The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[tooblue]

So essentially you are making the argument that "might makes right"? (A lousy argument, but seemingly the one you are making -that different peoples construct their own moralities as they can, at the expense of those who can't)

Then you have no leg to stand on, as a cultural minority in North America, in demanding these so-called religious freedoms to avoid granting rights/privileges/services to gay people. The majority is going to take those claimed "rights" from you, and you can go complain about your lost religious freedoms with your friends in Boko Haram.

the fact is, there are in fact some absolutes in the world. Justice, rule of law, the right to life, etc. are among them. We don't always achieve them, but we should always try. Spinning out this relativist nonsense is the kind of crap I expect from a freshman, not from someone like you who is well educated. The world needs to speak out against the oppression that goes on under the guise of religious liberty, whether it is female circumcision, Sati, prohibiting girls from getting education, or whatever.

you're just pissed because there is no really good argument for forcing the public to be nice to people who espouse unpopular religious beliefs.

I am not being the moral relativist here. You and many posters here are. The only absolute is you summarily dismissed or "orientalized" entire populations of humans with comments that are ignorant at best and racist at worst. Something I didn't expect from you. Which is extremely disappointing. I'm not pissed. It's clear that you are though. This isn't about good arguments for forcing "a" public to be nice. This should be about respectful and dignified dialogue. Unfortunately, you continue to vomit derision in place of thoughtful commentary. You have made assumptions about my position on all subjects because its easy and requires little thought. I hope this new way of looking at the world serves you well.

[Solon]

I am not being the moral relativist here. You and many posters here are. The only absolute is you summarily dismissed or "orientalized" entire populations of humans with comments that are ignorant at best and racist at worst. Something I didn't expect from you. Which is extremely disappointing. I'm not pissed. It's clear that you are though. This isn't about good arguments for forcing "a" public to be nice. This should be about respectful and dignified dialogue. Unfortunately, you continue to vomit derision in place of thoughtful commentary. You have made assumptions about my position on all subjects because its easy and requires little thought. I hope this new way of looking at the world serves you well.

LOL.
Now you just sound ridiculous.
When in doubt, scream "racist!"

I am all about encouraging respectful dialogue, especially with people of religious faith.
I am also all about protecting people's freedom-of-speech rights to be less-than-respectful if they should so choose. If their lack of respect turns into a crime, I would expect law enforcement to act accordingly.

I'm done interacting with you tooblue. Good luck with all of that.

[tooblue]

LOL.
Now you just sound ridiculous.
When in doubt, scream "racist!"

I am all about encouraging respectful dialogue, especially with people of religious faith.
I am also all about protecting people's freedom-of-speech rights to be less-than-respectful if they should so choose. If their lack of respect turns into a crime, I would expect law enforcement to act accordingly.

I'm done interacting with you tooblue. Good luck with all of that.

And the difference between "racist" and "bigot" is? You're right. It is over ... before it even began.

[Two Utes]

LOL.
Now you just sound ridiculous.
When in doubt, scream "racist!"

I am all about encouraging respectful dialogue, especially with people of religious faith.
I am also all about protecting people's freedom-of-speech rights to be less-than-respectful if they should so choose. If their lack of respect turns into a crime, I would expect law enforcement to act accordingly.

I'm done interacting with you tooblue. Good luck with all of that.

Can't get the cartoon to come up.

[tooblue]

Can't get the cartoon to come up.

You mean this one:

[LA Ute]

OK, I'm now aboard my luxurious Southwest Airlines flight heading down the left coast and will comment further. I know you've all been waiting anxiously to see what pearls of wisdom I, who apparently have had thrust upon me the mantle of Defender of the Faith, will spread.

I don't have very many, sadly. In response to UTEopia, I think all the statements that he wishes the church would make are worthy and I'd follow them myself, but, but....I don't think it's realistic for the church to get into that level of detail in guiding members' personal conduct on a societal issue. I know some of you will scoff at that idea, but I don't think the church has done that on any similar issue. Yes, they've taken positions on what they consider to be moral issues (e.g., the ERA, parimutuel betting, public lotteries, liquor laws, and the infamous Prop 8) but that's different from giving detailed instruction on multiple subissues that will come up from day to day. I just don't see it. Their approach overwhelmingly has always been to "teach correct principles and let [members] govern themselves."

I agree with you about picketing and such. Open discourse in the public square. Notably, many of those on the opposite side of this issue from me don't seem to believe in that. They'd rather silence opposing voices, perhaps by shouting them down literally or figuratively or by otherwise inhibiting others' speech or expression.

This Deseret New interview of Elders Christofferson and Oaks is an example of teaching correct principles. They are both very smart and articulate men (both former Supreme Court judicial clerks and very distinguished in their pre-GA lives). I liked this from the interview:

"Religious conscience is real," Elder Christofferson said, "and though some may or may not have it doesn't detract or take away from the fact that it's a very critical part of many peoples' lives.

"In general, the idea of saying 'this is just a license to discriminate' or 'you're seeking a license to discriminate' is a way of avoiding the hard work of finding a way to balance competing values that are both critically important. Frankly, what we're saying is, we gotta do the hard work. We can't just throw out a slogan and get away with that. It's not good enough."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...us-rights.html

A perfect expression of what I've tried to say here, but poorly.

Concerned, I don't think it's OK for my partners (to use your example) to "discriminate," assuming you mean the word in the legal sense. But I do think people should be able to make decisions about their personal conduct and how they live their lives that are consistent with that religious conscience mentioned above. We're having a huge debate in this country right now about what boundaries we should set on exercising that right. It's a very important debate and the LDS Church is trying hard to make its voice heard in it.

[Solon]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

My wife (a devout LDS) is convinced that the leadership of the church would have no problem with her supporting gay marriage as a political position, not a religious one (which she does; she doesn't believe the church needs to start marrying gay people, although I assume that she would be in favor of that).

I have told her that I'm not so sure, but I do agree that someone in her shoes is very unlikely to receive any kind of correction or rebuke, unless it's from a local bishop or whatever, and even then I mostly doubt it.

Is there room in the LDS Church for someone to disagree with the officially established viewpoint on this, yet still remain in good standing?
Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure.

Ma'ake's initial post in this thread opens the door to a change in doctrinal position, but is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under the current situation?

The last General Conference had some fairly generalized reminders that "there is no middle ground in that contest [between truth and error]" and "The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards, but these don't exactly have the force of "if you support gay marriage, you are an opponent of The Church and committing an act of disobedience or even apostasy."

(and, before it comes up, the Dehlin circumstance is an outlier; I'm interested in an ordinary, reasonably devout, non-podcasting member)

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?

[Solon]

I know you aren't asking me, but the answer seems to be a clear yes. I think we all know many Mormons "in good standing" who support gay marriage. Many on this board fit that description if I'm not mistaken.

I feel like there's a subtlety in your question that I am missing. I'm not sure there is a difference between being in good standing with a ward and with the Church. Maybe if you explain the difference, I will understand the question better.

Oh, of course I was asking you too. Please, everyone but tooblue should feel free to chime in.

I believe that there is a certain amount of "slippage" between what The Church in SLC directs and what individual congregations will tolerate. Obviously, geography and other factors weigh in, but I've attended some very conservative wards and some very progressive ones (relatively speaking). The wiggle-room in here seems to to be a pretty interesting phenomenon about which rules congregations decide that they're going to favor, and which rules seem more optional. The gay-marriage issue, though, is such a hot-button topic, that I wonder if it would do any good (or not) for a more firm directive on this. Essentially, my wife is thinking to herself, "the guys in SLC are wrong on this". Others in the ward are thinking, "Solon's old lady is an apostate on this." In addition, I suspect that the leadership in SLC would have a problem with her point-of-view and consider her to be believing incorrectly.

