The Holy Ghost vs. active shooters

[Palerider]

This is the same as all the political hacks and "ruling elite" in Washington. Those who have armed guards, gated communities and hyper secure homes are more than happy to restrict your right to defend yourself and family.

Having a concealed carry permit, I wouldn't hesitate to carry against the wishes of the SLC idiots if I were still interested in attending services.

That's what the Spirit is telling me.

[Not Buying It]

I will never for the life of me understand anyone who thinks they are safer if everyone is packing heat. Why should I trust the Rambo wannabe next to me to use good judgment - not to mention reasonably good marksmanship under a stressful situation - in determining when to whip out his gun and take somebody out? The population is full of complete idiots who come unglued under pressure, and I'm supposed to feel safer because some random Stanley with a G.I. Joe obsession is sitting next to me with a handgun and he's ready to whip that bad boy out at the slightest provocation so he can be the "good guy with a gun" hero he's always fantasized about being? The knowledge that any random person I know nothing about can be armed in public does NOT make me feel safer, and it shouldn't make any of your feel safer either.

You know who has far less active shooter incidents per capita than the U.S.? Pretty much every first-world country on the whole freakin' planet that has reasonable gun control laws. Say what you want, but it cannot truthfully be said that other countries with stricter gun laws have the same level of gun violence per capita as the U.S. And most of the families in those countries get by just fine without the protection of a firearm on the premises.

All of that is to say this is one time I agree with the Brethren - guns have no place in Church. If you don't think you can feel safe going to Church without a gun then a) you have no business calling anyone else a snowflake, because the biggest liberal crybaby you know probably doesn't feel the need to take a gun to Church because they don't feel "safe", and b) go to Church in Australia or Japan or Norway or some other country that doesn't have public shootings because they have common sense gun laws, you won't ever need a gun there.

[fetchface]

Like most things, gun carrying in the general population is a mixed bag. If I'm ever in a situation where I'm sitting in church and somebody walks in armed to the teeth and starts shooting the place up, I'd love it if there were an army of off-duty cops sitting there with guns ready to fight back. At the same time, I'd hate it if someone was carrying a weapon and in a moment of inattention a kid got ahold of it and played with it and shot themself or someone else. I've also had close family members who were kind of assholes by nature who love open-carrying their gun whenever they leave the house. There is no doubt in my mind that those guns are far likelier to get them or someone else killed over something stupid than they are to stop a mass shooter.

So I'm not sure where I come down on things, but I do respect the church's right to set the rules for gun carriage on their own property.

[2bizE]

This is pretty much the same policy as at my work. It is hide, run away, barricade yourself, fight like hell if you need to.

[crossmyheart]

I just read the Church's new policy on responding to active shooters. Good heavens who comes up with this stuff? It sates that members should use whatever tools they have to defend themselves. Good thing a triple combinations weighs a ton. Right? Then it states that we should rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us as for what to do. Wait. The General Authorities all have armed security to protect themselves yet prohibit the flock from having the same protection. If Nelson is so close to the big man then why can't he rely on the Spirit to protect him rather than the suits and their Glocks?

Triple combination? Who carries scriptures to church anymore? The most anyone can do now is throw their phones at the shooter.

[Hagoth]

When I was in YM I was taught that a righteous priesthood holder could call down angels to protect him. Hmm.

[Palerider]

Only one national news network carried this story. I wondered why at the time. It was soon after the shootings in El Paso. Maybe it didn't fit the mass media's agenda.

https://www.mystateline.com/news/nation ... rying-gun/

The fireman mentioned is no more trained in firearms than any citizen could be. I would never consider him a "Rambo wannabe".

Admittedly there are some unstable individuals on both sides of this issue but the vast majority of people I know who carry or are involved with firearms take the responsibility of being armed very seriously. The state where I live is very pro-gun and we like it that way.

Nobody wants firearms in a public setting.....right up until someone starts killing people and then everyone wishes SOMEONE could make it all stop.

Four or five brave unarmed individuals rushing a person at the same time could probably get that done, but it's very likely that someone will die in the process. Plus, how do you get that organized on the spot?

Instinct I guess....

There are literally hundreds of occurances similar to the Walmart story above that happen every year but NOBODY is interested in hearing them. Especially the news media. It doesn't fit with their agenda.

[1smartdodog]

The individuals who go to the trouble to get a concealed permit are not the ones I am worried about carrying guns.

