Church to require vaccine passports to attend Christmas events at Temple Sqaure

[10THAmendment]

https://www.ksl.com/article/50277320/limited-temple-square-christmas-lights-to-return-vaccine-required-for-holiday-programs

[Hamba Tuhan]

One can access the original media release here. This is the line you're referring to:

Quote

Attendees at any events on Temple Square are required to wear masks and be vaccinated if in the eligible age categories.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

Good thing Christmas at Temple Square has been a shadow of its former glory for several years.  Not really much incentive to go anymore.

A decade ago it was truly spectacular.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Good thing Christmas at Temple Square has been a shadow of its former glory for several years.

Good thing?

[pogi]

Oh the tyranny!  How could they be so deluded?  How could the church not see that they are playing into the hands of secret combinations seeking to overthrow our liberty?

Its a slippery slope from here.  It all starts with Christmas at temple square. What is next?  Church? The temple itself?  Missionaries are already mandated to inoculate themselves with poison.  So long liberty, it was good while it lasted.

I think I am having an existential crisis...where is my Xanax?

[Canadiandude]

Good for the church for requiring such. It’ll anger some people but they’re probably the people we should be angering.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Good thing Christmas at Temple Square has been a shadow of its former glory for several years.  Not really much incentive to go anymore.

A decade ago it was truly spectacular.

Because people who get vaccinated like the Church has asked them to don’t deserve the fun and beauty like those who were the real faithful in the past did?

Or so those who won’t budge on getting vaccinated can feel more easily be self satisfied with their grapes were sour anyway attitudes?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good thing?

You know, so the people who refuse to be vaccinated don't have to feel like they are missing anything.  Kind of a "I didn't want to go to your stupid lame party anyway!!" reaction. 

It's not true though.  I've been in the last 3 years and I've been ten years ago and 15 years before that and it's only gotten better, especially as they have expanded temple square outside of the old temple walls and the lighting technology has improved.

[Danzo]

Isn't it all broadcast anyway?

Unvaccinated people can just watch it like the rest of us who live to far away to visit. 

[rongo]

It's not the Christmas devotional, it's Temple Square during Christmas season. 

My first thought is that, contrary to the thread title, it will probably be enforced like mask/vaccine requirements at church, temple open houses, etc. i.e., requirements are announced, but not enforced at all. I doubt they're going to be checking papers or pushing swabs up people's noses as the lines bottleneck at checkpoints. 

 

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Oh the tyranny!  How could they be so deluded?  How could the church not see that they are playing into the hands of secret combinations seeking to overthrow our liberty?

Its a slippery slope from here.  It all starts with Christmas at temple square. What is next?  Church? The temple itself?  Missionaries are already mandated to inoculate themselves with poison.  So long liberty, it was good while it lasted.

I think I am having an existential crisis...where is my Xanax?

If you are attempting to poke fun at those opposed to government overreach, this does not work.  A constitutionalist would have no problem whatsoever with the Church making such a mandate.  The constitution allows businesses, churches and private entities to require whatever they want and rightly so.  With very few exceptions, the government should not be able to control private entities.  What many are concerned with is the constitutionality of government mandates, not private ones.  Make fun all you want, but your little exercise in mockery is nothing but a strawman.  Ironically, if your faux outrage, above, was real, you would actually be acting contrary to those of whom you are trying to make fun.  Maybe that is part of the problem, if that is the argument you think some are making, then you are not understanding them and are, instead, talking past them.

It is much like, in our State, a law was passed, years ago, banning cigarette smoking in all business.  I hate cigarette smoke with a passion, but I do not agree with the law.  A business should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.  If someone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they don't have to go there.  Back before the law, that is what I did.  If I walked into a restaurant or other business that smelled like smoke, I turned around and walked out.  As much as I enjoy a smoke free environment, I don't agree with the law.

Edited November 9, 2021 by T-Shirt

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Isn't it all broadcast anyway?

Unvaccinated people can just watch it like the rest of us who live to far away to visit. 

The Christmas lights on temple square a different animal than the Christmas Devotional.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not the Christmas devotional, it's Temple Square during Christmas season. 

My first thought is that, contrary to the thread title, it will probably be enforced like mask/vaccine requirements at church, temple open houses, etc. i.e., requirements are announced, but not enforced at all. I doubt they're going to be checking papers or pushing swabs up people's noses as the lines bottleneck at checkpoints. 

 

That's what I'm thinking.  Otherwise it seems like the only real way to enforce it would be by using appointments and having someone check as each person entered (which would be nearly impossible since there are many many different ways to get to the lights, most of them not through any kind of a gate.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

If you are attempting to poke fun at those opposed to government overreach, this does not work.  A constitutionalist would have no problem whatsoever with the Church making such a mandate.  The constitution allows businesses, churches and private entities to require whatever they want and rightly so.  With very few exceptions, the government should not be able to control private entities.  What many are concerned with is the constitutionality of government mandates, not private ones.  Make fun all you want, but your little exercise in mockery is nothing but a strawman.  Ironically, if your faux outrage, above, was real, you would actually be acting contrary to those of whom you are trying to make fun.  Maybe that is part of the problem, if that is the argument you think some are making, then you are not understanding them and are, instead, talking past them.

It is much like, in our State, a law was passed, years ago, banning cigarette smoking in all business.  I hate cigarette smoke with a passion, but I do not agree with the law.  A business should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.  If someone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they don't have to go there.  Back before the law, that is what I did.  If I walked into a restaurant or other business that smelled like smoke, I turned around and walked out.  As much as I enjoy a smoke free environment, I don't agree with the law.

To be fair, I think that people do that bolded above because so many people who are anti-government mandate are also anti private business mandates.

I've heard so many people rant about the idea of government mandates in one breath and then rant about private business mandates in the other that it's clear that they do not actually believe that private entities should be able to set their own mandates.  You saw this especially with people who would stand in a private business (like Costco or Target), and video themselves telling the employee kicking them out for not wearing a mask that "they have rights!".

I support those who do not approve of government mandates but believe that private companies should be able to mandate whatever they want.  I just don't know that many people who are against vaccine mandates and mask mandates who believe the part about private companies.

[T-Shirt]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

To be fair, I think that people do that bolded above because so many people who are anti-government mandate are also anti private business mandates.

Those people may exist, but I would disagree with them.  In my State, the people I know who were upset over mask mandates in stores, were upset because it was the Governor who mandated it and they were disappointed that businesses were caving in to government pressure.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, T-Shirt said:

Those people may exist, but I would disagree with them.  In my State, the people I know who were upset over mask mandates in stores, were upset because it was the Governor who mandated it and they were disappointed that businesses were caving in to government pressure.

In my state, people were up in arms about stores requiring it way before the government got involved with any mandates.  That kind of stole all of their 'I'm just mad the companies are caving to government pressure' thunder.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

If you are attempting to poke fun at those opposed to government overreach, this does not work.  A constitutionalist would have no problem whatsoever with the Church making such a mandate.  The constitution allows businesses, churches and private entities to require whatever they want and rightly so.  With very few exceptions, the government should not be able to control private entities.  What many are concerned with is the constitutionality of government mandates, not private ones.  Make fun all you want, but your little exercise in mockery is nothing but a strawman.  Ironically, if your faux outrage, above, was real, you would actually be acting contrary to those of whom you are trying to make fun.  Maybe that is part of the problem, if that is the argument you think some are making, then you are not understanding them and are, instead, talking past them.

It is much like, in our State, a law was passed, years ago, banning cigarette smoking in all business.  I hate cigarette smoke with a passion, but I do not agree with the law.  A business should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.  If someone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they don't have to go there.  Back before the law, that is what I did.  If I walked into a restaurant or other business that smelled like smoke, I turned around and walked out.  As much as I enjoy a smoke free environment, I don't agree with the law.

My outrage is not faux.  Government overreach is just one area of concern mentioned on these forums.  While, yes, a constitutionalist would see no legal (as if that is all they care about) problem with the church having such a mandate, a Covid/vaccine conspiracy theorist on the other hand (which there are some of around here), would have a problem with the church playing into the narrative of secret combinations.  Even though they may technically see it as constitutional, they believe the church is playing into the narrative set by secret combinations.  Constitutional or not, they have a problem with the church mandating "poison" (yes, that is what it has been called on here) for anyone, including all missionaries.  They think the prophet is deluded on this issue and has made a grievous mistake in even recommending the vaccine/poison and masks/bridle.  They call us (including the prophets) "sheeple" while they are lions.  They believe that the vaccine is being used by secret combinations to ultimately steal our liberty.  This act of mandating the vaccine by the church validates the vaccine and thus the evil narrative to strip us of liberty.  The church has whole-bodily jumped upon the slippery slope towards such tyranny in validating the vaccine/mask narrative conspired by evil design.    Everything I am poking fun of has been said on these forums.   

Edited November 9, 2021 by pogi

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

If you are attempting to poke fun at those opposed to government overreach, this does not work.  A constitutionalist would have no problem whatsoever with the Church making such a mandate.  The constitution allows businesses, churches and private entities to require whatever they want and rightly so.  With very few exceptions, the government should not be able to control private entities.  What many are concerned with is the constitutionality of government mandates, not private ones.  Make fun all you want, but your little exercise in mockery is nothing but a strawman.  Ironically, if your faux outrage, above, was real, you would actually be acting contrary to those of whom you are trying to make fun.  Maybe that is part of the problem, if that is the argument you think some are making, then you are not understanding them and are, instead, talking past them.

It is much like, in our State, a law was passed, years ago, banning cigarette smoking in all business.  I hate cigarette smoke with a passion, but I do not agree with the law.  A business should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.  If someone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they don't have to go there.  Back before the law, that is what I did.  If I walked into a restaurant or other business that smelled like smoke, I turned around and walked out.  As much as I enjoy a smoke free environment, I don't agree with the law.

But you and I both know that most people who claim to be constitutionalists are only situationally so. The vast majority of the anti-vaccine and anti-masker crowds are also regularly screaming about businesses that require masks or proof of vaccination when there is no legal requirement to do so. They like to scream about 1984 and other things they don’t understand.

They aren’t talking past them. Assuming you believe what you say you are not representative of the movement and attempting to paint them as being equally consistent about mandates is disingenuous.

Edit: I also disagree that the mandates are government overreach or violate the constitution in any way. This is a longstanding precedent in US law. On top of that George Washington ordered the first mandated vaccination in U.S. history and it may have cost us the Revolutionary War if he hadn’t. You can argue that things should be the way you describe but implying that ‘back in the early days’ it was that way is silly. You didn’t explicitly say this but many do.

Edited November 9, 2021 by The Nehor

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

My outrage is not faux. 

I was referring to your post where you were pretending to be angry over the Church requiring masks and vaccinations.

Quote

 a Covid/vaccine conspiracy theorist on the other hand (which there are some of around here), would have a problem with the church playing into the narrative of secret combinations. 

I don't know who these conspiracy theorists are, although, as with most things, I'm sure they exist, but I think they are an extreme minority among members of the Church.  I typically don't pay much attention to them and if they believe what you said above, I disagree with them, strenuously.

Quote

Even though they may technically see it as constitutional, they believe the church is playing into the narrative set by secret combinations.  Constitutional or not, they have a problem with the church mandating "poison" (yes, that is what it has been called on here) for anyone, including all missionaries.  They think the prophet is deluded on this issue and has made a grievous mistake in even recommending the vaccine/poison and masks/bridle.  They call us (including the prophets) "sheeple" while they are lions.  They believe that the vaccine is being used by secret combinations to ultimately steal our liberty.  This act of mandating the vaccine by the church validates the vaccine and thus the evil narrative to strip us of liberty.  The church has whole-bodily jumped upon the slippery slope towards such tyranny in validating the vaccine/mask narrative conspired by evil design.    Everything I am poking fun of has been said on these forums. 

I think your outrage over this is directed at an extremely small group and ignoring them is generally far more effective. 

[T-Shirt]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

But you and I both know that most people who claim to be constitutionalists are only situationally so.

I don't know this.  There are wingnuts to be found in every group of people, but I don't personally know any strict constitutionalist who would advocate as you claim.  To the contrary, if anyone argues against the right of businesses to make their own rules, they are not a constitutionalist....at all.

Quote

The vast majority of the anti-vaccine and anti-masker crowds are also regularly screaming about businesses that require masks or proof of vaccination when there is no legal requirement to do so.

You seem to want to label anyone opposed to government mandates as a crazy anti-vaxxer.  I know these crazies exist, but most of the people shouted down and referred to as anti-vaxxers, are not anti-vax.  I have been called anti-vax many times.  It is a tactic used to silence the opposition.  Virtually all of those opposed to government mandates that I know, listen to or read, are not anti-vax at all, but are called that in hopes that the ignorant won't pay any attention to them.  And just to make it clear, again, I am very pro vaccine.  My wife and I were vaccinated early and I have received my booster.  I often encourage others to be vaccinated as well.  But I don't agree that the government should be mandating these things.  Reasonable minds can disagree.

A person can be upset that a business requires certain things for entry and think they are wrong in their demands and still recognize their right to do it.  If they believe that a private business mandate somehow violates their individual rights, then they are not a constitutionalist, they are just wrong.

Edited November 9, 2021 by T-Shirt

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I don't know this.  There are wingnuts to be found in every group of people, but I don't personally know any strict constitutionalist who would advocate as you claim.  To the contrary, if anyone argues against the right of businesses to make their own rules, they are not a constitutionalist....at all.

You seem to want to label anyone opposed to government mandates as a crazy anti-vaxxer.  I know these crazies exist, but most of the people shouted down and referred to as anti-vaxxers, are not anti-vax.  I have been called anti-vax many times.  It is a tactic used to silence the opposition.  Virtually all of those opposed to government mandates that I know, listen to or read, are not anti-vax at all, but are called that in hopes that the ignorant won't pay any attention to them.  And just to make it clear, again, I am very pro vaccine.  My wife and I were vaccinated early and I have received my booster.  I often encourage others to be vaccinated as well.  But I don't agree that the government should be mandating these things.  Reasonable minds can disagree.

A person can be upset that a business requires certain things for entry and think they are wrong in their demands and still recognize their right to do it.  If they believe that a private business mandate somehow violates their individual rights, then they are not a constitutionalist, they are just wrong.

In this situation the wingnuts are not the fringe. They are the orators and leaders.

I have found nothing in the constitution that would make a strict constitutionalist be against a vaccine mandate because of a strict reading of the text.

Edit: Many of the leaders and orators speak as you do and say they are not anti-vaccine but are just “asking questions” and concerned about the implications. They got the vaccine. It has been morbidly entertaining watching where the line is between the propagandists exploiting the movement (who got the vaccine) and the duped who believe them and didn’t get the vaccine.

Edited November 9, 2021 by The Nehor

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The Christmas lights on temple square a different animal than the Christmas Devotional.

There are actually a number of 'events' mentioned in the media release in addition to the devotional: a musical presentation called 'Witnesses of Christ' on the last Sunday of November plus daily events in the Tabernacle and the Conference Centre Theatre. I had assumed that the reference to 'attendees at any events' was specifically about people who attend one of these performances, not those who merely walk around, but I could be wrong.

4 hours ago, rongo said:

My first thought is that, contrary to the thread title, it will probably be enforced like mask/vaccine requirements at church, temple open houses, etc. i.e., requirements are announced, but not enforced at all.

Yep, I suspect it'll be just like a temple recommend interview: clearly express expectations and then rely on people having enough integrity to respond honestly.

[2BizE]

If the church doesn’t set a precedent of following Covid guidelines, then it will lose respect.  

