Latest Development: No Media Allowed On Temple Square

[awyatt]

In a blog post I argued that the Ordain Women folk were violating the property rights of the Church by insisting on coming onto Temple Square to ask a question to which they already have an official answer.

 

Now, in a new development, the Church has barred not only professional photographers from Temple Square, but also reporters and journalists.

 

The immediate response is that "the Church is trying to hide things." However, the Church must try to stop Temple Square -- its private property -- from becoming the center of a media circus. (Which, it seems, is something that Ordain Women wants to occur.) When it becomes a media circus, it distracts the other conference-goers from why they are there and chases the Spirit away.

 

The media can still talk to anyone they want outside of Temple Square. They can (and no doubt will) be with the Ordain Women group as they meet at City Creek Park and march over to Temple Square. However, the media will now be precluded from following the marchers onto this single piece of Church property. (They can still be on Main Street Plaza, the Conference Center grounds, and the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. Just not Temple Square.)

 

I predict that the journalists will blame the Church for this and not the people that should be blamed: the Ordain Women leaders.

 

The Church has no responsibility to allow their private property to be used in a way that detracts from the sacred purpose for which the Church wants to use it. It is the Ordain Women leaders who said, effectively, "we won't honor your request as to how you want your property used." It is the Ordain Women leaders who invited media coverage on property that is not public and that they do not control. It is the Ordain Women leaders who value their "planned event" more than the Church's planned event.

 

Rude and disrespectful, forcing the Church to exercise their legal property rights. But you no doubt won't see that in any media reports.

 

-Allen

 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Brilliant! Since OW is really just seeking attention they will be forced to leave TS to get their "LOOK AT ME!" fix.

[bluebell]

It makes sense.

Many people go to temple square on GC weekend for spiritual reasons. Temple square is after all primarily a sacred and holy place created for such purposes.

If the church is concerned that media attention is going to interfere with they have a vested interest in doing whatever they can to prevent it.

I'm interested in the OW reaction to this.

[Senator]

Maybe I'm missing something. I thought OW was gathering to gain entrance to the priesthood session, which is held in the conference center.  Isn't that were they will be gathering. Why should they care what goes on at temple square?

Edited April 4, 2014 by Senator

[awyatt]

Maybe I'm missing something. I thought OW was gathering to gain entrance to the priesthood session, which is held in the conference center.  Isn't that were they will be gathering. Why should they care what goes on at temple square?

 

No, they are marching to the Tabernacle where they will ask for admittance. Of course, I guess they could now change tactics and go to the Conference Center, instead, where the press is still allowed on the grounds.

[mfbukowski]

Would "professional photographers" include wedding photographers??

[BlueDreams]

No, they are marching to the Tabernacle where they will ask for admittance. Of course, I guess they could now change tactics and go to the Conference Center, instead, where the press is still allowed on the grounds.

 

There wouldn't be much of a point, you have to have a ticket for the Conf Center. The Tabernacle, you don't.

 

Would "professional photographers" include wedding photographers??

 

IT sounds like it's just for conference....no one take wedding photos during conference weekend anyways. 

[awyatt]

There wouldn't be much of a point, you have to have a ticket for the Conf Center. The Tabernacle, you don't.

 

I guess I should have been more precise. Here is my understanding of what is happening, direct from their website:

 

On Saturday, April 5, 2014, at 4:00 p.m., we will meet at Salt Lake’s City Creek Park (110 N. State Street). Following a brief devotional, we will walk together to Temple Square and request to be admitted to the priesthood session. If admitted, we will attend and then return to City Creek Park to celebrate this historic event. If we are not admitted, we will reconvene at City Creek Park and listen together to the priesthood session on portable electronic devices.

 

I've read in other venues that they plan to stand in the "stand by" line, which would be for the Conference Center. Technically, they earlier requested tickets to the priesthood session and were turned down. Now they are going the "non-ticket" route, which includes the stand-by line and asking to enter the Tabernacle. There are also other non-ticket routes which I've not heard them ask about, such as Assembly Hall and the various venues in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building.

 

They could, if they wanted, also go to virtually any stake center in the world and just take a seat. I seriously doubt they would be turned away from those or be asked to leave.

 

-Allen

Edited April 4, 2014 by awyatt

[ksfisher]

Would "professional photographers" include wedding photographers??

Are you planning on sneaking onto temple square diguised as a wedding photographer?

[juliann]

They absolutely have to draw a line with protestors or the grounds will look no different than the zoo outside. I do wonder what will happen if nonprofessional photographers arrive with big video cams. I don't think anyone has illusions that there won't be lots of small camera/phone taping and picture taking going on...but I think the bigger video cams pointed at those having to get past them is purposeful intimidation. I think the popular photo of the teen walking by with his head down in obvious embarrassment to be haunting...and not in a good way for OW.

Edited April 4, 2014 by juliann

[why me]

 

Rude and disrespectful, forcing the Church to exercise their legal property rights. But you no doubt won't see that in any media reports.

 

-Allen

If the church did not do this any organization with a beef against the lds church could enter temple square and demonstrate. For example, the atheists and exmormons who will be gathered outside the temple could certainly be outside the main door if OW was allowed to do so.

 

The way to stop any social action organization is to stop the official press. However, with tablets, iphones, etc, it is quite hard to prevent it from making it to social media. I would love to know just how many of the women will be listening to the priesthood session through the social media. And how many are actually interested in the talks.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's my post from four days ago on the cameras ban:

 

Couple of things:

I was initially puzzled by wording in the letter from the Church to the OW group referring to a "longstanding" policy of disallowing news cameras on Temple Square for general conference coverage. In fact I and other news representatives have routinely shot photos on the grounds at past conferences.

Having seen news reports over the past couple of days, I think I now understand better the Church's position ( though let it be known I am not acting here as a Church spokesman).

If the Church representatives say there has been a longstanding policy, I won't contradict them. It could be viewed as a policy that has been in place in the past but not enforced because up to now there has not been a compelling need to do so. Kate Kelly and her group have changed the landscape such that now there is such a need.

 

It could be likened to a suspended jail or prison sentence. The sentence is always present -- in suspension, as it were -- but is not to be executed unless the convicted person fails to comply with conditions imposed by the court.

My second point has to do with whether their planned action constitutes a protest demonstration. There can be no reasonable conclusion otherwise. The Church has already given a blanket response in advance to their request for tickets. Thus, there can be no other purpose for their waiting in the standby line than to make a public show.

In this, it can be compared to the sit-ins or the picketing of the 1960s. Granted, it's not as disruptive, although it is to a degree, because it imposes an element of adversarial confrontation in an atmosphere that conference-goers expect to be sublime and reverent. Moreover, it occupies places in line that are intended for those who are eligible for admission and have a realistic chance of gaining it.

In requesting that the Church reconsider the ban on news photographers on Temple Square during the conference, the Society of Professional Journalists has not made a persuasive case. Everyone knows that at least some media companies will use the privilege to record and publicize the actions of the OW group. And there is already ample means of broadcasting and disseminating the general conference even without allowing carte blanche admission to news photographers. The Church administration therefore would have nothing to gain by allowing the OW group on the grounds in the first place or by allowing news photographers there to facilitate the public show that they intend.

 

Edited April 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I notice that the Tribune is still incorrectly referring to the Church Plaza in downtown Salt Lake as "Main Street Plaza."

 

Just a hunch, but they might help their cause (access to Church properties) just a tad if they would endeavor to get such things right.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess I should have been more precise. Here is my understanding of what is happening, direct from their website:

 

 

I've read in other venues that they plan to stand in the "stand by" line, which would be for the Conference Center. Technically, they earlier requested tickets to the priesthood session and were turned down. Now they are going the "non-ticket" route, which includes the stand-by line and asking to enter the Tabernacle. There are also other non-ticket routes which I've not heard them ask about, such as Assembly Hall and the various venues in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building.

 

They could, if they wanted, also go to virtually any stake center in the world and just take a seat. I seriously doubt they would be turned away from those or be asked to leave.

 

-Allen

That's debatable.

 

In any case, I don't think doing so would serve their purpose. It's mass-media visibility they are after.

[Five Solas]

... and chases the Spirit away.

if ever there was a phrase that needed an accompanying image...

 

it's Saturday morning - cartoons y'all!

:0)

 

 

 

PS.  and apprently said spirit wasn't informed about Utah's "Stand Your Ground" law...

;0)

[katherine the great]

Would "professional photographers" include wedding photographers??

Interesting question.  Is the temple even open for weddings on conference weekends?  That would be a zoo!

[Bikeemikey]

In a blog post I argued that the Ordain Women folk were violating the property rights of the Church by insisting on coming onto Temple Square to ask a question to which they already have an official answer.

 

Just for clarification the OW group is asking for the prophet to seek additional revelation from God on Women's Ordination. The request to attend Priesthood session is simply a way to drive attention to their primary question.

 

This primary question has not be answered yet.

 

Also, the standby line is a line designed for people who would like to access Priesthood session to stand in. Granted they know ahead of time that they will not be provided access due to their gender, however, it can not be debated that they are in the right line...

