Who's Worse: Anti-Mormon Protesters Or Ow Protesters?

[smac97]

So we now know a few things about the protest which occurred on Saturday evening during the Priesthood Session:
 
1. The OW group was told in writing several weeks ago that they would not be allowed to protest on Temple Square.
 
2. The OW group subsequently declared to news media that they would be defying this instruction and would proceed with their demonstration/protest on Temple Square.
 
3. Before the Priesthood Session, the OW group told the AP that "Two police officers her group hired for crowd security told her that Mormon officials plan to allow the women on to Temple Square." In light of the Church's statement after the protest, this claim appears to be false.
 
4. The OW group was "were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square." Instead, "they walked onto the square, where they formed a line circling the Tabernacle." This was therefore a trespass and a violation of the law, both civil and criminal.

5. I think the OW group traded on A) their status as Church members, and B) the adverse news media they had drummed up to essentially coerce the Church into letting them protest on Temple Square while at the same time C) avoiding the consequences of trespassing that usually follow (I think they knew the Church would not press trespassing charges against them). The Church could have either had them arrested or escorted away by police (creating a scene, generating fodder for media coverage, etc.), or else allow the protest on sacred grounds. The Church apparently decided to take the less disruptive of the two options. It was nevertheless profoundly contemptible for the OW group to resort to coercion of this type.

In contrast to these considerations, there were a number of anti-mormon protesters who exercised their lawful rights of assembly and free speech, while still obeying the law and respecting the Church's property rights.

So which group, in the end, is more contemptible / unethical / dishonorable? The group that obeyed the law and respected the Church's rights (the anti-mormons outside Temple Square), or the group that disobeyed the law and violated the Church's property rights (the OW group on Temple Square)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2014 by smac97

[Duncan]

dunno

Edited April 7, 2014 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

I believe the leaders of Ordain Women have represented the group as "the loyal/faithful opposition."  I am not convinced this is true, based on the fact that apparently, the group have disaffected and former members among its number.  As contemptible as the tactics of the virulent, rabid, anti-Mormons are, they are not trying to dress themselves up in sheep's clothing nor to pretend that they're something they're not.  In that sense, I respect the anti-Mormon protestors more than I respect many in Ordain Women.

[frank_jessop]

So which group, in the end, is more contemptible / unethical / dishonorable?

Thanks,

-Smac

Who is worse? How about the person who refuses to follow the Prophets?

"When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges or wanting to cause harm — please apply the following: Stop it!" ~ President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

It is embarrassing that you think Saints should feel compelled to spend their time on the tabloid topics of yours. It shows how little consideration you have for your conduct and how it reflects on others.

[mormonnewb]

Unless it is your contention that the purpose of the OW movement is to destroy the Church by ordaining women to the priesthood, then I don't even see how you could ask this question.  The anti-Mormons aren't making suggestions for improvement of this Church.  The anti-Mormons aren't trying to find a way to make some people feel more included in this Church.  The anti-Mormons want the Church to go away.

 

Do you think that OUR Sisters are fighting fiercely to get the priesthood in an organization that they want to disappear?  Why would they bother? 

[readstoomuch]

I am split on some of the issues. If you read the article by Holly Welker, the issue the women seem to take is that they were calm and respectful that it wasn`t really divisive and protesting. It sounds like they were calm, but also were asked ahead of time not to show up asking for admittance. The women did have great things to say about Kim Farah, who represented the Church and spoke to every woman who came up to ask for admittance. She must be some kind of rock star. Thanks Sister Farah. Finally, my daughter`s name was carried by one of the women who was attending to show support for the group. I don`t understand her completely, but she does love the Church and wants the best for it.

[USU78]

To enter onto Temple Square under false pretenses is a despicable act.

 

To enter onto Temple Square in order to conduct a protest, when you have been denied access for that purpose, is a despicable act.

 

To refuse to leave when asked to do so is a despicable act.

 

There is a universe of difference between protesting on the public right-of-way surrounding Temple Square and protesting inside Temple Square.

 

No contest.

[wenglund]

Regarding the OW protest, I think there may be a warped sense of entitlement in play that takes busy-bodying to new levels. Their bulldozer approach isn't the most flattering face to put on the modern women's movement.

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[awyatt]

So which group, in the end, is more contemptible / unethical / dishonorable? The group that obeyed the law and respected the Church's rights (the anti-mormons outside Temple Square), or the group that disobeyed the law and violated the Church's property rights (the OW group on Temple Square)?

 

I don't think any of them are contemptible, unethical, or dishonorable. I've sat and eaten meals with some of the Street Preachers. They aren't that bad, in person, and away from their "preaching." They are obnoxious when doing so.

 

I have no doubt that I would equally enjoy a meal with any of the OW folk. I don't have to agree with people in order to enjoy being in their company. Each of them -- after all is said and done -- are siblings in Heavenly Father's family.

 

That being said, children can make mistakes, they can throw tantrums, they can be unreasonable, and they can be messy. I have made many mistakes in my life. When members of OW or the anti-Mormons circling Temple Square make mistakes it doesn't earn them the moniker of "contemptible," "unethical," or "dishonorable" than it would make me based on my choices.

 

Doesn't change the fact that they did, in my estimation, make mistakes. Or that they were wrong to make the choices they did.

 

-Allen

[mormonnewb]

To enter onto Temple Square under false pretenses is a despicable act.

To enter onto Temple Square in order to conduct a protest, when you have been denied access for that purpose, is a despicable act.

To refuse to leave when asked to do so is a despicable act.

There is a universe of difference between protesting on the public right-of-way surrounding Temple Square and protesting inside Temple Square.

No contest.

We certainly have different definitions of the word "despicable." I'd hate to even fathom the words you would use to describe Al Queda, the Klan, or Los Angeles Lakers fans

 

mormonnewb: Let's not go there.

[Calm]

The street preachers may obey out of fear of arrest. They might choose to do the same as OW did if they thought it was an option.

I don't think you can compare without knowing that.

Having said that, I see it as quite possible both acts being done out of love and concern for others. It wouldn't be the first time that compassionate people made a, as Allen labels it wisely IMO, a mistake. There may have been some members of OW not motivated by such, but I don't see the value in dwelling upon it at this point.

I think it is best to let God judge the hearts of those who desire to change our behaviour into something they believe is better.

[rpn]

Why does either have to be better/or worse?      And on what grounds do you claim someone said something false?

[smac97]

The street preachers may obey out of fear of arrest. They might choose to do the same as OW did if they thought it was an option.

I don't think you can compare without knowing that.

Having said that, I see it as quite possible both acts being done out of love and concern for others. It wouldn't be the first time that compassionate people made a, as Allen labels it wisely IMO, a mistake. There may have been some members of OW not motivated by such, but I don't see the value in dwelling upon it at this point.

I think it is best to let God judge the hearts of those who desire to change our behaviour into something they believe is better.

 

Well said.  I should not have started this thread.  My apologies.  I will ask to have it locked.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[MorningStar]

I don't know who is "worse", but I think the OW group probably does more damage to members of the church than the street preachers.

[Skylla]

Locked as requested.

 

Skylla