Scenario to consider

[NeuroTypical]

On another 'preparadness enthusaist' forum I frequent, someone asked a very interesting question:

You are sitting in sacrament meeting when a group of "well intentioned" local young people decide to "occupy" your building in protest of the prospect of an LDS president and the Church stand against homosexual marriage. They start chanting slogans, and using abusive and profane language, all the while several of them have their cell phone cameras running. A splinter group starts running through the building destroying things and painting offensive graffiti on the walls.

First, what do you think your Bishop should do?

Second, what do you think you should do?

Third, what do you think should be done to try and prevent this from happening?

Two things dawn on me:

1- This scenario isn't all that improbable.

2- I don't have the foggiest guess about what the answers are.

What do y'all think?

Edited August 22, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

On another 'preparadness enthusaist' forum I frequent, someone asked a very interesting question:

Two things dawn on me:

1- This scenario isn't all that improbable.

2- I don't have the foggiest guess about what the answers are.

What do y'all think?

1 - Not improbable but still illegal.

2 - If the distraction is too much to continue sacrament, suspend sacrament meeting and all classes. Send all members home and then call the police and ask them to clear out the building. Then call the insurance company and file a claim for any damages. In the meantime, determine if the building is usable for services. If not, ask the Stake President if you can hold services at the Stake Center or any of the other ward buildings in the Stake until the building is ready for services again.

Not sure why this is foggy at all.

Edited August 21, 2012 by anatess

[annewandering]

Evacuate and call the police. It troubles me that you, and whoever originally posted the question, use the term Occupy. The term you mean is invade. Occupy implies a relationship to the occupy movement when you are referring to vandals.

On the other hand if you do mean protesters OUTSIDE the premises then just ignore them. They have a right to be there, normally.

[NeuroTypical]

Not sure why this is foggy at all.

Well, it's foggy for me, primarily, because one or three fit priesthood holders could probably put a stop to the destruction and vandalism via completely lawful means, saving the church's insurance company a lot of money, the ward members a lot of hassle, and the innocent and defenseless a lot of fear.

I'm thinking I would look to the bishop for guidance. I'm also thinking the various bishops I've known would suggest different courses of action. I'm further thinking that a lot of overzealous young men, and old former military guys, wouldn't be waiting for the bishop's go-ahead.

It troubles me that you, and whoever originally posted the question, use the term Occupy. The term you mean is invade. Occupy implies a relationship to the occupy movement when you are referring to vandals.

I think if you read up on the history of civil unrest, in this country and others, across all of recorded history, you wouldn't be troubled with use of the term occupy. Invading a place and occupying it is one of the tactics of lots of action-oriented civil disobedience or revolutionary groups, from the occupy movement, to the anarchist movement, to various grups in France's political history, etc, etc. I'm thinking the average occupy movement protester might not be aware of this history any more than you are, but the history remains. Edited August 21, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

I think that if no one was in danger of physical harm and especially if cameras were running, it would be best to handle it as peacefully as possible. Can you imagine the bad press if a bunch of kids came into a church in "peaceful protest" and the neanderthal Mormons used brute force to stop them?

[Vort]

1. Remind the offenders that this is a place of worship and private property, and ask them to keep quiet. If they continue being disruptive, call the sheriff.

2. In order: a) See to my family's and other ward members' safety; b) Follow the bishop's lead; c) Defend my Church and its property

3. Nothing. The Church is unable to exist where societal mores are so corrupt that simple meetings are impossible. Church meetings are open to all, as they should and must be, so no steps should be taken to avoid such a scene.

[Guest]

Well, it's foggy for me, primarily, because one or three fit priesthood holders could probably put a stop to the destruction and vandalism via completely lawful means, saving the church's insurance company a lot of money, the ward members a lot of hassle, and the innocent and defenseless a lot of fear.

I'm thinking I would look to the bishop for guidance. I'm also thinking the various bishops I've known would suggest different courses of action. I'm further thinking that a lot of overzealous young men, and old former military guys, wouldn't be waiting for the bishop's go-ahead.

I think if you read up on the history of civil unrest, in this country and others, across all of recorded history, you wouldn't be troubled with use of the term occupy. Invading a place and occupying it is one of the tactics of lots of action-oriented civil disobedience or revolutionary groups, from the occupy movement, to the anarchist movement, to various grups in France's political history, etc, etc. I'm thinking the average occupy movement protester might not be aware of this history any more than you are, but the history remains.

Lawful does not necessarily mean moral or right.

I have had this discussion a jillion times with my husband. Say, someone comes to the house while he is out at work, rapes and murders me. What does he do? His answer - I will go and find the perp and shoot him dead. Then I ask - you're going to go to jail for vigilante-ism. He says, he can plea insanity. And I say - okay, so you're going to put our children - who just lost their mother - on a roller coaster of having their father put on trial, possibly taken away in a holding cell while the trial is ongoing... and for what? So you can feel better about yourself?

Yeah, he still says he's going to go shoot the perp.

[NeuroTypical]

A splinter group starts running through the building destroying things and painting offensive graffiti on the walls.

First, what do you think your Bishop should do?

1. Remind the offenders that this is a place of worship and private property, and ask them to keep quiet. If they continue being disruptive, call the sheriff.

I'm trying to visualize what this scenario looks like. Could you walk me through it? Does the bishop just make a sort of general announcement over the pulpit, and hope the sound carries over the crashing and screams? Or does he leave his seat and chase them from room to room, saying "please keep quiet"? Edited August 21, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[NeuroTypical]

Lawful does not necessarily mean moral or right.

That's a fair point, and kind of at the center of the issue. And to be sure, we have all sorts of scriptural on the matter like commandments to turn the other cheek, and miraculous stories like the people of Ammon who were content to be slaughtered and fulfill their oath of peace, which resulted in a bunch of the bad guys getting baptized.

But we also have plenty of scriptures commanding us to defend your families even unto bloodshed. It is righteous to defend ourselves, and our families, lands, country, rights, and perhaps most applicably here, our religion. And we have a history including numerous accounts of physical self defense.

I mean, hey, if I'm the only one giving serious consideration to getting physical and doing citizens' arrests and whatnot, then that is a pretty clear message to me about stuff. Am I?

[Misshalfway]

On another 'preparadness enthusaist' forum I frequent, someone asked a very interesting question:

Two things dawn on me:

1- This scenario isn't all that improbable.

2- I don't have the foggiest guess about what the answers are.

What do y'all think?

Sweet Kung Fu moves?

[NeuroTypical]

Silly, silly misshalfway.

[UserName]

Ok so I'm the new guy here and I'm unsure of the offical policy on linking but below is a website with some good information on crimes committed in a church setting.

so; I'll just leave this here.

[BrendaM]

1. Remind the offenders that this is a place of worship and private property, and ask them to keep quiet. If they continue being disruptive, call the sheriff.

2. In order: a) See to my family's and other ward members' safety; b) Follow the bishop's lead; c) Defend my Church and its property

3. Nothing. The Church is unable to exist where societal mores are so corrupt that simple meetings are impossible. Church meetings are open to all, as they should and must be, so no steps should be taken to avoid such a scene.

Ditto.

[mirkwood]

I think with five police officers and one corrections officer in my ward that this would end rather quickly.

[NeuroTypical]

A splinter group starts running through the building destroying things and painting offensive graffiti on the walls.

First, what do you think your Bishop should do?

1. Remind the offenders that this is a place of worship and private property, and ask them to keep quiet. If they continue being disruptive, call the sheriff.

Ditto.

Well, BrendaM, I'd like to ask you the same things I asked Vort:

I'm trying to visualize what this scenario looks like. Could you walk me through it? Does the bishop just make a sort of general announcement over the pulpit, and hope the sound carries over the crashing and screams? Or does he leave his seat and chase them from room to room, saying "please keep quiet"?

[NeuroTypical]

I'll just leave this here.

Interesting website. Don't expect it to fly with mormons any time soon, but maybe someday.

I know quite a bit about the New Life Church shooting, and my family is on that campus at least weekly for much of the year. I'd love to be able to discuss their current situation with someone else with ties. Do you know Carl Chinn, or are you just a visitor to his website?

[zippy_do46]

I'm trying to visualize what this scenario looks like. Could you walk me through it? Does the bishop just make a sort of general announcement over the pulpit, and hope the sound carries over the crashing and screams? Or does he leave his seat and chase them from room to room, saying "please keep quiet"?

My first thought was that every baby and child would go off. (thus the crashing and screams).

Then humor took over and I could picture THEM running for the hills to get away from the noise. :)

I would think the bishop would make the announcement that this was a church and not a political meeting house. I would then think that the women would then gather their "little ones" and families would then leave and go home. By this time the police would arrive because of where we build our church. Can you imagine that many people coming into the neighborhoods where we build to cause trouble and not attract attention. Our neighbors would call the law for us. ( I would also think there is some kind of plan for this already)

Buildings are just that buildings. Families are more important. I would think the first thing would be remove our families from possible harm. I also imagine that cameras would be going on our side. Pictures are worth a thousand words and showing their behavior would prove that point and our case of such behavior.

[NightSG]

I think that if no one was in danger of physical harm

Any time you have an ungoverned mob doing something like this, people are in danger of physical harm. It only takes one instigator among the mob to start a chain reaction of violence.