 reality one mass shooting is too many but we just can’t get rid of them,and they are still rare. Given this I think the Brethren are taking a responsible hands off approach — hopefully focusing on the thing that Heavenly Father wants us to hear instead of what we think is important in this instance. By no means do I want to minimize mass shootings, just put them in context.
Aside from that there really isn’t an easy answer. We have evidence to support both sides depending on what countries we choose to look at. Cross-national statistics are horrific nightmares of confounding variables that just add fodder for whatever side wants to use them for their rhetoric. Despite what facebook posts will tell you we really don’t know what to do with guns and the answer is really not obvious.
*Technical note – to give an idea for those interested, there really aren’t too many useful time series models to help us address changes over time, especially for crimes in our field. We have borrowed things like survivor analysis and others but we are still stuck with things like ARIMA, but these are simplistic. I just did a study and needed time series using count data, as it turns out it is discipline norm to just use a probit/negative binomial and put in trend variables to account for time. Given these models we just are not at the point where we figure out what to do with guns.
Warren, I don’t think the MX missile statement is an example of societal morality as opposed to individual morality. When the statement outlines worst-case scenarios, the blame is on unwise government leaders and on an unnamed aggressor. I read this as one or a few people bearing individual moral fault for the potential destruction of a society. This is the same approach as believing the only people responsible for the shootings are the shooters, and maybe a few other individuals who personally influenced them or personally failed to stop them or otherwise made individual conscious choices directly traceable to the outcome.
What I am referring to by societal morality is an idea that we are all, without exception, complicit in the moral wrongs of all. The idea that violence (nuclear or gun or any other type) does not stem only from the wrong choice of a lone wolf or unwise official or rogue aggressor, but from the brokenness of a society that we all play a role in supporting as-is.
You don’t come across as though you simply want the Church to say “something”. The wording of your post and its title strongly suggest that you want them to say something specific.
The Church has previously condemned violence, and has taken a rather consistent stand on the subject (whether talking about domestic violence, or the need to be more Christlike in general). What more do you expect them to say? Do you want them to make a press release every time some sorrowful incident happens, if only to express sympathy to the families of those involved?
In the same way, the Church has generally spoken out on the need to show more love, compassion, and tolerance for those around us. It has strongly condemned those who would intentionally harm others, especially those who are otherwise helpless. But, in areas that are left to personal revelation, such as whether or not to own or carry a weapon for self-defense, and the laws associated with those areas, the Church has no need to speak out because the responsibility lies with each member to work it out for himself or herself.
Excellent point. Why should we expect our leadership to mourn with those that mourn or comfort those in need of comforting? Who has the time?
Observer, yes. At a minimum, some sort of expression of grief at the event I would view as a Christian duty.
2) require an explicit doctrinal statement for clarification.
It doesn’t tend to speak out on issues that it isn’t involved in unless there is a clear doctrinal issue at stake. In the case of various tragedies around the world, the Church will make a statement, but that is almost always associated with the Church taking action on the matter as well, such as sending relief supplies to a disaster-stricken area.
What is the direct involvement of the Church in this issue? What specific doctrine requires clarification or expounding? Neither usual criteria really applies here.
There are a lot of groups (on both sides) that will immediately seize upon any tragedy to draw themselves into the limelight. The Church isn’t one of those groups. In such cases, it will generally remain silent so as not to be seen as giving doctrinal support to one side or the other when it is a matter that doesn’t fall under a clear, universal doctrine.
It is not necessary to “mourn with those who mourn” in public. If anything, we are encouraged to do so in private.
Observer, mourning is not alms.
I wrote a blog post a couple months back (click my name!) about the church’s silence on issues related to war…I theorized that it had to do with the church’s Americannness and its very atomized conception of human agency. Interestingly, gun violence is arguably the opposite on both of those, and yet…still silence.
The cynic in me wants to argue that violence and war just aren’t issues that keep the tithing coming in and temple attendance high. But what do I know?
I find myself drifting away from this blog nowadays, coming rarely. It’s the constant criticism and sniping that I find tiresome and annoying. I feel like its headed on a different path than it used to be.
I have no love for guns (in fact I hate them) but if you are worried about this than you mourn with those that mourn. Stop worrying about what the church is doing and just do it yourself.
Maybe they should and maybe they shouldn’t. The point is I’m going to worry about what I should be doing not what the prophets and apostles should be doing. They have enough to worry about.
The other thing that I find tiresome and annoying is the constant disregard for what I considered one of the best posts by Steve Evans on considering yourself farther along than the church made back in June of 2014. The advice given in the original post and in some of the comments after that are priceless.
I don’t expect anyone to care that one person is not coming much anymore. I just thought I would mention that I feel like things have drifted off course. Carry on, if you feel like I’m wrong.
JTB, that is an excellent comment and I agree with it. I’m sorry if things are drifting away from what you need — why don’t you drop me a line privately (at the admin account) and talk to me about it. It does matter to me, a great deal.
This kind of gun control? Or something else? As noted above, the Church did get involved legislatively in its home state of Utah by carving out a loophole specifically for houses of worship and any other Church-owned entity, such as BYU, in the “guns are allowed everywhere” laws passed several years ago. They’re one of two religious institutions in Utah that make sure they specifically meet the legal requirements to say that guns aren’t allowed in their churches (a yearly renewing of a web-based statement claiming that privilege). And there’s that Handbook 2 declaration above that hardly anyone seems to know about (except for the gun hoarder in my ward who knows about it and flouts it rather loudly and publicly).
Thanks for listening Steve, I’ll try and drop you a line after church. You are a good man and I appreciate what you try to do here.
On gun violence not really affecting church members: I’m a member. One of my colleagues was shot in San Bernardino. So was one of our students. Fortunately, they survived. A woman I went to university with died in the violence.
I am profoundly affected.
If God doesn’t want our leaders to say anything about this issue, okay. Really.
But people are affected. Many more than I had realized.
I don’t “know” why but I believe it has to do with the way we justify violence in our scriptures in very American ways.
Read The Book of Mormon and swap the word “sword” with assault rifle or open carry hand gun. Is this thought experiment so radical it would be lost on our young people? Or would they quickly see Teancum as a righteous counter terrorism operative, Giddeon as a great example of right to bear arms for personal defense, Captain Moroni as a war on terror crusader enforcing liberty, Etc.
America is a violent society because we are addicted to violence. We prefer war machines rather than peace mechanisms. The gun debate is just one small symptom of our larger infection… Becoming a warlike people. Even if we don’t personally commit the violence. We celebrate it in every form and narrative style across our culture.
How else can we have endless Sunday school lessons about the full armor of God, songs of Christian Soldiers, and teach Captain Moroni as unidimensional righteous leader? We aren’t willing to question our own violence yet. We are too busy enjoying it.
You are completely missing my point in your rush to nitpick. Yes, mourning is not alms, but your response misses the principle the Savior was teaching. He was teaching not to publicly proclaim your good deeds or outward manifestations of righteousness (which would include public mourning) just so you can be seen of men. That seems the opposite of what you want the Church to do on this issue.
Moreover, what is the threshold for when you think the Church should speak out? Every incident of “gun violence”? Just “major” incidents? (What makes a major