California LDS Cops Engaging in Surveillance?

[_moksha]

Update! The Wrong-Headed Wench just dropped the following "steaming" post:

We had an off duty officer standing with us when we were holding signs. However, he did it on his own but informed his department. He couldn't hold signs or particpate in any way and stood behind the group at all times. He had his gun and badge under a vest. We had a lot of police car drive bys. At a more rowdy corner where No people had gathered to oppose Yes people I saw three cars with flashing lights parked next to everyone. I have a reliable report of a police car stationed at a ward buillding in Mission Viejo and Yorba Linda two weeks ago from a member in each ward.

Some interesting choice in words here. IMHO. Also interesting is the fact that the off-duty officer was essentially told not to participate.

Mr. Scratch, perhaps they had been informed that you were on to them, and wanted to lay low because of that.

[_The Nehor]

Don't worry. Once the bodies with all their fingers cut off and teeth pulled to prevent identification show up we'll know it's the Mormon off-duty cops cleaning house.

[_rcrocket]

Scratch's comment that the Church is likely creating dossiers on gays and lesbians is troubling and disturbing. Evidence?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CHI mandate that a member's record be "annotated" if homosexuality is discovered?

Completely untrue. I have gays in my ward. I can see for myself what their records say.

A record is annotated if a member is disciplined for child abuse, even if reinstated, and in that case, all the record says is "call Salt Lake."

A record is annotated if a member is disfellowshipped and it hasn't been resolved, and in that case, all the record says is "call Salt Lake."

A record is annotated if a former bishop merely wants to talk to the new bishop for any reason whatsoever (could be, a child with a disability who needs special care; could be, a member who needs particular welfare assistance). In that case, all the record says is "call Salt Lake" or the former bishop.

Your odd fixation with "dossiers" just doesn't work. Whereas I don't deny the fact that particularly notorious cases may come to the attention of the Brethren in Salt Lake and they have top-down communications with stake officials suggesting discipline, the number of times that has happened in the last twenty years is probably ten.

And, the D&C requires the Church to maintain a "clipping service" of anti-Mormon publications, and it does so. Leonard Arrington talks about this in his book, Adventures of a Church Historian. But he also noted that it was not used for anything and that it was open to scholars for research, and that he found it difficult to use.

[_Jason Bourne]

As is par for the course Scratch, you take something and blow it out of proportion and/or make it into something it's not...or at least you can't prove that there is any nefarious wrongdoing. If the church units in a localized area organize/do their own security/surveillance using trained law enforcement individuals who volunteer without SL having to become directly involved by taking paid security personnel away from their assigned posts on the temple block or other assigned areas...and leaving those areas without adequate security...where's the irrationality there?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Not the first time.

Regards,
MG

Not only not the first time but par for the course for Scratchy the conspiracy theory man.

[_Jason Bourne]

Scratch's comment that the Church is likely creating dossiers on gays and lesbians is troubling and disturbing. Evidence?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CHI mandate that a member's record be "annotated" if homosexuality is discovered?

You are wrong. Child abuse or sexual offenders is the only such thing that requires annotation.

[_Mister Scratch]

You are wrong. Child abuse or sexual offenders is the only such thing that requires annotation.

Not quite, Jason:

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president or bishop:

1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activity (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property.

2. Submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

Church headquarters also will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal. In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.

(emphasis added)

Note that it simply says "homosexual activity," which, one assumes, could include activism.

Is it possible that the bishops and SPs will be asking for "annotation" of the records of these protesters, provided that said protesters are LDS? Yes, it is.

[_rcrocket]

You have it wrong. I know full well the process for reporting discipline for homosexual activity. Reports are one thing; annotation another.

Records are annotated all the time; no reason is ever stated (except in the case of pedophilia, perhaps; although I have not dealt with that). The annotation merely states that the member has been disfellowshipped (or other annotation as I note above).

[_Danna]

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president or bishop:

1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activity (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property.

2. Submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

Church headquarters also will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal. In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.

Wow, this pretty much covers everything. A person's membership record (as opposed to a member's record) can be annotated for pretty much anything threatening the wellbeing of the church or its members (as defined by the church). Even after excommunication, and even after voluntary name removal!

Annotation would appear to be a comment on the membership record directing an official towards some other detailed record or collection of records kept in Salt Lake.

Hmmmmmm,

[_rcrocket]

Fortunately, you just have it wrong. Annotation is not the same thing as the report.

[_Trevor]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CHI mandate that a member's record be "annotated" if homosexuality is discovered?

When I was executive secretary, the CHI did contain instructions to annotate the records of members who had been disciplined for homosexual sins. At least, this is what I recall, and I was very shocked at the time to learn this.