Disciplinary Hearing Non-Recording Agreement

[Guest]

I have obtained a "non-recording agreement" that a stake president in Idaho is requiring a husband and wife to sign as a condition to attending their own disciplinary hearing.

It was drawn up by the stake president, or someone on his behalf. Below is the "non-recording agreement" in its entirety, with the exception of the names.

___________________

Non-Recording Agreement

For the disciplinary council to be held on behalf of [Husband's first name] and [Wife's first name followed by couple's last name] in [city, state] at the stake center for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on [date], I agree that because of the confidential nature of the proceedings, I will not make any audio or video recording any of the proceedings, either openly or surreptitiously, and I will not suffer anyone to make any such recording on my behalf. Nor will I make any use of any recording of any portion of the proceedings that may be made without my knowledge.

I understand that while [state] is a “one-party consent” state, pursuant to [statute citation], and does not criminalize the recording of a conversation when one of the parties consents to the recording, I nevertheless acknowledge that certain parties to the proceedings have requested to not be recorded, and I agree to honor that request.

Made and agreed this [date].

_____________________________________________
Signature

_____________________________________________
Printed name

____________________

I do not know how legally binding such a document may be, but it strikes me as the antithesis of American jurisprudence, where court proceedings are required to be open to the public (except in extreme circumstances) and a meticulous word-for-word record is made of every hearing that occurs.

The LDS Church seems to have reversed the U.S. system; insisting on closed disciplinary hearings and no record being permitted.

It appears the LDS Church considers itself the victim in cases where recordings are made and released publicly, and is seeking to protect itself accordingly.

It does not seem to occur to LDS Church leaders that nothing should be happening in disciplinary hearings that the LDS church would be ashamed of having viewed publicly.

Thoughts?

--Consiglieri

ETA to delete city and state.

[_Nightlion]

What's the follow up here? Did they sign? What happened if they refused? Were they exed?

[_Fence Sitter]

Thoughts?

--Consiglieri

We belong to a 21st century Church run by men using 19th century mores.

At every level of leadership, these men have no idea how to deal with a society that has evolved beyond them. Those that are somewhat technically savvy realize that everyone they speak with or to, not only has the ability to record what is said, they have the ability to make it public to a vast audience. We just saw the church try and push two party consent legislation in Utah so we know that this fear runs to the highest levels.

There are church rules, astoundingly enough, against recording the talk of a general authority at local conferences. That right there should tell you everything. It isn't just the fear at a local level of leadership saying something that could embarrass the church, it is a fear that runs to the top levels.

Because of the internet, they know they can no longer contain what information members get or what members do with that information, like what is happening in this very thread, but they are still trying to censor what is said from leadership itself, the one area they erroneously think they can still control. What does this all say? Well it says they do not have confidence in any of their own leadership at any level to consistently publicly speak on church topics.

I think that fear is well justified and there is really not a damn thing they can do about it because the ability to surreptitiously record (both in audio and video) what everyone is saying is only going to increase. The church is taking the exact wrong approach to this. Instead of hiding behind rules, laws and bogus agreements they should be doing what the police are doing, recording everything. The fact they are not just shows that they are afraid that their own behavior will be exposed.

So what do I think about this contract?

Cui bono?

[_reflexzero]

It does not seem to occur to LDS Church leaders that nothing should be happening in disciplinary hearings that the LDS church would be ashamed of having viewed publicly.

Perhaps the recording of Stake President Ivins refusing to read aloud the full definition of apostasy from the handbook of instructions at Jeremy Runnells disciplinary council rattled some cages?

Also, documents released last year by MormonLeaks seem to indicate that anything a GA says while on assignment becomes property of Intellectual Reserve, so perhaps it is an extension of that, somehow, even if these are “local matters”.

[_Fence Sitter]

Wouldn't it be great if someone with a podcast on Mormon issues were to do one dealing with how church discipline is administered? For example, the absurd way apostasy is defined as failing to obey leadership.

The recent case of the woman who had her TR revoked by her SP because she would not stop talking publicly about her cheating husband, would be a great place to start.

Hint hint, nudge nudge.

[_consiglieri]

What's the follow up here? Did they sign? What happened if they refused? Were they exed?

My understanding is that they are refusing to attend the disciplinary hearing because signing this document is required as a condition precedent.

Their position is that they refuse to be a party to engaging in "works of darkness," or something like that.

[_consiglieri]

I think that fear is well justified and there is really not a damn thing they can do about it because the ability to surreptitiously record (both in audio and video) what everyone is saying is only going to increase. The church is taking the exact wrong approach to this. Instead of hiding behind rules, laws and bogus agreements they should be doing what the police are doing, recording everything. The fact they are not just shows that they are afraid that their own behavior will be exposed.

The idea of police recordings came to my mind, as well.

If police are acting properly in their dealings, they should have no objection to having their interactions recorded.

In fact, they should want everything recorded as a defense against unfounded allegations of misconduct.

When recordings of such things are objected to, it is hard to not conclude the objecting party is the one with something to hide.

And when the LDS Church doesn't want proceedings recorded, it is hard to not conclude it is the LDS Church who feels it has something to hide.

[_deacon blues]

Perhaps they could draw up a agreement stipulating that they will record proceedings, and when the Stake President declines to sign it, they refuse to participate in a "secret trial.

Could someone with a legal background draw up such an agreement?

[_Darth J]

I will not suffer

Prithee, I beseech thee! Record not these ministrations we shall make unto Prudence Goodwyfe, who has trucked with the Devil!

[_toon]

I've often thought that the church has used the so-called confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings as both a shield and a sword.

It's a shield when used to protect it from accusations of misconduct during the proceeding. So, for example, disciplined member claims that stake president made a controversial or inappropriate conduct. Church cites to the confidentiality of the proceeding for it's reason not to respond, with the implication that it has a legitimate defense but is somehow precluded from using it. So the accusation is partially discredited.

It's a sword when someone claims to have been disciplined for certain behavior or conduct that most, or many at least outside the church, at least have no problem with and, at most, would believe to be a ridiculous reason for discipline. Church responds that confidentiality prohibits it from disclosing the reason, with the implication that the discipline was for something more sinister. "So-and-so claims he was excommunicated for supporting gay marriage, but for all I know, he committed adultery and abused little girls."

The problem with both these approaches is that there is nothing about privacy rights or confidentiality that would preclude the church from defending itself publicly with truthful statements if the other party has made a false or misleading statement. So assuming that the member enjoys some legal right to privacy in the proceeding (and it's not clear that that is the case), that person is effectively waiving those rights by going public, especially when making a false statement.

You'd think that the church would want to record these proceedings.