Popular Post Garden Girl Posted July 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2018 On 7/23/2018 at 2:33 PM, Jeanne said: Have a question....churches and temples are dedicated in the LDS faith. Where is the protection? Jeanne... I know you are a critic of the Church, but the snarky implication of this disappoints me... I guess you just can't help yourself... GG 5
Amulek Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Has there been any updates on the shooting? The only substantive update I have seen is that, as of Monday, the shooter has been officially charged with murder. Most of the "recent" articles I have come across have just been retreads of the original story - nothing new to add in terms of information. One of the more recent articles, with a bit of an emphasis on the victim/victim's family is here. 1
Jeanne Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Garden Girl said: Jeanne... I know you are a critic of the Church, but the snarky implication of this disappoints me... I guess you just can't help yourself... GG Oh...I did not mean it like that at all...I so apologize. It was just my bad interpretation of dedications for which was explained by another poster. I am so sorry.😒 Edited July 25, 2018 by Jeanne 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 11 hours ago, Garden Girl said: Jeanne... I know you are a critic of the Church, but the snarky implication of this disappoints me... I guess you just can't help yourself... GG Seems a bit harsh, GG. Is it a snarky implication because everyone knows there isn't really any special protection granted to chapels and temples? Usually these dedications include blessings of peace. A blessing that the spirit will reside etc. I mean, Jeanne may be making a point you don't like, but it's still accurate. There really shouldn't be any expectation of security beyond what one would normally expect in life. Or would you suggest that a chapel or temple dedicatory prayer should protect it and it's occupants from violence? 3
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Is it a snarky implication because everyone knows there isn't really any special protection granted to chapels and temples? Usually these dedications include blessings of peace. A blessing that the spirit will reside etc. I mean, Jeanne may be making a point you don't like, but it's still accurate. There really shouldn't be any expectation of security beyond what one would normally expect in life. Or would you suggest that a chapel or temple dedicatory prayer should protect it and it's occupants from violence? Blessings can't violate free will. Certainly not everyone thinks through implications of stuff so there's lots of naive views in the Church. But a blessing of protection can at best affect inspiration by people to warn them of danger (which they can then ignore) or occasionally do more dramatic, yet still minor, interventions. Part of the problem is that oft told story about the Japanese pilot who wanted to bomb the temple in Hawaii who temporarily blacked out. Because it's been told so much people assume that's the standard case. (And that there's nothing to question in the somewhat distorted retellings) 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Blessings can't violate free will. Certainly not everyone thinks through implications of stuff so there's lots of naive views in the Church. But a blessing of protection can at best affect inspiration by people to warn them of danger (which they can then ignore) or occasionally do more dramatic, yet still minor, interventions. Part of the problem is that oft told story about the Japanese pilot who wanted to bomb the temple in Hawaii who temporarily blacked out. Because it's been told so much people assume that's the standard case. (And that there's nothing to question in the somewhat distorted retellings) Yeah, there are multiple stories about how temples and church's were miraculously saved from violence so it's easy to expect that. After all, if one temple is spared because of a blessing, then why not a different temple, right? And I agree that blessings don't violate free will. Things will happen so it's best to recognize it. I'm reminded of the picture of missionaries being protected from all kinds of harm, yet we know missionaries aren't always protected. But I'm not sure I like calling those views "naïve". They have been taught formally and informally in church for decades or longer. So if we are to call people who believe what they are taught at church, naïve, then we'd probably need to call other beliefs naïve as well. Are missionaries who are blessed to return home safely, and believe it, yet die on their missions because free will couldn't be violated naïve? Well, yeah, probably, but you get my point The idea of blessings and prayers and dedications of protection are nice but if believed, may be a sign of naiveté and may actually cause people to not be as careful as they ought to be. 2
Jeanne Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yeah, there are multiple stories about how temples and church's were miraculously saved from violence so it's easy to expect that. After all, if one temple is spared because of a blessing, then why not a different temple, right? And I agree that blessings don't violate free will. Things will happen so it's best to recognize it. I'm reminded of the picture of missionaries being protected from all kinds of harm, yet we know missionaries aren't always protected. But I'm not sure I like calling those views "naïve". They have been taught formally and informally in church for decades or longer. So if we are to call people who believe what they are taught at church, naïve, then we'd probably need to call other beliefs naïve as well. Are missionaries who are blessed to return home safely, and believe it, yet die on their missions because free will couldn't be violated naïve? Well, yeah, probably, but you get my point The idea of blessings and prayers and dedications of protection are nice but if believed, may be a sign of naiveté and may actually cause people to not be as careful as they ought to be. Actually, when I posed the question, I really thought that there was a certain protection in those prayers of dedications..this is what I was taught. I did not mean to question anything about something so devastating as this situation was...but I had kind of a hope that somewhere...sometime..God could intervene in places of worship where blessings had incurred. It was an innocent question..but I think people expect me to be very derisive..and I really do have sincere questions. I have to be so careful here..more so than others. 1
Popular Post Garden Girl Posted July 25, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 25, 2018 5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Seems a bit harsh, GG. Is it a snarky implication because everyone knows there isn't really any special protection granted to chapels and temples? Usually these dedications include blessings of peace. A blessing that the spirit will reside etc. I mean, Jeanne may be making a point you don't like, but it's still accurate. There really shouldn't be any expectation of security beyond what one would normally expect in life. Or would you suggest that a chapel or temple dedicatory prayer should protect it and it's occupants from violence? Hello HappyJack... ...everyone knows?? I don't... and I don't know that her point is accurate. I don't choose (from personal experience) to limit God on who/what/when He will bless. In fact, from the tone of what Jeanne usually posts, it was not hard for me to read her post negatively. BTW... when I was 4 yrs old and my sis 7, we survived a horrendous 30+ mile ride with a drunken father that kept falling asleep at the wheel with only my petite sis sitting up on the edge of the seat so she could see over the dash board, reaching over me to punch daddy, saying, Daddy wake up... Wake up... taking the steering wheel and guiding the car back onto the road... Finally when we pulled into our driveway the car stalled and he passed out cold... Mom came running down our long driveway and grabbed us out of the car... that is my last memory of my bio dad... Years later my sis and I would talk about this occasionally and marvel... and I wrote about the experience, titling it... "The Night I Rode With Angels" because we are both absolutely convinced there is no way we survived that ride home without the Lord's hand and the help of guardian angels... no way... GG 8
USU78 Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: BTW... when I was 4 yrs old and my sis 7, we survived a horrendous 30+ mile ride with a drunken father that kept falling asleep at the wheel with only my petite sis sitting up on the edge of the seat so she could see over the dash board, reaching over me to punch daddy, saying, Daddy wake up... Wake up... taking the steering wheel and guiding the car back onto the road... Finally when we pulled into our driveway the car stalled and he passed out cold... Mom came running down our long driveway and grabbed us out of the car... that is my last memory of my bio dad... Years later my sis and I would talk about this occasionally and marvel... and I wrote about the experience, titling it... "The Night I Rode With Angels" because we are both absolutely convinced there is no way we survived that ride home without the Lord's hand and the help of guardian angels... no way... Beautiful story. And I quite believe you about the Angels' intervention. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: Hello HappyJack... ...everyone knows?? I don't... and I don't know that her point is accurate. I don't choose (from personal experience) to limit God on who/what/when He will bless. In fact, from the tone of what Jeanne usually posts, it was not hard for me to read her post negatively. BTW... when I was 4 yrs old and my sis 7, we survived a horrendous 30+ mile ride with a drunken father that kept falling asleep at the wheel with only my petite sis sitting up on the edge of the seat so she could see over the dash board, reaching over me to punch daddy, saying, Daddy wake up... Wake up... taking the steering wheel and guiding the car back onto the road... Finally when we pulled into our driveway the car stalled and he passed out cold... Mom came running down our long driveway and grabbed us out of the car... that is my last memory of my bio dad... Years later my sis and I would talk about this occasionally and marvel... and I wrote about the experience, titling it... "The Night I Rode With Angels" because we are both absolutely convinced there is no way we survived that ride home without the Lord's hand and the help of guardian angels... no way... GG I was the one being snarky with the "everyone knows" but you acted incredulous that she would have actually believed there should be physical protection in a dedicated building and was disappointed that it didn't turn out that way. I'm very happy you and your sister survived that ordeal. It could have turned out very differently. Maybe angels were protecting you. I certainly couldn't say otherwise and would have no desire to say otherwise. But if you were to extrapolate from your experience that angels will always ride with drunken fathers to protect their daughters, then there would be a problem. Lets say that you and your sister said a prayer asking God for help. You received help. Great. But if your story was taught to show that prayer works as evidenced by your protection, then every person who has prayed for protection, yet didn't receive it would have to wonder why. I read Jeanne's comment to be surprised and disappointed that a protection she had been taught to expect, wasn't realized. The natural question is, why wasn't it realized? What happened? IMO- her expectation was based on a false teaching/belief, that dedicated houses of worship were protected and safe. Obviously that isn't the case. Even if there are examples of chapels and temples being protected, it doesn't mean that we should have the expectation that a dedication prayer should provide that. If prayers always work, the expectation would be different. Edited July 25, 2018 by HappyJackWagon
Stargazer Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 On 7/23/2018 at 5:27 PM, revelstoked said: For reference here is the current church-wide policy (handbook 2, section 21.2.4) I was in a previous ward where a church shooting (non-lds) had happened and the stake presidents in the area did a full security assessment. There was a discussion of who might be allowed to concealed carry at church and the conclusion was only active service police officers should. There were other members of the ward who wanted to (and who had licenses) but were not in law enforcement but the direct request was for them not to. There is more to security than simply being able to safely handle and fire a weapon. There is situational training and experience in knowing when and how to act or not act to resolve a situation, because the wrong actions make make it worse. The problem with this policy is that some wards have active duty officers, but the majority do not. My old ward had at least three officers who could be armed and may have been from time to time. Other wards in the stake did not have any. The problem is this: if it is known that a place has a policy of disarming its participants, a potential shooter may be emboldened, knowing that there will be no danger of anyone shooting back. The pair who shot up that govt worker gathering in San Bernardino, CA, certainly had no worries, and knew it. A gun free zone is a safe zone only for criminals. 1
Calm Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 28 minutes ago, Stargazer said: The problem with this policy is that some wards have active duty officers, but the majority do not. My old ward had at least three officers who could be armed and may have been from time to time. Other wards in the stake did not have any. The problem is this: if it is known that a place has a policy of disarming its participants, a potential shooter may be emboldened, knowing that there will be no danger of anyone shooting back. The pair who shot up that govt worker gathering in San Bernardino, CA, certainly had no worries, and knew it. A gun free zone is a safe zone only for criminals. I would like to see the overall risk rate of firearm injury and death in gun free zones. It may indeed be more (I don't know, may be less), but not enough more to justify changing the law as it might have the unintended consequence of accidental shootings going up.
