Quantcast
Utah

Brigham City banned church flier distribution near new Mormon temple, lawsuit says

Comments

Return To Article
  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    doesn't this "christian" church have better things to do? go knock on doors. too much work.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 5:51 p.m.

    Just let these people do their thing and have plenty of trash cans dedicated for paper only recycling available. As long as they do not impede the pedestrian traffic and do not cause a disturbance who cares?

    Every media circus needs willing participants to be the 'clowns'. You get to choose which part you play according to your behavior in the public eye.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 11, 2012 5:53 p.m.

    This is the part when our Republican friends should jump against the intervention of government attempting to silence a group of citizens.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Sept. 11, 2012 6:25 p.m.

    I'm active LDS and am annoyed by "antiMormon" literature, but if this group was really not impeding traffic, then I think they might have a point.

  • HappyLDSUte PROVO, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    I think the part that bothers me is that the Main Street church wants to do this during the open house of the Temple. I don't really care what you believe, but this is being disrespectful to the LDS community. The perfect expression to describe what they are doing is "raining on the parade." You want to pass out fliers at a Mormon temple? Fine. But passing out fliers aimed at deterring one from the LDS faith DURING what (for the LDS people there) should be an exciting, happy moment is not only disruptive- it's insensitive. Pick a different day to do it. That's all. Just pick a different day and I'd be totally cool with it.

  • HappyLDSUte PROVO, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 6:33 p.m.

    Correction to my previous comments. I spaced the whole realization that the open house lasts for a few weeks. As long as the Main Street Church isn't there for the entirety of the open house, I wouldn't be too bothered.

  • Braxton ogden, ut
    Sept. 11, 2012 6:49 p.m.

    I agree with sammyg. I think there should be plenty of paper recycle bins along the path. Everyone should take the paper, two or three even and immediately tear it up and put in the waste bin. Once the flyers are handed out the sooner the better, and discarded then they have nothing left but to go home. They also wasted their money in printing cost. Sounds like a good plan to me.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:02 p.m.

    What about my right to "freedom from speech"? I can turn off a TV or radio, or leave an internet website, but if I want to go to the temple, the only way I can be free of talk I don't wish to hear, is for the city to protect my right by requiring that I pass a certain route and that members of the anti-LDS church be elsewhere for those who wish to obtain their material. Why do they HAVE to be in my path to the temple? I can only guess, but I bet I could guess correctly.

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:07 p.m.

    I wonder why the Main Street Church would want to make it's presence known during another church's activity. I have never seen the LDS church involved in this type of behavior. The pastor/minister should advise his/her congregation to be respectful and think of another way of proselyting. OR, wouldn't it be nice for this church to serve lemonade to those attending the open house (without any self serving purpose)as a Goodwill gesture? That would say more about how they follow Jesus than handing out flyers and would be so much more appreciated.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:08 p.m.

    The actions of this "church" are purely for harassment and hate. On those grounds, they should be barred from any public sidewalk. Let's call it what it is...

  • jazzbird Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:10 p.m.

    Sounds like a desperate attempt to obtain more money for printing and publicity.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:10 p.m.

    Re: ". . . this is being disrespectful to the LDS community."

    Of course it is. That's the whole point.

    But it is protected activity, so long as it doesn't impede traffic and create a safety hazard.

    I gotta throw in with those who say, smile at 'em, take their printed matter, and make sure there are lots of trash cans nearby.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:11 p.m.

    Let them distribute their fliers. Never interrupt an adversary when they are making fools of themselves. The ACLU can joust with other windmills.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:18 p.m.

    I agree w/ the consensus thst it is a desperate attempt for publicity and bad timing.

    If its deemed public access and the other church isn't a nuisance then it s/b allowed.

    Bottom line; its the 21st Century I don't need a flier. If I'm curious about something then I''ll *use the google*

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:29 p.m.

    People do not have to take the flyer. If they do they can always toss it. Speech issues prevail even that which is ugly.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:43 p.m.

    When the Louisville Temple was to have its open house I informed my Jewish friend that there would be protesters. He was shocked and rather angry. He offered to go and protest the protesters.

    I thanked him but explained President Hinckley's policy of kindness and tolerance. Still, he found the idea of protesting the opening of religious facility to be very odd. I suppose that this church would find the prospect of other religions protesting the opening of their next building to be rather odd as well. No worries. That is not "how we roll".

    May God bless them with love and understanding. Us too. There is never too much of those.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:44 p.m.

    We seem to live in a society that has taken "free speech" to the extreme, so everyone has to endure those with differing, even spiteful opinions, during what should be a time of rejoicing. It's like that Baptist Group from the midwest that demonstrates during funerals of veterans.

