was "founded by demons" and is under "demonic dominion" (as Mark Driscoll puts it) no matter how accommodating/doormaty we try to be.

See my signature below.

[MustardSeed]

My dad used to do “ security” for seminary. He always packed. I don’t think anybody knew it. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am surprised that so many seem surprised that other Christians don’t consider us to be one of them. I thought that was well known.

I can’t speak for anyone personally, but online it seems like people are surprised that other Christians would take this moment to remind the world that we’re going to hell.  Like it’s the shock of realizing that some Christians are using the shooting as a platform to air their doctrinal disagreements with us.

But we've probably all been on social media long enough that that shouldn’t be a shock either.  People will seldom pass up the opportunity to explain why someone else is wrong and they are right.  I don't think it really matter why the opportunity exists.

Edited September 30, 2025 by bluebell

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

My dad used to do “ security” for seminary. He always packed. I don’t think anybody knew it. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.

I know more than one person who has done that at church on any given Sunday. Most people would never know.

[bsjkki]

Interesting survey from Pew on this topic. They don’t like us but we like them. Very Christian of us. I think this is accurate. 
 

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Interesting survey from Pew on this topic. They don’t like us but we like them. Very Christian of us. I think this is accurate. 
 

 

I love it!

[Tony uk]

It is sad when a Christian Church, regardless of Doctrine, or specific teaching, is attacked, either with violence, or by word. 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

After seeing all the comments from people in various comment sections, it’s split in half. People will adore the friendliness and neighborliness of Latter-day Saints, but then be met with (or even say themselves) “but they’re heretics, non-Christian, and unsaved.” 

I am sorry, but I just have to say something here.  Isn't this exactly how the Church treats the LGBT community?  We love them, and are friendly towards them but they are not going to the Celestial kingdom.  They will never be allowed to fully be a part of the Church.  They won't receive the blessings of the priesthood.  Their marriages are not really valid.  They certainly are not allowed in our beautiful white temples.  Did the Church even claim that their children are not allowed to be baptized before they got a lot of pushback?  Is there really that much difference in attitudes?  If you can see that, then perhaps you can understand why the LGBT community feels the same way about the Church.

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

It just makes me sick that sympathy and empathy come with an asterisk on this case. No matter how many people decry this action. Like they don’t actually care about it because “well it wasn’t someone on MY team. If it was someone on my team then this whole thing would be completely different.”

Makes me sick as well that sympathy and empathy comes with an asterisk.  Well they aren't straight, so not on our team.

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

To the credit of a lot of people (perhaps an equal amount) in those comment sections, some of the comments are basically what Michael calls for above or even say:

- “Not the time for this” or “Read the room”

Maybe this is not the time to bring this up either.  I am not looking to derail this thread.  I am just giving you all something to ponder about the institutional way the Church treats the LGBT community.  All without any revelation from God, just the opinions of those who lead this Church.

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

- “Is a Christian not a person who believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer?”

Are there not those that are LGBT who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer?

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

- Various other defenses accepting Latter-day Saints as Christians based on their actions.

Should not the LGBT community be judged based on their actions as well?  Are they incapable of loving and cherishing their spouses/partners/children?

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

Me personally, after looking around and seeing the responses, I’ve come to a few conclusions:

1) I don’t very much care if someone calls me a Christian or not. If my full sympathy for someone is contingent on their belief system, then I am no better than the Scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s day.

2) When lay Christians can’t even define what makes a Christian, then it’s no wonder why there needed to be a Restoration. The definition changes from person to person. If you say “believe in the Nicene Creed” then you must accept Catholics and Orthodox under that umbrella. And I know plenty of evangelicals who don’t because the Catholics believe other “heresies”. Nobody can really define it.

Sorry. I’m getting off topic. I pray that the people effected by this find the peace of Christ, and those who have passed find peace in Christ.

 

Also sorry I am getting off topic.  This is not a post anyone has to respond to.  The only thing I am asking for is that if you find the way some Christian churches treat the Church to be morally wrong, then for just a moment reflect on the attitudes and policies of not just some that are members, but the institutional treatment of those that are LGBT.  Maybe during this time of reflection, some may also soften their hearts a bit for those that the Church treats in a very similar way.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sorry, but I just have to say something here.  Isn't this exactly how the Church treats the LGBT community?  We love them, and are friendly towards them but they are not going to the Celestial kingdom.  They will never be allowed to fully be a part of the Church.  They won't receive the blessings of the priesthood.  Their marriages are not really valid.  They certainly are not allowed in our beautiful white temples.  Did the Church even claim that their children are not allowed to be baptized before they got a lot of pushback?  Is there really that much difference in attitudes?  If you can see that, then perhaps you can understand why the LGBT community feels the same way about the Church.

Makes me sick as well that sympathy and empathy comes with an asterisk.  Well they aren't straight, so not on our team.

Maybe this is not the time to bring this up either.  I am not looking to derail this thread.  I am just giving you all something to ponder about the institutional way the Church treats the LGBT community.  All without any revelation from God, just the opinions of those who lead this Church.

Are there not those that are LGBT who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer?

Should not the LGBT community be judged based on their actions as well?  Are they incapable of loving and cherishing their spouses/partners/children?

Also sorry I am getting off topic.  This is not a post anyone has to respond to.  The only thing I am asking for is that if you find the way some Christian churches treat the Church to be morally wrong, then for just a moment reflect on the attitudes and policies of not just some that are members, but the institutional treatment of those that are LGBT.  Maybe during this time of reflection, some may also soften their hearts a bit for those that the Church treats in a very similar way.

Maybe this would be a post for a separate topic?  There's a lot to discuss but you are right, this isn't the thread to do it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Interesting survey from Pew on this topic. They don’t like us but we like them. Very Christian of us. I think this is accurate. 
 

 

We're acting like the dorky kid in school that lets everybody treat him like a doormat in an effort to join a clique that has no intention of ever letting him enter.

Edited September 30, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

We're acting like the dorky kid in school that lets everybody treat him like a doormat in an effort to join a clique that has no intention of ever letting him enter.

How else should we act?

Edit to add:  It sounds like you think the dorky kid is being insincere in his actions, and that he's only doing what he's doing so others will like him.  Does this mean that you believe that latter-day saints are only kind to those who disagree with them so that they will like us?

Edited September 30, 2025 by bluebell

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How else should we act?

Edit to add:  It sounds like you think the dorky kid is being insincere in his actions, and that he's only doing what he's doing so others will like him.  Does this mean that you believe that latter-day saints are only kind to those who disagree with them so that they will like us?

We should still be kind, but with more backbone.

How many have practiced "peacemaking" has many seeing us a pushovers who really won't make a bold stand for ourselves. They know that if we give even the slightest push back they can say, "Tsk, tsk, you're being mean." and we'll immediately back down.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

We should still be kind, but with more backbone.

How many have practiced "peacemaking" has many seeing us a pushovers who really won't make a bold stand for ourselves. They know that if we give even the slightest push back they can say, "Tsk, tsk, you're being mean." and we'll immediately back down.

So you believe that we are basing our actions on wanting to be liked, rather than sincerely believing that how we are acting is what Jesus would want?

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you believe that we are basing our actions on wanting to be liked, rather than sincerely believing that how we are acting is what Jesus would want?

No.

I am flabbergasted that you are missing my meaning so badly.

Edited September 30, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

 

 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

No.

I am flabbergasted that you are missing my meaning so badly.

Sometimes we don’t communicate as clearly as we think we do, myself included. Since I don’t seem to be understanding you correctly and you obviously are not understanding me correctly I’ll try to frame it in a different way.

First, what does “having more backbone” look like in your opinion?

Second, how do we have more backbone if we sincerely believe we are behaving the way the Christ would have us behave?

[Calm]

On 9/30/2025 at 3:50 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

If you thought I meant to not continue to try to cooperate, you have yet again misinterpreted my comments.

I did not make any assumptions besides assuming you would promote responding in ways the Church and Gospel encourages us to respond. I was wondering if you thought there was something different we could do along those lines.

I fully support doing the right thing for the right reason no matter what others do (while being aware we may be able to be more effective if we alter exactly how we do that at times based on others’ responses).

Edited October 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, gurn said:

I know two brothers that have worked armed security for GA’s.

And they most likely have quite a bit of training.  Just curious as to what might be the requirements.  Have they not only had training, but experience?  I have known a few church security people before and they have all had backgrounds in law enforcement.

I wouldn’t have an issue**** with individuals who have been highly trained  in these kinds of situations being allowed to conceal and carry at church, not sure how that could work though if some were allowed and others weren’t. Would leaders just take someone’s word for it?  Not saying people would lie, but I imagine many have an inflated view of their own skills and what would be needed to be effective in defense while avoiding unnecessary harm of self and others.

****if it’s decided by upper leaders who are the ones most likely to have the needed data that having guns allowed at church will actually deter violence and not raise the likelihood instead

Edited September 30, 2025 by Calm