Church Condemns Peaceful Protest?

[Darren10]

Here's from the Church Newsroom regarding the takeover of a federal building in Oregon:

 

Quote

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

Questions: 1) What laws of the land did these protesters break? 2) How is their protest non peaceful?

[Calm]

Because it is armed?  They are trepassing on federal property, are they not?  Would you see it as appropriate for someone to take over a court house and kick everyone else out and do so while making obvious they had guns for any response trying to prevent them?

Edited January 4, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

Why did the church get involved at all?  What's in it for them to speak out?  Do they usually comment on random news items?

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Here's from the Church Newsroom regarding the takeover of a federal building in Oregon:

 

Questions: 1) What laws of the land did these protesters break? 2) How is their protest non peaceful?

Well let's see.... they seized a federal building and they are armed with guns and they say they are willing to die if challenged on this. And they use LDS canon to justify it.  I can see why Church leaders want to distance themselves from these lunatics.

[Mystery Meat]

20 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Here's from the Church Newsroom regarding the takeover of a federal building in Oregon:

 

Questions: 1) What laws of the land did these protesters break? 2) How is their protest non peaceful?

Look Darren, I am about as conservative/libertarian as they come. I hate big government about as much as possible. But what part of armed takeover translates as peaceful to you? The Church was right to condemn this as is any other sane and rational human being.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why did the church get involved at all?  What's in it for them to speak out?  Do they usually comment on random news items?

News media is presenting the motivation of the group or at least many members of it as tied to church doctrine.  They are correcting this misinformation.  It is in enough national and local news that such is not only justified, but wise imo.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

News media is presenting the motivation of the group or at least many members of it as tied to church doctrine.  They are correcting this misinformation.  It is in enough national and local news that such is not only justified, but wise imo.

Indeed. This strikes me as obvious.

Mark must not have been fully informed about the situation when he asked the question.

 

[Mystery Meat]

I have often repeated that members of the church, regardless of ideology, who place their political leanings and philosophies over the inspired truth claims of the restored gospel and the Lord's anointed have put their standing in jeopardy. If my memory is correct, there were some (whether here or in my real life conversations) who questioned how a conservative member's politics contradicted with the restored gospel. Sadly, the Bundy's are giving us a pretty good example. My guess is that they are on the path to excommunication (and justifiably so). 

[Thinking]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why did the church get involved at all?  What's in it for them to speak out?  Do they usually comment on random news items?

If one of my students was misapplying the math that I taught to him and was announcing to the world that he learned those applications in my class, I would have to defend myself.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed. This strikes me as obvious.

Mark must not have been fully informed about the situation when he asked the question.

 

Exactly - thanks.  I had no clue, and was taking it on face value

It has been a busy day

[Calm]

The only reason I know is because of the question in In The News. I've not been interested in any of the Bundy family's exploits as while I think a good deal of federally controlled land shouldn't be, I disapprove of their methods and reasoning from what I've seen.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Here's from the Church Newsroom regarding the takeover of a federal building in Oregon:

 

Questions: 1) What laws of the land did these protesters break? 2) How is their protest non peaceful?

Restricting an official from occupying his or her space by means of a gun, whether or not pointed at the official, is a felony and an assault.  If I come to the Starbucks you haunt with a shotgun pointed at the ground and say "everybody out," it is an assault and a felony.  I'm surprised that a reasonable person would think otherwise.  I hope these folks lose their guns, as well as anybody else who thinks that a public display of guns is appropriate.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Because it is armed?  They are trepassing on federal property, are they not?  Would you see it as appropriate for someone to take over a court house and kick everyone else out and do so while making obvious they had guns for any response trying to prevent them?

Trespassing is a good start for acting illegally.

Question: Federal land essentially belongs to the people but only authorized people may run that land. This protest is to control that land so their trespassing would be illegal only because they are not authorized personnel, correct?

 

Question: Is it not peaceful because they are armed?

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Restricting an official from occupying his or her space by means of a gun, whether or not pointed at the official, is a felony and an assault.  If I come to the Starbucks you haunt with a shotgun pointed at the ground and say "everybody out," it is an assault and a felony.  I'm surprised that a reasonable person would think otherwise.  I hope these folks lose their guns, as well as anybody else who thinks that a public display of guns is appropriate.

Who pointed a gun at whom?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why did the church get involved at all?  What's in it for them to speak out?  Do they usually comment on random news items?