    I guess it's too hard for the courts to decide what may be offensive so everything is allowed everywhere for any reason. Welcome to the seamy side of living in a land where liberal judges have ruled the day for decades. Too bad someone doesn't ruin a family wedding for them (though I'd hate to see innocent folks suffer that) in the name of "free speech" and see how they felt.

    Sometimes we need freedom FROM certain things, not just OF certain things. At least this type of thing won't continue likely past the open house because then the bang will be gone from such behavior.

  • Liam_McP Richland, WA
    Sept. 11, 2012 7:48 p.m.

    I'm not sure I understand why there is such a negative reaction in these comments. It's downright hateful toward the non-Mormons, it's embarrassing. The Brigham City ordinance is clearly unconstitutional. That's the issue. The same freedom of religion that has allowed Mormonism to flourish into what it is today is now being squelched to curb the freedom of people of a different faith. Agree or disagree with their message, they are citizens of Utah, which last I checked is still a part of the United States, and should therefore honor our constitutional tradition of permitting free speech, press, and religion.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 8:05 p.m.

    @ Liam_McP

    I'll take a shot at answering your question. Yes, it is the USA and the Constitution is in play. There are also powers granted to local governments to regulate activities that can be deemed to be in the safety of the public. As everyone who has looked at US history knows, some times there is an over-reach in trying to establish what is best; other times, not; hence the lawsuit to let a court make that determination.

    That aside, everyone also knows that few cities ever will have a new temple built in their boundaries and in a place like Brigham City the vast majority of residents see it as a time of rejoicing and spiritual renewal. To have a group hook onto that with their own brand of anti-Mormon message just because its more convenient or accesses a larger audience, makes one question their real motives. And to do such a thing is less than classy or benevolent or even in the spirit of what the "Bible" teaches.

    Agreed, the solution is to simply turn the other cheek, but I hope you can see why this action is offensive to many.

  • UTCProgress American Fork, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 8:06 p.m.

    Holy cow, for a state that wraps itself in the Constitution every chance it gets, the citizens seem to be willing to discard it when it becomes an annoyance. Freedom of speech is absolute, even if you completely disagree with what is being said. Maybe it would be cool for cities in other states to limit where LDS missionaries could proselyte, because the citizens don't want to be burdened by religious speech that might cause them to question their religion.

    The hypocrisy of the commenters (and I would guess a large percentage of Utah's population) is astounding.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 8:10 p.m.

    So I want to know exactly what you all are claiming is hate speech about what they are handing out. the article states that their literature discusses the difference between the two churches. Do they make false claims about the LDS church, do they somehow degrade the LDS church? I honestly want to know because nothing in the article seems to support your claims.

  • justme001 Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 8:14 p.m.

    This is easy. If they are passing out fliers on a public sidewalk and not blocking pedestrian movement then they are free to do so. If you do not like that fact then that is your personal issue, that is why it is called a public street. There is not just one religion so you have to get used to others pushing their religion as those push the one religion yo believe in. As they say what goes around comes around.

  • kspncr West Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 11, 2012 8:45 p.m.

    I think some commenters on here are either missing the point or just didn't read the article. Free speech wasn't taken away. The church was given an area to do their thing. The city rep said they were given access to the main sidewalks bordering the temple but that wasn't enough for them. They wanted to be able to confront people the moment they stepped off the buses. That kind of attitude makes me seriously question what their motives really were.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 8:52 p.m.

    @Liam_McP,

    I am no constitutional expert, but I always thought that free speech can be limited if the speech endangers others, or is a safety issue. It appears this is the issue, not the Mormons attempt to "curb the freedom of people of a different faith" as you put it. You misrepresent it.

    That being said, unless there is a very CLEAR sign of danger, I say let them hand out the bills. I am active LDS, and others' opinions of my religion don't bother me, and they shouldn't bother any Latter-Day Saint.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Sept. 11, 2012 9:15 p.m.

    @UTCProgress,
    No, Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and I reference the Supreme Court ruling of yelling "fire" in a theater. I do think the Main Street Church has a complaint, let them distribute their flyers as they wish. I would however have officers there to monitor if they aggressively pursue anyone into the street, hence the safety issue. If it's a safety issue, the courts will rule in favor of the ordinance, if it's truly an infringement of free speech they will rule that way.

    Let the courts have their say.

  • Troy06 OREM, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 9:58 p.m.

    The ACLU is wrong. Why are they so often on the wrong side?

  • Anthracite Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 10:06 p.m.

    I am an active Latter-day Saint. The Main Street Church should be allowed to pass out the fliers. It is the same First Amendment that protects our right to practice our faith.

    I've read the Main Street Church's website. Let them pass out those fliers and let people compare.

  • Tiina,OR Philomath, OR
    Sept. 11, 2012 10:13 p.m.

