Receiving clearance from my Stake President, the following document was sent to and received by the Office of the First Presidency, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 19 Jul 2018. Because this matter concerns the denial of individual rights granted by the Lords' US Constitution, it is a matter for public concern. Doctrinal and Legal issues are addressed. A STake ARmed Security (STARS) Force is a recommended option that could have deterred the 22 July 2018, Fallon, Nevada, murderer.
Anyone is welcome to use this material by providing a link to this blog, so that the material is unedited and correctly attributed. Email with my Stake President and a cover letter to the First Presidency is not included. The names of my Bishop and Stake President are redacted.
Overview (Not included in the document):
LDS congregations assembled in chapels in Utah are at risk from an active shooter or bomber. No protection is currently provided by the Church. Members who are law enforcement officers provide limited protection if armed. Protection that could be provided by members with Concealed Carry permits is publicly PROHIBITED by the LDS Church, thus creating an open invitation to the threat. In addition to creating a public safety issue, the PROHIBITION is not consistent with the personal protections the Church declares to be the rights to be granted by governments (D&C 134), and is specifically inconsistent with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which the Lord declared as established by Him (D&C 98 and 101).
To suggest that the PROHIBITION is to protect those attending an LDS 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 (D&C 98, 101, 134), and is an indication of a lack of respect for the dignity and preservation of life.
My concern as a member sustaining the Lord's Constitution and His Church is that the Church has implemented a policy against the rights that the Lord granted to His people. I suspect it is not our 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 protection in the large Conference assemblies as is evidenced by the exterior and interior 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 exercise their individual right to self-defense. He has provided for this in His Constitution, which His Church is PROHIBITING.
I fear the Church has put itself in an untenable position with both the Lord of the Constitution and the Lord’s people. 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 LDS chapels as the threat comes ever closer to home.
PROTECT THE SAINTS AND SUPPORT THE
LORD’S CONSTITUTION
BY
REMOVING THE CONCEALED CARRY
“PROHIBITION” IN LDS CHAPELS IN UTAH
Organization:
1. Issue Statement
2. Background
3. Status of the Issue
4. Discussion
5. Is the LDS PROHIBITION
Consistent with The Lord’s Declarations and those of His Prophets?
6. Questions Raised by the LDS
PROHIBITION
7. Is the LDS PROHIBITION
Legal?
8. What Steps Can the LDS
Church Take to Protect LDS Congregations in Utah?
9. Appendix – Recommendation to
Bishop, Stake President, and given to Elder Ence, Nov 2017
1. ISSUE STATEMENT:
LDS congregations assembled
in chapels in Utah are at risk from an active shooter or bomber. No protection
is currently provided by the Church. Members who are law enforcement officers
provide limited protection if armed. Protection that could be provided by
members with Concealed Carry permits is publicly PROHIBITED by the LDS
Church, thus creating an open invitation to the threat. In addition to creating
a public safety issue, the PROHIBITION is not consistent with the personal
protections the Church declares to be the rights to be granted by governments
(D&C 134), and is specifically inconsistent with the Second Amendment of
the US Constitution, which the Lord declared as established by Him (D&C 98
and 101).
2. BACKGROUND:
In November 2017, there were
questions posed to the XXXXX 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), 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. Following the Ward Council Meeting, I prepared and sent a
Recommendation to Bishop XXXXX and XXXXX Stake President XXXXX. I
addressed the question: What do we do if a man enters the chapel and begins
killing people?
President XXXXX informed
me that he delivered the letter to Elder Ence, our Area Seventy. A copy of that
Recommendation is appended to the end of this Paper.
3. STATUS OF THE ISSUE:
The status of my Nov 2017
Recommendation is unknown. To my knowledge, no response or feedback has been
provided by the Church to the Stake President who submitted it.
Since submitting my Nov 2017
recommendations to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)
concerning the PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in LDS 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 LDS
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. Is the Church of the same mind?
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 LDS Chapels are vulnerable to attack because of the LDS
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 occurred.
I am not predicting an attack
on an LDS congregation, but I am saying the Church has made us vulnerable to
attack by its PROHIBITION and, more seriously in my view, is acting contrary to
the Lord's Constitution. Sustaining the Lord and His Constitution by removing
the PROHIBITION will resolve both problems.
My concern for the safety of
our members is that the Church has effectively:
- Made our assembled members targets by their
public PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in chapels
- Not asked or prohibited Stake Presidents from
establishing visibly armed security for our congregations (at least there
is no visible evidence of it and therefore no deterrence)
My concern as a member
sustaining the Lord's Constitution and His Church is that the Church has
implemented a policy against the rights that the Lord granted to His
people. I suspect it is not our 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 protection in the large Conference assemblies as is evidenced by the
exterior and interior 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 exercise their individual right to self-defense. He has
provided for this in His Constitution, which His Church is PROHIBITING.
Two problems result from this
PROHIBITION:
1.
LDS chapels are
publicly identified as soft targets, thus raising the risk of attack much
higher than if Concealed Carry were accepted and no public PROHIBITION were
issued.
2.
Unless the Head
of the Church, Jesus Christ, has provided new revelation, the PROHIBITION goes
against LDS scripture:
a.
In principle, the
early LDS 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.
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 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.
Effectively, the
LDS Church is PROHIBITING the individual “… right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, (which) shall not be infringed” (US Constitution, Amendment II),
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)
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
LDS 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 our 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 LDS 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 PROHIBITION.
To suggest that the
PROHIBITION is to protect those attending an LDS 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 is an indication of a lack of respect for the dignity and
preservation of life.
To provide armed protection (unverified
assumption/reported by many) 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 by those leading His church. Or, if the Lord has declared He
will protect His saints, and supports ending the 2nd and 9th
Amendments, then let the armed protection of the leaders of the Church be done
away with so that they may be sacrificed if the Lord will.
Our Ward Council meeting
included the XXXXX 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 disobedience to 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? I fear the Church has put itself in an untenable position with
both the Lord of the Constitution and the Lord’s people.
5. Is the LDS PROHIBITION Consistent with The Lord’s
Declarations and those of His Prophets?
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)
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 by placing the Church with those who seek to “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 of
good and evil, Liberty and tyranny.
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.
Ways in which this
PROHIBITION violates the principles of D&C 134, a Declaration of Belief
Regarding Governments and Laws:
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.”
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.”
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.”
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 LDS 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 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).
….
Today our policy PROHIBITS a
man from defending his wife and children in our assemblies.
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. ….
6. Questions Raised by the LDS 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.
Does President Russell M.
Nelson know of, and approve, this PROHIBITION?
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.
Has the Lord declared that
the Second Amendment of His Constitution should be repealed?
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?
Will the Church provide
visibly armed protection at Chapels?
As a safe alternative, will
the Church authorize members to administer the Sacrament at home?
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?
7. Is the LDS PROHIBITION Legal?
Yes and No.
The PROHIBITION by the LDS
Church is legal in that it exercises a provision provided for in the Utah
Concealed Carry Law.
The provision allowing a
PROHIBITION is based upon the 4th 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 LDS 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 4th
Amendment are firearms mentioned. Presumably the desire is to be “secure (from
death) in their persons.” To be secure in this way, the Constitution provides
the 2nd 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. Did the LDS Church actively seek this concession to churches?
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 4th
Amendment of the Presiding Bishop prevail over the 2nd 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.
To suggests that the 4th
Amendment, constrains the 2nd Amendment, is also contrary to the 9th
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 4th
Amendment “construed to deny” the 2nd Amendment?
Why is the 4th
Amendment “construed to deny” “the protection of life”?
Also, “the enumeration” of
the 2nd 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.
8. What Steps Can the LDS Church Take to Protect LDS
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.
Option 1: Status Quo
1.
The LDS
PROHIBITION against Concealed Carry in LDS Chapels remain in place.
2.
Law enforcement
officers be encouraged to openly carry at Church as a deterrent.
PRO:
1.
Visible
deterrence that counters the negative effects of the PROHIBITION.
2.
Protection of
life for some congregations.
CON:
1.
Rights granted by
the Lord are denied.
2.
Public
PROHIBITION invites the threat.
3.
Law enforcement
members may be known and avoided, or taken out by the threat.
4.
Congregations
with no law enforcement members will have no protection of life.
Option 2: STake ARmed
Security Force (STARS Force)
1.
The LDS PROHIBITION
against Concealed Carry in LDS Chapels remain in place.
2.
Law enforcement
officers be encouraged to openly carry at Church as a deterrent.
3.
Stake Presidents
organize STARS support for each chapel.
a.
Assistance from
LDS Security experts and local Sheriffs should be sought.
b.
STARS and law
enforcement members be integrated.
c.
STARS members be
trained in the proper use of firearms and security protocols.
d.
STARS be members
of the attending Ward – they know most members.
e.
Lock all exterior
doors except for one at the main chapel entrance on each side.
f.
Backpacks/bags be
checked when appropriate.
g.
STARS listen to
the Sacrament meeting in the foyers and take Sacrament there.
h.
Minimum on duty –
four.
PRO:
1.
Visible
deterrence that 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.
Troubled members
or strangers easily identified.
CON:
1.
Rights granted by
the Lord are denied.
2.
Public
PROHIBITION invites the threat.
Option 3: Rescind
PROHIBITION and Organize STARS
1.
Law enforcement
officers be encouraged to openly carry at Church as a deterrent.
2.
Members with
Concealed Carry permits be invited to provide voluntary protection
3.
Stake Presidents
organize STARS support (Option 2) for each chapel when the threat becomes more
pronounced.
PRO:
1.
Rights granted by
the Lord are honored.
2.
Negative effects
of the PROHIBITION are removed.
3.
Rights granted by
the Lord are restored.
4.
Deterrence is
restored by known Utah Concealed Carry law.
5.
Law enforcement
officers have backing.
6.
Wards without law
enforcement officers are covered.
7.
Protection of
life for all congregations.
8.
With STARS implemented:
a.
Ability to check
backpacks.
b.
Troubled members
or strangers easily identified.
9. Appendix – Recommendation to Bishop and Stake
President, and given to Elder Ence, Nov 2017
Protection of People in LDS Chapels
Dear Bishop XXXXX and
President XXXXX,
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
https://www.utahlegals.com/Details.aspx?SID=yh2pnkf3z1uw0f4yhbw52drv&ID=242325
https://www.utahlegals.com/Details.aspx?SID=yh2pnkf3z1uw0f4yhbw52drv&ID=242326
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.
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)
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.
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 of
good and evil, Liberty and tyranny.
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.
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 2nd
Amendment as vigorously as they defend the 1st 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 2nd 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.
Signed
Neil D. Holland
