toon wrote:You'd think that the church would want to record these proceedings.
Yes you would, but think about it from the church's point of view. Where can one find the greatest challenges to the claims to a restoration by Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders?
In the written record.
When one claims to be restoring God's church and the historical record shows that not to be the case, It's kind of embarrassing. So how does one avoid that in the future? By eliminating as much future evidence as possible and crefully wording everything else so that it can be denied by future leaders or even themselves. It's why we have President Newsroom. It's why the latest revelation precluding children of gay married people getting baptized is still called a policy.
The church is afraid and its fear is leaking out all over.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
So, as I've been told the Church chooses to keep it secret to protect the person who is being disciplined. So it shouldn't matter to the Church if the person wants to record it. It'd be a good thing, you would think.
I see no reason for the Church to go this route. I imagine the local leader would prefer not to have it recorded to save himself some embarrassment, I suppose. But it really should be what he signs up for. if he intends to discipline people, he should accept that he might do it wrong and be embarrassed about it.
Does the LDS church still record the hearings. My hearings were recorded by someone in the room. It was one of those reel to reel type devices. If I remember correctly the stake president said it was necessary because they wanted to make a transcript of it and wanted it to be accurate. This was in 1981.
It would be very interesting if the Church made a recording but then didn't allow the person the hearing was for to record it. Maybe the person or persons could ask for a copy of the church's recording.
The one issue that I could see is that after I explained what had been happening in my life, I had to go to another room and wait for a while while they discussed the issues. That's when I guess there were six men that took my side and six men that took the church's side. That discussion would have been recorded.
karl61 wrote:The one issue that I could see is that after I explained what had been happening in my life, I had to go to another room and wait for a while while they discussed the issues. That's when I guess there were six men that took my side and six men that took the church's side. That discussion would have been recorded.
This part is a farce.
The only opinion that matters in that room is that of the SP.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
karl61 wrote:Does the LDS church still record the hearings. My hearings were recorded by someone in the room. It was one of those reel to reel type devices. If I remember correctly the stake president said it was necessary because they wanted to make a transcript of it and wanted it to be accurate. This was in 1981.
It would be very interesting if the Church made a recording but then didn't allow the person the hearing was for to record it. Maybe the person or persons could ask for a copy of the church's recording.
The one issue that I could see is that after I explained what had been happening in my life, I had to go to another room and wait for a while while they discussed the issues. That's when I guess there were six men that took my side and six men that took the church's side. That discussion would have been recorded.
You are correct. A written and sometimes audio recording is made by the Organization of the proceedings. However they have complete edit rights and unlike a deposition, the transcript is not made available to the testifier for errors and omissions corrections.
Revelation 2:17 . . give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. Thank Google GOD for her son eBay, you can now have life eternal with laser engraving. . oh, and a seer stone and save 10% of your life's earning as a bonus. See you in Mormon man god Heaven Bitches!!. Bring on the Virgins
Mormonicious wrote:You are correct. A written and sometimes audio recording is made by the Organization of the proceedings. However they have complete edit rights and unlike a deposition, the transcript is not made available to the testifier for errors and omissions corrections.
In my Stake, any HC members who drew lots 1-3, or 2-4 were given note paper and were told to turn in their notes in to the Executive Secretary at the end of the proceedings, and no one else on the HC was allowed to have anything on the table at all during the councils.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Who is the agreement between? The couple and the Church, or the couple and the SP, or the couple and Kirton McConkie? Is the SP authorised on behalf of the Church to draw up and issue binding contracts? If yes, where’s his authorisation mandate? If not, what’s the name of the Area Authority to which the couple can report his unrighteous dominion? In fact, if the SP hasn’t got authorisation then could the couple have grounds for seeking redress on the basis the SP has illegally tried to coerce them into waiving their legal right to record etc?
Jesus said, suffer the little children to come unto me once they’ve signed the non-disclosure contract...
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I'd sign it, then for sure record it, and then post the agreement and the recording online immediately after. I'd bring a laptop so I could do it from the parking lot. It would be up before the SP got home. I'd email him a link.
meh...just sign it and record anyway. Oh oops. Waterdog said this and added more "in your face" suggestions. I would just say, post it online and when/if someone says something to you about a recording online, just say, "oh...someone recorded that? I didn't realize." And let them release a few HC guys in their witch hunt.