    I know they probably feel obligated to "warn" people about the Mormon church and religion and that is fine if they feel its important and their duty but to have a lawsuit going on does not make them look very good. It then comes political and not so much about the religion anymore.I think they are not showing much Christian love for fellow man OR even give a right for Mormons to live their religion in peace (which they want to have them selves I am sure)and to have an open house of our temple in peace We do not go and protest in front of their church. We do believe and trust in the gift of agency that people are smart enough to choose and see for them selves about what they hear and see. Weird thinking and kind of backwards..oh well, the rock will roll forward anyway.

  • Rob Logan, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 10:36 p.m.

    I for one would never pass out fliers from my church at another churches opening. It is called RESPECT. First amendment rights or not, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Sept. 11, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    I am surprised that the protestors weren't in Church praying for the victims of 9/11 and their families instead of protesting.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Sept. 11, 2012 11:50 p.m.

    I guess they still haven't gotten over the fact that their men, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are no longer a contenders for the presidency.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Sept. 11, 2012 11:51 p.m.

    "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where or what they may."

    The Brigham City leadership forgot that.

  • Seposm Evanston, WY
    Sept. 12, 2012 12:42 a.m.

    UTCProgress, I know in some places missionaries have to apply for and receive permits to tract.

    If you read the article, they are allowed on the sidewalks around the property, the only place that they are restricting them from is the bus unloading zone on the west side of the property. with 18,000 people a day going through, the chance of an accident happening is real, additional people congesting the bus unloading zones would raise the risk of an accident occurring.

    to be fair in comparison, there are laws about how close you can be while protesting an abortion clinic, across the street in Vallejo, CA. which was upheld by the supreme court, so cities certainly have the right to dictate buffer zones, and in this case it is pretty limited.

    The church has always been gracious to it's protesters and has always encouraged its members to be civil and courteous to them. I have always preferred a smile and "no thank you" as I passed.

  • johnnylingo62 Gray, TN
    Sept. 12, 2012 3:08 a.m.

    If you've ever tried to attend a gathering at an Obama speech, or go near the hotel he's staying in, or near any venue he's at, you will find that there is a FENCED off area that protesters are allowed to congregate in and show their "signs" in protest or support of him or his policies. This is very common today - segregated areas to express your free speech rights. The US Federal Government condones and practices this type of "permit process" and allocated spaces for protest. Apparently this is not unconstitutional.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 3:53 a.m.

    @Anthracite

    Agreed. What my fellow Latter-day Saints need to remember is, freedom of speech doesn't just include the speech we like, but also the speech we dislike.

    I know many critics of our church do a lot of stomping around whenever one of our leaders say something they don't like (comments by Boyd K. Packer and Dallin H. Oaks quickly come to mind) but for all their marches, petitions and chants most of them know they can not take away our freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

    I hope this Christian church is allowed to pass out flyers at the Brigham City Temple and if they're flyers turn out to state things which are either half-true or totally untrue, as is often the case, they will only have themselves to blame if one or two people decide to chat with our missionaries.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 4:16 a.m.

    Freedom of speech is not "absolute" as there is a strong precedent establishing that public safety (think falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater) or personal property rights can supersede. Having said that, I do think that while it seems rude to protest at an LDS Temple Open House (or General Conference) typically it is allowed in certain public areas, just as LDS Missionary Street Meetings are...which many might find offensive. The issue appears to be whether or not the public areas in question can legally be designated as not available for public free speech due to safety concerns. I believe that the city has the right on a temporary basis due to the areas' proximity to the shuttles' drop off zones. Maybe I missed it in the article, but if the LDS Church applied for a city permit of any kind to allow for a temporary "safety zone" then there should have been an opportunity for an opposing viewpoint to be heard during the approval process. On the other hand, the city might need to amend their approach if they are unreasonably requiring permits for public free speech.

  • EnglishAlan Rugeley, Staffs
    Sept. 12, 2012 5:43 a.m.

    I was the LDS Bishop in our local area in England when we opened a chapel for which we had been eagerly waiting. Two weeks before, a local "Christian Church" went around the neighbourhood putting pamphlets through the doors of houses, telling what, frankly, were untruths about the LDS Church. (Not misunderstandings, but untruths.) I wrote to the Minister, asking why he had spent money on what he had, rather than on preaching concerning Christ, as Easter was approaching. His answer was, "WE don't want you Mormons in our neighbourhood."

    I must say that if I had been this Minister, with limited funds, I would have spent it on promoting Christ, and his Atoning Sacrifice, to remind folks that Easter is much more than Easter Eggs or the Esater Bunny. I would not have spread a message that followers of Christ were actually divided amongst themselves, which is what many of the neighbours thought after receiving them. Our Missionaries were told exactly that as they knocked on doors in the area. Many people felt that it was a message that showed didunity in Christendom, so had a negative response to us, but also to his own Church.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Sept. 12, 2012 6:24 a.m.

    Liam McP,

    Let me see if I have this straight: a church has open houses to let members and nonmembers see the inside of their new Temples. A group travels around the country protesting these open houses with signs that decry that religion as false and mocking the ceremonies they will have in the new Temple. Notwithstanding these activities over many years, church members respond graciously in person and even on anonymous blogs such as this one. A few express bewilderment and even distaste for what is going on.

    And you call this "downright hateful and embarrassing" towards this group of protesters?? Please explain your logic here...

    btw - I would love to see what you think about our non reaction to the Book of Mormon play now starting to tour the country.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 12, 2012 7:17 a.m.

    Think about it from their prospective.

    They believe that they are trying to save your souls.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 7:19 a.m.

    this this were a muslim issue obama would be apologizing. interesting that a real religion conducts itself appropriately by doing nothing. what some of these posters don't seem to understand is that these same protesters are some of the first to accept help from the lds church when they need it.

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 7:24 a.m.

    The government has the right to dictate where protests and such do occur. If the President of the United Sates was to visit the protesters would be gievn a protest area near but yet away from the venue. President Obama is falling over backwards apologizing for the freedom of speech a former muslim had in producing a video. So with said the government has the need to make restrictions for public safety.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Sept. 12, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    Ute alumni, Braxton, Sammyg:

    By your logic, you would be ok if non-Mormons accepted literature and Books of Mormon from missionaries, promptly ripped the literature and book to shreds in front of the missionaries and making a public display of the destruction and then threw them away in a trash can next to the display of the missionaries. As this happened to me on my mission nearly every day, I certainly took offense.

    What these church members are doing is no different that what LDS missionaries do on a daily basis around the globe. Yes, LDS missionaries do this in front of other churches, yes they distribute literature that specifically points out the differences between the LDS Church and the predominant church of the area. Yes, they do so on days that are significant and sacred to those church-goers.

    Please explain why these actions of LDS missionaries, which are not few in number, would be perfectly ok but the actions by the Main Street Church are so horridly offensive.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Sept. 12, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    Mightyhunterhaha,

    The gov't has that "right" because we did nothing to preserve our own rights. I believe it is something that Republicans call "big gov't overreach," unless of course it works to your favor. President Obama is also doing nothing of the sort in reference to the rest of your comment...it also is a poor comparison to this situation and rather crass.

  • Diet-Mormon Cache county, USA
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    Rob
    Your answer is right on the money!

  • donn layton, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    RE:EnglishAlan, Speaking the truth in love(Ephesians 4:15), If a Christian truly loves his Mormon neighbor they should share the Biblical Christ with them.

    The “pale” of Christianity believes the birth of Jesus was a unique miracle by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, same Greek word(Pneuma) . Not a natural act as the birth of our children.

    ”They tell us that the BoM states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The BoM teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible!”( Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation..,
    The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.(Luke 1:35 KJV) ..
    (Jesus)…born of Mary at Jersusalem,[Bethleham] … who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost(Spirit) and bring forth a son yea, even the Son of God. ( Alma 7:10).

    ... but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. (Mt 1:18 NIV

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    People and Churches do this type of activity at almost every LDS Temple open house and dedication event. The Church doesn't stop them and it is the government's responsibility if there is a safety and other item that is a problem.

    For those that haven't been there, it is a small temple and with a small parking area. The open house had two remote parking sites, one on the north of town and the other on the south of town. Commercial tour buses with nice seats and air conditioning were used at both ends to take people to the temple parking lot and drop people off. Each bus was full, coming and going, from both the north and south ends of town. There was a lot of activity with the tour of the temple, visiting with friends that one may not have seen for a long time and people curious about the temple and what is inside.

    As a safety person for the past almost 40 years, you would have to rely on their public safety people to make that judgement about all the buses and children (8 years old up) and adults in the mixture.

  • ILOVEJESUS kaysville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    The truth is Jesus. People who are from other faiths, who are Christians, don't circulate false information, they give the facts of your faith. Many Mormons do not know these truths and are afraid to look into them for the fear of their eternal life will leave them and their family. Christians pray that the Mormons may see the truth and not become close minded to truth. We as the body pray, hope and desire to share this truth of Jesus to you all. Without it, Christ came in vain. God Bless

  • PookyBear84010 KAYSVILLE, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    Hogwash. When we went to the open house, there was a man from another church on the corner of the same block the temple was on, passing out fliers in full view of temple security. In fact, he was chatting with them openly. Nobody stopped him from doing anything. He even went out into traffic and passed fliers to people in cars.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    The Bible is more important than the Constitution, in my view at least; if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the prophets. (same gender marriage will force us to choose between the two.)

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    "if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the prophets. "

    Uh, which one? There have been lots throughout history and various faiths.

  • tree Myrtle Creek, OR
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Dear ILOVEJESUS,

    You expressed your remarks so kindly. It is interesting how your words fit both ways and were respectful. Many are worried about reading the Book of Mormon until they do and find treasures there that add to the beautiful scriptures in the Bible that we also love dearly. Time will play it all out....and Christ will come and we will all cheer and hug each other...I so pray.
    We each choose...each pray and truly connect with Heaven...as we do we are blessed with His love and respect for each other. It is a great moment for the city and it is wonderful that others wish to be a part of it in whatever way they can. I hope those with the flyers come in first and see...it will not hurt....it will bond us all to Christ to have another sacred place to think of Him and His great love for us all. It tests all of our desire to listen to the Spirit of Christ and be kind. Look into each others eyes..and emulate His love...no words needed. Praise the Lord.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Sept. 12, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    A traffic and safety problem? In Brigham City? Please, that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I seriously can't believe the irony of a bunch of Mormons being annoyed by being handed religious literature while trying to go about their business. You know there are about 60,000 dedicated Mormons doing that to people every day, right? I'm amazed that people are willing to throw out freedom of speech in favor of freedom FROM speech for something as simple as a minor annoyance. That's pretty scary.

  • middle class Cedar City, 00
    Sept. 12, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    I'm an active LDS member. Also a convert of many years ago. I understand the opposition the Church faces worldwide because of religious fervor.

    The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. The Supreme Court and other Federal Courts determine what Free Speech is.

    Anyone or any organization can restrict what they consider offensive activity. Yet the Federal Courts must protect Constitutional Freedoms. the District Court that has this case will render some sort of decision soon.

    I, for one, do not belive or support the idea of a civil restriction on speech on public property. Throughout America and th world domminant churches have great influence. I'm from the South where Southern Baptists have the influence. The Constitution al rights of all must be protected and those dominant churches, wherever they are should proactively prevent any infringement on those rights. \

    I call upon the LDS leadership to voice their support for free speech in all public places in Utah.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    So on this day when we have had an ambassador killed because of religious intolerance, we have another local example to remind us that religious intolerance is alive and well here in Utah. I think many people use religion as a reason to find offense from someone else's actions. It seems that here in the United States we should be more understanding of different opinions but I guess there are many on both sides that want to take us back to a time when if our honor was disrespected we'd fight to protect it. Doesn't sound very civilized to me. The beauty of the Bill of Rights needs to be looked at with the challenge of making sure they apply to all people.

  • Florwood American Fork, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    The headline is a little misleading, since the free speech zone comprises the north sidewalk of the property, so they indeed have close access to the temple, just not in the entrance and exit area. This seems reasonable (the 'free speech' zones at both political conventions were a block or two away from the event), though I don't know if the ordinance itself is constitutional.

  • E Sandy, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 10:03 a.m.

    If they're on public sidewalks and not being disruptive or inciting violence, members of this church have every right under the U.S. Constitution to pass out fliers and even to proselytize. Whether their actions are rude or disrespectful is immaterial as far as the law is concerned.

    The government that has the power to keep this Protestant church from speaking out also has the power to prevent, for example, members of the LDS church from going door to door to seek converts. Step on the rights of these Christians, and we step on the rights of all people of faith.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    Freedom to speech does not mean that I can be free to speak wherever or whenever I like. The government needs to restrict at times where people can speak; in this case, they justifiably restricted people from flocking in to proselyte where buses and traffic were coming in and out. I saw a traffic accident right where these "alternative" proselytizers were wanting to stand. They had their place, and it was in front of the temple.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Sept. 12, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    Protesting a church?

    Really?

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    I went to the open house. It's a congested area and I think Brigham City has a legitimate claim. This seems like a huge overreaction. These people's rights to speech have not been violated, just their non-right to cause disruptions to traffic flow. Maybe they don't disrupt traffic flow that much...either way they have not had any serious violations of their rights. This should be thrown out pretty fast.

  • Loganhistorian Hyrum, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    I've met these jokers on two different occasions that stand on the corner. The second time I met them, they refused to give me their literature. I had to get their newspaper from a gal they recently handed it to when she said "You can have mine." Also, they had some images that they didn't get permission to use in their paper and thus are being dishonest with the original photographer and the copyright holder. I told this to the men standing on the corner and I also called the ministry who was printing this paper and informed them of this. I asked them to call me back on this subject which they haven't yet. And they claim Mormons are shady!

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    I hate to say it, but in this case I agree with the ACLU. The Brigham City ordinance is overly broad and gives too much power to the city. It puts to much emphasis on flow of traffic and too little on the right of individuals to express their ideas. Free speech means you can distribute literature without prea-approval of the city, and that is not being allowed here. I hope the courts throw out the law as the unconstitutional restriction on individual speech it is.

  • Katherine Centerville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    I saw them last week standing on the corner of Main Street with a big sign. They were blocking the pedestrian flow and it was very difficult to get around them without them having to step out into the intersection. I can see why they were prohibited from handing out literature right in front it was just TOO busy.

    Why is it my freedom to walk to the church of my choice without harrassment doesn't mean as much as their freedom to hand me literature on my way to church telling me I'm wrong for worshipping the way I do? How many Jewish synagogs do they stand in front of handing out anti-Jewish literature? How many Pentacostal churches do them stand in front of during a Revival handing out anti-Pentacostal literature?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    I hope Main Street doesn't pull a stunt like this at the grand opening of Park51. It's one thing to print offensive anti-Mormon material. No one cares about that. Pamphlets and media insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammed on the other hand, that gets people killed. By the way, why are we not deploying whole divisions over to Libya right now? I mean, a 50 man Fast Company? Are you nuts?!?!

  • anneray Kosciusko, Mississippi
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    Freedom of speech, Yes, 100% for that...but the problem here is SAFETY. When the people get off the bus, trying to get to the temple gate butand are hamperedded by 'whoever' it becomes unsafe... that is what this article is about. The Church officials, the city and the police are doing their duty to protect everyone... Why make this abour free speech?

  • whatnext Clearfield, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    I think some of us are missing the point. The reason that group was denied access to those 2 areas was duet to safety. Safety should take precedence over everything else and that include "freedom of speech". Now with that being said, if the city did not allow that group access to distribute their information because of some other reason, then the city needs to be held accountable.

  • Ricotta SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    This is about principle.

    It is disrespectful to act this way at this type of event - no matter how wrong and false you think their beliefs are.

    To the LDS this is a sacred and special event. Let them enjoy it.

    Show some decency.

    A-C-L-U? J-O-K-E.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    Amusing how posters "know" what's been going on but aren't anywhere near here.

    The pastor and members of the Main Street Church have been on the temple block nearly every day since the open house began. The sidewalks surrounding the temple are completely open to them and they have made good use of the areas handing out their literature. They have great visibility and access to people on the North, South and East of the temple all day, every day.

    It's like a "honk and wave" at 200 South and Main street. They are directly in the path of the visitors arriving from all directions. No one has told them they can't pass out their fliers. Shortly after the initial open house began, their manner of "proselitizing" became a safety hazard in the area where the busses load and unload. When that problem manifested itself, the local authorities made the changes due to the safety of all concerned.

    This has not been and is still not a matter of restricting free speech. They're still free and they still speek! And good for them. They deserve that right and it is being afforded them.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 12:26 p.m.

    Also to be noted, it is Brigham City they are at odds with, not the church. Public safety officials made the decision to change the acceptablee zones, as has been done numerous times in numerous other venues. Completely acceptable when safety is the concern.

    If you want to find a venue to throw stones, you can always assume to know whats going on and always find a way to make a big deal of it, so you have a target. Many often do, especially in these forums.

  • middle class Cedar City, 00
    Sept. 12, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    The LDS Church leadership must enter this conversation with the City. They need to clearly state the importance of Free Speech protections. It is the LDS Temple that is causing all the traffic and congestion. Free Speech can and must be honored on publ;ic property. Safety can be assured, with additional rerasonable procedures.

    Again, the Church needs to come forward and insist that Free Speech be honored.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Sept. 12, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    How many LDS missionaries work within sight of another's church handing out stuff, striking up conversations.. Most south American and European city squares have a catholic church right there.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Sept. 12, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    Now let's be nice. Agree to take their literature if they will take ours. I really cannot understand why all these bible based churches just do not consolidate into one church. What seems to be the problem?

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    To Claudio at 7:54 a.m.

    I've been a missionary, sent children on missions, had numerous family members serve missions, and read many missionary accounts including my father's experiences from 60 years ago. I've never heard of any authorized church missionary materials that made comparisons to other churches. I've never heard of missionaries injecting themselves in the special events of other religions to proselyte and either tear down or make comparisons to that religion. I call baloney.

    To claim that the LDS church does the same thing as this group is either highly dishonest, or said with embarrassing ignorance.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    Also to be noted: "The complaint filed in U.S. District Court by the ACLU of Utah on behalf of the Main Street Church challenges Brigham City's free speech zone ordinance. It contends the law violates the Utah and U.S. constitutions because it requires a permit for almost any form of public expression and imposes civil and criminal penalties for failing to obtain one."

    So it appears, technically, they aren't really complaining about the ability or the inability to speak freely, (because that right has NOT been taken from them), but the wording of the city ordinance.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    whatnext:
    [Safety should take precedence over everything else and that include "freedom of speech".]

    What a disgusting thing to say. People die for freedom of speech. Cowards say garbage like this.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    @K - if the Main Street Church was content to proselytize "within sight" of the temple, do you really think there would be a lawsuit, or any objection by the city, or anything for the DN to write an article about regarding the matter? Get real.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:34 p.m.

