Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[smac97]

Why? Ignoring it seems effective enough. Most LDS don't even give OW a second glance.

The Church did attempt to reduce the notoriety of the trespass by prohibiting the media from entering Temple Square to record the trespass. The media, unlike the OW group, was decent enough to respect the Church's property rights and complied with the Church's request and stayed out of Temple Square. This meant that the OW group was not able to leverage media coverage of their protest as they have their other "direct action" events.

And the OW group has had an adverse effect, as evidenced by KSfisher's posts in this very thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2014 by smac97

[stemelbow]

The Church did attempt to reduce the notoriety of the trespass by prohibiting the media from entering Temple Square to record the trespass. The media, unlike the OW group, was decent enough to respect the Church's property rights and complied with the Church's request and stayed out of Temple Square. This meant that the OW group was not able to leverage media coverage of their protest as they have their other "direct action" events.

jerks! the lot of them.

And the OW group has had an adverse effect, as evidenced by KSfisher's posts in this very thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought he said his son has left for another reason.

[stemelbow]

Whatever the case, thanks gents (Scott and Smac). I went from wondering if questioning (not just asking questions) motives was appropriate to thinking you may have a better point than I thought.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought he said his son has left for another reason.

Smac was probably thinking of Crebear, who said,

 

My 18 year old daughter was lured into the protest and was in the line for PH tickets. She is young and impressionable and she has fallen for the "empowering" rhetoric of OW. Kelly has damaged my daughter and our family more than she can know.

 

[USU78]

That's a weird view of what is harmful. I'll stick to the notion that it was all very harmless, even after considering the "harm" you feel that was caused.

 

Not weird at all.  3 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chapter 12, Trespass, at pp 208-215 is the great-grandaddy standard of the law with respect to trespass.

 

Trespass, in its largest and most extensive sense, signifies any transgression or offence against the law of nature, of society, or of the country in which we live; whether it relates to a man's person or his property.  Therefore beating another is a trespass for which (as we have formerly seen) an action of trespass vi et armis in assault and battery will lie:  taking or detaining a man's goods are respectively trespasses; for which an action of trespass vi et armis or on the case of trover and conversion, is given by the law; so also non-performance of promises or undertakings is a trespass; upon which an action of trespass on the case in assumpsit is grounded:  and, in general, any misfeasance or act of one man whereby another is injuriously treated or damnified, is a transgression, or trespass in its largest sense; for which we have already seen, that whenever the act itself is directly and immediately injurious to the person or property of another, and therefore necessarily accompanied with some force, an action of trespass vi et armis will lie; but, if the injury is only consequenial, a special action of trespass on the case may be brought.

 

Id at 208-209.  Thus trespass against another's real property is one of a species, which includes most of the wrongs we think of as actionable at law today.  It is as serious as assault and battery of the person of an individual or the wrongful conversion of his personal property [civil theft].  Blackstone goes on:

 

Every unwarrantable entry on another's soil the law entitles a trespass by breaking his close; the words of the writ of trespass commanding the defendant to shew cause, quare clausum querentis fregit.  For every man's land is in the eye of the law inclosed and set apart from his neighbour's:  and that either by a visible and material fence, as one field is divided from another by a hedge; or, by an ideal invisible boundary, existing only in the contemplation of law, as when one man's land adjoins to another's in the same field.  And every such entry or breach of a man's close carries necessarily along with it some damage or other:  for if no other special loss can be assigned, yet still the words of the writ itself specify one general damage, viz. the treading down and bruising his herbage.

 

Wars are fought over such things.  One may not in general respect the property rights of others, and one may well expect the State to knock down all such boundaries as exist for the benefit of its special and entitled pets, but the State does not yet wield such power:  and the lack of respect for others' property rights endemic in folks of a certain political bent does not destroy quite yet the Church's right to enjoy its property rights free and clear of the scofflaw's contumely.

[smac97]

Smac was probably thinking of Crebear, who said,

Yep, that was it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

Ithought he said his son has left for another reason.

Correct. I was using a very pesonal example of how one persons actions/ideas have the potential to lead one away from the gospel. Ideas are powerful. Having looked at the OW website I'm saddened by the number of children that are in the pictures posted by parents. But, no worries, because as OW has assured us, they sustain the prophet and teach no doctrine contrary to that of the church.

[Analytics]

The fact that the Church was civil and polite in its instruction to not enter Temple Square does not make it less of a notice under the statute. I can't imagine any judge saying to a property owner "Yes, you asked so-and-so to not trespass on your property, but you asked politely, so that doesn't count."

 

Consider the two following statements:

 

1-“We politely inform you that you may not enter and that doing so would constitute criminal trespass.”

 

2- “We kindly suggest that you do not enter.  However, if you feel you must enter, you may do so.”

 

Those two statements clearly indicate two different things. Of course I’m all in favor of being polite, but if somebody means statement #1 but tries so hard to be polite you can’t tell if his position is #1 or #2, as a judge I’d be inclined to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

 

Likewise, if the land owner had the opportunity to use the force of law to enforce the alleged violation of his property rights but doesn’t, and doesn’t even suggest that he was a victim of the criminal offense in question, I’m prone to think that statement #2 is closer to what he meant. 

 

Anyway, I’m just struck by the anger you guys have towards this group; it’s palpable.  From my vantage point, I saw that a couple hundred members of the church put on their Sunday best and without any signs, yelling, chants, or other displays of animosity to the church, went into Temple Square.  Once there, they stood in line for some tickets to an event across the street, politely asked for a ticket, and then politely acquiesced when they were denied.  They then sang, “Come, Come Ye Saints.” 

 

I would think we would agree that their actions were misguided, unproductive, and a slight nuisance.  On the other hand, I suppose we'd disagree that churches that believe in personal revelation would in general react by saying, “We appreciate the passion you have for this issue, and we promise you we’ll continue to pray about it.  We hope you will do likewise.  As I’m sure you understand, we can’t make any changes to Church policy until we receive revelation to do so.” And let that be the end of it.

 

But when I hear “Criminal Trespass!” “Desecrating sacred ground during a sacred convocation!” “Contemptible!” and “Diabolical!” I can’t help but think “Overreaction!”

Edited July 2, 2014 by Analytics

[Calm]

Where is there any implication of telling them they could?

The options presented were please don't demonstrate, but if you sre still going to do ituse the zones not on Temple Square.

"If you feel you must come and demonstrate, we ask that you do so in free speech zones adjacent to Temple Square..."

Taken in the context of the entire statement, the idea that they are not asking them to stay off Temple Square...absurd IMO.

Don't forget holding interviews and being followed around by reporters and cameras....

[smac97]

Consider the two following statements:

 

1-“We politely inform you that you may not enter and that doing so would constitute criminal trespass.”

 

2- “We kindly suggest that you do not enter.  However, if you feel you must enter, you may do so.”

No, let's not consider fabricated statements. Let us instead consider what actually happened:

1. The OW group received a letter from the Church dated March 17, 2014 which stated in pertinent part:

 

 

 

Your organization has again publicized its intention to demonstrate on Temple Square during the April 5 priesthood session. Activist events like this detract from the sacred environment of Temple Square and the spirit of harmony sought at General Conference. Please reconsider.

If you feel you must come and demonstrate, we ask that you do so in free speech zones adjacent to Temple Square, which have long been established for those wishing to to voice differing viewpoints. They can be found on the attached map.

As fellow Latter-day Saints and friends of the Church, we invite you to help us maintain the peaceful environment of Temple Square and ask that you please follow these details in your continued planning.

Various news outlets reported that the OW group publicly declared their intention to enter onto Temple Square notwithstanding this letter (which is an odd thing for the OW group to say if, as you suggest, this letter does not sufficiently request that they refrain from entering).

2. The Tribune then reported that on the day of the protest the following happened: "On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square..."

There is no judge in the state of Utah which, upon reviewing these representations from the Church to the OW group, would say "Nope, sorry, not clear enough. And too polite. Be a bit more rude next time. That's the ticket!"

 

Likewise, if the land owner had the opportunity to use the force of law to enforce the alleged violation of his property rights but doesn’t, and doesn’t even suggest that he was a victim of the criminal offense in question, I’m prone to think that statement #2 is closer to what he meant. 

There are all sorts of reasons why a property owner could opt to not pursue criminal charges. As it is, however, the factual narrative of what happens makes criminal trespass pretty much a given. It happened, but the Church chose not to press the matter. I think the OW group anticipated this, thus making their behavior all the more contemptible.

 

Anyway, I’m just struck by the anger you guys have towards this group; it’s palpable.  From my vantage point, I saw that a couple hundred members of the church put on their Sunday best and without any signs, yelling, chants, or other displays of animosity to the church, went into Temple Square.  Once there, they stood in line for some tickets to an event across the street, politely asked for a ticket, and then politely acquiesced when they were denied.  They then sang, “Come, Come Ye Saints.” 

"Palpable" anger? Really?

In any event, I am struck by the nonchalance with which folks like you treat this issue. But since it's the Church in the crosshairs . . .

Church members staging a protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, in direct defiance of the Church, is a big deal. In addition to being very offensive to observant Latter-day Saints (and sorry, but folks like you and Kate Kelly don't get to dictate to folks like us what we should and should not deem to be sacred, and what is and is not a profaning of what we deem sacred). It is the leading edge of a dangerous wedge. It is a portent of worse things to come. I think we err if we disregard events like this and instead wait for them to snowball into much more destructive events.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2014 by smac97

[Senator]

Seriously? Their intent all along has been to draw attention to their movement via the news and social media and hopefully attract sympathizers. And you're suggesting with a straight face that they felt they would "fit right in" and not draw attention to themselves? Why did they invite the news media to be there to record the whole thing?

I never heard what really happened that day. What did the members of the OW group do? Did they carry signs? Speak loudly? Argumentative? Block doorways? Heckle anyone?

[mormonnewb]

No, let's not consider fabricated statements. Let us instead consider what actually happened:

1. The OW group received a letter from the Church dated March 17, 2014 which stated in pertinent part:

 

 

 

Various news outlets reported that the OW group publicly declared their intention to enter onto Temple Square notwithstanding this letter (which is an odd thing for the OW group to say if, as you suggest, this letter does not sufficiently request that they refrain from entering).

2. The Tribune then reported that on the day of the protest the following happened: "On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square..."

There is no judge in the state of Utah which, upon reviewing these representations from the Church to the OW group, would say "Nope, sorry, not clear enough. And too polite. Be a bit more rude next time. That's the ticket!"

 

There are all sorts of reasons why a property owner could opt to not pursue criminal charges. As it is, however, the factual narrative of what happens makes criminal trespass pretty much a given. It happened, but the Church chose not to press the matter. I think the OW group anticipated this, thus making their behavior all the more contemptible.

 

"Palpable" anger? Really?

In any event, I am struck by the nonchalance with which folks like you treat this issue. But since it's the Church in the crosshairs . . .

Church members staging a protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, in direct defiance of the Church, is a big deal. In addition to being very offensive to observant Latter-day Saints (and sorry, but folks like you and Kate Kelly don't get to dictate to folks like us what we should and should not deem to be sacred, and what is and is not a profaning of what we deem sacred). It is the leading edge of a dangerous wedge. It is a portent of worse things to come. I think we err if we disregard events like this and instead wait for them to snowball into much more destructive events.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Agreed that it's a slippery slope.  First, it starts with trespassing.  Next, it moves to jay walking.  Before long, KK and her minions would be pulling tags off mattresses everywhere.

 

We are talking about the possible damnation of someone's soul.  We're talking about separating her and her loved ones for all time and eternity.  And you are upset because she ruined "the mood" of your semi-annual priesthood meeting?

 

Is this who we are as a people?

 

A while back, I was ranting and raving to another Mormon about what "wonderful Christians" Mormons are.  In mid-rant (or perhaps, mid-rave), she stopped me and said, "Newb, I don't think you have us correctly pegged.  You might just one day find out that we Mormons are nice, but we are not KIND."

 

I'm finally starting to see her point.

[Mystery Meat]

No, let's not consider fabricated statements. Let us instead consider what actually happened:

1. The OW group received a letter from the Church dated March 17, 2014 which stated in pertinent part:

 

 

 

Various news outlets reported that the OW group publicly declared their intention to enter onto Temple Square notwithstanding this letter (which is an odd thing for the OW group to say if, as you suggest, this letter does not sufficiently request that they refrain from entering).

2. The Tribune then reported that on the day of the protest the following happened: "On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square..."

There is no judge in the state of Utah which, upon reviewing these representations from the Church to the OW group, would say "Nope, sorry, not clear enough. And too polite. Be a bit more rude next time. That's the ticket!"

 

There are all sorts of reasons why a property owner could opt to not pursue criminal charges. As it is, however, the factual narrative of what happens makes criminal trespass pretty much a given. It happened, but the Church chose not to press the matter. I think the OW group anticipated this, thus making their behavior all the more contemptible.

 

"Palpable" anger? Really?

In any event, I am struck by the nonchalance with which folks like you treat this issue. But since it's the Church in the crosshairs . . .

Church members staging a protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, in direct defiance of the Church, is a big deal. In addition to being very offensive to observant Latter-day Saints (and sorry, but folks like you and Kate Kelly don't get to dictate to folks like us what we should and should not deem to be sacred, and what is and is not a profaning of what we deem sacred). It is the leading edge of a dangerous wedge. It is a portent of worse things to come. I think we err if we disregard events like this and instead wait for them to snowball into much more destructive events.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Lawyered.

[sethpayne]

I know it carries zero weight in the court of common sense.

 

Given all the craziness from protesters of all variety at Temple Square I think the Church may eventually have to issue "conference recommends" instead of just conference tickets.

 

Or perhaps they will just have to get rid of a standby line etc...

[Mystery Meat]

Agreed that it's a slippery slope.  First, it starts with trespassing.  Next, it moves to jay walking.  Before long, KK and her minions would be pulling tags off mattresses everywhere.

 

We are talking about the possible damnation of someone's soul.  We're talking about separating her and her loved ones for all time and eternity.  And you are upset because she ruined "the mood" of your semi-annual priesthood meeting?

 

Is this who we are as a people?

 

A while back, I was ranting and raving to another Mormon about what "wonderful Christians" Mormons are.  In mid-rant (or perhaps, mid-rave), she stopped me and said, "Newb, I don't think you have us correctly pegged.  You might just one day find out that we Mormons are nice, but we are not KIND."

 

I'm finally starting to see her point.

 

Yuck, yuck, yuck. 

 

Where to begin? Smac (and Scott) have merely been pointing out how defiant KK and OW were to the Church when asked to respect their property rights. Yes, that is a legal issue, yet it is also a spiritual one as well. 

 

You belittle the importance of the priesthood meeting in your post, which tells us more about you. Have you not ever gone to a meeting needing, even urgently, to be fed and nourished spiritually? Have you not ever felt like your spiritual back was up against the wall, that the adversary had you pinned, and that you needed strength from on high? Have you never gone to a meeting so desperate? If not, I can assure you that I have. And downplay mine and others experiences as you might do and how silly it is to let things like KK's defiance distract from the sacred nature of those moments, such actions do in fact distract. 

 

Furthermore, they are not mutually exclusive. You essentially just told Smac he was not kind for taking issue with KK's outright defiance and disobedience (not to mention violation of the law). Everything I have seen from Smac's posts regarding KK have been reasonable. Not once has he offered an unkind word. He feels sorry for her. He has shown empathy and even compassion. Yet you have strongly implied that he is unkind. Shame on you. 

 

What of the people who came hungry and thirsty for spiritual nourishment but were met instead by discontent and defiance? And no I do not think I am overblowing what actually happened. I think you are being unkind to such people by dismissing their needs and their feelings. Could KK not put aside her anger and her animosity for a weekend of peace and and combined spiritual growth for ALL members? No. And that tells me a lot about her. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

In any event, I am struck by the nonchalance with which folks like you treat this issue. But since it's the Church in the crosshairs . . .

Church members staging a protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, in direct defiance of the Church, is a big deal. In addition to being very offensive to observant Latter-day Saints (and sorry, but folks like you and Kate Kelly don't get to dictate to folks like us what we should and should not deem to be sacred, and what is and is not a profaning of what we deem sacred). It is the leading edge of a dangerous wedge. It is a portent of worse things to come. I think we err if we disregard events like this and instead wait for them to snowball into much more destructive events.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Let me ask you this, what should the Church do this upcoming conference? I know OW said they weren't going to try again. But lets say they changed their minds. If you were the church would you still issue a warning not to enter Church grounds? If they did would you have them arrested? Would you press charges? 

 

I am inclined to say yes to all of the above. I know its not like IP law (that I know of), but if you don't protect a trademark, you lose it. Even if not legally, wouldn't the same be true in effect (meaning people don't take you at your word) if you don't enforce your property rights?

[mormonnewb]

Yuck, yuck, yuck. 

 

Where to begin? Smac (and Scott) have merely been pointing out how defiant KK and OW were to the Church when asked to respect their property rights. Yes, that is a legal issue, yet it is also a spiritual one as well. 

 

You belittle the importance of the priesthood meeting in your post, which tells us more about you. Have you not ever gone to a meeting needing, even urgently, to be fed and nourished spiritually? Have you not ever felt like your spiritual back was up against the wall, that the adversary had you pinned, and that you needed strength from on high? Have you never gone to a meeting so desperate? If not, I can assure you that I have. And downplay mine and others experiences as you might do and how silly it is to let things like KK's defiance distract from the sacred nature of those moments, such actions do in fact distract. 

 

Furthermore, they are not mutually exclusive. You essentially just told Smac he was not kind for taking issue with KK's outright defiance and disobedience (not to mention violation of the law). Everything I have seen from Smac's posts regarding KK have been reasonable. Not once has he offered an unkind word. He feels sorry for her. He has shown empathy and even compassion. Yet you have strongly implied that he is unkind. Shame on you. 

 

What of the people who came hungry and thirsty for spiritual nourishment but were met instead by discontent and defiance? And no I do not think I am overblowing what actually happened. I think you are being unkind to such people by dismissing their needs and their feelings. Could KK not put aside her anger and her animosity for a weekend of peace and and combined spiritual growth for ALL members? No. And that tells me a lot about her. 

 

You speak of the need for spiritual nourishment ... on the part of the men.  What about the need for nourishment for our dear sisters?  If they are too starving, then no, it is not "kind" to leave them out in the cold while you get your fill.  Even if you "nicely" refuse them entrance ... or say nice things about them as you have them thrown out of the Church.

 

As for Smac's posts, they have been "Mormon nice."  He wishes her well.  He hopes she finds her way back to the Church.  Yet, he constantly attributes every bad motive possible to her, including the latest that she was trying to get her bishop fired from his job by starting a covert protest against Exxon.

 

As a Baptist, we had a term for this ... "Bless her heart."  You could say any hateful thing imaginable (and some that couldn't be imagined easily), so long as you ended your tirade with "Bless her heart."  In yet another way, Mormons are very similar (and who says that Mormons aren't Christians?).  Except that we start our "niceness" with an expression of love.  We even call our most vicious action -- a "court of love."

 

"We hereby repeal the effect of your most sacred ordinances and remove all ties to you and those whom you hold most dear, for all of eternity ... with love."

 

Well, to borrow another expression from my Baptist heritage, "I once was blind but now I see ..."

[Mystery Meat]

You speak of the need for spiritual nourishment ... on the part of the men.  What about the need for nourishment for our dear sisters?  If they are too starving, then no, it is not "kind" to leave them out in the cold while you get your fill.  Even if you "nicely" refuse them entrance ... or say nice things about them as you have them thrown out of the Church.

 

Nobody is saying women can't find spiritual nourishment. 

[MorningStar]

Perhaps it was. The relevant statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-206, Under Utah Criminal Code § 76-6-206, provides that criminal trespass involves an allegation that a person enters or remains unlawfully on property and does one of the following:

(a) the person enters or remains unlawfully on property and:

(i) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony;

(ii) intends to cause injury or annoyance to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107; or

(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;

(b) knowing the defendant's presence or entry is unlawful, the defendant remains or enters on property as to which notice against entering is given by:

(i) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or

(ii) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner; or

(iii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or

(c ) the person enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).

 

The OW group was expressly instructed to not enter onto Temple Square.  So under Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-206(b)(ii), the OW group committed a criminal trespass on Temple Square.  This crime is a Class B misdemeanor, which is potentially punishable up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.00. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-3-204 and 76-3-301.

There are all sorts of crimes which are committed but never prosecuted. The OW group's trespass will almost certainly be one of those. But just because Kate Kelly and her compatriots will never be charged does not mean that the crime was not committed.

 

True. She committed the crime against the Church because she knew she would get away with it.

Contemptible.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

To clarify, the Church wasn't examining whether she commited criminal trespass, but whether she was in a state of apostasy.  Whether it was criminal or not, it was defiant and definitely going against the church's nicely stated wishes.  We have had enough problems with protesters at General Conference.  It's more irritating when it's our own members who are making it less than a peaceful experience for people who have traveled a long way to enjoy it with their families.  I have never had the opportunity to go with my kids, but I would love to.  I would hope that no one would be on Temple Square being a nuisance and especially not "faithful members". 

[ELF1024]

We even call our most vicious action -- a "court of love."

 

"We hereby repeal the effect of your most sacred ordinances and remove all ties to you and those whom you hold most dear, for all of eternity ... with love."

 

If you haven't been through one, on either side either the accused or the poor guy sitting in judgement... then I submit that you don't understand.

 

And it's not... "For All Eternity" that is totally incorrect.

 

"We hereby repeal the effect of your most sacred ordinances and remove all ties to you and those whom you hold most dear, until such time as you repent and humble yourself before the Lord ... with love."

 

 

"Bless your Heart..."

[ERayR]

You speak of the need for spiritual nourishment ... on the part of the men.  What about the need for nourishment for our dear sisters?

 

Well, to borrow another expression from my Baptist heritage, "I once was blind but now I see ..."

 

There are special Women's conferences held that address women's issues.  The just don't turn into KK type demonstrations.

 

From the Bible insert something here about motes and beams.  I'll bet you can even find that in your Baptist heritage.

[Duncan]

Nobody is saying women can't find spiritual nourishment. 

 

 

exactley! women have Women in Time Out thing and BYU Women's Conference, in addition to everything else. There aren't any Men in Time Out or BYU Men's conference! seriously

[MorningStar]

exactley! women have Women in Time Out thing and BYU Women's Conference, in addition to everything else. There aren't any Men in Time Out or BYU Men's conference! seriously

It's Time Out for Women, not Women in Time Out!   

[mormonnewb]

If you haven't been through one, on either side either the accused or the poor guy sitting in judgement... then I submit that you don't understand.

And it's not... "For All Eternity" that is totally incorrect.

"We hereby repeal the effect of your most sacred ordinances and remove all ties to you and those whom you hold most dear, until such time as you repent and humble yourself before the Lord ... with love."

"Bless your Heart..."

You do mean "until you humble yourself before Church authorities", right? Or have our leaders now become Gods, in and of themselves? If so, then someone probably owes Ed Decker an apology

[teddyaware]

You do mean "until you humble yourself before Church authorities", right? Or have our leaders now become Gods, in and of themselves? If so, then someone probably owes Ed Decker an apology

Even though we're in the midst of summer's heat, for some reason the expressions "skating on thin ice" and “winter changes into stone the water of heaven and the heart of man” keep going through my mind.

Edited July 2, 2014 by teddyaware