Who heard the disruption?

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am very confident that is not the persons real name.

No, I am pretty sure that is real.  She is related to John Bronchitis.

[Calm]

It is her Facebook name at least.  She has posted the video on her page, so I am guessing she is okay with me sharing this info.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

People that do things like this have only one motive for doing it and that is to get their mugs on the camera and get their 15 seconds of fame.
If they were truly faithful members of the church they would not cause a disruption like this.  

You don't think she has valid reasons to be upset at how the church handled the Bishop affair and other cases? It seems obvious that a faithful member could be driven to do what this woman did, given how poorly the church handled this and other similar cases over the years.  The church's first move is to always protect its reputation even at the expense of the victims. This really needs to change.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Because the proper way (going to one’s Stake President) generally means that your concern will not be communicated any further.  

It'd be interesting to find out if anyone has gone to a stake president and had their concern escalated (or not). I think not wanting there to be sexual predators (in or out of the church) is a great thing. I also can't help but think that some attempts to address it (such as the one earlier today) are misguided, even if well-meaning. Does that mean I am saying she can't do it? No; just that it doesn't strike me as the best method.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is her Facebook name at least.  She has posted the video on her page, so I am guessing she is okay with me sharing this info.

Yes, and clearly transgender.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You don't think she has valid reasons to be upset at how the church handled the Bishop affair and other cases? It seems obvious that a faithful member could be driven to do what this woman did...

She is probably not currently a member.

That does not mean she shouldn't be upset.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

She is probably not currently a member.

That does not mean she shouldn't be upset.

In reddit discussion the person admitted to leaving the Church 4 years ago and was a Priest - yes the person is transgender. In another comment mentioned that resigned membership. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by provoman

[provoman]

The person also posted on reddit that the disruption was premeditated, had told friends about a fews ago, was in upper blacony and got GC ticket in the stand by line.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

I am very confident that is not the persons real name.

Ummm...

https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Legionnaire

Quote

Legionnaire

 

 

Legionnaire
Affiliation	Summoned creatures
Type	Charr
Profession	Warrior
Level(s)	20
Campaign	Core

The Legionnaire is a Warrior which can be summoned using the Legionnaire Summoning Crystal.

Pros

• Has two elite skills.
  • Can knock down kiting foes with "Coward!".
  • Hundred Blades can deal area of effect damage, can pressure foes, and is still effective even if his attacks are blocked or miss.
• Can inflict Bleeding and Deep Wound on fleshy foes.
• Has a self-healing skill.
• Has adrenaline management.
• Has an IAS skill.

Cons

• Lacks a defensive skill.
• Cannot inflict Bleeding nor Deep Wound on non-fleshy foes.

 

• He has 600 health.
• He wields a Fiery Dragon Sword (which deals physical damage instead of fire damage) and Charr Shield. 
  • During the Canthan New Year, he wields a Tengu Sword and Tengu Shield.
  • During the Dragon Festival, he wields an Imperial Sword and Imperial Shield (their unique counterparts are Imperial Dragon Swordand Imperial Dragon Shield, respectively).
  • During Pirate Week, he wields a Colossal Scimitar and Charr Shield.
  • During the Halloween event, he wields a Vampiric Dragon Sword (which has no life draining nor health degeneration effect) and Skull Shield.
  • During Wintersday, he wields a Candy Cane Sword and Gingerbread Shield.
• There is an everlasting tonic and miniature of him.

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

Did they escort the lady out? (I’m assuming it was a lady.). Was there a group or just this single person involved?

Fox news reported on this and interviewed the lady (it was a lady).  She was escorted out of the building.

[Tacenda]

Here is the woman's comment on reddit below. After giving some thought to this I change my mind. If her shout out helps just one person out there, good for her and the rest of our LDS community or outside the faith also. 

Her comment:

"Hey all, name's Crystal and I was the one that yelled at General Conference. It is far passed due that we confront this.

If you have any questions or comments or whatever, feel free to leave them down below.

Edit: Going to add this here since most people have it. After yelling, I sat down and was within a minute basically told to leave immediately. So I complied and they took me to the security office. They told me that I was going to be arrested. I informed them that their assumptions are not based on the Utah Code and that there was no legal reason to arrest me. After some nonsensical and nonimportant arguing, they let me go and watched as I left church property. They gave me a 1 year ban from church property."

And one of the comments made after hers:

"I just wanted to say thank you.

My step-father sexual assaulted me for months and when the church found out they decided to protect his reputation and get him counseling.

He was at conference today. He heard you. What you said made him open his eyes to what a horrible, awful person he was and is. He has finally come to his senses and is moving out of my moms house, and that is all thanks to you.

Thank you for having the courage to say something I never could."

 

Me: Maybe her comment wasn't silly after all. Maybe it might have seemed inappropriate, but I'll take that. Or maybe I'm being silly. I'm sad they just didn't leave her alone. Rather than tell her they could arrest her. I think it would have been better had everyone looked the other way. Of course it would have been awkward I'm sure so maybe not good, or good for those that think she was wrong to do that.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Because the proper way (going to one’s Stake President) generally means that your concern will not be communicated any further.  