Somehow, she can square what she hears in General Conference & reads in Church Magazines with what she believes, hears, and teaches (she's a RS teacher) in the local ward.
I would like more insight into how that mindset is interpreted, both from hierarchical authorities and from other Mormons in other parts of the country (we live in a pretty Mormony place in Southern Utah, although not as exclusive as Jarid's neighborhood).

[#1 Utefan]

Seems pretty straigtforward to me.

I don't understand your question (or was it political commentary) either.

[#1 Utefan]

So essentially you are making the argument that "might makes right"? (A lousy argument, but seemingly the one you are making -that different peoples construct their own moralities as they can, at the expense of those who can't)

Then you have no leg to stand on, as a cultural minority in North America, in demanding these so-called religious freedoms to avoid granting rights/privileges/services to gay people. The majority is going to take those claimed "rights" from you, and you can go complain about your lost religious freedoms with your friends in Boko Haram.

the fact is, there are in fact some absolutes in the world. Justice, rule of law, the right to life, etc. are among them. We don't always achieve them, but we should always try. Spinning out this relativist nonsense is the kind of crap I expect from a freshman, not from someone like you who is well educated. The world needs to speak out against the oppression that goes on under the guise of religious liberty, whether it is female circumcision, Sati, prohibiting girls from getting education, or whatever.

you're just pissed because there is no really good argument for forcing the public to be nice to people who espouse unpopular religious beliefs.

Dude, get over yourself.

[Scratch]

I know you aren't asking me, but the answer seems to be a clear yes. I think we all know many Mormons "in good standing" who support gay marriage. Many on this board fit that description if I'm not mistaken.

I feel like there's a subtlety in your question that I am missing. I'm not sure there is a difference between being in good standing with a ward and with the Church. Maybe if you explain the difference, I will understand the question better.

I agree with sancho.

[tooblue]

Oh, of course I was asking you too. Please, everyone but tooblue should feel free to chime in.

I believe that there is a certain amount of "slippage" between what The Church in SLC directs and what individual congregations will tolerate. Obviously, geography and other factors weigh in, but I've attended some very conservative wards and some very progressive ones (relatively speaking). The wiggle-room in here seems to to be a pretty interesting phenomenon about which rules congregations decide that they're going to favor, and which rules seem more optional. The gay-marriage issue, though, is such a hot-button topic, that I wonder if it would do any good (or not) for a more firm directive on this. Essentially, my wife is thinking to herself, "the guys in SLC are wrong on this". Others in the ward are thinking, "Solon's old lady is an apostate on this." In addition, I suspect that the leadership in SLC would have a problem with her point-of-view and consider her to be believing incorrectly.

Somehow, she can square what she hears in General Conference & reads in Church Magazines with what she believes, hears, and teaches (she's a RS teacher) in the local ward.
I would like more insight into how that mindset is interpreted, both from hierarchical authorities and from other Mormons in other parts of the country (we live in a pretty Mormony place in Southern Utah, although not as exclusive as Jarid's neighborhood).

Interestingly, we received some good training in High Council meeting last night. The Church's press conference was the focus. Even though we have been doing so for more than 10 years—because gay marriage has been legal for that long—it was reinforced that members primary responsibility is to treat all persons with respect and Christ like love. To invite all to worship with us. The Lord expects nothing less. We must teach this to the Ward leaders we visit and to the youth of the church. And hope that our right to freedom of religious expression is upheld. It's a tenuous hope.

To be clear, putting my bombast aside, I am indifferent towards gay marriage. I always have been. I can see no good reason why homosexauls should not be allowed to get married in a society that has thoughtfully passed legislation to secure such rights. My concern has only ever been directed towards how that society will support marriage in general and the traditional family unit. Not too well, unfortunately, as priorities are misplaced and will continue to be misplaced. The focus is very different and that is a consequence. It is what is.

As for freedom of religious expression conflicts? Generally, there haven't been many. Except for Bar associations in several provinces vowing they would not recognized law degrees from Christian Trinity Law School in Alberta, which has an honour code nearly identical to BYU's. The Bar Association's actions where shot down by the Canadian supreme court recently (this time around).

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01...#__federated=1

As I've said: I am living in your future. Good luck.

[Applejack]

As for freedom of religious expression conflicts? Generally, there haven't been many. Except for Bar associations in several provinces vowing they would not recognized law degrees from Christian Trinity Law School in Alberta, which has an honour code nearly identical to BYU's. The Bar Associations actions where shot down by the Canadian supreme court recently (this time around).

This is perhaps the first good suggestion from this entire thread: legally ignore all BYU law degrees!

Thanks Canada!

[Applejack]

Oh, of course I was asking you too. Please, everyone but tooblue should feel free to chime in.

I believe that there is a certain amount of "slippage" between what The Church in SLC directs and what individual congregations will tolerate. Obviously, geography and other factors weigh in, but I've attended some very conservative wards and some very progressive ones (relatively speaking). The wiggle-room in here seems to to be a pretty interesting phenomenon about which rules congregations decide that they're going to favor, and which rules seem more optional. The gay-marriage issue, though, is such a hot-button topic, that I wonder if it would do any good (or not) for a more firm directive on this. Essentially, my wife is thinking to herself, "the guys in SLC are wrong on this". Others in the ward are thinking, "Solon's old lady is an apostate on this." In addition, I suspect that the leadership in SLC would have a problem with her point-of-view and consider her to be believing incorrectly.

Somehow, she can square what she hears in General Conference & reads in Church Magazines with what she believes, hears, and teaches (she's a RS teacher) in the local ward.
I would like more insight into how that mindset is interpreted, both from hierarchical authorities and from other Mormons in other parts of the country (we live in a pretty Mormony place in Southern Utah, although not as exclusive as Jarid's neighborhood).

I think there are two questions here:

1. Can you remain a member in good standing and support (openly) gay marriage? I think the answer, in most cases, is yes. The Church cracks down on podcasters and visible dissidents, but most members can go into a temple recommend interview and say "Bishop, I want to marry gays" and walk out with a recommend. Mileage may vary by ward, of course.
2. Can you be a fully believing member and support (openly) gay marriage? The answer to this one is much murkier. I am not a fully-believing member (whatever that may mean), so I'm not the best representative of this viewpoint. But while it is perhaps intellectually possible, it seems like a real stretch to believe 1000% in the prophetic claims of the church and still believe that the prophetic leaders have whiffed on gay marriage. But again, I'm not the best spokesman for that view.

[LA Ute]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

My wife (a devout LDS) is convinced that the leadership of the church would have no problem with her supporting gay marriage as a political position, not a religious one (which she does; she doesn't believe the church needs to start marrying gay people, although I assume that she would be in favor of that).

I have told her that I'm not so sure, but I do agree that someone in her shoes is very unlikely to receive any kind of correction or rebuke, unless it's from a local bishop or whatever, and even then I mostly doubt it.

Is there room in the LDS Church for someone to disagree with the officially established viewpoint on this, yet still remain in good standing?
Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure.

Ma'ake's initial post in this thread opens the door to a change in doctrinal position, but is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under the current situation?

The last General Conference had some fairly generalized reminders that "there is no middle ground in that contest [between truth and error]" and "The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards, but these don't exactly have the force of "if you support gay marriage, you are an opponent of The Church and committing an act of disobedience or even apostasy."

(and, before it comes up, the Dehlin circumstance is an outlier; I'm interested in an ordinary, reasonably devout, non-podcasting member)

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?

I'll answer autobigraphically. In my experience, yes. The church treats gay marriage as a political issue, and there are people in my ward and stake who support gay marriage and have significant callings. But they are as quiet about their views on that issue as they are about politics generally. I don't really know who's a Democrat and who's a Republican in my ward here, although after 20 years I kind of have an idea about many. I wonder -- do LDS people in Utah who oppose the liquor laws there ever talk about that in church? Does anyone talk about the politics of Utah liquor laws in church? Serious questions.

Now, if someone starts openly raising the gay marriage issue and their views, criticizing the church's position etc., I don't know what would happen. It probably wouldn't be good. But I remember in my youth when the John Birch Society had some loud adherents in Salt Lake. (I was probably 10 years old, maybe 12.) Those guys stayed quiet in church too. Still, I think it was probably easier to be a Bircher in the church back then than it is to be a gay marriage supporter in the church today.

[LA Ute]

Interesting and contrasting views on the church statement from gay activists:

Jonathan Rauch thinks it's an opportunity:

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/jon....2097078#bmb=1

Another from HuffPost, which seems to demand total surrender:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6564238





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solon]

Dude, get over yourself.

Sure.

[LA Ute]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

...

Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure....

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?

I saw this excerpt (or maybe it is a transcription) from Elder Christofferson's interview with the Salt Lake Tribune and thought it was responsive to your question:

"We have members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues…but…in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines. That’s very different for us, than someone who feels one way or another on a political stance or a particular action to support a group, Affirmation or any others that you named."

[LA Ute]

Also this from my town's newspaper:

An embrace that swayed the Mormon Church on gay rights

[mUUser]

Did anyone read this article about a police officer that refused to ride his motorcycle, for religious liberty reasons, in a gay pride parade while on duty?.....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...s-liberty.html

[Sullyute]

Did anyone read this article about a police officer that refused to ride his motorcycle, for religious liberty reasons, in a gay pride parade while on duty?.....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...s-liberty.html

Very Interesting read. I actually thought that the officer was very reasonable in his attempts to mesh his work and beliefs. And I was actually siding with him until I read this paragraph from the department chief:

Once someone outwardly expresses bias towards an individual or group, Burbank said, "how are you ever going to limit the liability and the exposure that you give to the public for someone who may be in plain bias? How can they ever say, 'No, I never let it come into play when it came into play in other aspects of their job?'

I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.

[Rocker Ute]

Very Interesting read. I actually thought that the officer was very reasonable in his attempts to mesh his work and beliefs. And I was actually siding with him until I read this paragraph from the department chief:



I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.

It is an interesting question. Everyone has biases and I don't know that expressing them means that suddenly it has changed something. Conversely, should an openly gay police officer be required to ride choreographed formations in the Days of '47 parade if he feels like it is representing his endorsement of the LDS church? If the KKK wanted to have a peaceful parade and requested that the police ride formation in it, should a black officer be required to do that, should the police be required to do that at all?

I guess for me as an employer I see things as part of the job and other things as beyond that. For example, I expect people to show up to work and do their job, and sometimes as an organization we do some service or donate to charities. I would never require anyone to do that work, even when we take time out of the work day to do so.

This request seems to fall in that same strain to me (if indeed what the officer described is what happened). If he said he didn't want to protect people at the Pride Parade as part of his job because of his objections to it, then yes that is a problem as Burbank described. If he said he didn't want to entertain people and feel like he was endorsing it, I don't think you should require an officer to do that. It seems like two different roles one mandatory and one voluntary. That may change if perhaps the officers then couldn't do what they promised to do if he didn't participate, but that doesn't sound like it would be the case.

But attorney's defend people all the time they may object to or what they do or did. Does that mean that the person doesn't get a fair trial? I don't really think so if that attorney does his job to the best of his ability and ethically. I feel like an officer could protect gay people despite objecting to their lifestyle, just like I believe an officer can protect me even if he really dislikes Mormons.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.

Isn't this effectively the way that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochrane destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman? They showed him as a person who used the 'N-word' in casual conversation, showed him as a biased investigator, and created reasonable doubts in the minds of jurors.

A community can ill-afford to have its police force seen as hostile to any single group. Ferguson, Missouri comes to mind.

[mUUser]

Also a weird coincidence that he was the same officer that responded to the infamous gay kiss on the Church Plaza in 2009. Ended up giving the couple a citation.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also a weird coincidence that he was the same officer that responded to the infamous gay kiss on the Church Plaza in 2009. Ended up giving the couple a citation.

In 50 years that citation will seem as absurd as an interracial couple in the 1950s getting a citation in for a public kiss seems today.

[#1 Utefan]

Very Interesting read. I actually thought that the officer was very reasonable in his attempts to mesh his work and beliefs. And I was actually siding with him until I read this paragraph from the department chief:



I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.

Does anyone know how the news of this officer being put on administrative leave and what had transpired first become public? If I recall, it was within days and before any type of internal review had really even begun by SLCPD. After reading this article, I don't think this case was as black and white as Chief Burbank makes it out to be for a couple of reasons.

First, an internal review of at any public sector (or private for that matter) department or group should handled as the name implies, internally. Who leaked this story to the media so early in the process? This type of leak made it impossible for the department and this officer to have a fair review of what transpired and whether it truly violated department policy minus the politically charged media and public storm that ensued. I would like Chief Burbank to account for when and how the leak occurred. If it wasn't from within his department, fine. If it did, he needs to better explain what happened and what steps he is taking to make sure these matters are better dealt with in the future.

Secondly, Burbank stated in the article that it is fairly routine for officers to swap and trade these type of shifts and that it is common and allowed. I am not privvy to how the officer may have gone about requesting trading with someone else for this assignment. However, Burbank's own comments would at least dictate a thorough review of department policy and more in depth explanation of this area and why Burbank chose to handle this situation differently and so hastily.

Finally, whether Burbank was within department policy and his rights with how he chose to handle the situation, given the terse, black and white nature of his commentary in the article, one thing is for sure: he is the type of boss most people dread working for. I don't know this cops history and whether he may have been on a short leash already but it seemed like a warning and reprimand handled internally would have sufficed in this situation. Burbank really comes off as a bit of a inflexible, ego/power driven tyrant in the article.

I am ultimately not condoning how the officer may have chose to handle this situation as I don't pretend to have all the details of SLCPD policy and the details of this case. That said, it sure does seem that it could have been handled a lot better on all sides with cooler heads, open dialogue and understanding, and a warning letter and/or reprimand.

[#1 Utefan]

Isn't this effectively the way that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochrane destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman? They showed him as a person who used the 'N-word' in casual conversation, showed him as a biased investigator, and created reasonable doubts in the minds of jurors.

A community can ill-afford to have its police force seen as hostile to any single group. Ferguson, Missouri comes to mind.

Ferguson, MO comes to mind? Really, please do explain.

[#1 Utefan]

Also a weird coincidence that he was the same officer that responded to the infamous gay kiss on the Church Plaza in 2009. Ended up giving the couple a citation.

I haven't read anything to that effect. He responded after police were called by LDS security. The information I read was that he helped calm both sides and didn't cite the couple even though one was heavily intoxicated and could of been.

If you have information to the contrary, please provide the link.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Ferguson, MO comes to mind? Really, please do explain.

The riots were fueled by the common belief that the cops were racists who hated one segment of the population, which led to the unjustified shooting of an unarmed man.

The facts do not bear that out, of course, but since when do mobs check all the facts before grabbing their pitchforks?

I can see how the police chief could be taking preemptive action against the officer in an attempt to show the police Dept to be objective.

[mUUser]

I haven't read anything to that effect. He responded after police were called by LDS security. The information I read was that he helped calm both sides and didn't cite the couple even though one was heavily intoxicated and could of been.

If you have information to the contrary, please provide the link.

Here...

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...licereport.pdf


A Youtube representation of the encounter with church security....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGrWxg0-ZVc