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 22 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Has there been any updates on the shooting? Just that the other person shot was his brother who is a professor at BYU/UVU in business. Not clear if shooter intended to shoot him or not. The shooter appeared in court today but there's no indication of motive and he showed no indication of remorse. 1
Jeanne Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Garden Girl said: Hello HappyJack... ...everyone knows?? I don't... and I don't know that her point is accurate. I don't choose (from personal experience) to limit God on who/what/when He will bless. In fact, from the tone of what Jeanne usually posts, it was not hard for me to read her post negatively. BTW... when I was 4 yrs old and my sis 7, we survived a horrendous 30+ mile ride with a drunken father that kept falling asleep at the wheel with only my petite sis sitting up on the edge of the seat so she could see over the dash board, reaching over me to punch daddy, saying, Daddy wake up... Wake up... taking the steering wheel and guiding the car back onto the road... Finally when we pulled into our driveway the car stalled and he passed out cold... Mom came running down our long driveway and grabbed us out of the car... that is my last memory of my bio dad... Years later my sis and I would talk about this occasionally and marvel... and I wrote about the experience, titling it... "The Night I Rode With Angels" because we are both absolutely convinced there is no way we survived that ride home without the Lord's hand and the help of guardian angels... no way... GG I am glad you had angels watching over you...what an awful experience. So glad that the Lord held you in the palm of his hand. I had an experience myself....repelling off a mountain...but we won't go there. There are angels among us for sure. I am sorry if you think that I always post negatively..but I don't believe all my questions are quite the way they are interpreted. In any case..God Bless You. Edited July 25, 2018 by Jeanne 1
Stargazer Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, Calm said: I would like to see the overall risk rate of firearm injury and death in gun free zones. It may indeed be more (I don't know, may be less), but not enough more to justify changing the law as it might have the unintended consequence of accidental shootings going up. I don't know if gun free zones such as schools and churches have a significantly higher rate. My concern may not be valid, I admit. But consider places such as Detroit where it's essentially a citywide gun free zone. I've been there, and it's kind of scary in places. Look up their firearms death rate. As for unintended consequences, you are aware that most states now permit concealed carry? And that accidental shootings are quite rare? Even though hundreds of thousands of people have permits? My home state of Washingon is highly armed. 1 out of 20 citizens there have concealed carry permits. It's "worse" in Utah, where it's about 1 in 7. I looked these up a couple years ago, and the numbers may have changed. Gone up, probably.
Calm Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) While true you are more likely shot intentionally than unintentionally: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html Quote Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns. While the improvement occurred in every state, those with the most guns and the fewest laws continue to have the most accidental shooting deaths I would like to see accidental shootings at home removed and just rates in public measured. Edited July 25, 2018 by Calm
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I don't know if gun free zones such as schools and churches have a significantly higher rate. My concern may not be valid, I admit. But consider places such as Detroit where it's essentially a citywide gun free zone. I've been there, and it's kind of scary in places. Look up their firearms death rate. As for unintended consequences, you are aware that most states now permit concealed carry? And that accidental shootings are quite rare? Even though hundreds of thousands of people have permits? My home state of Washingon is highly armed. 1 out of 20 citizens there have concealed carry permits. It's "worse" in Utah, where it's about 1 in 7. I looked these up a couple years ago, and the numbers may have changed. Gone up, probably. I'm far from convinced gun free zones make shootings more likely. There's confounding variables in this. For instance school shootings are usually due to inchoate rage or copycats where they want to get people at the school. It seems like the higher incidence of shootings at such places is unrelated to their being a gun free zone. That said I think the bigger issue is less about mass shootings, which frankly are staggeringly unlikely. You're far more likely to die from lightning. Rather the issue is whether women who have domestic violence incidence and restraining orders should be able to carry a gun legally in such places. That tends not to get discussed much. Although to be frank, carrying a hidden gun in your purse is not apt to put you in trouble. However overall I find the mass shooting incident not the prime issue so much as the problem of domestic violence and stalking is. I'd have a lot more sympathy on gun bans if proponents could address such cases better. 2
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Calm said: While true you are more likely shot intentionally than unintentionally: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html I would like to see accidental shootings at home removed and just rates in public measured. Although a little training and some proper following of safety will change those statistics considerably for the individual. i.e. they're biased by highly irresponsible people. 1
Calm Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Just that the other person shot was his brother who is a professor at BYU/UVU in business. Not clear if shooter intended to shoot him or not. The shooter appeared in court today but there's no indication of motive and he showed no indication of remorse. My husband knows the second victim. Got shocked and then all misty eyed when I told him who it was, apparently he is a very nice man. Thankfully he was treated and released, so sounds not too bad physically speaking. No doubt heartbroken though. 1
Popular Post Garden Girl Posted July 26, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 26, 2018 7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I was the one being snarky with the "everyone knows" but you acted incredulous that she would have actually believed there should be physical protection in a dedicated building and was disappointed that it didn't turn out that way. I'm very happy you and your sister survived that ordeal. It could have turned out very differently. Maybe angels were protecting you. I certainly couldn't say otherwise and would have no desire to say otherwise. But if you were to extrapolate from your experience that angels will always ride with drunken fathers to protect their daughters, then there would be a problem. Lets say that you and your sister said a prayer asking God for help. You received help. Great. But if your story was taught to show that prayer works as evidenced by your protection, then every person who has prayed for protection, yet didn't receive it would have to wonder why. I read Jeanne's comment to be surprised and disappointed that a protection she had been taught to expect, wasn't realized. The natural question is, why wasn't it realized? What happened? IMO- her expectation was based on a false teaching/belief, that dedicated houses of worship were protected and safe. Obviously that isn't the case. Even if there are examples of chapels and temples being protected, it doesn't mean that we should have the expectation that a dedication prayer should provide that. If prayers always work, the expectation would be different. HappyJack... you read way too much into what I was saying... way too much... I simply told my experience as it happened to us... and how we viewed it. What happens to anyone else is a different matter entirely... Nor was I trying to show or "teach" anything... certainly not about prayer which, incidentally, neither my sis nor I offered. But, prayers were being offered by a desperate mother who had no idea where her little girls were... who had trusted our father to take us for a few hours' visitation day on a summer day and was to have us home by 6:00 p.m. (well before dark), who had believed him as she stood by the car and said, Now Harry, you won't drink when you have these girls with you... and believed him when he promised, saying, Oh no, Esther, I won't... (I can still see her face and eyes as if it was yesterday ) So she sent us off. We hadn't gone a block when he reached under his seat and pulled out a flat pint bottle of what I now know to be whiskey. My sis said. What's that, Daddy? He answered, Cough syrup... and took a big swig. Did he take us to the park, etc? No... he took us over to West Riverside to an auto race track (like demolition derby). He joined a bunch of other men and stood around drinking and talking... we ran and played with the other kids... I remember going over to him and telling him I was hungry... so he gave me a dime for a popsicle... when he finally called us to go home it was dark (which meant it was at least 9:00 p.m.... already 3 hours late), and he was drunk, but of course we went with him... he was Daddy... so began our ride home with him... You know the rest... Protected? Of course we were... What happens to others in various situations is entirely separate. GG 5
Garden Girl Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 When I was an ordinance worker in the Portland OR temple, I confess my least favorite assignment was standing in the entry/waiting room... I felt it was certainly possible that some deranged person could come in the wide open entry and start shooting, etc. In our ward we have several state and city police officers who attend in full dress, including weapons... (incidentally, our just-named new Lincoln City Chief of Police is in our ward... the second chief in recent years to be a ward member). I have a carry concealed permit, but I don't carry into the building... GG 1
Thinking Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 Quote After the shooting, another member of the ward confronted O’Connor, who pointed the gun at him and said, "This isn’t about you," Quote Witnesses and police said O’Connor pointed the gun at another ward member who confronted him, then walked back through the chapel door, out of the Fallon South Stake Center, 750 W. Richards St., and to his home a block away, 901 McKay Court. Fallon police and Churchill County sheriff’s deputies quickly surrounded O’Connor’s home. A hostage negotiator reached O’Connor by phone, and he agreed to surrender to officers. It seems that he wanted to get caught, and that he had some sort of conflict (real or imagined) with Bert Miller. My heart goes out to Miller's family.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 16 hours ago, Calm said: I would like to see the overall risk rate of firearm injury and death in gun free zones. It may indeed be more (I don't know, may be less), but not enough more to justify changing the law as it might have the unintended consequence of accidental shootings going up. As far as I can tell, “active shooter situations” don’t occur at gun shows or in police stations. The deranged killers don’t expect to survive themselves — suicide by cop, as it were — but their goal is to take out as many victims as they can before they get stopped. It goes without saying that’s easier in a “gun-free” zone.
glockster22 Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 Here's a link to an article looking at FBI data about active shooters. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/fbi-active-shooter-data-shows-importance-of-armed-citizens/ some he have suggested that armed citizens not law enforcement would make matters worse and compared it to the wild west. The data does s not support that as the article points out. The reality is during an active shooter situation armed citizens have helped vs. a hide and pray strategy the more quickly the shooter meets resistance the lower the body count.
Recommended Posts