[pogi]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I was referring to your post where you were pretending to be angry over the Church requiring masks and vaccinations.

I don't know who these conspiracy theorists are, although, as with most things, I'm sure they exist, but I think they are an extreme minority among members of the Church.  I typically don't pay much attention to them and if they believe what you said above, I disagree with them, strenuously.

I think your outrage over this is directed at an extremely small group and ignoring them is generally far more effective. 

They are not few.  I am glad that you strenuously disagree with them.  My post was not in reference to you. 

These people are close to home.  They are in my own family, they are in my ward, they are on these forums, they are all over.

Read nuclearfuels and Rober J Anderson's posts on here.  

ldsfreedomforum.org represents only a tiny fraction of this disgusting and dangerous mindset which is festering in the church. 

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54297 (138 pages on this thread!)

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63848 

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=62167 

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63778

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

The church has whole-bodily jumped upon the slippery slope towards such tyranny in validating the vaccine/mask narrative conspired by evil design. Everything I am poking fun of has been said on these forums.   

And not just here. I have two Latter-day Saint friends in America who religiously follow a false prophet by the name of Eric Moutsos, as does the wife of my nephew who lives in America. These are exactly the kinds of things he and his disciples post/say. He currently has a meme on his Facebook page that visually compares those who comply with workplace vaccine requirements to the Roman soldiers who crucified the Saviour. His post about Christmas events at Temple Square has, so far, attracted over 1,100 comments. A representative sampling of the most liked ones:

• 'Until I hear taking this shot is a “commandment”[,] I will no longer be loosing [sic] sleep over my conviction to abstain from the “arm of flesh” an[d] allow poison to be injected into my body. I have prayed to “hear him” and the answer is “no”[.] If the doors of the temple or the church are closed to me[,] the sin will be on the leadership'.
• 'I'm trying to talk my daughter OUT of a mission over all this. I would have been thrilled for her to go, but not so much after the past 2 years'.
• 'Cut your ties with this institution. They may hold temple square but they do not hold the square on truth or the gospel'.
• 'This is deeply troubling. It makes me wonder if I’m a “tare.” I guess I’ll own it if that’s the case. I’m not going to lose my faith[,] but I’m also not taking the poison. If it comes to it, I’ll worship and study the gospel on my own'.
• 'Preach it[,] brother[,] preach it[.] virtue signaling and letting the government's [k]now they're falling in step[.] prove me otherwise'.
• 'How can we get mad and fight back towards the governments and business doing this and then allowing the church to do the same thing[?] Allowing them so much grace when they are part of this mess. I am a faithful member and not sure what to do at this point'.
• 'I am sad and angry! They are playing politics! The church should still speak out and stands for truth!'
• 'Really regret getting married here, repenting of it now'.
• 'Hard pass for me but enjoy visiting beautifully lit and consciously voluntary prison camp compliantly crawling with blood clots and ADE, and sieg heil to your fellow comrades while you're there'.

I could go on and on. But yeah, you're spot-on in your impersonation, @pogi.

Quote

My outrage is not faux.

Neither is mine. I heard from my sister in America earlier this week that my nephew's 30-something wife, though out of hospital some weeks back, is still on bottled oxygen and may be for a long, long time (rest of her life?). She of course exercised her personal liberty to skip the 'poison' of the vaccine and the trampling of her rights and thereby chose a long stay in ICU and a Covid ward instead. Apparently, though, she didn't really have Covid, according to her Facebook posts. (I can't confirm since, freedom-lover that she is, she blocked me from seeing her Facebook page after I pointed out in a comment that the anti-vaxx 'doctor' whose video she had shared can be seen in another discussing a previous life in the Lost City of Atlantis ...

And of the two Church member friends who've been sucked in by this Moutsos bloke and his outrage-peddling, one of them lost her unvaccinated brother and father in the space of a single week several months back. Her public response: no one has the right to judge her or her family's decisions. Oh, and something about burning the governor's mansion to the ground ...

Edited November 10, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan