There has been a good deal of publicity surrounding an incident where two men were cited for trespassing because of belligerent and profane behavior on the Church Plaza, which is an extension of the Salt Lake City Temple grounds and Church headquarters. While this property is owned by the Church, we want it to be a place of beauty and serenity in downtown Salt Lake City for everyone.
As we said earlier on this matter, these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called.
There is nothing satisfying in learning that there have been problems for anyone on Church property. We hope the Plaza will continue to be an asset to the community and enjoyed by the many that cross it each day.
Those bigoted LDS morality police.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called
When then that's clearly what happened. I mean, who would believe a couple of queers over an official Church position on what happened that is favorable to itself?
There has been more hugging and snuggling, bumping and grinding on LDS church property than in all the other churchs in the United States combined - well at least in the late 70's and early 80's. It was called the Stake Youth Dance.
EAllusion wrote:When then that's clearly what happened. I mean, who would believe a couple of queers over an official Church position on what happened that is favorable to itself?
You know very well those kids were lying. Men kiss each other on the cheek every day at Temple Square. That's never been an issue, and no security guard approached them for it. They were admittedly intoxicated, admittedly "lewd," and admittedly cursed at the security guards. They claim that is a natural reaction to being detained (especially when you've been drinking!). These men were obviously there to antagonize, and they're obviously lying about what happened. After all, what reason I understand that it's difficult to think objectively when the opportunity to denigrate the church presents itself.
maklelan wrote: You know very well those kids were lying.
Without video, there is no way to know who is lying. Right now, it's he said/he said.
I'm not at all surprised the church came out with an official statement. The hullabaloo in the international press requires that they say something. And it's not at all surprising that their story is different. Although the leaders weren't there, of course they're going to believe their security guards before they believe a couple of gay men.
Good grief.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
How many days after the incident did this story come out? If one tells the truth they don't have to remember their story nor do they have to spend a few days coming up with one.
I'll believe this one when members who had Dallin Oaks as Bishop or Stake President tell me it is so... or one of his convert baptisms from his mission comes forth to testify as to its truthfulness.
This sounds like one more Cover your Backside explanation a few days after the fact. If this was true the security guards would have said so initially to all concerned or those who asked questions.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
harmony wrote:Without video, there is no way to know who is lying. Right now, it's he said/he said.
And one side has far better credibility given the circumstances. The kids who were admittedly drunk and belligerent are the ones who are lying.
harmony wrote:I'm not at all surprised the church came out with an official statement. The hullabaloo in the international press requires that they say something. And it's not at all surprising that their story is different. Although the leaders weren't there, of course they're going to believe their security guards before they believe a couple of gay men.
A rather naïve and petty accusation. Do most normal organizations by default assume their security guards are lying? Do they only believe their security personnel if they harbor prejudices toward the other people? Or perhaps we should accept that the gay men are telling the truth because Mormons hate gay people and therefore must be lying. Never mind that the gay men are obviously just as antagonistic toward the church, and happen to have been drunk at the time. They still get the benefit of the doubt. And why's that? Because there's an opportunity to denigrate the church, and so objectivity gets thrown out the window. If you can give me another reason to accept their account over that of the security personnel (that is not based on the presupposition that in a conflict the church is always lying) please share it with me.
zzyzx wrote:This sounds like one more Cover your Backside explanation a few days after the fact. If this was true the security guards would have said so initially to all concerned or those who asked questions.
Or there's the more parsimonious answer that security personnel aren't really allowed to comment publicly about such incidents and the church was taking the time to interview people and make sure they had their facts straight. Of course, it's a lot more embarrassing for the church if one gets to assert that their statement came out now because it took them so long to come up with a believable story. Yeah, that's much more likely than a lie on the part of belligerent drunks who were intentionally being antagonistic.
I'm honestly shocked at the level of cognitive dissonance on this board, and especially from people so steeped in the recognition of it in others. Not a one of you can comment honestly or objectively about this situation, can you?
maklelan wrote:And one side has far better credibility given the circumstances. ..
Oh yea.. Mormon leaders have a great track record of being factual and honest..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