I've wondered when they say you should meet with your stake president, that assumes they have one, I mean it's not easy but not impossible for a non member or former member or whatever to get tickets

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

You don't think she has valid reasons to be upset at how the church handled the Bishop affair and other cases? It seems obvious that a faithful member could be driven to do what this woman did, given how poorly the church handled this and other similar cases over the years.  The church's first move is to always protect its reputation even at the expense of the victims. This really needs to change.

A faithful member might believe a change is needed but would not cause a disruption like that as she (or he) did. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here is the woman's comment on reddit below. After giving some thought to this I change my mind. If her shout out helps just one person out there, good for her and the rest of our LDS community or outside the faith also. 

Her comment:

"Hey all, name's Crystal and I was the one that yelled at General Conference. It is far passed due that we confront this.

If you have any questions or comments or whatever, feel free to leave them down below.

Edit: Going to add this here since most people have it. After yelling, I sat down and was within a minute basically told to leave immediately. So I complied and they took me to the security office. They told me that I was going to be arrested. I informed them that their assumptions are not based on the Utah Code and that there was no legal reason to arrest me. After some nonsensical and nonimportant arguing, they let me go and watched as I left church property. They gave me a 1 year ban from church property."

And one of the comments made after hers:

"I just wanted to say thank you.

My step-father sexual assaulted me for months and when the church found out they decided to protect his reputation and get him counseling.

He was at conference today. He heard you. What you said made him open his eyes to what a horrible, awful person he was and is. He has finally come to his senses and is moving out of my moms house, and that is all thanks to you.

Thank you for having the courage to say something I never could."

 

Me: Maybe her comment wasn't silly after all. Maybe it might have seemed inappropriate, but I'll take that. Or maybe I'm being silly. I'm sad they just didn't leave her alone. Rather than tell her they could arrest her. I think it would have been better had everyone looked the other way. Of course it would have been awkward I'm sure so maybe not good, or good for those that think she was wrong to do that.

I’m my mind, far more important than anything said in conference is to get the church to handle things like the Joseph bishop affair far better.  That is interesting that a guy hidden in church piety had abused someone and the church did not take action.  Surely this stuff needs to stop.  

[provoman]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I’m my mind, far more important than anything said in conference is to get the church to handle things like the Joseph bishop affair far better.  That is interesting that a guy hidden in church piety had abused someone and the church did not take action.  Surely this stuff needs to stop.  

What is the Church responsibility - which very likely holds different legal consequences from US State to US State?

What do you mean by “take action”?

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

What is the Church responsibility - which very likely holds different legal consequences from US State to US State?

What do you mean by “take action”?

I think I’m still reeling from the details of the Joseph bishop incident and perhaps I’m not aloNe on that.  I listened to radio free Mormons poscast of it and am convinced of a few levels of coverup.  That another lady claims another case where coverup occurred seemingly favoring the offender over the offended doesn’t surprise me.

I expect the church to actually hold to a zero tolerance policy of abuse.  Sadly they seem to be lying quite blatantly with that claim.  That is terribly disconcerting.   I’d love the church to fix this problem before they preach faith and repentance to the masses.  If they did they’d earn my respect.  So far it’s been quite the opposite 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

I've wondered when they say you should meet with your stake president, that assumes they have one, I mean it's not easy but not impossible for a non member or former member or whatever to get tickets

Non-members are not entitled to register opposition during sustainings.

But I don't think it's all that difficult for them to obtain admission. They can join the standby line. Or they can  be among the numerous people standing outside the Conference Center holding signs asking for tickets.

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Non-members are not entitled to register opposition during sustainings.

But I don't think it's all that difficult for them to obtain admission. They can join the standby line. Or they can  be among the numerous people standing outside the Conference Center holding signs asking for tickets.

they shouldn't, I mean I wouldn't say diddly-do were I to attend another church and they had something similar. But they can say shout stuff and then get kicked out

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think I’m still reeling from the details of the Joseph bishop incident and perhaps I’m not aloNe on that.  I listened to radio free Mormons poscast of it and am convinced of a few levels of coverup.  That another lady claims another case where coverup occurred seemingly favoring the offender over the offended doesn’t surprise me.

I expect the church to actually hold to a zero tolerance policy of abuse.  Sadly they seem to be lying quite blatantly with that claim.  That is terribly disconcerting.   I’d love the church to fix this problem before they preach faith and repentance to the masses.  If they did they’d earn my respect.  So far it’s been quite the opposite 

I heard the podcast also..and there were things there that were a truth that I hadn't thought of or knew about.  I was so disappointed because I wanted so much for all this not to be true..this is why the prophet needs to apologize and others too on many levels.  It was like a horrible rolling stone.

[provoman]

47 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think I’m still reeling from the details of the Joseph bishop incident and perhaps I’m not aloNe on that.  I listened to radio free Mormons poscast of it and am convinced of a few levels of coverup.  That another lady claims another case where coverup occurred seemingly favoring the offender over the offended doesn’t surprise me.

I expect the church to actually hold to a zero tolerance policy of abuse.  Sadly they seem to be lying quite blatantly with that claim.  That is terribly disconcerting.   I’d love the church to fix this problem before they preach faith and repentance to the masses.  If they did they’d earn my respect.  So far it’s been quite the opposite 

What, in your opinion, is the action from the Church required for you to believe zero tolerance has been applied?

How does an Institution fix an individual problem - that individual problem being the individual who commits abuse.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, CA Steve said:

That is sort of the point of descent. Hopefully I would be sitting near some local new reporter who felt offended enough to give my poor behavior the write up it deserved.

 

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here is the woman's comment on reddit below. After giving some thought to this I change my mind. If her shout out helps just one person out there, good for her and the rest of our LDS community or outside the faith also. 

Her comment:

"Hey all, name's Crystal and I was the one that yelled at General Conference. It is far passed due that we confront this.

If you have any questions or comments or whatever, feel free to leave them down below.

Edit: Going to add this here since most people have it. After yelling, I sat down and was within a minute basically told to leave immediately. So I complied and they took me to the security office. They told me that I was going to be arrested. I informed them that their assumptions are not based on the Utah Code and that there was no legal reason to arrest me. After some nonsensical and nonimportant arguing, they let me go and watched as I left church property. They gave me a 1 year ban from church property."

And one of the comments made after hers:

"I just wanted to say thank you.

My step-father sexual assaulted me for months and when the church found out they decided to protect his reputation and get him counseling.

He was at conference today. He heard you. What you said made him open his eyes to what a horrible, awful person he was and is. He has finally come to his senses and is moving out of my moms house, and that is all thanks to you.

Thank you for having the courage to say something I never could."

 

Me: Maybe her comment wasn't silly after all. Maybe it might have seemed inappropriate, but I'll take that. Or maybe I'm being silly. I'm sad they just didn't leave her alone. Rather than tell her they could arrest her. I think it would have been better had everyone looked the other way. Of course it would have been awkward I'm sure so maybe not good, or good for those that think she was wrong to do that.

Wow...sometimes I think members just don't have a clue and it is things like this behind scenes that gives reality to the pain and aloneness of it all.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here is the woman's comment on reddit below. After giving some thought to this I change my mind. If her shout out helps just one person out there, good for her and the rest of our LDS community or outside the faith also. 

Her comment:

"Hey all, name's Crystal and I was the one that yelled at General Conference. It is far passed due that we confront this.

If you have any questions or comments or whatever, feel free to leave them down below.

Edit: Going to add this here since most people have it. After yelling, I sat down and was within a minute basically told to leave immediately. So I complied and they took me to the security office. They told me that I was going to be arrested. I informed them that their assumptions are not based on the Utah Code and that there was no legal reason to arrest me. After some nonsensical and nonimportant arguing, they let me go and watched as I left church property. They gave me a 1 year ban from church property."

And one of the comments made after hers:

"I just wanted to say thank you.

My step-father sexual assaulted me for months and when the church found out they decided to protect his reputation and get him counseling.

He was at conference today. He heard you. What you said made him open his eyes to what a horrible, awful person he was and is. He has finally come to his senses and is moving out of my moms house, and that is all thanks to you.

Thank you for having the courage to say something I never could."

 

Me: Maybe her comment wasn't silly after all. Maybe it might have seemed inappropriate, but I'll take that. Or maybe I'm being silly. I'm sad they just didn't leave her alone. Rather than tell her they could arrest her. I think it would have been better had everyone looked the other way. Of course it would have been awkward I'm sure so maybe not good, or good for those that think she was wrong to do that.

I find it highly unlikely that her comment triggered actual repentance if this man has been justifying it for years.  Was this an anonymous comment or can the person be found and family verified?  I am not saying there aren't men out there who have denied abusing stepchildren when they did and church leaders accepted the denial, I am in fact quite certain there are...hopefully very few, but I fear there are more than a few if one includes everyone currently living.  My doubt is that a stranger's shout in the middle of conference would somehow penetrate the very deep rationalizations a predator must develop to be able to live with theirselves where nothing had before, not even counseling.  Notice her mom was going along with it all as well, not just the alleged church leaders.

As far as arresting her, I am iffy on that given none of the previous shouters said they were told they would be arrested, but that might be the difference in what they said.

I do not believe it is right for a nonmember to disrupt a sacred meeting of any faith for whatever reason.  Imagine if a Mormon did the same in a Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Evangelical, or whatever worship service.  Would you give them a pass?

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I've wondered when they say you should meet with your stake president, that assumes they have one, I mean it's not easy but not impossible for a non member or former member or whatever to get tickets

The stake or district president has stewardship over everyone in the stake or district boundaries, whatever his or her current status in the Church of Jesus Christ, member, non-member, or former member.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The stake or district president has stewardship over everyone in the stake or district boundaries, whatever his or her current status in the Church of Jesus Christ, member, non-member, or former member.

I still say it's not the prerogative of a non-member to vote during sustainings in Church meetings, much less register opposition.

From Church Handbook 2

Quote

If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position. Dissenting votes from nonmembers need not be considered.

(Emphasis mine)

Edited April 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd