Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Overwatch: Drill Of The Month For January



Jan 2019

BILL DRILL (Bill Wilson)
Face Target – Fire 6 shots quickly – Only A Zone Hits Count.
The target for the drill may be a standard International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) target or an International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) target. Only hits in the “A” Zone count (Down 0 Zone in IDPA) for this drill. The “A” Zone on an IPSC target measures 6 x 11 inches. The center body ring (Down 0) on an IDPA target is about a 9″ circle, with the head ring (Down 0) being about 6 x 6 inches. So you can make an IPSC or IDPA target “A” Zone (Down 0) target yourself. I use a 9″ paper plate for the body target and 4″x 5″ index card for the head target. You can also use a regular white sheet of paper and measure 6 x 11 or the other dimensions and then cut that target out and staple it to a cardboard backing.
This seemingly simple drill teaches you to develop a smooth trigger pull because if you jerk your trigger you are not going to get all 6 shots on the target. It teaches you how to manage recoil and also how to track your sights.
Practice this drill often because in a real life encounter, where deadly force is justified, you probably will be doing this drill, i.e. drawing your gun fast and firing multiple shots quickly. If you can fire quick and accurate shots in practice, then hopefully you can do it when it really counts.
This is from the famed Bill Wilson of IDPA and Wilson Combat fame.
Bill Wilson has always been infatuated with guns. Originally trained as a watchmaker, he has been in the firearms industry since 1974, starting out with a retail store called Sportsman's Headquarters in Berryville, Arkansas. Since that humble beginning, he has built Wilson Combat into the largest and most successful custom firearms company in America.
http://www.wilsoncombat.com/



See “Overwatch: Drill of the Month” page for more drills

Friday, January 11, 2019

Check Your Bug Out Bag

It’s the beginning of a new year and maybe that’s a good time to check things that you have in place for emergencies.
BOB (Bug out bag)
GOOD bag (Get out of Dodge)
72 hour kit
Survival kit
Go bag
Emergency kit
Disaster kit
Battle box
3 Day kit
INCH (I’m never coming home)
QRB (Quick run bag)
PERK (Personal emergency relocation kit)
Evacuation bag
From my military days, E Bag
No matter what you call it, a Bugout Bag is a kit you have put together for an evacuation. I also have other kits that I keep up on. A get home bag to get me from work to home in a difficult situation. We have first aid kits in vehicles and at home.
It’s a good time of year to check the contents and replace what may need replacing.
I’ve seen recommendations that you check this bag every ¼ but I check ours semi-annually.
What are you looking for with this check?
Expiration dates. Most survival-type foods have a shelf life of 5 years but some may go bad before this time. Also medicines have an expiration date. Most medicines don’t actually go bad, but lose their potency. EPI pens, antibiotics, and over the counter or prescription drugs all have expiration dates. Some creams or ointments and wipes will dry up or go bad. Most of bandages expiration dates have to do with being sterile.
Batteries. Everyone knows batteries have a limited life even when they aren’t being used. They also can make a mess in electronics if left in the device too long. Hand cranked items are great in a bob but there are times you need batteries. Checking them will ensure they aren’t dead when you need them. An excellent preventive measure against batter drain is to store them in the electronic item with the two positive (+) ends of two batteries facing each other. This prevents any current passing through the dormant circuit and greatly reduces energy seeping from the stored batteries
Ammunition. I go through a lot of ammo. That means I have to buy a lot of ammo. I switch it out every check. Some may suggest to test some rounds but I just switch it out and then shoot what I switched out.
Also, review your evacuation plans and route in case some things may have changed. If you have family bags and kids make sure the clothes still fit or switch out for appropriate sizes. Maybe you now have elderly parents or in-laws living with you.
Your evacuation plans and bags should be evolving and changing. Trying to prepare for everything is not the easiest thing. But new gear or food may come on the market that will change some of your items.
Preparation is not something you can set and forget. It involves inspection, using, and adding to or taking away. A good idea might be a practice run to the country. Hiking and camping is a good opportunity to test your bug out bag.
Stay prepared!

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Clint Smith Safety Challenge

Clint Smith is the founder of Thunder Ranch in Lakeview Oregon. Clint puts out a newsletter monthly that is great.
If you are not aware Clint Smith has been a firearm instructor for many years at Thunder Ranch in Texas and Oregon, NPI, the original Gunsite Academy, and for a decade in law enforcement. He is known for his straight-forward, candid advice concerning shooting, self-defense, and tactical techniques.
Clint says:
“REVIEW THE FIREARMS SAFETY RULES
Can you say what the 4 are correctly and in proper order…first time through?”
Well what do you say? A new year is a good time to take stock and review the basics. So can you quote the four safety rules by heart?
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cross anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire.
4. Be sure of your target and beyond.
1. All guns are always loaded.
Sometimes I see this written “Treat all guns as if they are loaded.” This is a mistake in my opinion. “Treating” a gun as if it were loaded is quite different than the declarative “All”. This is a good foundation rule on which the others can stand.
2. Never let the muzzle cross anything you are not willing to destroy.
We have this rule because of Rule one. If the muzzle is pointed at anything that is of value, be it a human, a pet, a body part, or an inanimate object, it will cause death, damage, or great bodily harm if the gun were to be discharged.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire.
I will add to this “out of the trigger guard” even though there are some guns without a guard. Yes they are old guns that don’t have a guard, but out of the guard works for me. Number three is because of number one! This is probably the most often violated rule.
4. Be sure of your target and beyond.
Again, because all guns are loaded, we need to be sure of our target. If there is not a proper backstop or clear area behind the target, the bullet can miss, or pass through, the target and cause damage in unintended areas and to bystanders.
Reviewing the safety rules is great and we should do it often. But being safe with a gun is more than that. Storing guns securely, shooting them in a safe place, and even selling them responsibly is what I call being safe with a gun.
I am one who feels that a gun should be accessible as possible. What good is a gun that is unloaded in a case in a safe? But, I know that children and others who should not have access need to be prohibited. There are many safes on the market that will keep your gun accessible and secure. A little practice and you’ll be able to draw from a safe pretty fast.
As far as gun sales goes. To ensure the transfer of ownership I use a gun sale form with information on it that will help me to identify the buyer or seller and to protect me and them. I make it clear before the sale (or purchase) that I require some personal information for the transaction. I make sure it is both ways. They receive my information also. The safety comes with some type of documentation of the transfer of the gun.
Being safety and security minded is always a good policy. Take Clint Smith’s challenge and know the gun safety rules and review them often.

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Proportional Response

A friend of mine confided in me that he had a rush from killing in combat. He said that he recognized that this rush could turn into addiction and talked to his CO about re-assignment. His was a case of not enough killing, when usually people want out of the killing. He was re-assigned and sought help. He got the help he needed and was able to resume his duties as an operator. For a while there he thought his career was over.
This is an extreme case of violence getting the best of a good person. In my case, I abhor violence. Everyone reacts differently to violence and deals with it in their own way. Thankfully, my exposure to it has been limited which is probably the reason for my abhorrence. I try to avoid it at all costs.
So what is proportional defense?
The following is from FindLaw, a site to help law students and professors. As with all things, this should not be construed as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. (My son-in-law is in law school and we get in these discussions all the time.)
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
“It is a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. In the United States legal system, each state allows a defendant to claim self-defense when accused of a violent crime, as does the federal government. The specific rules pertaining to self-defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however. This article offers explanations of the broad concepts that make up self-defense law in the US, but you should check the laws of your particular jurisdiction to understand the specific requirements for a claim of self-defense.
Introduction
Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?
As you can see, self-defense is more complicated than it first appears. In order to handle the myriad situations where self-defense arises, states have developed rules to determine when self-defense is allowed and how much force a victim can use to protect themselves. As mentioned, the exact rules differ between states, but the considerations are largely the same.
Is the Threat Imminent?
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.
Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.
Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.
To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!
Imperfect Self-defense
Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.
For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.
Proportional Response
The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
Duty to Retreat
The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a “duty to retreat.” While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force.
Stand Your Ground
In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called “stand your ground” laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. As mentioned above, this is the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force. States are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.
Castle Doctrine
Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their home. This rule, also known as “the castle doctrine,” allows people to defend their homes against intruder through lethal force. Like most of these rules, the exact result will vary according to the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case, so it’s always a good idea to consult an attorney to learn more.”

I suggest the 5 elements of justified use of force. They are:
Innocence. Who is the aggressor? Don’t be the aggressor but be ready.
Imminence. What signs are there that an attack will happen? Are they reasonable signs?
Reasonableness. Knowledge of the attacker. What you can ascertain about your attacker. The exception is where there is a disparity of force. Typical examples of disparity of force include a big guy attacking a smaller guy, a man attacking a woman, a healthy person attacking an infirm person, or a trained fighter attacking an untrained person.
Avoidance. Regardless of law (but you should know the saw in your state) as a lethal weapon carrier, you should always avoid an altercation if you can. It’s also wise legally, to show that you went out of your way to avoid the situation.
Proportionality. Once the threat is stopped anything else is excess. If you hit your attacker and they go down and don’t move or you shoot them and they go down and don’t move, further injury or violence against them will be assault or possibly attempted murder. If the threat persists, you must stop the threat.
I have never had the misfortune to have to defend my actions of self-defense. The only incident I have had was clear to law enforcement, and nothing happened to me. But as concealed carriers we must be aware of the implications and responsibilities that accompany carrying a lethal weapon.
Having a little knowledge of these things is good, but consulting a lawyer is better. There are many pro 2nd amendment lawyers out there. There is also some legal defense insurance programs out there to protect yourself in the event of a defensive shooting. Here are four:
United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA)
Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, Inc. (ACLDN)
U.S. Law Shield
NRA’s Carry Guard
Being aware of the laws in your state and the states you visit is very important. You risk a lot not knowing them. There are also classes you can take for this but most states include their laws in their concealed carry classes for their license.

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Friday, January 4, 2019

Legalities of Concealed Carry and Defense

A friend of mine confided in me that he had a rush from killing in combat. He said that he recognized that this rush could turn into addiction and talked to his CO about re-assignment. His was a case of not enough killing, when usually people want out of the killing. He was re-assigned and sought help. He got the help he needed and was able to resume his duties as an operator. For a while there he thought his career was over.
This is an extreme case of violence getting the best of a good person. In my case, I abhor violence. Everyone reacts differently to violence and deals with it in their own way. Thankfully, my exposure to it has been limited which is probably the reason for my abhorrence. I try to avoid it at all costs.
So what is proportional defense?
The following is from FindLaw, a site to help law students and professors. As with all things, this should not be construed as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. (My son-in-law is in law school and we get in these discussions all the time.)
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
“It is a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. In the United States legal system, each state allows a defendant to claim self-defense when accused of a violent crime, as does the federal government. The specific rules pertaining to self-defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however. This article offers explanations of the broad concepts that make up self-defense law in the US, but you should check the laws of your particular jurisdiction to understand the specific requirements for a claim of self-defense.
Introduction
Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?
As you can see, self-defense is more complicated than it first appears. In order to handle the myriad situations where self-defense arises, states have developed rules to determine when self-defense is allowed and how much force a victim can use to protect themselves. As mentioned, the exact rules differ between states, but the considerations are largely the same.
Is the Threat Imminent?
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.
Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.
Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.
To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!
Imperfect Self-defense
Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.
For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.
Proportional Response
The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
Duty to Retreat
The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a “duty to retreat.” While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force.
Stand Your Ground
In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called “stand your ground” laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. As mentioned above, this is the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force. States are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.
Castle Doctrine
Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their home. This rule, also known as “the castle doctrine,” allows people to defend their homes against intruder through lethal force. Like most of these rules, the exact result will vary according to the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case, so it’s always a good idea to consult an attorney to learn more.”
I’ve seen these 5 elements of justified use of force. They are:
Innocence. Who is the aggressor? Don’t be the aggressor but be ready.
Imminence. What signs are there that an attack will happen? Are they reasonable signs?
Reasonableness. Knowledge of the attacker. What you can ascertain about your attacker. The exception is where there is a disparity of force. Typical examples of disparity of force include a big guy attacking a smaller guy, a man attacking a woman, a healthy person attacking an infirm person, or a trained fighter attacking an untrained person.
Avoidance. Regardless of law (but you should know the saw in your state) as a lethal weapon carrier, you should always avoid an altercation if you can. It’s also wise legally, to show that you went out of your way to avoid the situation.
Proportionality. Once the threat is stopped anything else is excess. If you hit your attacker and they go down and don’t move or you shoot them and they go down and don’t move, further injury or violence against them will be assault or possibly attempted murder. If the threat persists, you must stop the threat.
I have never had the misfortune to have to defend my actions of self-defense. The only incident I have had was clear to law enforcement, and nothing happened to me. But as concealed carriers we must be aware of the implications and responsibilities that accompany carrying a lethal weapon.
Having a little knowledge of these things is good, but consulting a lawyer is better. There are many pro 2nd amendment lawyers out there. There is also some legal defense insurance programs out there to protect yourself in the event of a defensive shooting. Here are four:
United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA)
Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, Inc. (ACLDN)
U.S. Law Shield
NRA’s Carry Guard
Being aware of the laws in your state and the states you visit is very important. You risk a lot not knowing them. There are also classes you can take for this but most states include their laws in their concealed carry classes for their license.

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Ex-Mormons: Possible Threat?

Every time I read the Book of Mormon I am struck by how often ex-Nephites, or you could say, ex-members of the Church, went against the Church.
My biggest example would have to be Zarahemnah.
Zarahemnah was a Lamanite Chief Captain.(Alma 43:5, 44) He was a Nephite who had left the church and joined the Lamanites. They were more wicked than the Lamanites (Alma 43:6-8) and caused more problems for the church. He pushed the Lamanites to fight against the Nephites. He was beaten by Moroni (Alma 44). Amalichiah was also an ex-member of the Church and the reason for Moroni’s Title of Liberty, the following is a story of an ex-member of the church and his problem with Joseph Smith:

“As they approached their destination, Mr. Law came staggering out of the house shouting out what he intended to do. The Prophet said kindly and unafraid, “You sent for me, Mr. Law?” To which Mr. Law replied with an oath that now he was going to do the whole world a favor by disposing of the Prophet with one shot. Calmly, the Prophet unbuttoned his shirt and bared his chest, and then said, “I’m ready now, Mr. Law.” Charles said at this point he nearly fainted. Sick fear strangled him until he was speechless and paralyzed, unable to move a muscle. Mr. Law paced a few steps, turned, aimed, and pressed the trigger. There was complete silence. Then the air rang with profanity and Mr. Law turned on Charles, accusing him of fixing the gun so it would not go off and threatened to kill even Charles——my innocent, frightened, but faithful son. The Prophet, to divert Mr. Law’s blame of Charles, suggested that a can be placed on a fence post for Mr. Law to take a practice shot. Relieved, Charles ran for a can and laid it on its side on a post. Mr. Law paced back, took aim, and fired. His one shot streaked through the exact center of the can. Even Mr. Law was quiet as if stunned. The Prophet buttoned up his shirt, gave Charles a meaningful look, and then said, “If you are finished with me now, Mr. Law, I have other things needing to be done.” (As quoted by Robert H. Daines at BYU-Idaho Devotional, 28 May 2002)

The next portion of this article is from a church manual.

“Many members of the Church apostatized during this dark period of economic distress. Eliza R. Snow observed that, following the temple dedication in 1836, a number of members of the Church felt that “prosperity was dawning upon them …… , and many who had been humble and faithful …… were getting haughty in their spirits, and lifted up in the pride of their hearts. As the Saints drank in the love and spirit of the world, the Spirit of the Lord withdrew from their hearts, and they were filled with pride and hatred toward those who maintained their integrity.
“Wilford Woodruff also remembered that the members were warned by their leaders that unless they humbled themselves and repented of their pride, a scourge awaited them as in the days of the ancient Nephites. The Kirtland paper, the Messenger and Advocate, reported that some unscrupulous brethren were taking advantage of newcomers to the community by describing unusual investment opportunities to them, taking their money, and then deserting them.
“Backbiting against Joseph Smith was common during the spring and summer of 1837 in Kirtland, particularly when he was away on business or on missions. Some men who held positions of trust in the Church rejected his leadership and declared that he was no longer a true prophet. When Elder Parley P. Pratt returned from a Canadian mission the apostasy was well under way. He was temporarily caught up in these difficulties and left a candid account of his involvement.
“There were also envyings, lyings, strifes and divisions, which caused much trouble and sorrow. By such spirits I was also accused, misrepresented and abused. And at one time, I also was overcome by the same spirit in a great measure, and it seemed as if the very powers of darkness which war against the Saints were let loose upon me. But the Lord knew my faith, my zeal, my integrity of purpose, and he gave me the victory.
“I went to brother Joseph Smith in tears, and, with a broken heart and contrite spirit, confessed wherein I had erred in spirit, murmured, or done or said amiss. He frankly forgave me, prayed for me and blessed me. Thus, by experience, I learned more fully to discern and to contrast the two spirits, and to resist the one and cleave to the other.”
On several occasions stalwarts such as Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball defended the Prophet in various meetings, even though they were endangered. In February 1837 several elders called a meeting in the temple for all those who considered Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet. They intended to appoint David Whitmer as the new Church leader. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other faithful members attended the meeting. After listening to the arguments against the Prophet, Brigham arose and testified, “Joseph was a Prophet, and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased; they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God, they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell.” In the Kirtland Temple on 19 February the Prophet spoke for several hours with the power of God. The complainers were silenced and the Saints were strengthened in their support of the Lord’’s chosen servant.”
From: “Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual” Chapter 14: The Apostasy in Kirtland, 1836-38 Pgs. 169-180 (2003)
It is obvious to me that the biggest threat to the security and good name of the Church is its ex-members.

I do not doubt that some ex-members were harmed by other members or leaders. There are many stories out there and they seem to get larger with every retelling. The members and leaders in the Church are just as human as any of us. Mistakes have been made but every time I hear someone, some where say “I had this Bishop one time...” I roll my eyes. Not because there could not possibly be Bishops that i would not agree with, I know that there are. I was a Bishop for a while and I know what Bishops are up against. What amazes me is these stories are almost always very one sided. All the people telling the stories are perfectly innocent. I was a Bishop long enough to know that these story tellers are far from innocent. But their sins and mistakes never seem to be included in the story. Like I said, it’s hard to think that no one has been wronged by the church. But please, don’t tell only one side of a story without including your stupid, boneheaded choices.

What does all of this have to do with security you might ask? The security of the Church and its members are at risk usually from ex-members.

I know I will be probably be ragged on for mentioning names but the Kate Kelly’s and the Sam Young’s of the church are the greatest threat to the church.

Kate Kelly said that women should stay in the church and “raise hell”.


“Kelly, who was excommunicated from the church last year after advocating for the inclusion of women in the all-male LDS priesthood, said that Mormons should stay in the faith if it brings them joy, and leave if it doesn't.
"If you stay, you should raise hell," she said. "I think you have a moral imperative to make it a better place for children and especially for girls."
The Salt Lake Tribune, August 12, 2015

Sam Young is another.

Young’s approach often strikes an incendiary tone. Most recently a post on his personal blog referred to his local church leader in Houston as a “zombie” and called the First Presidency “cowards.”
“What did Jesus Christ do? He didn’t mince words when talking about the leaders,” Young said.

The following is from a blog so I’m not sure you call this a direct quote. I could not find any other direct quote so take it as it is. He is talking about Sam Young aligning himself with Mike Norton.

“This brings us back to the present. What is he doing now? He started a hunger strike and is posting Facebook live videos at a rapid pace. He has set up a camp chair on the sidewalk of South Temple and is issuing open invitations to apostles to come subject themselves to an ambush, consisting of whatever vile words or violent actions Young’’s crowd may subject them to. One of Young’’s supporters, Mike Norton, has recently offered to pay a cash reward to anyone who could give him details of Pres. Oaks physical whereabouts during a Mormon Stories podcast so that Mr. Norton could physically assault Pres. Oaks. Again, I wish I was making this up.”
31 August 2018, The Millennial Star blog post.

These people are a security risk to the church. Not all people leave the church and then can’t leave the church alone, but you must keep an eye on those that do.

From Zarahemnah to Sam Young the Church of Jesus Christ has been under fire.

I don’t always like Church policy but I have tried my best to not let my opinions affect my sustaining of leaders. I don’t want to get a call from my leader, of which I am now his counselor, and be asked to stop my blog because it is damaging my testimony and threatening the Church.

So let me say right here: I support and sustain our living prophet Russell M. Nelson and his counselors. I sustain my local leaders also. I would not give up my membership in this church to a “mess of pottage”, as it were. To any cause I thought was just. Many of the above members lost their membership to a cause. Traded their eternal life for something they believed is basically, an earthly cause. I guess they believe in their cause but they have some ambiguity with leadership and doctrine of the Lord’s Church.

I saw different statements by the two above modern day zealots that their membership was important to them. It’s too bad they have traded what they said they held so close for something they think the Lord doesn’t understand. That’s what they are saying to me. That people know better than the Lord.

Be careful of those apostates that leave the Church. They can be the Church’s biggest threat.

My Dad used to say, “If they are shooting at you, you must be doing something right.”

Perhaps he was right.

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn