American Kiwi

PROTECT THE SAINTS AND SUPPORT THE LORD’S CONSTITUTION

RESTORING SELF-PROTECTION RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LORD

AND

REMOVING THE CONCEALED CARRY “PROHIBITION” IN UTAH CHAPELS

Updated from the package sent to the Church Security Department, 15 Nov 2018.

“Church,” “Chapels” and places of worship refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, except where specified. The Church “PROHIBITION” is under Utah Law.

https://bci.utah.gov/concealed-firearm/general-information/houses-of-worship-prohibiting-firearms-on-premises/

Original 2004 decision reported in Deseret News. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/590038385/LDS-bar-guns-at-church.html

Text of the 2004 First Presidency Letter prohibiting concealed carry. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/590038317/Text-of-letter-from-First-Presidency-on-guns.html

Organization:

Pg. 1. 1. Issue Statement

Pg. 2. 2. Background

Pg. 2. 3. Status of the Issue

Pg. 3. 4. Discussion

Pg. 6. 5. Is the PROHIBITION Consistent with The Lord’s Declarations in Scripture?

Pg. 8. 6. Is the PROHIBITION Consistent with the teachings of the Prophets?

Pg. 12. 7. Other Questions Raised by the PROHIBITION

Pg. 13. 8. Is the PROHIBITION Legal? (1^st Amendment [AMD]; 4^th AMD; 9^th AMD; 2^nd AMD)

Pg. 17. 9. Active Shooter Scenarios and Consequences

Pg. 19. 10. What Steps Can the Church Take to Protect Congregations in Utah?

Pg. 20. 11. STake ARmed Security (STARS) Force Concept

Pg. 22. 12. Appendix – Recommendation to Bishop, Stake President, given to Elder Ence, Nov 2017

1. ISSUE STATEMENT:

Church congregations assembled in chapels in Utah are at risk from an active shooter or bomber. No protection is currently provided by the Church except under the Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, April 23, 2018, in which local “Priesthood leaders … develop plans to deal properly with potential incidents according to local conditions.” However, security teams are not required by the Church, only “sworn law enforcement officers” can be armed, and ARMED SECURITY signs are not used as a deterrent. Most Stakes and Wards do not have sufficient qualified officers and do not have security teams providing protection to Saints in attendance at their meetings. Protection that could be provided by members with Concealed Carry permits is publicly PROHIBITED by the Church, thus creating an open invitation to the threat while also taking away the God-given right to self-protection. In addition to creating a public safety issue, the PROHIBITION is not consistent with the personal protections the Lord declares to be the rights to be granted by governments (D&C 134), and is specifically inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which the Lord declared as established by Him (D&C 98 and 101). The argument that the Church is using a lawful Utah regulation of the 2nd Amendment, is negated by the failure of the Church Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, April 23, 2018, to provide adequate protection to those so regulated. Removing the PROHIBITION, placing ARMED SECURITY signs on all meetinghouses, and requiring Stake security teams for chapel congregations, will restore individual rights to protect life granted by the Lord, provide adequate protection against an active shooter in a Utah chapel, and limit the Church’s wrongful death liability.

2. BACKGROUND:

In November 2017, there were questions posed to the Bloomington Hills Fifth Ward Council by the Stake President (and perhaps the Church) on how we would respond to various situations in our Sacrament meetings. The most serious question, and the one in active debate in social media since the 5 November 2017, Sutherland Springs, Texas, church massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting) in which 26 were killed, was not posed to us. The worst case presented was someone “brandishing” a gun. I dealt with that situation once when I went out to confront a man who had a rifle and was walking up to my in-law’s home to kill his wife and children who had fled there for safety. Fortunately, I knew him well and he was very drunk. While I was not armed, I was able to quickly reach out to him in love and disarm him. All the questions posed to us were non-lethal situations that are easily handled. Following the Ward Council Meeting, I prepared and sent a Recommendation to Bishop Allen and Bloomington Hills Stake President Almquist. I addressed the question: What do we do if a man enters the chapel and begins killing people? President Almquist informed me that he delivered the letter to Elder Ence, our Area Seventy. A copy of that Recommendation is at Page 20.

3. STATUS OF THE ISSUE:

The status of my Nov 2017 Recommendation is unknown. To my knowledge, no response or feedback was provided by the Church to the Stake President who submitted it. I do not know if it influenced the Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, 23 April, 2018, which includes Responding to an Armed Intruder or Active Shooter.

Since submitting my Nov 2017 recommendations to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in chapels in Utah, I released that letter for others to use through the Open Carry Utah, Facebook Page. Since then much has happened that suggests that I address this issue in greater depth.

In Dec 2017, “a pro-ISIS media group” showed a picture of an ISIS soldier looking at a burning San Diego, LDS Temple, with the statement, “Coming Soon.”
In Jan 2018, the Church renewed its annual PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in chapels.
15 Feb 2018, the day after the Florida High School shooting in which 17 persons were killed, an ISIS flag was raised at Hurricane High School. The message “ISIS IS COMI(NG)” was written on an exterior wall of the school.
5 Mar 2018, the teen who raised the ISIS flag at Hurricane High School then conducted a failed bomb attack on Pineview High School.
27 Mar 2018, retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, called for the Second Amendment to be repealed.
23 Apr 2018, an updated Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, is distributed by the Church. It includes Responding to an Armed Intruder or Active Shooter. However; it does not require Stakes and Wards to have security teams on duty for meetings, limits arms to “sworn law enforcement officers,” and does not put ARMED SECURITY signs on meetinghouses.
19 Jul 2018, the First Presidency received an earlier version of this paper from me after being approved to send it forward by my Stake President. The Handbook 2: 21.1.24 communications procedure was not followed by the Stake President and the paper was returned to him. The paper did not consider the 23 Apr, Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, which had not been provided to me. This paper takes those Security Guidelines into consideration.
27 Oct 2018, Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting (11 killed). Alvin Berkun, rabbi emeritus at Tree of Life and a Pittsburgh police chaplain, told KDKA-TV that the synagogue hires off-duty police officers for the high holidays, “but on a normal weekend we don’t do that.”
On 9 Jan 2019, the Church renewed its annual PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in chapels.

4. DISCUSSION:

In the year 2000, as I departed the Middle East, I knew that radical Islam would seek to bring the USA under constant attack at home, just as they have done to Israel. The 1993, World Trade Center bombing had already occurred, and 9-11, 2001, was soon to happen. Attacks within the USA have continued to grow, with 96% of these attributed to Muslims and 85% US citizens or permanent residents (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/). 48% of these were radicalized through social media (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/why-do-they-commit-terrorist-acts/). To maintain religious legitimacy, Islamic terrorists are obliged to give warning – then come the attacks. ISIS threatened an attack in Las Vegas, and immediately after the 1 Oct 2017 attack, claimed (four times) that Paddock was their man and had converted to Islam six months earlier. (Translation of ISIS’ official claim. [https://twitter.com/MichaelSSmithII/status/914921492202303488/photo/1]) So far our government has denied that claim but has provided no other motivation for the killer.

While the FBI may not be “aware of any specific and credible threat” to Utah, this does not mean there is no threat. The FBI was specifically warned of the Florida school shooter by name, and failed to act. Neither was the FBI aware that an ISIS flag would be flying over a Utah High School. I am confident the threat is aware of our gun free zones and that Chapels are vulnerable to attack because of the Church PROHIBITION.

When working for Boeing in Saudi Arabia, I and one other were asked, because of our backgrounds in defense planning, to evaluate the threat to our residential compound in Khamis Mushayt and recommend actions to be taken. This followed the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, where many lives were lost. We assessed that we were at risk and that the most likely attacks were with small arms on the "snake road" from the town to the compound, or a mortar attack on the compound. One of our recommendations was that a security post be placed at the town end of snake road and that the road be routinely patrolled. The road was very windy with lots of large rocks to cover attackers. Buses with company employees were particularly vulnerable during their travel times. Our recommendation was not followed and an attack on snake road occurred.

I am not predicting an attack on one of our congregations, but I am saying the Church has made us vulnerable to attack by Handbook 2: 21.2.4, the PROHIBITION, and inadequate Security Guidelines. More seriously in my view, the Church is acting contrary to the Lord's doctrine and Constitution. I suspect it is not their intent to stand against The Lord. Allowing Concealed Carry and even open carry in our chapels is an effective and inexpensive way for the Church to secure its members. The Church is careful to provide expensive protection in the large Conference assemblies as is evidenced by the exterior and interior armed security perimeters. I'm confident that the Lord watches over His saints, but the most effective way to secure His chapel congregations is for members to voluntarily exercise their individual right to self-defense. He has provided for this in His Constitution, which His Church is PROHIBITING under Utah law and with fatally flawed Security Guidelines. Sustaining the Lord’s doctrine and His Constitution by removing Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and the PROHIBITION will resolve both problems.

Two problems result from Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and this PROHIBITION:

1. Chapels are publicly identified as soft targets, thus raising the risk of attack much higher than if Concealed Carry were accepted, no public PROHIBITION were issued, and ARMED SECURITY signs were posted on each meetinghouse.

2. Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and the PROHIBITION go against scripture:

a. In principle, the early Church declared, “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:2).

b. “… we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.” (D&C 134:11)

c. The US Constitution is the rule of law given by God to His children in this dispensation and was a necessary precondition to the Restoration. The Constitution establishes the principles of D&C 134 in the supreme law of the land. The Lord states, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101:80) “I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:6-7)

d. Specifically, the PROHIBITION exercises a Utah State law infringement on the 2^nd Amendment of the US Constitution which the US Supreme Court has ruled as an individual right. The Utah law relies on the principle that States can regulate the 2^nd Amendment; however:

i. Effectively, the Church is PROHIBITING the individual “… right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (which) shall not be infringed” (2^nd Amendment), contrary to “… the laws and constitution of the people, which I (God) have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles ….” (D&C 101:77)

ii. The 23 Apr 2018, Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, which includes Responding to an Armed Intruder or Active Shooter, is inadequate to protecting those members PROHIBITED in the regulation from providing self-protection. The Guidelines do not require Stakes and Wards to have security teams on duty for meetings, limits arms to “sworn law enforcement officers” of which there are insufficient, and does not put ARMED SECURITY signs on meetinghouses.

It appears a very poor policy to infringe on the rights granted by the Lord, and to hope that a law enforcement officer is attending church when an attack occurs. I believe the better policy is to sustain the rights the Lord has granted us in His Constitution - this alone will provide adequate protection for members in our chapels as the threat comes ever closer to home.

This is so reminiscent of school shootings. How many students have lost their lives because we have declaring schools “gun-free zones” and then refused to protect our children from the evil that is attracted to these slaughter houses? These are the actions of an insane populace that blissfully believes they can stop mass shootings by disarming good people, while the Lord has given us the means to protect ourselves and our children from the evil.

Currently our schools in Utah are better protected than our chapels. There is a full time, uniformed, armed, police/Resource Officer assigned to every school. In addition, teachers and staff who have Concealed Carry permits from the State, are encouraged to carry and not disclose their status to anyone other than the Resource Officer. This is in keeping with the law, since one of the intents of Concealed Carry, is to conceal. Sadly, our children are safer from an attack at school than an attack at Church given the Church's Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and the PROHIBITION.

To suggest that the PROHIBITION is to protect those attending a chapel is a false argument. Those who have Concealed Carry permits are good upstanding citizens who have the confidence of the State of Utah. They are defenders of life. Murderers and terrorists cannot be disarmed unless they are caught in their preparations and removed from free society. To disarm the protectors of life in the face of a growing threat is illogical, contrary to the principles of governance provided by the Lord, and shows a lack of respect for the dignity and preservation of life.

The Handbook 2 policy is equally offensive to doctrine and members.

Handbook 2: 21.2.4 Firearms
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

With this policy, Church leaders violate the Church “belie(f) that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded” (D&C 134:11). In some areas of the world, Church congregations are vulnerable to attack by radical Islamists. Such congregations have no “haven” if they do not protect themselves. Military personnel around the world have experienced attending Church fully armed. To exclude them from worship because they are armed would be “inappropriate.” People worship – guns don’t. People murder congregations – guns don’t. People defend themselves – guns don’t.

Our Ward Council meeting included the Washington County Sherriff who is a member of our Ward and was asked to attend by the Bishop. Interestingly, no one in the Ward Council was in support of the Church’s PROHIBITION. All were very comfortable with Concealed Carry in the Chapel. We also learned that some members of the Ward were known to carry concealed. Does this Ward example suggest that there is a much wider opposition to the PROHIBITION and a general rejection of the same? Does this also mean that if put to a sustaining vote, the PROHIBITION would be openly opposed? It is generally believed that the leaders of the Church are protected by armed security. Would this then mean that there is a different standard for regular members of the Church and that they are not only unworthy of protection, but also PROHIBITED from exercising their own right to self-protection?

To provide armed protection for the leaders of the Church, but not the common member and his guest, is to also show a lack of equal respect for all of God’s children. The principle taught in Alma 1: 26 that “… the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal ….”, and the very character of God as “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10: 34), is violated. I fear the Church has put itself in an untenable position with both the Lord of the Constitution and His people. In my Ward it is clear that the members have no intention of exposing themselves to death by following the PROHIBITION. Tithe funds are used to protect Church leaders – why not the members assembled in their chapels? Members can protect themselves for free by exercising their right to self-defense, why not the leaders? And why are the leaders PROHIBITING members from self-defense while putting forth Security Guidelines for members that will not work, as the leaders stand securely behind their armed guards? Protection at Conference is expensive. Chapel protection is free – if the Lord’s doctrine of self-protection is restored.

5. Is the PROHIBITION Consistent with The Lord’s Declarations in Scripture?

Our Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” (Eph 2:20) These foundational pieces’ rest in the soil of Liberty - sustained by the principle of agency enshrined in Heaven and in the US Constitution.

The US Constitution is the rule of law given by God to His children in this dispensation and was a necessary precondition to the Restoration. “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101:80) “I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:6-7) This revelation was received in 1833 when the Constitution included Amendments I through XII. Amendment II of the Constitution is designed to protect the people from tyranny: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and was ruled by the Supreme Court as an individual right. Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and the PROHIBITION policies of the Church, oppose God’s Constitution, placing the Church with those who “infringe” upon this God-given right.

There is, I think, an expectation that we be like Christ. In general this is correct: “Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.” (3 Ne 27:27) However, when the Church effectively tells its members to go like lambs to the slaughter, they forget that was Christ’s mission, not ours. There is a higher principle to apply – for which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice.

The Savior taught us to worship the Father - and so we do. He is the one who gave us the greatest gift any intelligence can have - agency, or Liberty. He is the one who fought a war in Heaven to preserve it. He is the one who “gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16) to atone for our sins in the use of our agency - as we learn for ourselves that “wickedness never was happiness.” (Alma 41:10) If there were no agency, there would be no need for a Savior. It was Satan who “sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3) and force compliance to his law. The Father rejected that plan. Does the Church?

We all fought for that most sacred possession along with the Father. The need to defend Liberty is eternal. It is the foundation upon which all the kingdoms of glory exist. It is the foundation upon which this mortal experience is based - men “are free to choose.” (2 Ne 2:27)

When the Savior said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13) He was speaking of himself but also of all those who do the same. That sacrifice is not made most often in a court of law (as was His), but on the battlefields and in our communities, at the boundary between good and evil, Liberty and tyranny. Sadly, that boundary has entered our churches.

Let the Church not follow the example of Satan in attempting to remove agency and the righteous defense of life and Liberty, or suggest we follow the example of Christ in allowing ourselves to be sacrificed by evil men, but rather the example of the Father of Lights in defending Liberty - the greatest cause in life and Eternity, and for which the Savior of mankind, in freedom, offered Himself.

The PROHIBITION violates the Church Declaration of Belief Regarding Governments and Laws:

D&C 134: 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

The PROHIBITION removes from “each individual … the protection of life.”

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;

The PROHIBITION “infringe(s) upon the rights and liberties of others.”

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

The Church has

1. “mingle(d) religious influence with (Utah) civil government” and

2. by establishing the PROHIBITION in Utah law, “the individual rights of its members, as citizens, (are) denied.”

Representative V. Lowry Snow told me the Church had requested the legislation under the 4^th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Deseret News reported “the church had a hand in drafting the 2003 registration legislation and could not in good conscience then oppose it.” The paper also noted that “The decision by LDS leadership to register puts the church in compliance with state law while at the same time setting the faith apart from other denominations in the Salt Lake Valley that oppose the registration requirement. In December, leaders from about two dozen religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, said they believe that under the protections of the U.S. Constitution, Utah has no jurisdiction to dictate how churches must handle such policy.”

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The PROHIBITION

1. Is an example of a “religious society (exercising) authority to try men (in this case without trial) on the right of … life.”

2. “put(s) them in jeopardy of (both) life (and) limb.”

D&C 134: 11 … we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

The PROHIBITION violates the principle “that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends … from the unlawful assaults … of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate … relief (can be) afforded.”

6. Is the PROHIBITION Consistent with the teachings of the Prophets?

When I search the Prophets, I find a constant support for “our divine (US) Constitution”. The current PROHIBITION in Utah, is not consistent with their testimonies:

President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, Ezra Taft Benson, April Conference, 1976

I cherish patriotism and love of country in all lands ….

Every Latter-day Saint should love the inspired Constitution of the United States—a nation with a spiritual foundation and a prophetic history—which nation the Lord has declared to be his base of operations in these latter days.

The framers of the Constitution were men raised up by God to establish this foundation of our government, for so the Lord has declared by revelation in these words:

“I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101:80; italics added.) ….

As a young Church member, born and raised in New Zealand, this statement is consistent with my own understanding of America and its divinely established Constitution. About age ten, the Spirit impressed upon me that I would one day go to the USA and become an American citizen. This caused me to investigate the scriptures. I read the Book of Mormon by age 12 as well as portions of the Doctrine and Covenants about the US Constitution. My reading of these scriptures informed me in the same way as these prophets.

In the final analysis, what the framers did, under the inspiration of God, was to draft a document that merited the approval of God himself, who declared it to “be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh.” (D&C 101:77; italics added.)

I too considered the US Constitution to be just as important to me as a boy in New Zealand as I was among “all flesh.”

President N. Eldon Tanner (Canadian), First Councilor to President Spencer W. Kimball, April Conference, 1976

We would expect every man to be loyal to his native land—the land in which he was born, the land in which he lives, works, and rears his family ….

At this point we pay tribute to those great men who accepted and met the great challenge to establish a constitution for the government of this so-called new land. That this too was divinely inspired is attested by the word of the Lord when he said, “According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

When I read these scriptures, I too saw “every man” as applicable to me.

“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101:77–80.) ….

We believe that the Constitution was brought about by God to ensure a nation where liberty could abound and where his gospel could flourish. Joseph Smith said, “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard—it is founded in the wisdom of God—it is a heavenly banner.” (Petersen, Prologue, p. 75.) ….

We must remember what the Lord told the Jaredites when they were first brought to this land: “Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.” (Ether 2:12; italics added.) ….

Let me reiterate the message left with the Saints nearly sixty years ago at the general conference in April 1917 when Elder Anthony W. Ivins, after discussing religious liberty and the Constitution, said, “I feel authorized to say, here this afternoon, that these liberties which have come to men, both religious and civil, have not been established by the Lord to be destroyed, but that they are here to remain until liberty shall prevail from the rivers to the ends of the earth, until God’s kingdom shall be established among men, and his will done upon earth as it is done in heaven. Until the universal Fatherhood of God, and brotherhood of man shall be recognized, and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Christ, who shall reign as Prince of Peace.” (Conference Reports, April 1917, pp. 54–55.)

President Ezra Taft Benson, October Conference, 1987

It is as a result of these events (referring to the establishment of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights) that we are able to meet today in peace as members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. For this we should all be eternally grateful.

I desire, therefore, to speak to you about our divine Constitution, which the Lord said “belongs to all mankind” (D&C 98:5; italics added) “and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77; italics added).

The Constitution of the United States has served as a model for many nations and is the oldest constitution in use today.

“I established the Constitution of this land,” said the Lord, “by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80) ….

Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church ….

The Doctrine and Covenants states, “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:2). Life, liberty, property—mankind’s three great rights ….

The dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, as dictated by the Lord and found in the Doctrine and Covenants, contains these words: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54) ….

President Wilford Woodruff spoke of (the appearance of the Founding Fathers in the Saint George Temple) in these words: “Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God’” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, p. 160) ….

Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City).

Only in this foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and the resulting environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored church. It is our responsibility to see that this freedom is perpetuated so that the Church may more easily flourish in the future.

The Lord said, “Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6) ….

The Lord said that “he holds men accountable for their acts in relation” to governments “both in making laws and administering them” (D&C 134:1). ….

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, October Conference, 2001

Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions. This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim. … It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.

We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present situation.

We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10). ….

Sadly, it is President Hinckley in 1996, who introduced what is now Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and in 2004, PROHIBITED us from defending our families in Church.

Great are the promises concerning this land of America. We are told unequivocally that it “is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). This is the crux of the entire matter—obedience to the commandments of God.

Are we obedient to the Lord when we PROHIBIT self-defense, and the God-given right to defend life?

The Constitution under which we live, and which has not only blessed us but has become a model for other constitutions, is our God-inspired national safeguard ensuring freedom and liberty, justice and equality before the law. ….

Now, all of us know that war, contention, hatred, suffering of the worst kind are not new. The conflict we see today is but another expression of the conflict that began with the War in Heaven. I quote from the book of Revelation:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

“And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ” (Rev. 12:7–10).

That must have been a terrible conflict. The forces of evil were pitted against the forces of good. The great deceiver, the son of the morning, was defeated and banished, and took with him a third of the hosts of heaven.

The book of Moses and the book of Abraham shed further light concerning this great contest. Satan would have taken from man his agency and taken unto himself all credit and honor and glory. Opposed to this was the plan of the Father which the Son said He would fulfill, under which He came to earth and gave His life to atone for the sins of mankind.

From the day of Cain to the present, the adversary has been the great mastermind of the terrible conflicts that have brought so much suffering.

Treachery and terrorism began with him. And they will continue until the Son of God returns to rule and reign with peace and righteousness among the sons and daughters of God. ….

Let us stand firm against evil, both at home and abroad. …. (but not in Church!)

7. Other Questions Raised by the PROHIBITION:

The list of prophets who have gone into combat for the preservation of their people and their liberty is long and revered: Adam (Rev 12:7), Moses (numerous), Joshua (numerous), Nephi (2 Ne 5:14), Alma (Alma 2:29-31), Helaman (Alma 57:17-27), Mormon (numerous), Joseph Smith (Zion’s Camp), Brigham Young (Mormon War). In contrast to Brigham Young, here we have the threat advancing into the Rocky Mountains, and the saints are being disarmed.

Will the Church provide visibly armed protection at Chapels?

Will the Church wait to provide security, or wait to require each Stake to provide its own security, when people assembled in a chapel under this PROHIBITION are attacked and killed?

In Alaska, Stake presidents ask adults at Church camps to be armed - the threat of bears is real.

When will the Church support the Lord’s 2^nd Amendment as vigorously as the Lord’s 1^st Amendment?

Can the Church “exist in peace" where if PROHIBITS “protection of life”?

How can the Church require governments to "secure to each individual ... the protection of life", and then PROHIBIT its members from doing so?

Can the Lord look with favor upon the Church when it acts contrary to His revelations, and PROHIBITS the exercise of rights detailed in the Constitution that He established?

Since the Lord trusts us with this right - why not His Church?

Will the PROHIBITION stop the wicked?

Will the PROHIBITION protect compliant innocents from acts of terror?

Since we are in a war with Radical Islam, and their attacks within the USA are increasing, does it make any sense to PROHIBIT the Lord's people from defending themselves?

Can the safety of the saints be assured by infringing on their God-given rights to “bear arms” in "protection of life."

Does the Lord support this PROHIBITION in view of His statements concerning the rights of His children and His Constitution?

A safer option is for the Church to authorize worship and administration of the Sacrament at home.

8. Is the PROHIBITION Legal?

Yes and No.

The PROHIBITION by the Church is legal in that it exercises a provision provided for in Utah Law.

76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.

(1)

A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:

(a)

transport a firearm into:

(i)	a house of worship; or

(ii)	a private residence; or

(b)

while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:

(i)	a house of worship; or

(ii)	a private residence.

The PROHIBITION law violates the “establishment clause” of both the US and Utah constitutions.

US Constitution, 1^st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wikipedia – First Amendment: Everson v. Board of Education (1947) established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government.^[91]

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:

Had a secular purpose (The PROHIBITION FAILS: The purpose is to enforce a Church policy.)
Neither advanced nor inhibited religion (The PROHIBITION FAILS: It advances Church policy.)
Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. (The PROHIBITION FAILS: Entangles the Church and State of Utah in enforcing a Church PROHIBITION against the 2^nd Amendment rights of Utah citizens.)

Representative V. Lowry Snow told me the Church had requested the legislation under the 4^th Amendment of the US Constitution. In other words the Church requested that the State of Utah violate the “establishment clause” from the 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The State of Utah has done that.

At the Church's request, the State "established" a Church anti-gun policy in law, that the Church "registers" with, and the State then "enforces." What other policies might the Church request be "established" in law? To pick something not politically correct, how about same sex marriage? Shall the State "establish" a Church policy against same-sex marriage in law, that the Church "registers" with, and the State enforces against Church members in Utah? We could "enforce" other Church policies this way, such as no smoking, and then rename the Church, the Church of Utah.

The Church has violated its own Declaration of Belief Regarding Governments and Laws (D&C 134).

The D&C 134: 9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

The Church has

1. “mingle(d) religious influence with (Utah) civil government” and

2. by establishing the PROHIBITION in Utah law, “the individual rights of its members, as citizens, (are) denied.”

The Utah Constitution is more restrictive and clear than the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 4 [Religious liberty.] The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. (1) The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of Church and State, (2) nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions. (3) No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment.

NOTES:

1. Identical to US Constitution, 1^st Amendment

2. The Church’s domination of the State is demonstrated by the PROHIBITION legislation which most Churches in Utah opposed.

3. State monies are used to process trespass cases in support of the Church’s policy against the 2^nd Amendment rights of Utah citizens.

It is interesting to note that in 2018, just one other Church in Utah has registered with the State of Utah to PROHIBIT weapons in their Church. In 2004 there were at least three other Churches that registered.

Based on the restrictions of the US and Utah establishment clauses the following should happen:

1. 76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty. This law “aid(s) one (or all) religion(s).” The law should be modified to remove “house of worship” or churches.

2. The Church should enforce its own policy – not the State.

The PROHIBITION law violates the 4^th Amendment.

The Church argues the PROHIBITION is based upon the 4^th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a weak argument in that the chapels are hardly “private.”

1. The Church is made up of millions of tithe-paying members in Utah. Do these members agree with the PROHIBITION?

2. The chapels are open to the public – in fact the public is invited – not very private.

Nowhere in the 4^th Amendment are firearms mentioned. The 4^th Amendment is to “secure (the people) … against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Presumably the desire is to be “secure (from death) in their persons.” To be secure in this way, the Constitution provides the 2^nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The person can then protect himself but also can PROHIBIT someone with arms from coming into his private location. I understand this is the basis of the Utah concession in the Concealed Carry law.

I understand the chapels are owned by the Presiding Bishop through the corporation sole, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property. Since the Presiding Bishop can only be at one chapel in Utah at any given time, how can the Presiding Bishop PROHIBIT Concealed Carry in all chapels in Utah for the “secur(ity of his) person”?

The Church belongs to all of us. Why then are the members, who have no intention of harming the Presiding Bishop, be PROHIBITED from protecting his person, or any other member of the Church?

If we say that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, why is the Presiding Bishop PROHIBITING the right of the members, granted by Jesus Christ, to defend their lives?

How does the 4^th Amendment of the Presiding Bishop prevail over the 2^nd Amendment of all the members? The person coming to harm the Presiding Bishop is almost certainly not a Concealed Carry Permit holder vetted by the State of Utah, but it is they who will protect the person of the Presiding Bishop.

The PROHIBITION law violates the 9^th Amendment.

To suggest that the 4^th Amendment, constrains the 2^nd Amendment, is also contrary to the 9^th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why is the 4^th Amendment “construed to deny” the 2^nd Amendment?

Why is the 4^th Amendment “construed to deny” “the protection of life”?

Also, “the enumeration” of the 2^nd Amendment, in its reference to a “militia” and the “security of a free state”, "shall not be construed (or interpreted) to deny or disparage” the right “retained by the people” to “keep and bear arms” for:

1. Self-defense

2. The protection of other lives

The bottom line is that no interpretation of any part of the Constitution can “be construed to deny or disparage” any of our rights enumerated in the Constitution or retained by the people.

The PROHIBITION law violates the 2^nd Amendment.

The PROHIBITION also fails to correctly regulate the 2^nd Amendment. The Principles of Government outlined in D&C 134 clearly state that we believe in the individual right to protect life and respond to life threatening situations when law enforcement is not available. These principles are enshrined in the 2nd Amendment of the Lord’s Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that this is an individual right but allows States to regulate. The Church has chosen to PROHIBIT concealed carry in our chapels through a regulation of the 2nd Amendment by the State of Utah. However, Church leaders have put forward a Security Guideline that is not adequate to protect the persons the Church has PROHIBITED from carrying under this regulation, therefore the Church will be found liable when Saints are killed by an active shooter. In contrast, at the Conference Center an adequate armed force is present to counter an active shooter threat – not so in our chapels.

This quote from the Utah Attorney General in 2016 is instructive:

SALT LAKE CITY June 10, 2016 – Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes disagreed with Thursday’s decision from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which effectively removes any limitations on state legislatures from restricting Second Amendment rights under the US Constitution to carry a concealed weapon.

“With this ruling, the Ninth Circuit further undermines a bedrock constitutional right,” said Attorney General Sean Reyes. “By holding that the Second Amendment in no way guarantees a law-abiding individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon in public, the court effectively grants state legislatures in the Ninth Circuit unlimited power to impose whatever regulation—no matter how onerous or irrational—on the exercise of a critical constitutional right.

“No one claims these rights should be entirely free from governmental restriction. For example, we justifiably prohibit violent felons from owning guns. But to allow a scheme preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves outside the home is wrong and unconstitutional. It is why Utah joined 20 other states last year in opposing these drastic deprivations of a fundamental right.

“We must stand up for Second Amendment rights and the power of families to protect themselves. Law abiding citizens deserve the choice to keep themselves, their families and businesses safe and, importantly, must also accept the responsibility commensurate with those rights.”

9. Active Shooter Scenarios and Consequences

Under the Security Guidelines, it is NOT POSSIBLE to protect Saints in chapels from an active shooter.

1. Chapels and classrooms cannot be locked or effectively barricaded. The only barricade is locked meetinghouse exterior doors which can be used to control entry.

2. Stake Presidents and Bishops are not required to have security teams in place or controlled entry for their meetings, other than special assemblies such as Temple dedications.

3. Armed members are limited to “sworn law enforcement officers” of which there are insufficient.

4. The Church, under Utah law PROHIBITS those with concealed carry permits to carry in Church.

5. The public PROHIBITION and lack of ARMED SECURITY signs on our chapels invites the threat.

The combination of the above means that when an active shooter attacks Saints assembled in a Chapel again, it will likely be a slaughter. The blood of the Saints will be on the hands of the shooter and the Church leaders who took away the God-given right to self-protection without an adequate protection plan, such as they provide for themselves at General Conference.

When we envision an active shooter in a chapel, we see the fatal flaws in the Security Guidelines:

SCENARIO ONE: The shooter enters any door of his choosing, enters the chapel, and begins shooting. There is one armed “sworn law enforcement officer” in the chapel, or in the building attending another ward. The officer responds, but being “alone” he is seriously injured and succeeds only in wounding the shooter. Assuming members of this ward are compliant with Handbook 2 and the PROHIBITION against concealed carry, many Saints are killed and wounded.

SCENARIO TWO: The shooter enters any door of his choosing, enters the chapel, and begins shooting. There is no armed “sworn law enforcement officers” in the building. Assuming members of this ward are compliant with Handbook 2 and the PROHIBITION against concealed carry, tens of Saints are killed - tens of Saints are wounded.

SCENARIO THREE: The shooter enters any door of his choosing, enters the chapel, and begins shooting. There is no armed “sworn law enforcement officers” in the building. Saints who have not surrendered their self-protection right to a negligent Church, succeed in neutralizing the shooter very quickly with their concealed weapons. Some Saints are killed, some wounded.

CONSEQUENCES: Because the Church:

1. PROHIBITS concealed carry in chapels;

2. Security Guidelines allow only “swore law enforcement officers” to be armed;

3. Stake President and Bishop had limited, or more often, no such officers available.

4. Stake President and Bishop had not “develop(ed) plans to deal with (this) potential incident,” or a plan was on the shelf but not in use;

5. Stake President and Bishop had not reported up-channel that they could not protect their members under the Security Guidelines, or their concerns had been ignored.

the Church will face:

1. Multiple wrongful death suits;

2. A class action law suit against the PROHIBITION;

3. Severe criticism for protecting leaders with the Lord’s tithe, while leaving the Saints unprotected and stripped of their free God-given rights to self-protection;

4. Charges that the Prophet be removed from office under D&C 103, for:

a. Apostasy from the Lord’s doctrine of Liberty and self-protection, and

b. Failure to protect the Saints while PROHIBITING them from protecting themselves.

10. What Steps Can the Church Take to Protect Congregations in Utah?

I do not address large gatherings such as General Conference at the Temple Square facilities in Salt Lake City. The Church provides security at these facilities. The Church appears to have two options that support both doctrine and the protection of life for Saints assembled in chapels:

Independent of these options, the Church should immediately put ARMED SECURITY signs on every meetinghouse in the US. This is justifiable even under the current Security Guidelines, given that at least some of the time, an armed “sworn law enforcement officer” will be present. These signs will act as a deterrent and could have prevented the Fallon, NV, killing.

Option 1: STake ARmed Security Force (STARS Force) - armed law enforcement and concealed carry members are required to be maintained by every Ward and Stake in Utah

1. Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and the PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in Chapels remain in place but with sufficient regulated STARS (see Page 18) to protect the Saints.

2. Law enforcement officers be encouraged to openly carry at Church as a deterrent.

3. PROTECTED BY ARMED SECURITY signs are posted on all meetinghouses.

4. Stake Presidents organize STARS support for each chapel with authority to use members approved by the State of Utah to carry concealed.

PRO:

1. Visible deterrence by sign and open carry counters the negative effects of the PROHIBITION.

2. Law enforcement officers have backing.

3. Wards without law enforcement officers are covered.

4. Protection of life for all congregations.

5. Ability to check backpacks/bags.

6. Rights granted by the Lord are regulated sufficient to protect the Saints.

7. Troubled members or strangers easily identified.

CON:

1. Public PROHIBITION invites the threat.

Option 2: Rescind Handbook 2: 21.2.4 and the PROHIBITION and Organize STARS

1. Law enforcement officers be encouraged to openly carry at Church as a deterrent.

2. PROTECTED BY ARMED SECURITY signs are posted on all meetinghouses.

3. Stake Presidents organize STARS support for each chapel (See Page 18) with authority to use members approved by the State of Utah to carry concealed.

PRO:

1. Visible deterrence by sign and open carry with negative effects of the PROHIBITION removed.

2. Rights granted by the Lord are restored.

3. Deterrence is restored by known Utah Concealed Carry law and signs, and some open carry.

4. Law enforcement officers have backing.

5. Wards without law enforcement officers are covered.

6. Protection of life for all congregations.

7. With STARS implemented:

a. Ability to check backpacks.

b. Troubled members or strangers easily identified.

11. STake ARmed Security (STARS) Force

Corrects Fatal Flaws in Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses, Apr 23, 2018.

STARS Force and Team Basic Principles:

1. STARS Teams from each Ward provide armed security from 30 minutes prior, to 30 minutes after, the block schedule for their assigned building.

HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE:

a. 9-11 occurred after the Congress defunded the Air Marshal program. People were not permitted to be armed on aircraft and were left defenseless.

b. Alvin Berkun, rabbi emeritus at Tree of Life and a Pittsburgh police chaplain, told KDKA-TV that the synagogue hires off-duty police officers for the high holidays, “but on a normal weekend we don’t do that.”

2. STARS Team leads report to the Bishop or presiding bishopric member in the Bishop’s absence.

3. All the Ward STARS Teams make up the STARS Force.

4. The STARS Force lead reports to an assigned Stake Presidency member.

5. The STARS Force supports Stake-wide events such as Stake Conference, Pioneer Day celebration.

6. STARS members are:

a. “sworn law enforcement officers” (active, reserve, and HR 218) and members approved by the State of Utah to carry concealed and selected by the Bishop or Stake President.

b. Trained and briefed by their Team or Force leader.

i. Force Leader: A “sworn law enforcement officer” called by the Stake President

ii. Team Leaders: One from each Ward, called by the Bishop

c. Equipped with:

i. A side arm secured to their person.
OPTION ONE: Open carry mode as a visible deterrent.
OPTION TWO: Concealed carry mode when signs are posted on the meetinghouse doors: PROTECTED BY ARMED SECURITY

HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE: These may have deterred the Fallon, NV, shooter.

The weapon is never removed from its holster except when a team member believes deadly force may or will be required to neutralize a threat.

ii. A tactical flash light with a steady and flash function.

iii. An air horn: One long blast = active shooter threat. Three short blasts = all clear.

iv. A concealed red hat donned by all when any member is responding to a threat.

v. Smart phone Zello Push to Talk or Text group communications.

d. Scheduled by the STARS Team leader. Minimum on duty for each Ward – five.

e. In twos (minimum). Exception: Team member sitting on the stand during Sacrament meeting, with a view of all chapel doors and immediate access to the microphone.

HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE: The TX Baptist Church shooter was engaged by a neighbor to the church who retrieved his weapon from a locked cabinet, covered himself behind a pickup truck, and shot the shooter three times as he left the church. Twenty-six people were killed, twenty injured. Evidence suggests none in the Church opposed the shooter.

f. Take Sacrament in the foyers (speakers at full volume) or at the main entrances to the Chapel if those doors are open, such that they can see the entrances to the building.

7. Chapel configuration:

a. All exterior doors are locked except for one each at the two main chapel entrances.

b. Stake officers also use these entrances during the block schedule at the Stake Center.

c. Persons asked will open bags outside the building or in a room adjacent to the foyer.

d. All-metal folding chairs are distributed for use as shields/weapons for unarmed persons.

8. Sunday schedule for the Stake Center (Each building will have a schedule):

Team Members (* = armed “sworn law enforcement officers”

HH Team Members:

1. Xxx

2. Xxx

3. Xxx

4. Xxx

5. Xxx

6. Xxx

7. Xxx

8. Xxx

9. Xxx

10. Xxx

1^st Ward Team Members:

1. Xxx

2. Xxx

3. Xxx

4. Xxx

5. Xxx

6. Xxx

7. Xxx

8. Xxx

9. Xxx

10. Xxx

5^th Ward Team Members:

1. Xxx

2. Xxx

3. Xxx

4. Xxx

5. Xxx

6. Xxx

7. Xxx

8. Xxx

9. Xxx

10. Xxx

Warning Sign:

1. Clearly visible on entry doors

2. Clearly understood

3. A deterrent

12. Appendix – Recommendation to Bishop and Stake President, and given to Elder Ence, Nov 2017

Protection of People in LDS Chapels

Dear Bishop Allen and President Almquist,

The questions posed to the Ward Council by the Stake President (and perhaps the Church) are very difficult matters to speak of, yet the most serious question, and the one in active debate in social media since the Texas church massacre, was not posed to us. The worst case presented to us was someone “brandishing” a gun. I dealt with that situation once when I went out to confront a man who had a rifle and was walking up to my in-law’s home to kill his wife and children who had fled there for safety. Fortunately, I knew him well and he was very drunk. While I was not armed, I was able to quickly reach out to him in love and disarm him. All the questions posed to us were non-lethal situations that are easily handled. The question I will address is the one that must be addressed and presented to the Church: What do we do if a man enters the chapel and begins killing people?

Statement of the Problem:

The mass killing in a Baptist “haven” in Texas, highlights the vulnerability of people in LDS churches in Utah, where the Church has chosen to PROHIBIT those who have Concealed Carry Permits from bringing their concealed weapons to church for self-protection, thus PROHIBITING the individual “… right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (which) shall not be infringed” (US Constitution, Amendment II), and contrary to “… the laws and constitution of the people, which I (God) have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles ….” (D&C 101:77)

Church Policy:

Handbook 2: 21.2.4

Firearms
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

Legal notice published by the Church in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News, Jan 15, 2017.

Notice Publish Date:
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Notice Content
NOTICE OF FIREARMS PROHIBITION Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 76-10-530 of the Utah Code Annotated, firearms are prohibited in all houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, chapels, stake centers, tabernacles, the Assembly Hall, the Tabernacle and the Conference Center, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church"), except for firearms in the possession and control of individuals who (a) are specified in Section 76-10-523(1)(a)-(e) of the Utah Code Annotated or (b) are otherwise engaged in the protection of Church members, visitors, personnel or facilities and hold a written authorization issued by the Managing Director of the Church's Security Department. This notice is effective upon publication and shall remain in effect until revoked or the first anniversary of the publication of this notice, whichever first occurs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 1132361 UPAXLP

Discussion:

For discussion, I shall consider the case of a person who comes into a Chapel with a firearm and begins shooting people. This is the case for which the Church offers no protection for its members and guests and attempts to PROHIBIT their right to bear arms in their own defense.

Further, let us consider, as just one example, that members of the US military and their families - active duty or retired – are under the threat of death from the Islamic Caliphate (ISIS). Some have dropped off Face Book because of this threat. Others maintain an active presence on Face Book and actively engage in defense issues involving the radical Islamic threat and are therefore known to ISIS and their followers. Many members in this category actively attend church to worship God and renew their covenants at the Sacrament table.

Should such a member be PROHIBITED from carrying an otherwise legal concealed weapon into a Chapel for self-defense?

If the member declines to go undefended, should such members be authorized to administer the Sacrament at home?

If the Church will PROHIBIT self-defense, it must then provide adequate protection at Church – such as in General Conference. The person coming to Church to kill you and those around you is the one “inappropriately” bringing a weapon to Church - he isn’t coming to worship our God.

Our church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” (Eph 2:20) These foundational pieces’ rest in the soil of Liberty - sustained by the principle of agency enshrined in Heaven and in the US Constitution.

Amendment II of the Constitution is designed to protect the people from tyranny: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and was ruled by the Supreme Court as an individual right. The PROHIBITION policy of the Church, opposes God’s Constitution, and places the Church with those who seek to “infringe” upon this God-given right.

Will the Church wait to provide security, or wait to ask each Stake to provide its own security, when people assembled in an LDS church under this PROHIBITION are attacked and killed? In Alaska, Stake presidents ask responsible adults at Church camps to be armed - the threat of bears is a daily reality. Our “havens” will remain so only as we are armed and the evil fear us. Evil thrives wherever you welcome it, such as in “gun free” zones. Liberty thrives wherever you defend it.

Shooter Response Options:

A. Assuming the Church PROHIBITION continues and no armed law enforcement persons are present:

1. Shelter between the bleachers and/or run away from the threat until someone with a gun arrives and engages the murderer or he runs out of ammunition. Many lives will be lost.

2. Those with tactical flashlights should engage the flash mode and point the light directly in the shooter’s eyes while people flee the scene. The shooter can shelter his eyes from the light, especially if from one source. The shooter can also reposition. Some lives will be saved.

3. The most correct option: Physically capable young or mature adults closest to the shooter must immediately rush him in mass. Some will get shot and may die, but many lives will be saved. This is not normal behavior, and the Church should instruct members to act in this way. Even then most will not respond this way.

B. Assuming the PROHIBITION is rescinded and whether or not armed law enforcement persons are present:

1. Persons who are armed should immediately engage the shooter while advancing to a close effective range.

I Propose That:

The Church remove the statement on Firearms from Handbook 2: 21.2.4.

The Church defend the 2^nd Amendment as vigorously as they defend the 1^st Amendment.

The Church rescind its PROHIBITION against concealed carry in Chapels, or at least allow it to expire, 15 Jan 2018.

Each Stake organize an Armed Chapel Security Force. Members of the force should:

1. Be trained in the proper use of firearms and security protocols.

2. Be members of the Ward in attendance, since they are most familiar with their members.

3. Lock all exterior doors except for one at the main entrance on each side of the building.

4. Listen to the Sacrament meeting in the foyers and receive the Sacrament there.

This is the Lord’s Church brethren and we have a responsibility to defend it, its members and guests. Fortunately, our Father in Heaven has given us the Constitution of the United States to live by – yes, even the 2^nd Amendment – and I learned how sacred that document is as a young church member growing up in New Zealand. When I was about 10, the Spirit told me I would one day go to the United States and become a citizen. As an adult I was impressed to enter military service, and I always felt during my 35 years in the USAF that I was serving in defense of God’s Constitution.

God bless you both, and thank you for serving the Lord in your callings.

Neil D. Holland

1419 Tamarisk Dr.

Saint George, UT 84790

F15Kiwi@gmail.com

509-981-7660

American Kiwi

Monday, February 18, 2019

Protect the Saints and Support the Lord's Constitution