    When I drove by - they were out their protesting, adjacent to the temple: so exactly how are they victims if they are doing exactly what they claim they cannot do?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    Let them distribute their propaganda. It doesn't hurt anyone but them and shows just how infantile they are. No harm, no foul.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:43 p.m.

    Oh by the way, if they are a little church, just where are they getting the money to file a lawsuit? I'd like to see their books.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    Living in Brigham City near the temple, I drive past it daily. The members of this BC church are consistently on two corners, although there are signs on all the sidewalks around the temple declaring the sidewalks to be free speech zones. Their main corner is about 20 feet away from where people board and disembark from the buses. Often people are standing right next to the "pamphlet people" and they have the opportunity, if they choose, to hand out literature. Also, people are constantly walking past them because many people walk around the block to look at the temple. It seems to me that they have access to a lot of people. Automobile traffic is a problem around the temple. If 3 or 4 people are standing and not moving on the sidewalk with signs, it does block the already sluggish flow of pedestrian traffic.

    There are two sides to every story and it would be so much better to talk about it rather than bring a lawsuit. Both churches and their members could do a better job at being friends because we all have to live together and it would be nice to do it peaceably.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Sept. 12, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    Let's Debate,

    Thanks for your comment, though I must say I don't appreciate being called a liar or ignorant when I'm neither. I'm sorry you weren't made aware of the literature and activities of my mission. We did in fact hand out literature that specifically compared the LDS Church to the predominant church of the area. We also were instructed to set up near these churches during holidays specific to those church's beliefs so as to further draw contrast. I haven't seen the material the Main Street Church is handing out, as I believe few on this board have, so I can't say as to whether it was negative or not. The material I and my fellow missionaries handed out was in the murky gray area; I understood perfectly if someone was offended by it, because had I been a devout member of that faith, I would be too. I still have the material from 2 years, so you can feel free to inspect them yourself. It's not baloney.

    The Church isn't perfect; the Gospel is. Way to be a great parent that supports his/her kids on missions!

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 5:00 p.m.

    I'm sure the good citizens of Brigham City are firm constitutional defenders. Except when it doesn't promote the cities real authority - the LDS church.

    Can we ban LDS missionaries from sidewalks?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2012 6:28 p.m.

    So here is an entire thread devoted to debating whether or not handing out pamphlets promoting another religion near an LDS Temple is disrespectful to the LDS Church and what the correct response should be.

    And many of those who think the other church is rude and should not be allowed to hand out pamphlets and are very upset over this, see nothing wrong with the video insulting Mohammad and Islam.

    How do so many of you not see the connection?

  • hope4ever Glen Alpine, NSW
    Sept. 12, 2012 6:37 p.m.

    There's only one word I can think of for this church. JEALOUSY. Say no more.

  • Mister J SLC, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 6:44 p.m.

    re: Flashback 2

    Why stop there? Get a Big 5 accounting firm and let auditing of both denominations begin.

    Oh, the glorious chaos!

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:15 p.m.

    Claudio - your response was kinder than I probably deserved, but I still have trouble believing that missionaries have distributed literature comparing our church with others, and badgering them during their religious festivities, for a very, very long time. I do realize that mission presidents had much more leeway to set their proselyting tactics many decades ago, but authorized materials to be distributed by missionaries have been standardized for a long time, and very little deviation is currently tolerated. I suspect any missionary doing what you describe today would get himself in some trouble pretty fast.

    You're right - the Church isn't perfect, but it's whittling away at it, and our missionaries are far more tolerant and service-oriented (in a non-proselyting and ecumenical way) than they used to be. I doubt the Church has ever authorized anything close to the "in your face" strategy employed by the Main Street Church, let alone sued any city to do so. So, still not really the same, or anything close to it, today or ever.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:20 p.m.

    Kalindra - maybe you should point out all the comments where people said they had no problem with the anti-Islam video. I obviously missed it.

    Sometimes people don't see the connection because there is no connection until somebody makes one up.

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:48 p.m.

    Since this is an "open" house where people of all faiths can come and learn, perhaps the real reason they want to be near the entry place is so they can observe whether any of their members are curious about the temple. Or perhaps they see this as an opportunity for growth because they could interest someone because that someone is already interested in spiritual things. It is too bad they have to resort to the courts for "relief" but it is equally too bad that they want to horn in on another's event. I wonder when the city ordinance in question has been used before.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2012 8:58 p.m.

    @ DSB: So - many of the commentators on this board clearly state they consider the pamphleting an attack on the Mormon religion.

    The video attacking Mohammad and Islam is clearly an attack on religion.

    But I am making up the connection.....

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 13, 2012 12:14 a.m.

    Let the judge hear the case in about three weeks and justice will be served.

  • heartwings Sandy, UT
    Sept. 13, 2012 2:04 a.m.

    Having been to the open house, it definitely is a safety issue to have extra people standing near the buses as they unload. It's a very busy area. Those exiting the bus immediately walk a few steps into the underground parking area to begin their temple experience. Why aren't the protestors over in the parking lots putting fliers on car windows or handing them to people as they get on or off the bus? Seems like there are many solutions without making it dangerous. We walked right up the sidewalk designated for protestors. It was clear without one of them in sight. I want freedom of speech, and we can all have it WHILE respecting others at the same time.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Sept. 13, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Let me be clear. LDS missionaries stand in front of catholic churches in many cities to try to gain converts. They pass things out, strike up conversations. They go into predominately catholic towns.

    Why can't another Christian church go into LDS predominate town and do the exact same thing?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Sept. 13, 2012 7:43 a.m.

    RE: zoar63 let's be nice. Agree to take their literature if they will take ours. OK,

    In 3 Nephi 13:12, (Jesus)“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”(abstract).
    LDS scholar William Hamblin. The evil one [ho poneros]. (John 17:15). This phrase is often understood by modern Christians as a prayer for protection from evil in an Abstract sense. But in its first century context, (ho poneros) meant the Evil One=Satan.

    In Mt 6:13 NIV, The correct translation is “ deliver us from the evil one”(Satan). Also verse 13,the doxology in 3Nephi is not found in earlier and better manuscripts of the Matthew 6:13 doxology..
    Did Jesus teach the Nephites an abstract prayer? Or did JS copied the poor KJV translation and later manuscripts.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    K...Hellooo? Did you read the article? Have you read the posts?

    Let me be clear. They ARE in a "LDS predominate [sic] town", they ARE passing out pamphlets, they ARE striking up conversations. And, (once again) their lawsuit is with Brigham City and it's ordinance regarding when, where and how they can protest within the city limits, not the LDS Church.

    Kalindra: I have to side with DSB. Please let us know which posts in this thread have even remotely referenced the video attacking or insulting Islam, or inferred that it was in any way acceptable. I don't recall a single post stating that anyone was not offended by the video, but then this isn't a thread about that situation. However, if you'd like it to be, I'm sure that can be arranged.

    Sharrona: Thanks for clearing that up.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 13, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    @K - they can do the exact same thing, and they do. Nobody cares. LDS people would support their right to do so, and the LDS Church has, in fact, filed in court to support the very right of other religions to proselyte according to the same standards of religious freedom that we expect to be given.

    These Main Street people aren't doing it the "exact same way" that LDS people do, and you know it. I'd be interested to hear of a single occurrence of LDS people congregating en masse at another church's event to block traffic, demean and harass visitors, and create safety concerns. Just one. It's ludicrous to call it the "exact same thing," and nobody has suggested that the Main Street church be kicked out of town because the populace is predominantly LDS.

    @Kalindra - you're not only making up a connection, but you're making up the dots to be connected as well. Not one person has said the Main Street church should not be allowed to hand out pamphlets. Not one person has said it's not rude to insult Mohammed and Islam. The situations are not remotely similar.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Sept. 13, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    Sounds like, since the non-LDS Church hasn't even gotten a chance to share their message at all, some--no, a whole lot--of folks are borrowing trouble. Good gravy, let them get out of the gate before accusing these people of something they haven't had a chance to do or not do, all right? This is what my Jesus would do...or is the Jesus I thought was the same one for the LDS Church I thought I belonged to not the same one some people posting here know of? Or maybe I just am uninformed about Jesus.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2012 10:42 p.m.

    UTCProgress,

    Your argument is fallacious. The constitution does not protect all speech. Threatening violence is not protected. Obscenity is not protected. The courts have ruled on both of those multiple times and have upheld both as not being protected.

    Protesting a political party or a company is protected. Protesting a religion isn't. "I protest the existence of other opinions and beliefs". This is inherently hostile and designed to disrupt. Disrupting the peace threatens freedom.

    An argument against speech, based on the premise that "if it's designed to disrupt the peace (as all "anti" literature (to any religion) is), then it's not constitutionally protected"... such an argument actually supports constitutional doctrine. Harassing religious services isn't free speech, it's harassing. Protest outside the Church Office Building, otherwise it's clearly designed to disrupt and molest.

    The constitution doesn't protect various forms of harassment. Sexual harassment is illegal, but not religious harassment? Our right to believe what we want is our most sacred right. Molesting others over it isn't "free" but it's fighting others over the very existence OF their freedom. Peace couldn't exist otherwise. Peace dwindles daily because of intolerance of religious freedom.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 14, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    Why do they think they can hand out fliers and basically protest at the temple when people who hand out fliers or protest things about the church at the Salt Lake temple are forbidden from doing so except on one corner.