I think because Ammon Bundy is LDS and his family was previously involved in a dispute over land. Private land vs. federal land. Also, because I think somewhere down the line the name of the Church was invoked. That's what I got from the Newsroom article but I have not seen any sources though I admit I have not researched it much at this point.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Darren10

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well let's see.... they seized a federal building and they are armed with guns and they say they are willing to die if challenged on this. And they use LDS canon to justify it.  I can see why Church leaders want to distance themselves from these lunatics.

Using LDS canon to justify this is way inappropriate. That's grounds for ex communication in my book. I've been trying to find a source on that, do you know of one?

 

How is "willing to die" not peaceful? If I stood in front of a person about to be assaulted and was willing to fight and die to protect that person, am I violent? Am I inherently "not peaceful"?

 

I've no problem with the Church distancing themselves from these people but they did not issue a statement saying, "the LDS church does not support this protest in any way". They *condemned* it. Would they condemn Joseph Smith for burning a printing press?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Look Darren, I am about as conservative/libertarian as they come. I hate big government about as much as possible. But what part of armed takeover translates as peaceful to you? The Church was right to condemn this as is any other sane and rational human being.

Who was hurt in the takeover? Ferguson was not peaceful. Had they taken over the streets and prevented cars from passing without anyone getting hurt would be peaceful, would it not?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

News media is presenting the motivation of the group or at least many members of it as tied to church doctrine.  They are correcting this misinformation.  It is in enough national and local news that such is not only justified, but wise imo.

I am 100% for the LDS church to clarify its position in any situation. I am curious as to their outright *condemnation* of this act, not their distancing themselves from it.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Question: Is it not peaceful because they are armed?

Correct.  You cannot simultaneously trespass, refuse to leave, carry a gun while doing so, give verbal warnings to law enforcement stating a willingness to use said gun, and still call the act "peaceful."  Those are mutually exclusive scenarios.

I am a CCW holder in the State of Arizona and a supporter of gun rights.  No one should assume I'm anti-gun.  I am very pro-gun. For that reason, I am also pro-responsible use of firearms.  This is not a responsible use of firearms.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have often repeated that members of the church, regardless of ideology, who place their political leanings and philosophies over the inspired truth claims of the restored gospel and the Lord's anointed have put their standing in jeopardy. If my memory is correct, there were some (whether here or in my real life conversations) who questioned how a conservative member's politics contradicted with the restored gospel. Sadly, the Bundy's are giving us a pretty good example. My guess is that they are on the path to excommunication (and justifiably so). 

Oh, if they are invoking the LDS church's name, give my full autonomy on the matter and I'd boot them out of the Church in a heartbeat. Should the Church do that just because Ammon Bundy is a member though? I would like some sources on them invoking the name of the Church. Do you know of anything? I don't want an accusation that they invoke the name of the Church but them actually doing it.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why did the church get involved at all?  What's in it for them to speak out?  Do they usually comment on random news items?

Because the leaders of the protest are Mormon and they are using BOM scripture to justify their actions. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by bluebell

[omni]

This was a smart move by the church.  Hopefully Mr. Bundy will take this to heart and cooler heads will prevail. 

I live on the East Coast and am continually amazed at the ignorance regarding Mormons coming from my highly educated colleagues.  Situations like will not help.

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The only reason I know is because of the question in In The News. I've not been interested in any of the Bundy family's exploits as while I think a good deal of federally controlled land shouldn't be, I disapprove of their methods and reasoning from what I've seen.

That's a fine position but what should people do. The federal government is essentially arresting and kicking ranchers off their lands for things they've been doing for generations only because the federal government decided to take over land they were already on and issue federal regulations upon them, even on their own property. The Supreme Court won't help, they've already ruled (in a decision I vehemently disagree with) that government may take land for special interests so thwarting them when they take land in the public interest would be near to impossible since the latter is 100% constitutional.

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Correct.  You cannot simultaneously trespass, refuse to leave, carry a gun while doing so, give verbal warnings to law enforcement stating a willingness to use said gun, and still call the act "peaceful."  Those are mutually exclusive scenarios.

I am a CCW holder in the State of Arizona and a supporter of gun rights.  No one should assume I'm anti-gun.  I am very pro-gun. For that reason, I am also pro-responsible use of firearms.  This is not a responsible use of firearms.

You are not peaceful simply because you are willing to fight for a cause? They have said that if any violence happens it will be because the government commenced it. If they live out according to this words, who's peaceful and who is not?

 

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because the leaders of the protest are Mormon and they are using BOM scripture to justify their actions. 

That would be a gross misuse of LDS scripture. Is there a source of them doing that?