Kisser Protest at the Salt Lake City Temple Square.

[jmann]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316423/Kissers-protest-near-Temple-Square.html

A "kiss-in" drew about 60 people sporting pink paper hearts to the sidewalk just off of LDS Church property near Temple Square on Sunday to protest actions taken by the church's security personnel late last week.

Dozens of gay and straight couples smooched, posed for photos and talked with reporters while church security issued a few reminders to stay on the sidewalks.

But, as the gathering was beginning to disperse, about 35 protesters crossed onto church property and walked around the reflecting pond, eliciting a call to police by church representatives.

Kim Farah, spokeswoman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement about Sunday's action.

"Church security asked the demonstrators repeatedly not to come onto the plaza to demonstrate," Farah said. "Though the requests were issued calmly and respectfully, demonstrators ignored the requests, and the police were phoned."

Salt Lake Police Lt. Lamar Ewell said he and another officer responding to the call asked those involved to move off of church property and explained that the plaza and walkway through the plaza were private property. Ewell said demonstrators complied with directives from police, and no citations were issued......

This was event was sparked from this incident last week.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316203/2-men-cited-on-LDS-plaza.html

SALT LAKE CITY — Two men were cited for trespassing by Salt Lake City police after security personnel for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints excused them from church property.

According to a blog posted at www.blueinredzion.com, Derek Jones and his partner, Matthew Aune, were holding hands as they passed through the pedestrian mall east of the Salt Lake Temple as they returned home from a concert at the Gallivan Center. Aune hugged and kissed Jones in the plaza, at which point church security asked the men to leave because they were being inappropriate.

"Two individuals came on church property and were politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been," said Kim Farah, spokeswoman for The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a prepared statement. "They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property. They were arrested and then given a citation for criminal trespass by SLPD."

In the blog written by Jones, he protests that public displays of affection are a common occurrence between heterosexual couples and they aren't excused from the property. After a period of questioning of Aune and Jones on the validity of their removal, security officers handcuffed the pair, emptied their pockets and escorted them off the property, the blog states.

Salt Lake City police officers were called to the LDS-owned Main Street Plaza after church security detained the two men. Police gave the men trespassing citations, class C misdemeanors, escorted them off the property and released them.

Anytime a private property owner asks someone to leave and that person refuses, it becomes a trespassing case, said Salt Lake police Sgt. Robin Snyder.....


This is my good ol' SLC. Upset one gay person and you upset a whole bunch more. :)

[P-Worm]

I'm surprised the forum isn't buzzing over this.

P-Worm

[abijnk]

I don't know, this is a hard one for me to decide on where I stand. On one hand, the CJCLDS was perfectly in their rights to ask the men to leave their property. I know when I lived in Nauvoo, IL they were very particular about their property, so I know them to be over-protective. On the other hand, the church is well known to be against gays and thus their treatment could have been over the top.

I'd say this is definitely a case where the truth has three sides...

[opinioncircle]

Well to me, I don't really see the point of this kiss up meeting. I mean based on last week's events, the security at that church was perfectly allowed to ask them to get out.

[leekohler]

Agreed. This is stupid. The church can do what they want with their property.

[Heilage]

Well, if they were on church property, and they were asked to remove themselves, isn't it kinda irrelevant why?

[bbotte]

I went there a few years ago to admire the bulidings and listen to that organ in the Tabernacle and the choir. As I was walking the grouds admiring the very nice sights and gardens. I was aproached by one of the LDS people and asked to join the church and I respectfully declined and complimented the area. He would not leave me alone, I asked repeatedly if he would please go about his business with someone else. He declined so I had to leave, as I was leaving he told me it made him sad that I would live an "eternal life in hell" unless I joined the LDS. I laughed at him. I was on his turf, so I was very polite. Next time one of those fools step foot on property and ignores the no soliciting sign and rings my doorbell I'm answering it with my .40 and ruining his fun. Religion is the most powerful form of "brainwashing" on earth. Christianity is really not that far from Extreme Islam sometimes.

[BoyBach]

Whatever happened to the idea that a church is somewhere that welcomes people?

[leekohler]

Whatever happened to the idea that a church is somewhere that welcomes people?

You're welcome unless you're gay. At least at the LDS.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I went there a few years ago to admire the bulidings and listen to that organ in the Tabernacle and the choir. As I was walking the grouds admiring the very nice sights and gardens. I was aproached by one of the LDS people and asked to join the church and I respectfully declined and complimented the area. He would not leave me alone, I asked repeatedly if he would please go about his business with someone else. He declined so I had to leave, as I was leaving he told me it made him sad that I would live an "eternal life in hell" unless I joined the LDS. I laughed at him. I was on his turf, so I was very polite. Next time one of those fools step foot on property and ignores the no soliciting sign and rings my doorbell I'm answering it with my .40 and ruining his fun. Religion is the most powerful form of "brainwashing" on earth. Christianity is really not that far from Extreme Islam sometimes.

I'm calling BS on this one. The LDS don't even believe in "hell", and we certainly don't believe that just because you don't join our church you'll be punished in the hereafter. We believe that everyone (regardless of their actions or beliefs) will receive some reward after death, and that the reward they receive will be an upgrade to their existence here. I also know that the missionaries at temple square aren't as pushy as you describe, their whole job is to show people around the grounds, teach them about the history of the structures and assess people's interest in learning more about the church. If someone wants to investigate the church more, the temple square missionaries get their information and then regular missionaries will be referred to their home.

You should at least know what you're talking about before you go making up stories bbotte.

SLC

[SLC Flyfishing]

You're welcome unless you're gay. At least at the LDS.

I'm also calling BS on this one Lee! And I'll even cite my sources since you're going to ask for it anyway. This is from Gordon B. Hinkley our last church president (he died in 2008).

Homosexuality

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9c672f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

SLC

[Eraserhead]

I'm also calling BS on this one Lee! And I'll even cite my sources since you're going to ask for it anyway. This is from Gordon B. Hinkley our last church president (he died in 2008).

Homosexuality

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

So would say that they accepted hetrosexuals if you were only allowed to join the church if you didn't have sex?

[jmann]

So would say that they accepted hetrosexuals if you were only allowed to join the church if you didn't have sex?

Unfortunately yes. They are okay with gay people as long as they remain celibate. It's unrealistic, but that's what their current views are.

[opinioncircle]

Whatever happened to the idea that a church is somewhere that welcomes people?

From what I've learned, it never was...

[leekohler]

I'm also calling BS on this one Lee! And I'll even cite my sources since you're going to ask for it anyway. This is from Gordon B. Hinkley our last church president (he died in 2008).

Homosexuality

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9c672f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

SLC

That's not what I call being OK with gay people. That's being OK with gay people under certain conditions only. I call BS on that.

But you're right about the missionaries, They're very nice and not pushy- not to mention very cute. ;)

[SLC Flyfishing]

well I guess it depends on what you mean by "being OK with something". If a member of the church goes to his/her bishop and confesses to having participated in homosexual activity, they will me subject to church discipline, most likely including excommunication. But you have to understand that church discipline isn't designed to punish people it is designed to help them overcome their problems. It's not like people aren't allowed back into the church openly once they've completed their prescribed repentance. It'sthe opposite actually, they are wanted back, but there's a process thy has to be completed first. The church doesn't cut people out, people often leave because they won't live up to it's standards and then claim that they were forced out, but the door is always open for them to return if they choose.

It's not the way many people would like it to seem.

SLC

[Macky-Mac]

well I guess it depends on what you mean by "being OK with something". If a member of the church goes to his/her bishop and confesses to having participated in homosexual activity, they will me subject to church discipline, most likely including excommunication.....

sorry but I'll call BS on you if you think that what you've presented demonstrates anything remotely close to evidence of gays being "welcome".....in fact what you've shown is that gays are given the boot....basically you've proven Lee's point for him

[leekohler]

well I guess it depends on what you mean by "being OK with something". If a member of the church goes to his/her bishop and confesses to having participated in homosexual activity, they will me subject to church discipline, most likely including excommunication. But you have to understand that church discipline isn't designed to punish people it is designed to help them overcome their problems. It's not like people aren't allowed back into the church openly once they've completed their prescribed repentance. It'sthe opposite actually, they are wanted back, but there's a process thy has to be completed first. The church doesn't cut people out, people often leave because they won't live up to it's standards and then claim that they were forced out, but the door is always open for them to return if they choose.

It's not the way many people would like it to seem.

SLC

Sorry SLC- That's not the same as accepting gay people. You can dress it up all you like, but it simply isn't. The church is only accepting part of a person in that case. And yes, the church does indeed excommunicate people for simply being gay. I posted a link to an article before. Excommunication is indeed cutting people out of the church.

[jecapaga]

well I guess it depends on what you mean by "being OK with something". If a member of the church goes to his/her bishop and confesses to having participated in homosexual activity, they will me subject to church discipline, most likely including excommunication. But you have to understand that church discipline isn't designed to punish people it is designed to help them overcome their problems.SLC

Wow, really? "Being OK with something"? What does this mean. Being who you naturally are in this world isn't enough? Is this some sort of allowance as to what is "acceptable"?

Church discipline is designed to help overcome their problems? What problem is that exactly?

[leekohler]

Wow, really? "Being OK with something"? What does this mean. Being who you naturally are in this world isn't enough? Is this some sort of allowance as to what is "acceptable"?

Church discipline is designed to help overcome their problems? What problem is that exactly?

The church considers homosexuality to be a "problem" that people should overcome.

[jmann]

UPDATE: There is another kiss protest scheduled for tomorrow *sigh*. We'll see what happens. :rolleyes:

[SLC Flyfishing]

The church considers homosexuality to be a "problem" that people should overcome.

Wrong, did you not read the quote I provided? The church considers participation in homosexual activity to be a problem that people should overcome, homosexual members are embraced just as any other member of the church is, but if they engage in the behavior then they have sinned. It's the same if I go out and pick up some woman at a bar tomorrow and go to bed with her, I'll very likely be excommunicated for it.

There are standards that members are expected to live by, just as in any other group. And anyone can live by them with a little self control, which is part of the church's teachings (learning to overcome the tendency to sin).

I don't want to have to explain this anymore. So here it is in a nutshell:

If you are a celebate gay person, you can enjoy full fellowship and membership in the church.

If you are a celebate straight person (or are married and faithful to your spouse) you can enjoy full fellowship and membership in the church.

If you are a non-celibate straight person who is unwed you will be subject to church discipline.

If you are a non-celibate homosexual person, you will be subject to church discipline.

There are also aspects of even heterosexual sex that are frowned upon in our church as well. Not that church leaders would know what's going on in my bedroom, and not that they ask either (they don't); but it is generally understood that sex is a sacred act, and there are certain things that would defile it. Homosexual sex is just one of the ways that our church believes sex is defiled.

SLC

[leekohler]

Wrong, did you not read the quote I provided? The church considers participation in homosexual activity to be a problem that people should overcome, homosexual members are embraced just as any other member of the church is, but if they engage in the behavior then they have sinned. It's the same if I go out and pick up some woman at a bar tomorrow and go to bed with her, I'll very likely be excommunicated for it.

There are standards that members are expected to live by, just as in any other group. And anyone can live by them with a little self control, which is part of the church's teachings (learning to overcome the tendency to sin).

I don't want to have to explain this anymore. So here it is in a nutshell:

If you are a celebate gay person, you can enjoy full fellowship and membership in the church.

If you are a celebate straight person (or are married and faithful to your spouse) you can enjoy full fellowship and membership in the church.

If you are a non-celibate straight person who is unwed you will be subject to church discipline.

If you are a non-celibate homosexual person, you will be subject to church discipline.

There are also aspects of even heterosexual sex that are frowned upon in our church as well. Not that church leaders would know what's going on in my bedroom, and not that they ask either (they don't); but it is generally understood that sex is a sacred act, and there are certain things that would defile it. Homosexual sex is just one of the ways that our church believes sex is defiled.

SLC

I read your whole post. I think the church's rules are ridiculous and unrealistic when it comes to gay people. You guys are free to live by your rules and dress up discrimination with pretty words and platitudes as much as you like. But I'm also free to call you out on your BS and call it what it is.

You do NOT accept gay people as whole beings. You only accept part of them- you keep saying it over and over too. According to you, straight people can have sex, gay people can't. That's the bottom line. And don;t give me any crap about gay people being able to have sex with the opposite sex. For the vast majority of us, that's physically impossible.

Here's another nifty tidbit. Apparently, all you have to do is have a differing opinion on the matter to be excomunicated:

http://www.feastoffools.net/community/topic.php?id=2989

[Thomas Veil]

In a nutshell, since it's the church's property, they have a legal right to ask people to leave if they want to.

I think most of us would agree they don't have the moral right. It may be the rules of the church, but institutionalized intolerance is still intolerance.

[maestro55]

As for the "Kisser Protest" I think that is a bit silly because as others have states the property belonged to the church. While I strongly disagree with where they stand on gay rights if the protest isn't about gay rights but rather their reaction to the men kissing than the protest is directed at the wrong cause.

I will only accept SLC saying that the church accepts homosexuals if he tells me the church is open to same-sex marriage (because then there would be equal rights between homosexual and heterosexual couples). Of course we all know the church opposes same-sex marriage.