Columnist Wants LDS Church to Back Gun Control

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the LDS or Mormons, is a unique group of people. I happen to know quite a few members of their congregation, and while I may not necessarily agree with them on matters of doctrine, they’re wonderful people whom I wouldn’t hesitate to trust with my children.

I can’t say that about some of my former Presbyterian fellows, that’s for sure.

One of the first LDS members I became acquainted with was fantasy author Larry Correia. His Monster Hunter International series is amazing, for the record, and he used to be a Class 3 dealer back in the day. He’s a gun guy who has some impressive shooting skills to go along with his writing ability.

Others I know are very pro-gun as well, though maybe not to the extreme as Larry. Larry is good people, though, and he’s a hell of an ambassador for the church.

This guy writing for the Salt Lake Tribune? Not so much.

Inside the context of what a church should do to benefit humanity in the here and now, in addition to creating a highway to heaven for God’s children, comes a controversial problem/matter that too often arises on both counts.

The question: What should The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do about a most serious problem of our time? Should it speak out in specific ways, counseling the world to a better end, giving voice to a higher path to happiness, safety, peace and nonviolence? Should it “think celestial” on a hot topic or should church leaders avoid it because it is too contentious, instead letting it be, simply mourning and praying?

Should they do what they can to limit gun violence by throwing their weight behind laws that control guns?

The short answer: Yes, they should.

I figure a religion that cares enough about the good of individual souls and a whole society of souls to endorse strictures that bar behaviors such as use of tobacco and alcohol and illicit drugs, as well as coffee and tea, because they can harm body, mind and spirit might provide divine detailed guidance regarding firearms and the damage they do.

I find this fascinating, coming from someone who, I assume, is an LDS member.

For those unfamiliar with the LDS church, it didn’t start in Utah, where it’s almost ubiquitous in the state. No, it started in Missouri. It wasn’t permitted to stay there, though, because the church faced massive persecution and was forced to head west to find a place they could settle and worship in peace.

They were the subject of violent attacks and even today face a certain degree of discrimination and persecution.

And this guy thinks the church that has faced all of that in a country known for freedom of religion should not just give up their right to keep and bear arms but openly advocate for laws making them do so?

That seems particularly insane.

As for the “damage [guns] do,” allow me to point out that defensive gun uses occur far more often than a gun is used to take a life, and that’s true even if you include suicides, which you shouldn’t because it’s stupid.

But guns are neutral. They don’t just kill people out of the blue. It takes a person to pull the trigger, and it’s that person’s soul that has to answer for it.

While I’m not someone who agrees with the LDS on things like coffee and tea–I write as I sip my third cup of coffee–all of those things are considered sinful because you ingest them. You do something to yourself that sort of taints you–I’m not a Mormon, so I might be representing this poorly, but I think you get the point. 

Guns don’t do damage unless a person makes them. They’re also used for hunting for food, protecting people, and just good, clean, all-American fun.

So no, while I’m not a Mormon, I can’t see a reason in the world why the LDS church should get involved in pushing gun control. I’d just as soon all churches stay out of the debate, personally. If they want to say it’s a sin to own guns, that’s up to them. When they start pushing that on me, we’re going to have a problem.

Since a lot of LDS members are more likely to agree with me than this twerp, though, that’s something to consider.