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.
Why in society do we turn criminals/rule breakers into victims?
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.
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.
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
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 seemsBirdmanFreedoms? She agreed to certain behaviors when
she accepted the ticket and entered the building. Nothing was taken from her;
she lied.Brave Sir RobinPearl-clutching? Are you referring to
the Rosary? Did you know we don’t use it?
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.
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.
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?
@no namesHow 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.
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
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
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.
Was it really worthy of a criminal charge?
What would Jesus do? I don’t believe she is Jesus.
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?
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!
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.
Sad how these lost people have to make a big scene thinking that is the way to
solve a problem.
What would Jesus do?As I recall, he would call out the leaders- even in
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.
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.
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
"Infraction"?Like a parking ticket, this is a "yelling
ticket"?That seems about right.
Protests aren't really very useful if you shout them somewhere that the
intended recipients won't hear them.
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.
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.