New trial set for Utahn accused of shouting at general conference

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 24, 2019 4:52 p.m.

    She had an important point to make and although it was easily predictable that she'd get into legal trouble for disrupting a General Conference meeting, I assume she knew that but regarded it as an act of civil disobedience and was willing to be punished for what she did.

    Personally, I'm not brave enough to put my own principles on the line like that, but I have to admire those who do.

  • CJ Miles Dallas, TX
    May 24, 2019 11:27 a.m.

    Why in society do we turn criminals/rule breakers into victims?

  • Kenngo1969 , 00
    May 22, 2019 2:36 p.m.

    Ray Winn,

    Who says she wasn’t invited to leave? And how do you know it was Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Security which initiated contact with law enforcement? According to this story, the only thing we know is what a Church Security officer told police, we don’t know who summoned the police or even if they had to be summoned at all. It is not uncommon to have an extra contingent of law enforcement on hand to provide traffic and crowd control and to keep the peace for large gatherings such as this. Who says Ms. Moon didn’t provoke a law enforcement response by her actions? And what if Ms. Moon, since her very reason for being there appears to have been to draw attention to herself, vehemently declined even a very kind request to leave? What would you have Church Security do then, grin and bear her?

    And if I call a meeting, set the agenda, and make other arrangements, yet someone with an ax to grind decides to hijack it, you’re seriously suggesting that the best course of action is for me to allow her to disturb others rather than to exercise my right to control the meeting? It sounds like you’ve been to some very entertaining meetings.

  • Kenngo1969 , 00
    May 22, 2019 2:00 p.m.

    Birdman1990: "This may or may not apply here ..." You're right. It doesn't apply here. "... to be charged with a crime for exercising her freedoms ..." No one, no matter how just her cause, has the freedom to disrupt a peaceful gathering. If I wish to do so in a public place, I may have the right to protest you, but that doesn't give me carte blanche to go into your living room and do the same thing.

    Fabled Creature: "There's no time and no place too sacred to protect children." First of all, that's a non sequitur: No children were being harmed during the meeting. Secondly, how many people do you think Ms. Legionaires won over to her cause by her actions? I'd venture to say that even not a few fair-minded, right-thinking people who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders were appalled by what Ms. Legionaires did.

    Want to protest? Get a permit, make some signs, make any other arrangements that need to be made, and have at it. But "anywhere, anytime I feel like it" doesn't cut it. Repeatedly, courts have upheld time, place, and manner restrictions.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2019 1:37 p.m.

    According to the article the person committed a class B misdemeanor; law was involved; appropriate authorities notified. The Judge was lenient in reducing the charge. If she has a case, she should take it to court. That's the way things are supposed to be done in America. She can protest out in the street like other protestors all she wants - that's another way things are done in America.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2019 1:29 p.m.

    To the left, the end justifies the means.

    She has more right to vent than 22,000 have to assemble and worship?

    How hateful and intolerant she seems

    Birdman
    Freedoms? She agreed to certain behaviors when she accepted the ticket and entered the building. Nothing was taken from her; she lied.

    Brave Sir Robin
    Pearl-clutching? Are you referring to the Rosary? Did you know we don’t use it?

  • estebanborup Brunswick, GA
    May 22, 2019 12:19 p.m.

    Apostates have consistently reared their ugly head in opposition from the very beginning, so it isn't any wonder they will continue to do so, especially when emboldened by the scandal-hungry news media.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 22, 2019 10:51 a.m.

    Not one of these purveyors supporting this intrusion would allow such to happen at their own private meetings or private gatherings. Yet because it is "The Church" how dare they expect to worship with out attacks.

    Time after time lately, we have seen innocent worshippers attacked and murdered in their mosques, synagogues, and churches, only because they gathered to worship as a group. How is this different, because she didn't shoot anyone, yet, it's ok?

    She was looking for notoriety, just like the shooters all did, based on their beliefs opposing the beliefs of those the shooters attacked.

    There is no civil or redemptive reason for doing such an act and their is no civil or redemptive reason to support such actions. Supporting her actions is the equivalent of supporting the motives of the killers attacking any religious gathering.

  • Moracle Blackshear, GA
    May 22, 2019 10:00 a.m.

    Often, after a divorce, one or both of those involved do & say things to make the other look like the "Bad Guy"...

    Since she has divorced herself from the Church, this public display could just be another case of trying to make the spouse (or in this case, the Church) look like the "Bad Guy", to those attending, as well as those who read about, or see it in the news...

    It's a way to really get back at the divorced entity in a major, big time, public, news-getting way... so all can see how bad the divorced is, in the mind of the divorcee. (In other words: "See, I have a good reason for divorcing this person/Church").

    The Church is already addressing the issue she is yelling about, so why else the yelling and disruption, other than just try to make the Church look bad?

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    May 22, 2019 9:47 a.m.

    @no names

    How about because there's no need to overreact. She disrupted a church meeting. Escort her from the building, issue a citation, and move on.

    Honestly I'm not even sure why this warrants a news article, other than to rile up the pearl-clutching Church members among us.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    May 22, 2019 9:27 a.m.

    Knowing the defendant is a former, now disaffected member of the Church of Jesus Christ with several axes to grind is interesting.

    But the article fails to inform us to the reasons the charge has been reduced from a misdemeanor to an infraction. That seems to be the most relevant fact at this junctue in the story.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:59 a.m.

    Security won’t let her back in, that’s for sure.

    People who protest over generalities or unproven assertions should wait until all the facts are in. Assuming the worst about every allegation is over-the-top, unfair to the accused, and counterproductive.

    There is a protest zone set up across the street. She could have used that area. Most of us watching conference during her shouting, either laughed or rolled our eyes at what she had done.

  • Orson Woods Cross, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:54 a.m.

    It seems obvious to me that her shouting in GC was a publicity stunt and her trial is a publicity stunt.

    The less attention she gets from these stunts, the better.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    Was it really worthy of a criminal charge?

  • Kodiak2014 Cedar City, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:37 a.m.

    What would Jesus do? I don’t believe she is Jesus.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:20 a.m.

    Other religions have people shouting from the audience all the time. “Praise the Lord” or “Hallelujah Amen” among many others. To charge someone with something that goes on all the time is ridiculous. Escort her out. Case closed. After all the church cleared her for entry. It is a ticketed event isn’t it?

  • neece Hyde Park, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:16 a.m.

    I don't know what the big deal is. She shouted several times, startles some annoyed and disrupted... It does clearly say what the rules are. If I started shouting obscenities or annoying things at most likely ANY religious venue I also would be removed. I fail to see what lowering to an infraction has people up in arms. I also agree that an LDS Conference very sacred to the people isn't the best place for her agenda. I know it has been a very heated debate about the former Mission President that supposedly raped/molested the missionary. The Church IS doing something about it. so let's move on!

  • Uteofferouus Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2019 8:04 a.m.

    @Ray Winn:

    Hogwash!

  • Basketballgirl75 Provo, , UT
    May 22, 2019 7:59 a.m.

    It seems odd to me that this is going to trial. Wouldn't a fine by more appropriate? I know people who get a fine for all sorts of other behaviors that are actually illegal.

  • Jacobiuntherus Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2019 7:40 a.m.

    Sad how these lost people have to make a big scene thinking that is the way to solve a problem.

  • SaysTheFox American Fork, UT
    May 22, 2019 7:14 a.m.

    What would Jesus do?
    As I recall, he would call out the leaders- even in the temple!

  • tsobserver Mapleton, UT
    May 22, 2019 6:58 a.m.

    The infraction means a judge will find her guilty, issue a fine and she will have no criminal record. It also means she will not be able to use the jury to further her attention seeking goals. The fine will be minimal. Such disruptions will happen again.

  • Birdman1990 Mapleton, UT
    May 22, 2019 6:58 a.m.

    This may or may not apply here but I’ve personally witnessed other scenarios where churches scream persecution and how they’re loosing their freedom and turn around and persecute/trample the freedom of others. Ironic. Disruptive yes but to be charged with a crime for exercising her freedoms that churches are trying protect that did no one harm seems very counterproductive. They should’ve just warned her first then booted her.

  • Ray Winn Stansbury Park, UT
    May 22, 2019 5:19 a.m.

    I am surprised that Conference Security/management felt it necessary to get The Law involved in this. If she disrupted any other meeting (say a business conference), she would have been invited to either say her piece, or be invited to leave. Charging her against the law in this case seems to be a severe overreach.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 22, 2019 4:25 a.m.

    "Infraction"?

    Like a parking ticket, this is a "yelling ticket"?

    That seems about right.

  • One bite at a time MSC, UT
    May 22, 2019 3:49 a.m.

    Protests aren't really very useful if you shout them somewhere that the intended recipients won't hear them.

  • Fabled Creature Orem, UT
    May 22, 2019 1:26 a.m.

    There's no time and no place too sacred to protect children! Not the Pope's Archdiocese, not the Scientologists' lands, not the LDS meetings! When you provide safe haven for sexual predators, nowhere is 'too sacred' to speak up to bring attention to it. Jesus overthrew the money changers' tables to emphasize that a place that was supposed to be holy was not anymore. Sent a Crystal clear message.
    Perhaps if her child was molested in the nursery, and the leaders refused to hear her, and the perpetrator still had access to children, she might feel it her sacred duty to raise her voice in defense of the innocent and vulnerable in a way sure to bring attention to it. This whole time/place argument is for those who haven't been assaulted, and then ignored, then watched the place that is suppose to be sacred and safe become a sanctuary for bullies and predators.

  • momsaid Winchester, VA
    May 21, 2019 9:35 p.m.

    There's a time and place for protests, and a solemn gathering is not it. The rules printed on the tickets are clear and exact, so her willful act showed her disregard for other attendees, as well as her lack of respect (and compunction). I hope she will learn a valuable lesson from this.