I swear to you a couple years ago I had a seminary supervisor (I was a teacher) talk to us about blood atonement, that there would be one. I’ve got to go look up my notes. I remember not really knowing how to take it…

And although I find Dooce occasionally worth looking in on, I think Nie Nie’s following is gaining in leaps and bounds. But they are both so different they are hard to compare. It’s like comparing Ugly Betty and Lost.

- 1st sentence of “fable” should have said without — not with

- guage mispelt

For gay couples: Generally expect the same rights as heterosexual couples, no more, no less. For Temple security: Make sure complaints specify behavior that would not be allowed of any couple, heterosexual or gay.

The problem, as I see it, is that Church, then and now, only wants to make completely generic complaints about the couple’s behavior. This doesn’t there had been no perception by Temple security that the gay couple had been groping. But this lack of detail makes the examination of the incident problematic, IMO. And, if Temple security hadn’t provided any details to the cops, they quite rightly could only specify in their report what had, in actuality, been detailed: the couple’s hugging and kissing and then their refusal to leave.

* – * – *

FABLE

A worker is harrassed and complains to a supervisor, “I’ve been harrassed,” with specifying in what way s/he’d been harrassed.

The supervisor makes mention of the generic complaint to the alleged harrasser.

The alleged harrasser, however, is sincerely perplexed as to what was the genesis of the complaint.

The supervisor asks the complainant for details. Who then specifically alleges that the person had implied it’d be “greeeaaaat to just eat me all up”(!!)

This detail was brought to the offending party’s attention. Who gave the following explanation of the offending incident:

The accused had been feeling self-conscious about being sweaty and, when the accuser had strolled in, the accused had hoped to diffuse the accused’s own worries by mentioning the freshness of the accuser’s cologn. “Mmm — nice flavor,” the accused had mispoken, innocently intending to have used, instead, the word scent.

MORAL

For the accused: Be careful about mentioning other’s cologne unless you know the person good enought to gage their reaction. For the accuser: Be specific in complaints so that they can be responded to, fairly.

I agree with you that there are always two sides to a story. In fact, I think that the likelihood is that the two young men were purposely trying to get a reaction from others in the plaza; either pedestrians or security guards.

My point though is that the church’s press release has more details than the police report. Why is that? Why wouldn’t the guards be more specific in details with the police, yet be specific enough with superiors that this would be detailed in a press release? Why does the police report only mention kissing and hugging, but the press release implies serious debauchery — “They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol”?

To my mind either the police withheld information from the report, or the Church is exaggerating their claims to vilify the men involved, after all, not only are they homosexuals, they had obviously been using alcohol.

Another question, is it really the church’s policy to insist that anyone groping (or even simply kissing) leave the plaza immediately? Why not a warning? e.g. “Excuse me gentlemen, this plaza is private property of the CoJCoLDS, and we would appreciate it if you wouldn’t behave in this manner. Kissing is ok, but if you want to continue with more intimate behavior we would ask that you leave the plaza. I can recommend a nice cheap hotel nearby.”

I have a hard time believing they were treated in the same manner a young heterosexual couple would have been treated.

As in any “s/he said-s/he said,” it’s also possible both sides sincerely believe their seemingly conflicting versions of what happened to be correct. This could happen, for example, if some of the behavior engaged in by the couple wasn’t thought by them to be anything out of the ordinary but it nevertheless was considered by the guards to be lewd.

I know from engaging in hugs with my girlfriend, when I was young, around my father that there are some things some people consider innocent but are considered “not so much” by others. Eg, some would consider a public embrace of/pat to the glutes as entirely innocuous and acceptable public behavior whereas others would hold it as an inappropriately sexual pubic display of affection or “groping” — and this regardless of whether it were a hetero or gay couple who happened to be involved.

Why would the police omit details that the security guard told them? Are all the police in SLC anti-mormon, and were hoping to set the church up for a PR nightmare?

Or if the police didn’t omit anything, then why would the security guard not tell the police that these two men were being lewd and/or groping in public? Wouldn’t the lewdness have led to additional charges if it had happened?

Or is it more likely that these two LDS security guards took issue with two men kissing and took action against behaviour that would have been smiled upon (with a wink, wink to the other security guards) if seen occurring between a man and a woman? And only after being confronted by church security did the inebriated men begin using profane and lewd language?

LDS Church’s Deseret Ranch in Florida worth $1 billion?

Woot! If we just sold that piece of land, the church could pay for the amazing new wild mustang contraception program the house passed this week, all by ourselves!

That seminary principal thing s disgusting, it makes me want to punch him in the face.

Anecdotally, I think the “Wow, he’s a Mormon” athlete hero-worship that I so often witnessed in my youth has dwindled into “As long as he’s on my favorite team, and he pitches OK in his next start, then I’ll be more interested…” from this generation.