Gun Rights / Gun Control And The Church'S View.

[Duncan]

Very misguided in my opinion.

correct me if I am wrong but didn't the early Utah saints choose not to engage the invading Johnson army by burying the SLC Temple? The 'Utah war' could have been a worse then it was if the Saints had decided to fight but it seemed to have been resolved through negotiations.

[bdouglas]

Yes, but God fights our battles through us, like he did the stripling warriors, who owned weapons, used them, and were still pure in heart to the point that they were preserved by God through their faith of action.

Did God fight Abraham's battles, David's battles, Helaman's battles, Captain Moroni's battles? Or did he command them to take up arms and fight? Did God kill Laban, or did he tell Nephi to kill him?

Faith is dead without works. You cannot expect God to save you if you refuse to lift a finger. It's like praying for help when you are drowning, and then when a boat comes to save you, you send him away because you know that God is going to save you. Who do you think sent the boat?

There is one thing that might be useful to add here. Yes, all of the above went to war and they used weapons, etc., etc. But why did they have to go to war in the first place? Generally speaking, they had to go to war because of the wickedness of the people. This is especially true in the BOM. The quote below, or further down the page, is from Hugh Nibley on war. Note Nibley says, or the lesson he draws from his text is that "The moral is that whenever there is a battle both sides are guilty." There is a First Presidency quote to this effect but I am unable to locate it. Speaking of WW I, the First Presidency says said essentially that both sides of the conflict were guilty. (I will try to locate this quote, in the meantime you may disregard it if you like.) Here is Nibley quote (yes, I am a Nibley fan):

There is no possibility of confrontation here between Good and Bad. This is best shown in Alma's duel with Amlici. The Amlicites are described as coming on in all the hideous and hellish trappings of one of our more colorful rock groups, glorying in the fiendish horror of their appearance (see Alma 3: 4-6). Alma on the other hand is the "man of God" (Alma 2: 30) who meets the monster Amlici "with the sword, face to face" (Alma 2: 29), and of course wins.

Yet the Nephites consider that debacle to be "the judgments of God sent upon them because of their wickedness and their abominations; therefore they were awakened to a remembrance of their duty" (Alma 4: 3). The moral is that whenever there is a battle both sides are guilty.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/01/hugh-nibley-weighs-in-on-preemptive-war.html

[pogi]

correct me if I am wrong but didn't the early Utah saints choose not to engage the invading Johnson army by burying the SLC Temple? The 'Utah war' could have been a worse then it was if the Saints had decided to fight but it seemed to have been resolved through negotiations.

Are you suggesting that Brigham Young and the early saints were anti-guns?

"There is a time for war and a time for peace..." Nobody here is saying that we should take up arms before negotiations. Obviously we should exhaust every means of peace before taking up arms, and only use them as an absolute last resort as "we do not desire to be men of blood."

[Garden Girl]

correct me if I am wrong but didn't the early Utah saints choose not to engage the invading Johnson army by burying the SLC Temple? The 'Utah war' could have been a worse then it was if the Saints had decided to fight but it seemed to have been resolved through negotiations.

Hello Duncan...

Usually I find much to agree with you, but in this case I disagree for the typical home invasion, or a personal attack ... I can just see me trying to negotiate with an attacker or an intruder into my home who is bent on robbery/rape/murder. Even if I didn't use my hand gun, I would fight to hurt someone if they were actually attacking me... if I had one hand free, the thumb would go through the eye socket and fingernails scrape through the eyes and down the face. I might end up losing my life as so many women do at the hands of an attacker, but I guarantee you he would bear the scars and rue the day,...

I understand you are speaking in more general terms and in regard to battles, etc., while my reaction is to the personal attack or home invasion,,,

GG

Edited December 24, 2012 by Garden Girl

[Duncan]

Hello Duncan...

Usually I find much to agree with you, but in this case I disagree for the typical home invasion, or a personal attack ... I can just see me trying to negotiate with an attacker or an intruder into my home who is bent on robbery/rape/murder. Even if I didn't use my hand gun, I would fight to hurt someone if they were actually attacking me... if I had one hand free, the thumb would go through the eye socket and fingernails scrape through the eyes and down the face. I might end up losing my life as so many women do at the hands of an attacker, but I guarantee you he would bear the scars and rue the day,...