[smac97]

So the OW group is claiming they will be allowed onto Temple Square after all: http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/f6c3c9b7f94949619db41271d8a9c5da/UT--Mormon-Conference-Womens-Demonstration/#.U0A-MvldW8Q

The Mormon church has told a women's group that its members won't be allowed into an all-male meeting on Saturday, but the group plans to show up anyway as part of its push for females to be allowed in the priesthood.

It won't be the first time Ordain Women has held a demonstration. Members did the same thing last October and it has become a hot-button topic in recent weeks due to the response by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Church leaders asked the group to reconsider or gather in a zone designated for protesters that is off church property. They even told the Mormon women they wouldn't be allowed on Temple Square, though all signs point to the leaders caving on that issue.

The church says "activist events like this detract from the sacred environment of Temple Square and the spirit of harmony sought at General Conference."

Church leaders are also barring news media from going on church property during the demonstration, saying the interaction between protesters and journalists is disruptive.

Kate Kelly, the group's founder, said Friday that she expects about 500 members to gather and march into Temple Square and ask to be allowed into the all-male priesthood meeting. Two police officers her group hired for crowd security told her that Mormon officials plan to allow the women on to Temple Square. Kelly hopes that happens.

"Women already feel so marginalized and excluded," she said. "It would be a really hurtful blow."

First, I think it will be interesting to see what actually happens.

Second, Kate Kelly continues to unimpress with her crass backhands against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

So the OW group is claiming they will be allowed onto Temple Square after all: http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/f6c3c9b7f94949619db41271d8a9c5da/UT--Mormon-Conference-Womens-Demonstration/#.U0A-MvldW8Q

First, I think it will be interesting to see what actually happens.

Second, Kate Kelly continues to unimpress with her crass backhands against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

She makes women sound like children.

"Either let us have our way or we will believe you don't love us."

[Bikeemikey]

So the OW group is claiming they will be allowed onto Temple Square after all: http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/f6c3c9b7f94949619db41271d8a9c5da/UT--Mormon-Conference-Womens-Demonstration/#.U0A-MvldW8Q

First, I think it will be interesting to see what actually happens.

Second, Kate Kelly continues to unimpress with her crass backhands against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Im interested to see what happens.

[Bikeemikey]

She makes women sound like children.

"Either let us have our way or we will believe you don't love us."

 

I find this characterization to be both inaccurate and unfair... but it seems this particular movement is eliciting very strong responses in general.

[bluebell]

I find this characterization to be both inaccurate and unfair... but it seems this particular movement is eliciting very strong responses in general.

I did not characterize the OW movement, I simply related that Kate Kelly's statement does not make women sound very noble or mature.

I think Kelly often says things that do not serve her cause very well.

[Bikeemikey]

I did not characterize the OW movement, I simply related that Kate Kelly's statement does not make women sound very noble or mature.

I think Kelly often says things that do not serve her cause very well.

 

I know many who disagree, hence the use of my term characterization... you are not going to be able to objectively make the above statement and have it universally agreed to. Statements you don't like will be empowering to someone else and vice-versa. Kate Kelly is not for everyone... she is simply for the people are she is for.

 

Her inability to represent the view of "everyone" should not be used to undermine her success in representing the views of "someone".

 

Also, she is not really for me, but I fully support her efforts to be heard and express the views of those she does represent.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[bluebell]

I know many who disagree, hence the use of my term characterization... you are not going to be able to objectively make the above statement and have it universally agreed to. Statements you don't like will be empowering to someone else and vice-versa. Kate Kelly is not for everyone... she is simply for the people are she is for.

 

Her inability to represent the view of "everyone" should not be used to undermine her success in representing the views of "someone".

 

Also, she is not really for me, but I fully support her efforts to be heard and express the views of those she does represent.

If everything we say can be labeled a mischaracterization unless there is universal agreement on it, then every single thing any of us have said on this board (or pretty much in life in general) is also a mischaracterization.

 

Is that really what you want to suggest?

[smac97]

I know many who disagree, hence the use of my term characterization... you are not going to be able to objectively make the above statement and have it universally agreed to. Statements you don't like will be empowering to someone else and vice-versa. Kate Kelly is not for everyone... she is simply for the people are she is for.

 

Her inability to represent the view of "everyone" should not be used to undermine her success in representing the views of "someone".

She is not presuming to speak for only "someone," or even a few "someones." She is declaring that LDS women "already feel so marginalized and excluded." Apart from being extremely presumptuous, it is also factually incorrect for many (most?) LDS women, and also a calumny against the Church in which she claims membership.

Also, she is not really for me, but I fully support her efforts to be heard and express the views of those she does represent.

I don't support her insofar as I find her tactics reprehensible and unseemly for a Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac