Proposed sale of Manti street

[Calm]

Ned Funnell, one of the three that spoke against it, moved with his wife to Manti a few years ago to do missionary work among the heathens.  Apparently he and his friends see walking up and down that street as storming the gates of hell. (Or so his friend describes it on a blog)

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[JAHS]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

If you zoom in, you can see the intersection with Hwy 89 has been blocked off for some time.  Looks like cement columns to me.I say "some time" as the sides of the roadway show dirt or gravel built up on the shoulder of 89.

 

Good thing the stop sign is still there so people don't crash through the barriers 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Good thing the stop sign is still there so people don't crash through the barriers 

At least it is not a "deaf child in area" sign that you know has been there for 60 years (my husband remembers it from his childhood, we have several in our area I know have been there for 30 at least).  The only thing that removes signs in Utah it appears are cars slamming into them by accident or widening the road.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ned Funnell, one of the three that spoke against it, moved with his wife to Manti a few years ago to do missionary work among the heathens.  Apparently he and his friends see walking up and down that street as storming the gates of hell. (Or so his friend describes it on a blog)

As far as I can tell, he and his wife are professional anti-Mormons...get paid for their work.

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

At least it is not a "deaf child in area" sign that you know has been there for 60 years (my husband remembers it from his childhood, we have several in our area I know have been there for 30 at least).  The only thing that removes signs in Utah it appears are cars slamming into them by accident or widening the road.

We had one of those "slow children playing" signs in our neighborhood, but there were no slow children on our street that I can remember.

[provoman]

  If the Church owns all the property abutting 100 E at that particular location, then close 100 E at 400, access the Family History Center and Distribution center from HWY 89. It is not clear whether 100 E is required to be closed at HWY 89, the first mention in the article is "The city converted the road to a dead-end street at the recommendation of the Utah Department of Transportation in 2007"

Regarding  "Other Manti community leaders who spoke in favor of selling the road included Jane Braithwaite, Mike Jorgensen, Scott Hintze, Doug Barton and Andy Lyons."

Their endorsement of the sale could add to the claims of the suspect nature of the sale, if google can be trusted Jane Braithwaite and Doug Barton have been directly involved with the Pageant since its inception. Doug Barton was filmed in 2015 interviewing protesters. Scott Hintze is/was a Stake President in Manti and is involved with food prep at the pageant. If Mike Jorgensen is Micheal Jorgensen, then he is the President of the Pageant and has been involved with pageant since his childhood. 

[provoman]

double posted

Edited February 6, 2017 by provoman

[Calm]

Yes, everyone on the city council is LDS.

17 people showed up in support, 3 against.  Do not Mormons have the right to speak up in support of what goes on in their community? Do you think no one at the council was aware of church affiliation?

Did you read the article linked in the opening post?

The pageant has been going for 50 years.  There is going to be a lot of loyalty to it just for that reason.  And it is probably a huge tourist/money draw for businesses.  And they are willing to pay twice the value for a piece of property people probably feel their taxes shouldn't go to maintain anyway.

If there was more protest from the community, but when only three show up to the meeting and at least one makes his living doing missionary work to bring people out of the Church and the Manti pageant is their primary draw/event (if it was his wife as one of the three, she also works for Tri-Grace Ministries and moved out to Utah with him for that reason)...should we think their motives are suspect in protesting as well?

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

The protestors want the use of the land for the same reason the LDS community wants it, to pursue their religious obligations.   Only the LDS are willing to pay for it while the protestors get ticked off because the Church won't allow them to jam up the free porta potties by descending on them in a group in costume or preach that Mormons are destroying the state and going to hell on pageant property...as if that is some fundamental right.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

So it is an attempt to violate the US Constitution.

[Storm Rider]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So it is an attempt to violate the US Constitution.

Please explain to those of us that are not trained lawyers; if the city can legally sell a plot of ground and a buyer buys it - how is it violating the US Constitution?  I have been a real estate professional my entire career and this is done all over the US.  It certainly is not a violation of the US Constitution.

It appears that your issue is that the Buyer is the LDS Church, but the anyone else would be an acceptable Buyer.  This appears to be your personal problem and has nothing to do with a legal transactions between a city and a Buyer

[Calm]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

So it is an attempt to violate the US Constitution.

Cfr please

There is nothing in the Constitution I am aware of that prevents the sale of public land to a church.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

On 2/2/2017 at 9:38 AM, JAHS said:

How do you curb the activities of those annoying those Evangelical street preachers during he Manti Miracle Pageant? Buy the street that they do their protesting on....

Public relations might be having fits over this.

Imagine what the blowback on something like that might be.

What might be done in other communities to curb the activities of missionaries, etc?

I really think there are more constructive ways to build bridges. FWIW.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Public relations might be having fits over this.

Imagine what the blowback on something like that might be.

What might be done in other communities to curb the activities of missionaries, etc?

I really think there are more constructive ways to build bridges. FWIW.

As I mentioned in another post I don't think this is the primary reason for buying it; it just made sense for the church to own and take care of their own driveway.
And missionaries are not as annoying or in your face and rude as these street preachers and demonstrators are.

 

[hagoth7]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

...And missionaries are not as annoying or in your face and rude as these street preachers and demonstrators are.

I beg to differ.

I say that not from *my* viewpoint, but from the point of view of the thousands of doors I knocked on - and from common feedback from those whose area was being tracted.

Seriously, what is more of an annoyance? Someone someone speaking their mind at a public space...where you are free to stop and engage, or to walk on by?

Or someone showing up to speak their mind at your private doorstep...during your limited free time with family?
In many areas of the world, tracting missionaries are viewed as *much* more annoying than someone standing/speaking on a street corner.

And often viewed as much more invasive than telemarketers.

I'm not saying tracting should stop. Not in the least. 

I'm simply conveying the perception of many standing on the other side of the threshold. So we can perhaps be a wee bit more sensitive/responsive to reality.

FWIW.

Edited February 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I beg to differ.

I say that not from *my* viewpoint, but from the point of view of the thousands of doors I knocked on - and from common feedback from those whose area was being tracted.

Seriously, what is more of an annoyance? Someone someone speaking their mind at a public space...where you are completely free to stop and engage, or walk on by?

Or someone showing up to speak their mind at your private doorstep...during your limited free time with family?
In many areas of the world, tracting missionaries are viewed as *much* more annoying than someone standing/speaking on a street corner.

And often viewed as much more invasive than telemarketers.

FWIW.

But those door encounters might last only a few seconds, You say no thank you and close the door. This is not just a street corner where you can walk by. People come to the pageant to feel the spirit of the event and right near where many of them sit to watch the pageant are these people interrupting the event for a long period of time. 

[Calm]

Missionaries don't generally yell in your face when you answer the door or keep yelling when you walk away or use artificial means to increase their volume like bullhorns and microphones.   Depending on how many people are attending and where the street preacher is standing, if they are yelling as the guy in the video is and as I have seen others do, you may not be able to get far enough away to be unable to hear them.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But those door encounters might last only a few seconds, You say no thank you and close the door.

In theory, a man's house is his castle. Not as if I would really know, but in theory, it's supposedly true.

I know you prefer not to concede the point, but a door visit is truly perceived by many as much more invasive to one's privacy and sense of space than a phone call, an email, or someone preaching at a pageant.

...This is not just a street corner where you can walk by. People come to the pageant to feel the spirit of the event and right near where many of them sit to watch the pageant are these people interrupting the event for a long period of time. 

Have only been to the Cumorah pageant when I was a kid - never been to the Manti one.

So feel free to shuttle me down there.

(In exchange, I'll gladly keep the *other* rabble rousers busy/engaged with discussion for hours on end.)  ;0)

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I know you prefer not to concede the point, but a door visit is truly perceived by many as much more invasive to one's privacy and sense of space than a phone call, an email, or someone preaching at a pageant.

Well I guess I'm just different than most people. A Jehovah's witness comes to my door I politely let them say what they want I take their tract and then they are on their way. Doesn't bother me a bit and it only took a minute at most. Different strokes.

[Calm]

While I realize that not everyone feels the same way, I am an extreme introvert when it comes to door knockers...I hate it, especially given it sets off my dog barking so I can't ignore itthough I am fond enough of missionaries and have never had a bad experience with them whatever faith, so once I am at the door and know who it is, okay (salesmen can ruin a day for me).  I will take a dozen missionaries knocking at my door, interrupting whatever to having to listen to someone yelling over a speaker, even if I can barely hear them.  Come up and ask me if I want a conversation...fine, but leave off the noise pollution.

We have some dogs that bark for hours on end so I can't have my windows open.  I think if this happens a lot, the owners should have the dog taken away for neglect and abuse of neighbors.  My dog will do the same, so I never leave her outside unsupervised.  And our windows are kept shut when we leave just in case she decides she needs a bark fest.  Give me dog poop over constant barking anyway.

Noise ignores property boundaries, that is why putting some distance between the yelling and the visitors should be acceptable.  Those  who want to converse will see them as they drive/walk up and can choose to go speak with them there, just as you can choose to keep the door open or closed.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

While I realize that not everyone feels the same way, I am an extreme introvert when it comes to door knockers...I hate it, especially given it sets off my dog barking so I can't ignore it though I am fond enough of missionaries and have never had a bad experience with them whatever faith, so once I am at the door and know who it is, okay (salesmen can ruin a day for me).  I will take a dozen missionaries knocking at my door, interrupting whatever to having to listen to someone yelling over a speaker, even if I can barely hear them.  Come up and ask me if I want a conversation...fine, but leave off the noise pollution.

Fair 'nuf.

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

We have some dogs that bark for hours on end so I can't have my windows open.  I think if this happens a lot, the owners should have the dog taken away for neglect and abuse of neighbors.  My dog will do the same, so I never leave her outside unsupervised.  And our windows are kept shut when we leave just in case she decides she needs a bark fest.  Give me dog poop over constant barking anyway.

Barking dogs? What's causing all the commotion? A caravan? ;0)

(My forefathers centuries ago were described by an observer as singing like barking dogs. Perhaps explains why I should be uninvited by some choirs.)

A time-proven solution to the annoyance of dogs that some might want to silence. Just take the Pratt/Smith-recommended approach - and give the dog a bad name. (For clarity, they weren't recommending the approach - just noting with sapier wit the hypocrisy of self-professed Christians who utilized such unjust tactics.)

"...this was urged as a reason for driving us from our homes, tearing down our houses, ...destroying [the saints'] property, and sending them forth, outcasts, into the world This puts me in mind of the old Quaker, who was very particular about taking life. He was very much annoyed at a dog that came into his store, but not wishing to kill him, he said, 'I'll not kill thee, but I'll give thee a bad name,' so he turned him out, at the same time crying, 'bad dog, bad dog!' Somebody hearing this, thought the Quaker said 'mad dog,' and shot him. After they had turned us out, they gave us a bad name."

http://jod.mrm.org/12/332

...calumny may defame, but...

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Noise ignores property boundaries, that is why putting some distance between the yelling and the visitors should be acceptable.  Those  who want to converse will see them as they drive/walk up and can choose to go speak with them there, just as you can choose to keep the door open or closed.

I understand the reasoning fully. I'm simply suggesting there are more peaceable/constructive ways to resolve the issue.

Edited February 11, 2017 by hagoth7
typo, and add URL

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

 

I understand the reasoning fully. I'm simply suggesting there are more peaceable/constructive ways to resolve the issue.

Such as?

I know a number of people who go to various places street preachers do their thing in order to engage with them in civil discussion so as to prevent the yelling.  With some it works, they won't yell as long as someone is willing to speak with them.  Others will refuse to engage one on one and continue screaming at those around them.

What is your suggestion for the latter group?

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Such as?

I noticed your reply/query on my way out the door.

See my previous post/reply to JAHS. I am quite seriously ready/willing to stand in the gap (if I happen to be available...and in Utah...when pageant time rolls around).

The most effective way to stop someone from talking is to give them something worthwhile to chew on...

 

 

...Or am I misunderstanding what kind of  pageant we're talking about? ;0)

Edited February 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

"The most effective way to stop someone from talking is to give them something worthwhile to chew on..."

I know you are gone unfortunately, but when someone refuses to talk with one and instead continues to resort to the bullhorn, I don't see how they will be able to realize you are willing to,give them something worthwhile to chew on.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[ERayR]

 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

"The most effective way to stop someone from talking is to give them something worthwhile to chew on..."

I know you are gone unfortunately, but when someone refuses to talk with one and instead continues to resort to the bullhorn, I don't see how they will be able to realize you are willing to,give them something worthwhile to chew on.

Simply help him get the bullhorn in his mouth far enough to chew on it.