GG

I don't own a weapon other me fists of fury! ha! Thank you for your kind words!

[treeface]

And guns did the early saints a lot of good didn't they. Did guns prevent the Hauns Mill Massacre.... God fights our battles my friend and we will never establish Zion until we understand that.

Time for a quick history lesson.

The Mormons who were massacred at Haun's Mill had voluntarily given up their guns two days before in exchange for a pledge that they would not be harmed. From an account written by a woman who was there:

"We arrived in Caldwell county, near Haun's Mill, nine wagons of us in company. Two days before we arrived we were taken prisoners by an armed mob that had demanded every bit of ammunition and every weapon we had. We surrendered all. They knew it, for they searched our wagons.

"A few miles more brought us to Haun's Mill, where that awful scene of murder was enacted. My husband pitched his tent by a blacksmith's shop.

"Brother David Evans made a treaty with the mob that they would not molest us. He came just before the massacre and called the company together and they knelt in prayer.

"I sat in my tent. Looking up I suddenly saw the mob coming -- the same that took away our weapons. They came like demons or wild Indians...."

In case you'd like a reference: http://newrevelation...llmassacre.html

Perhaps you can tell me why the saints at Haun's Mill did not qualify for God to fight their battles for them. Apparently they were attacked right in the middle of prayer.

Edited December 24, 2012 by treeface

[Duncan]

Are you suggesting that Brigham Young and the early saints were anti-guns?

"There is a time for war and a time for peace..." Nobody here is saying that we should take up arms before negotiations. Obviously we should exhaust every means of peace before taking up arms, and only use them as an absolute last resort as "we do not desire to be men of blood."

true and in that situation it could have been worse if the gun toters pulled them out and started firing away-but they didn't for some reason

[Duncan]

Time for a quick history lesson.

The Mormons who were massacred at Haun's Mill had voluntarily given up their guns the day before in exchange for a pledge that they would not be harmed. From an account written by a woman who was there:

"We arrived in Caldwell county, near Haun's Mill, nine wagons of us in company. Two days before we arrived we were taken prisoners by an armed mob that had demanded every bit of ammunition and every weapon we had. We surrendered all. They knew it, for they searched our wagons.

"A few miles more brought us to Haun's Mill, where that awful scene of murder was enacted. My husband pitched his tent by a blacksmith's shop.

"Brother David Evans made a treaty with the mob that they would not molest us. He came just before the massacre and called the company together and they knelt in prayer.

"I sat in my tent. Looking up I suddenly saw the mob coming -- the same that took away our weapons. They came like demons or wild Indians...."

In case you'd like a reference: http://newrevelation...llmassacre.html

Perhaps you can tell me why the saints at Haun's Mill did not qualify for God to fight their battles for them.

didn't Joseph Smith say something to the effect get outta there or else all heck will break loose

[bdouglas]

Forgive me for quoting Nibley again, but his summation of a talk by Pres. Kimball is relevant to this discussion. (I may have already copied this quote in an earlier post on this topic, or it may have been another topic. Sorry if I'm repeating myself). Here is quote, with relevant part bolded (you can ignore everything but bolded part):

If we ask what improvement has been made up to the present, there is no better standard to judge by than that given by President Spencer W. Kimball in a solemn and inspired message to the church on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the nation.⁹¹ The address gives us a picture of the Church, the nation, and indeed the world that is a miracle of clarity and condensation, placing the physician's finger with unerring accuracy on the really important issues. First, by way of introduction, a general observation: "When I review the performance of this people in comparison with what is expected, I am appalled and frightened." Not a particularly cheerful or even optimistic message. What is it that so frightens and appalls the prophet? Three things in particular:

1. The abuse of the environment: "When I . . . fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, . . . I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. . . . The Brethren constantly cry out against . . . pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings. . . . That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me."

2. The pursuit of personal affluence: "Carnal man has tended to transfer his trust in God to material things. . . . When men have fallen under the power of Satan and lost the faith, they have put in its place a hope in the 'arm of flesh' and in 'gods of silver, and gold, of brass,' . . . that is, in idols. . . . Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishing, automobiles and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life."

3. Trust in military security: "We commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching. . . . What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? . . . We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the 'arm of flesh,' for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, 'I will not spare any that remain in Babylon' [D&C 64:24]."

And how did the Saints, who never tire of saying, "The Prophet! The Prophet! We have a prophet!" receive his words? As might be expected, reaction has ranged from careful indifference to embarrassed silence and instant deep freeze. As to the three things against which they were warned, it can be shown with cruel documentation that Utah leads the nation, at least through its representatives, in outspoken contempt for the environment, unabashed reverence for wealth, and ardent advocacy of military expansion. [END PRES. KIMBALL QUOTE]

You can call me an idealist, stupid, unrealistic--I guess whatever you want. But I believe what Pres. Kimball said: "What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him?"

Edited December 24, 2012 by bdouglas

[pogi]

There is one thing that might be useful to add here. Yes, all of the above went to war and they used weapons, etc., etc. But why did they have to go to war in the first place? Generally speaking, they had to go to war because of the wickedness of the people. This is especially true in the BOM. The quote below, or further down the page, is from Hugh Nibley on war. Note Nibley says, or the lesson he draws from his text is that "The moral is that whenever there is a battle both sides are guilty." There is a First Presidency quote to this effect but I am unable to locate it. Speaking of WW I, the First Presidency says said essentially that both sides of the conflict were guilty. (I will try to locate this quote, in the meantime you may disregard it if you like.) Here is Nibley quote (yes, I am a Nibley fan):

There is no possibility of confrontation here between Good and Bad. This is best shown in Alma's duel with Amlici. The Amlicites are described as coming on in all the hideous and hellish trappings of one of our more colorful rock groups, glorying in the fiendish horror of their appearance (see Alma 3: 4-6). Alma on the other hand is the "man of God" (Alma 2: 30) who meets the monster Amlici "with the sword, face to face" (Alma 2: 29), and of course wins.

Yet the Nephites consider that debacle to be "the judgments of God sent upon them because of their wickedness and their abominations; therefore they were awakened to a remembrance of their duty" (Alma 4: 3). The moral is that whenever there is a battle both sides are guilty.

http://puremormonism...mptive-war.html

I see, so all of those children were massacred in Connecticut because WE are wicked. And whosoever would have shot that boy in defense of innocent children would have been "guilty" of something.

"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."

[bdouglas]

I see, so all of those children were massacred in Connecticut because WE are wicked. And whosoever would have shot that boy in defense of innocent children would have been "guilty" of something.

"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."

As a people and as a nation, yes, I would say we are wicked. And unfortunately it is the innocent who suffer the most when such is the case.

[Mudcat]

Haven't kept up with the thread but has anyone noted that Jesus didn't ask Peter to put his sword in the recyclye bin after Peter whacked that dudes ear off?

[Duncan]

Haven't kept up with the thread but has anyone noted that Jesus didn't ask Peter to put his sword in the recyclye bin after Peter whacked that dudes ear off?

Halconero said that those who live by the sword die by the sword, so there is that!

[bdouglas]

As I have said in my earlier posts, I am not advocating taking pogi's or garden girl's weapons, or anybody else's. I think if somebody wants to own weapons, fine (as long as they are not assault weapons who only purpose is to kill people, weapons which are outlawed by current legislation.) But what I am saying, is......

I think there is a better way. That's all....

Most of my family members own guns, and one of my brothers owns at least a dozen. And I'm fine with that.

But at the same time I personally believe what Pres. Kimball said: "What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him?"

[treeface]

didn't Joseph Smith say something to the effect get outta there or else all heck will break loose

If you do the research and come up with the quote (assuming it exists), we can look at the context and see if it applied to the people who were at Haun's Mill that day.

Haven't kept up with the thread but has anyone noted that Jesus didn't ask Peter to put his sword in the recyclye bin after Peter whacked that dudes ear off?

Good point. And shortly before that, Jesus told his apostles to arm themselves with the military-style weapon of the day:

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 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. Luke 22:35,36 (emphasis mine)

I think this is a good indication that there is a time to be unarmed, and (if the circumstances warrant it) a time to be armed. Taking either to the extreme is wrong. Good judgment is the key.

Edited December 24, 2012 by treeface

[pogi]

3. Trust in military security: "We commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching. . . . What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? . . . We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the 'arm of flesh,' for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, 'I will not spare any that remain in Babylon' [D&C 64:24]."

He makes some good points and I am in no way defending all of our reasons and methods of war, nor am I anti-enemy, I am pro-innocent lives.

"Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him?"

Yes I do take God at his word, I believe him when he says to defend your families even unto bloodshed.

I would exercise a particle of faith as Captain Moroni did in battle. He said unto those who attempted to destroy his people: "Now ye see that this is the true faith of God; yea ye see that God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are faithful unto him, and our faith, and our religion; and never will the Lord suffer that we shall be destroyed except we should fall into transgression and deny our faith."

Moroni did not sit idly watching as his people were destroyed, he faithfully took up arms.

[bdouglas]

He makes some good points and I am in no way defending all of our reasons and methods of war, nor am I anti-enemy, I am pro-innocent lives.

"Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him?"

Yes I do take God at his word, I believe him when he says to defend your families even unto bloodshed.

I would exercise a particle of faith as Captain Moroni did in battle. He said unto those who attempted to destroy his people: "Now ye see that this is the true faith of God; yea ye see that God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are faithful unto him, and our faith, and our religion; and never will the Lord suffer that we shall be destroyed except we should fall into transgression and deny our faith."

Moroni did not sit idly watching as his people were destroyed, he faithfully took up arms.

Of course he did, and I would too (i.e., take up arms to defend my people). But my point is, why did the Nephites find themselves at war in the first place? It was for the same reason then as it always was: wickedness.

[bdouglas]

I've enjoyed talking with all of you but now I'm off to bed. Thanks for your thoughts.

[pogi]

As I have said in my earlier posts, I am not advocating taking pogi's or garden girl's weapons, or anybody else's. I think if somebody wants to own weapons, fine (as long as they are not assault weapons who only purpose is to kill people, weapons which are outlawed by current legislation.) But what I am saying, is......

I think there is a better way. That's all....

Thanks, but I don't own a weapon and hope that I never feel the need to. I personally have a distaste for guns. However, I respect and honor the right to own them, and would actually feel much more secure and safe if more good civilians were trained and armed. Banning weapons would only keep weapons out of the hands of the good guys that actually honor and obey the laws.

Edited December 24, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

Of course he did, and I would too (i.e., take up arms to defend my people). But my point is, why did the Nephites find themselves at war in the first place? It was for the same reason then as it always was: wickedness.

OK, so we are wicked, therefore what?

It sounded like your point was that if we are faithful enough God will save us without the need for weapons.

Edited December 24, 2012 by pogi

[treeface]

An interesting incident took place a little over a year after Joseph Smith was killed, involving the Mormon-sympathizer sheriff of Hancock County, Illinois, Jacob Backenstos, and one Orrin Porter Rockwell. This incident involved a weapon that totally outclassed anything else available by a far greater margin than a military-style rifle outclasses other rifles today.

Backenstos had intervened on behalf of the Mormons to stop the local mob from burning outlying Mormon homes, and this raised the ire of the local anti-Mormon contingent. They decided to kill Backenstos, and saw their opportunity on the 16th of September, 1845. Members of the mob spotted Backenstos alone in a buggy and apparently quickly rallied their forces and gave chase on horseback. Three of the mob members took the lead, and the leader of the three was Frank Worrell, who had been in command of the Carthage Grays at Carthage jail, who stood aside as Joseph and Hyrum were murdered.

Anyway Backenstos is fleeing the mob and by good fortune (or divine providence) comes upon Orrin Porter Rockwell and another man, who had been assisting some of the burned-out families. Backenstos immediately deputizes Rockwell and commands him to defend him. About this time the lead riders of the mob are advancing with guns drawn. Now let me pause for a moment and describe what Porter Rockwell was packing.

Rockwell had recently purchased a pair of Martini-Henry 15-shot lever-action rifles. This was absolutely cutting-edge technology back in 1845. Virtually every other long gun of the day was a single-shot weapon (in fact when the Civil War was fought two decades later, it was fought with single-shot long guns).

We don't know how many men were in the mob that day, only that it was considerably more than three, as three were out ahead of the main body.

Backenstos commands the three lead mobsters, now advancing with weapons drawn, to stop, and they do not, so he orders Porter Rockwell to fire. Rockwell's shot knocks the lead mobster, Frank Worrell, off his horse, and the others turn back. Now it was not that single shot that turned the others back. If all Rockwell had had was a single-shot rifle, he and Backenstos would have been dead meat. Nope, it was the fourteen unfired rounds in his rapid-fire lever-action rifle that turned them back. One well-armed man had defended an innocent and turned back a murderous mob.

Contrast this with what happend at Haun's Mill, when the Mormons were unarmed and praying at the time of the attack. (Captain Moroni and Gidgiddoni also took advantage of superior technology when faced with a numerically superior enemy). One take-home lesson is, the Lord helps those who help themselves.

Edited December 24, 2012 by treeface

[treeface]

But my point is, why did the Nephites find themselves at war in the first place? It was for the same reason then as it always was: wickedness.

How far should we go in blaming the victims of attack for not being righteous enough to have not been attacked in the first place (assuming it really works that way)?

Edited December 24, 2012 by treeface

[bdouglas]

How far should we go in blaming the victims of attack for not being righteous enough to have not been attacked in the first place (assuming it really works that way)?

That's a good, if cynical, question. Another question might be (likewise cynical), How many armed guards at schools, shopping malls, parks, plazas, churches, movie theaters, concerts halls--in short, anyplace where people congregate--how many armed guards does it take for us to make ourselves immune to attack? And furthermore, what should we arm these guards with? Lanza brought to the CT school three weapons (he left a fourth in his car): a Glock 10 mm, a Sig Sauer 9 mm, and a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Would one armed guard, say, with a Glock clapped to his waist have been enough to stop an Adam Lanza, a boy who had grown up surrounded by guns and who had also been planning his attack for days? How about two guards, each not only with a Glock but an Uzi?

We might as well ask ourselves how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My views are idealistic, and, given the state of the world today, perhaps impractical (people used to say the same thing about Gandhi, and went on saying it until the British left India...amicably). And they are also deeply personal. Not many share my views, not even in the church. I do, however, comfort myself that I am not entirely alone in my views, that Pres. Kimball has expressed similar views, also Elder Russell M. Nelson, and also Hugh Nibley...as well as the "Prince of Peace", who taught us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies and "do good to them that hate you", to "renounce war and proclaim peace," and that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword".

As I have said, I don't have any problem with gun owners. They are my brothers in the Gospel (and my sisters too). I simply happen to think there is a better way.

Edited December 24, 2012 by bdouglas

[Duncan]

If you do the research and come up with the quote (assuming it exists), we can look at the context and see if it applied to the people who were at Haun's Mill that day.

Good point. And shortly before that, Jesus told his apostles to arm themselves with the military-style weapon of the day:

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 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. Luke 22:35,36 (emphasis mine)

I think this is a good indication that there is a time to be unarmed, and (if the circumstances warrant it) a time to be armed. Taking either to the extreme is wrong. Good judgment is the key.

Joseph Smith said of Haun's mill

"Up to this day God had given me wisdom to save the people who took counsel. None had ever been killed who abode by my counsel." Then he recorded that innocent lives could have been saved at Haun’s Mill had his counsel been received and followed.^[6][7]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre}

^{because you asked for it! Merry Christmas!}

[Skylla]

This topic has become too heated. Keep it civil please.

Skylla