If you could wave a magic wand and make all the guns disappear I would be for that. But you can’t. So restricting “the good” guys is just an exercise in futility.

That said I think it is time to start to eliminate certain weapons like assault rifles. They don’t serve any purpose but to assault.

As far as the Holy Ghost goes I am fine with him caring a gun.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hagoth]

The individuals who go to the trouble to get a concealed permit are not the ones I am worried about carrying guns.

If you could wave a magic wand and make all the guns disappear I would be for that. But you can’t. So restricting “the good” guys is just an exercise in futility.

That said I think it is time to start to eliminate certain weapons like assault rifles. They don’t serve any purpose but to assault.

As far as the Holy Ghost goes I am fine with him caring a gun.

What's funny is that it's easier to get a gun than a taser. The reason seems to be that it makes it easier to rob someone without killing them. People who object to carrying a gun might opt for a projectile taser. Sure, the range and accuracy can't compete with a gun, but I for one would like to have the option.

For that matter, it's easier to get a gun in this country than it is for me to get a new hose for my CPAP!

Note: I own several guns. I grew up in a family where you got them as Christmas presents (I do live in Utah after all), but I think it is extremely unlikely that I will ever point one at another human.

[no1saint]

I find guns weird and just odd. I’m from New Zealand and huge parts of my family hunt. We simply don’t have the desire for mass proliferation of guns, especially concealed. I guess this is a US issue, the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit.

[Palerider]

We simply don’t have the desire for mass proliferation of guns, especially concealed. I guess this is a US issue, the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit.

New Zealanders may not have the felt need for firearms because of the way they received their independence. It was practically handed to them in the 1850s by a British government afraid of making the same mistake it had made with the American colonies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... ew_Zealand

The American revolution and concept of self governance came at a steep cost in blood and actually paved the way of independence for many countries that came later. George Washington didn't win the war with his right to free speech; he did it by killing enough of the British with guns to make them turn loose of the colonies. Hence the second amendment.

The idea of possessing firearms as a form of self protection and for hunting purposes is deeply engrained in much of the American psyche.

As far as the rest of the world, I think Russia, North Korea and China (to name a few) are quite serious about keeping their citizens dis-armed. On the other hand the governments of many of the Muslim countries are extremely interested in collecting as many armaments as possible as long as they don't fall into the hands of any of their citizens who might disagree with them.

Funny how that works....

[Not Buying It]

We simply don’t have the desire for mass proliferation of guns, especially concealed. I guess this is a US issue, the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit.

New Zealanders may not have the felt need for firearms because of the way they received their independence. It was practically handed to them in the 1850s by a British government afraid of making the same mistake it had made with the American colonies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... ew_Zealand

The American revolution and concept of self governance came at a steep cost in blood and actually paved the way of independence for many countries that came later. George Washington didn't win the war with his right to free speech; he did it by killing enough of the British with guns to make them turn loose of the colonies. Hence the second amendment.

The idea of possessing firearms as a form of self protection and for hunting purposes is deeply engrained in much of the American psyche.

As far as the rest of the world, I think Russia, North Korea and China (to name a few) are quite serious about keeping their citizens dis-armed. On the other hand the governments of many of the Muslim countries are extremely interested in collecting as many armaments as possible as long as they don't fall into the hands of any of their citizens who might disagree with them.

Funny how that works....

I agree with you on a lot of things, Palerider, but on this there is a pretty wide valley of disagreement. I can think of no more ridiculous rationale for gun ownership in the U.S. than that the 2nd amendment allows us to protect the citizenship from a government that has tanks, bazookas, cruise misses, drones, and hydrogen bombs. It might have made sense when the government and the citizenship were equally matched with muskets and everybody crapped in chamber pots, but the world has changed. The government doesn’t give a rip about your AR-15 when they can launch a drone from miles away with exactly zero chance of you hitting them with your weapon. I can’t keep a straight face when people tell me they need guns to protect themselves from the government. It’s a patently ridiculous argument.

As for the “good guys with guns” argument, gun rights advocates love to tout the few times it works and conspiratorially grumble about how the mainstream media never covers it when it does, but “good guys” with guns were all over the place when Reagan got shot, and he still got shot. There was a recent mass shooting where it only took the cops thirty seconds to get there and nine people still got killed, what makes you think a random armed citizen could do better? And while it is true there are plenty of responsible gun owners who might be able to handle a situation out there, there are plenty of armed doofuses who can’t. Besides, when the cops show up and multiple people are shooting, how the hell are they supposed to know who the bad guy is? I guess they hope only one is an angry straight white guy, because they are pretty much the only ones who commit mass shootings, how else are they gonna know?

You are right that gun culture runs deep in this country, and that is why we have multiple times as many gun deaths per capita as comparable nations in other parts of the world. If you ask me, New Zealand has the right idea (and it sure as hell worked for the Australians after Port Arthur).

Guns in Church is a terrible idea. It’s more likely someone gets shot accidentally than a “good guy with a gun” stops a bad guy with a gun.

[Palerider]

I agree with you on a lot of things, Palerider, but on this there is a pretty wide valley of disagreement. I can think of no more ridiculous rationale for gun ownership in the U.S. than that the 2nd amendment allows us to protect the citizenship from a government that has tanks, bazookas, cruise misses, drones, and hydrogen bombs. It might have made sense when the government and the citizenship were equally matched with muskets and everybody crapped in chamber pots, but the world has changed. The government doesn’t give a rip about your AR-15 when they can launch a drone from miles away with exactly zero chance of you hitting them with your weapon. I can’t keep a straight face when people tell me they need guns to protect themselves from the government. It’s a patently ridiculous argument.

As for the “good guys with guns” argument, gun rights advocates love to tout the few times it works and conspiratorially grumble about how the mainstream media never covers it when it does, but “good guys” with guns were all over the place when Reagan got shot, and he still got shot. There was a recent mass shooting where it only took the cops thirty seconds to get there and nine people still got killed, what makes you think a random armed citizen could do better? And while it is true there are plenty of responsible gun owners who might be able to handle a situation out there, there are plenty of armed doofuses who can’t. Besides, when the cops show up and multiple people are shooting, how the hell are they supposed to know who the bad guy is? I guess they hope only one is an angry straight white guy, because they are pretty much the only ones who commit mass shootings, how else are they gonna know?

You are right that gun culture runs deep in this country, and that is why we have multiple times as many gun deaths per capita as comparable nations in other parts of the world. If you ask me, New Zealand has the right idea (and it sure as hell worked for the Australians after Port Arthur).

Guns in Church is a terrible idea. It’s more likely someone gets shot accidentally than a “good guy with a gun” stops a bad guy with a gun.

You're right NBI. There's a huge difference between capabilities of our armed forces and those of the average citizen. But I never mentioned anything about going up against our own government.

My son and his family went to California this week and we're robbed twice in a 24 hour period. They are well-off and were staying in a nice hotel in San Francisco. The second time they we're robbed was in a shopping mall parking lot. The theives drove up in a car, bashed in their car window while my DIl was walking towards the car. They reached through the window, grabbed everything they could even as she was screaming at them and then threatened to run over her when she stood in front of their car. (I know, silly girl but she's that way).

The police were called (here comes the cavalry) and they pretty much just shrugged their shoulders and said they are fighting a losing battle. They said there are SO MANY of these guys who have become so brazen in the past six months, that it's impossible for them to keep up with all of the reported crimes. It's epidemic. It won't take much longer and this brazenness will spill over into home invasion while people are at home. It was that way already in Arizona when we left there. Constant reports of armed breaking and entering. The wife or woman of the home is beaten or molested while an elderly, defensless husband has to watch. Theives then pack off anything of value they can carry.

We lived in a very nice, modest income neighborhood. And still awoke one morning at 6:00 a.m. to a cadre of police officers stealthily going across our front lawn, guns drawn, to perform a drug raid on a home two houses down from us. My thought was, "In THIS neighborhood???

The U.S. military is the least of my worries. It's the chaos that we're seeing more and more of as police are emasculated and not supported in their jobs. It was really a losing proposition even years ago when they were supported. The police in spite of their good intentions are in reality the clean up crew.

But since you mentioned the military.....

Just remember that all operations eventually boil down to a house to house ground war. How many times have you seen on the news where some military advisor is saying, "You can't win a war with strictly air power. Eventually you have to have boots on the ground going door to door, grinding out the "enemy". And the military doesn't like that kind of work because it means three things. It means soldier casualties. It means destruction of infrastructure. It means bad publicity and public sympathy for the underdog. It's a public relations nightmare. Think Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians. As disgusting as that cult was and as much as it needed dismantling, the government looked like crap in the way they went about pursuing that objective. Americans in general were very dismayed and kind of scared about what their government was willing to do to them.

Last but not least I think you vastly underestimate how many times armed citizens actually do save themselves by the use (whether actual or just the threat) of personal firearms. I used to wonder about that myself so I made the effort to actually do the research and find out. I'm not going to do the research for you. I prefer to have people persuade themselves rather than just take my word for it.

I appreciate your thoughts NBI. We usually agree on a lot of issues. But you may be right. We may have to disagree on this one.

[Advocate]

We simply don’t have the desire for mass proliferation of guns, especially concealed. I guess this is a US issue, the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit.

New Zealanders may not have the felt need for firearms because of the way they received their independence. It was practically handed to them in the 1850s by a British government afraid of making the same mistake it had made with the American colonies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... ew_Zealand

The American revolution and concept of self governance came at a steep cost in blood and actually paved the way of independence for many countries that came later. George Washington didn't win the war with his right to free speech; he did it by killing enough of the British with guns to make them turn loose of the colonies. Hence the second amendment.

The idea of possessing firearms as a form of self protection and for hunting purposes is deeply engrained in much of the American psyche.

As far as the rest of the world, I think Russia, North Korea and China (to name a few) are quite serious about keeping their citizens dis-armed. On the other hand the governments of many of the Muslim countries are extremely interested in collecting as many armaments as possible as long as they don't fall into the hands of any of their citizens who might disagree with them.

Funny how that works....

I agree with you on a lot of things, Palerider, but on this there is a pretty wide valley of disagreement. I can think of no more ridiculous rationale for gun ownership in the U.S. than that the 2nd amendment allows us to protect the citizenship from a government that has tanks, bazookas, cruise misses, drones, and hydrogen bombs. It might have made sense when the government and the citizenship were equally matched with muskets and everybody crapped in chamber pots, but the world has changed. The government doesn’t give a rip about your AR-15 when they can launch a drone from miles away with exactly zero chance of you hitting them with your weapon. I can’t keep a straight face when people tell me they need guns to protect themselves from the government. It’s a patently ridiculous argument.

As for the “good guys with guns” argument, gun rights advocates love to tout the few times it works and conspiratorially grumble about how the mainstream media never covers it when it does, but “good guys” with guns were all over the place when Reagan got shot, and he still got shot. There was a recent mass shooting where it only took the cops thirty seconds to get there and nine people still got killed, what makes you think a random armed citizen could do better? And while it is true there are plenty of responsible gun owners who might be able to handle a situation out there, there are plenty of armed doofuses who can’t. Besides, when the cops show up and multiple people are shooting, how the hell are they supposed to know who the bad guy is? I guess they hope only one is an angry straight white guy, because they are pretty much the only ones who commit mass shootings, how else are they gonna know?

You are right that gun culture runs deep in this country, and that is why we have multiple times as many gun deaths per capita as comparable nations in other parts of the world. If you ask me, New Zealand has the right idea (and it sure as hell worked for the Australians after Port Arthur).

Guns in Church is a terrible idea. It’s more likely someone gets shot accidentally than a “good guy with a gun” stops a bad guy with a gun.

And even with all of our tanks, bazookas, cruise missiles and drones we still haven't won the war in Afghanistan. 18 years of U.S. soldiers fighting (and other countries helping) and we still can't beat a rag-tag group armed with everyday weapons. And it's not just the United States. Russia had similar results for the 9 years they tried to beat the same group in the 80's. Tell the Afghans that them fighting against the U.S. military is "patently ridiculous"; I think you'll find they disagree.

One researcher estimates 169 million people have been killed by their own government (aka genocide) in the last century. In contrast, there were 337 mass shooting deaths (defined as 4 or more killed by shooting in one incident) in the United States in 2018 (per gunviolencearchive.org). Most of these mass shooting deaths occur in places where crime and illegal drug use is common; avoid those areas and the already low likelihood of being involved in a mass shooting plummets. If you are really concerned about avoiding an untimely death, there are a host of other things (based on deaths per item) that are more likely to kill you: cars, swimming pools, cheeseburgers to name a few. Yet politicians of a certain political party ignore these items and continue to push the guns are bad narrative. Whose best interests do they really have at heart?

To turn this back to the church, the hypocrisy bothers me. Church leaders have armed security, but us nobodies should be ok so long as we rely on the spirit.

[Not Buying It]

Well, I’ll tell you what, here is something we can all agree on - if the Brethren were anything like what they claimed to be, they wouldn’t need armed bodyguards. Those invisible Striping Warriors from that urban legend with the sisters missionaries would be keeping them safer than any armed bodyguard could. Bullets would magically miss them like the arrows in that Arnold Freiburg picture of Samuel the Lamanite in the old Book of Mormon. Those guardian angels who protect missionaries right up to the edge of their zone - but not an inch farther - would be all over anyone who tried to attack them. Geez, they’re wearing bulletproof garments aren’t they? That stuff should be better than Kevlar.

Whatever else we disagree on, I think we can all agree the armed bodyguards show a profound lack of faith on the part of the Brethren - who themselves comfort parents of missionaries that angels are protecting their children while they serve. That I can agree is rather hypocritical.

[Palerider]

Well, I’ll tell you what, here is something we can all agree on - if the Brethren were anything like what they claimed to be, they wouldn’t need armed bodyguards. Those invisible Striping Warriors from that urban legend with the sisters missionaries would be keeping them safer than any armed bodyguard could. Bullets would magically miss them like the arrows in that Arnold Freiburg picture of Samuel the Lamanite in the old Book of Mormon. Those guardian angels who protect missionaries right up to the edge of their zone - but not an inch farther - would be all over anyone who tried to attack them. Geez, they’re wearing bulletproof garments aren’t they? That stuff should be better than Kevlar.

Whatever else we disagree on, I think we can all agree the armed bodyguards show a profound lack of faith on the part of the Brethren - who themselves comfort parents of missionaries that angels are protecting their children while they serve. That I can agree is rather hypocritical.

+1

[Corsair]

This is pretty much the same policy as at my work. It is hide, run away, barricade yourself, fight like hell if you need to.

The "fight like hell if you need to" is notably in last place and the average HR lawyer does not want a concealed carry person to be the first line of defense.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

New Zealanders may not have the felt need for firearms because of the way they received their independence. It was practically handed to them in the 1850s by a British government afraid of making the same mistake it had made with the American colonies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen ... ew_Zealand

The American revolution and concept of self governance came at a steep cost in blood and actually paved the way of independence for many countries that came later. George Washington didn't win the war with his right to free speech; he did it by killing enough of the British with guns to make them turn loose of the colonies. Hence the second amendment.

The idea of possessing firearms as a form of self protection and for hunting purposes is deeply engrained in much of the American psyche.

As far as the rest of the world, I think Russia, North Korea and China (to name a few) are quite serious about keeping their citizens dis-armed. On the other hand the governments of many of the Muslim countries are extremely interested in collecting as many armaments as possible as long as they don't fall into the hands of any of their citizens who might disagree with them.

Funny how that works....

I agree with you on a lot of things, Palerider, but on this there is a pretty wide valley of disagreement. I can think of no more ridiculous rationale for gun ownership in the U.S. than that the 2nd amendment allows us to protect the citizenship from a government that has tanks, bazookas, cruise misses, drones, and hydrogen bombs. It might have made sense when the government and the citizenship were equally matched with muskets and everybody crapped in chamber pots, but the world has changed. The government doesn’t give a rip about your AR-15 when they can launch a drone from miles away with exactly zero chance of you hitting them with your weapon. I can’t keep a straight face when people tell me they need guns to protect themselves from the government. It’s a patently ridiculous argument.

As for the “good guys with guns” argument, gun rights advocates love to tout the few times it works and conspiratorially grumble about how the mainstream media never covers it when it does, but “good guys” with guns were all over the place when Reagan got shot, and he still got shot. There was a recent mass shooting where it only took the cops thirty seconds to get there and nine people still got killed, what makes you think a random armed citizen could do better? And while it is true there are plenty of responsible gun owners who might be able to handle a situation out there, there are plenty of armed doofuses who can’t. Besides, when the cops show up and multiple people are shooting, how the hell are they supposed to know who the bad guy is? I guess they hope only one is an angry straight white guy, because they are pretty much the only ones who commit mass shootings, how else are they gonna know?

You are right that gun culture runs deep in this country, and that is why we have multiple times as many gun deaths per capita as comparable nations in other parts of the world. If you ask me, New Zealand has the right idea (and it sure as hell worked for the Australians after Port Arthur).

Guns in Church is a terrible idea. It’s more likely someone gets shot accidentally than a “good guy with a gun” stops a bad guy with a gun.

And even with all of our tanks, bazookas, cruise missiles and drones we still haven't won the war in Afghanistan. 18 years of U.S. soldiers fighting (and other countries helping) and we still can't beat a rag-tag group armed with everyday weapons. And it's not just the United States. Russia had similar results for the 9 years they tried to beat the same group in the 80's. Tell the Afghans that them fighting against the U.S. military is "patently ridiculous"; I think you'll find they disagree.

One researcher estimates 169 million people have been killed by their own government (aka genocide) in the last century. In contrast, there were 337 mass shooting deaths (defined as 4 or more killed by shooting in one incident) in the United States in 2018 (per gunviolencearchive.org). Most of these mass shooting deaths occur in places where crime and illegal drug use is common; avoid those areas and the already low likelihood of being involved in a mass shooting plummets. If you are really concerned about avoiding an untimely death, there are a host of other things (based on deaths per item) that are more likely to kill you: cars, swimming pools, cheeseburgers to name a few. Yet politicians of a certain political party ignore these items and continue to push the guns are bad narrative. Whose best interests do they really have at heart?

To turn this back to the church, the hypocrisy bothers me. Church leaders have armed security, but us nobodies should be ok so long as we rely on the spirit.

This is good rational thinking. The other thing about the "you could never face our military with your puny AR15's" argument is that people don't think about the fact that our military is made up of US citizens, the majority of which are themselves 2A supporters who would never turn their weapons of war on their fellow citizens or would likely join the same cause and take their tanks and fighter planes with them against tyrannical government. Also those soldiers and police and government officials have family and have to go home at some point where they would be vulnerable to small arms attacks. It would be a totally ugly civil war and I for one would never wish that type of insurgency on anyone. So you can't call a semi-auto rife a dangerous weapon of war and at the same time say it doesn't act as a deterrent against tyranny. Can't have it both ways with those arguments.

In WWII the CIA created small cheaply produced single shot .45 pistols called liberators that they would drop behind german occupied territories. The idea was that the underground resistance would use them to ambush and kill a german soldier and take their more effective weaponry so they could conduct more effective operations. ISIS in Iraq gained all their heavy weaponry by routing the Iraqi Army in Mosul and taking all their US supplied weapons as they fled. Resistance need only start with small arms and therefore they are an effective deterrent.

[Palerider]

The point of my original post was never meant to be a debate on the merits of the 2A or guerilla warfare. It was meant to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the leaders of the church. You lowly members must rely on the Holy Spirit to protect you but the announced ones get men in suits with Glocks to protect them. Don't worry, if you die you will be a forgotten martyr for the Lord but if we die the church will dwindle in unbelief and you don't want that now do you?

The ancient Apostles seemed to accept when it came, their fate as true Martyrs. Peter's death was foretold by the Savior. Paul kind of used the legal system to promote his innocence of any wrongdoing but in the end was still martyred. Plus his journey to Rome worked to establish Christianity there.

Seeing the SCC established as it is in these days with communication systems the way they are, I doubt they would have trouble replacing their apostles. Of course members would mourn anyone who was lost before their time, but the way things are organized now they have a hundred guys all patiently waiting for their opportunity to be an apostle.

The only reason they would go to such lengths to protect the living person who holds the position of "prophet" is because they worship whoever holds that position. The prophet "office" has become so unreasonably precious that all measures must be used for their protection.....except for trusting in the Lord, who numbers the days of all men and wouldn't permit his spokesman to be taken before his time, right?

I mean if that person/position is SO critical to the advancement of the church, I'm sure he must have the complete and divine protection due such an important individual. Right?

So bodyguards and top security must be an inovation of men. Men who don't trust the Lord to protect his prophet. And those who are being protected have accepted (welcomed?) that additional protection. Maybe even promoted it? Is that a reflection on their own faith, trust and relationship with the Lord?

In the Old Testament as I recall, many times Jehovah would register consternation for those who decided He needed help accomplishing his purposes. Those who thought they should "steady the ark" were not held in high esteem.

So are the Q15 actually steadying their own ark?

[A New Name]

I work for the DOD, and we get training every year on "Active Shooter". The rules they drum into us is Run, Hide, Fight, in that order.
The same should work in a church, mall, or office building.