California LDS Cops Engaging in Surveillance?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

I wonder if holding hands and kissing in public (or private) is considered homosexual sin.

You would get busted for this at BYU under the current policy, which states (emphasis added):

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or orientation and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.

One's stated sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

As far as I know, heterosexual BYU students can still hold hands or kiss and be in compliance with the Honor Code (and virtuous as well); homosexual students cannot engage in the same activities. The double standard is alive and well in the Church.

[_Trevor]

Fortunately, Trevor, you are wrong. All disciplinary matters which lead to formal discipline require annotation, homosexual conduct or otherwise. The annotation reveals nothing about the circumstances for the discipline and, as I have noted elsewhere, annotation is used for non-disciplinary purposes as well.

Well, Bob, that may be the case now, but I distinctly recall special instructions in the CHI of times past instructing annotation in the case of homosexuals in particular. They were quite clearly being singled out.

[_rcrocket]

Fortunately, Trevor, you are wrong. All disciplinary matters which lead to formal discipline require annotation, homosexual conduct or otherwise. The annotation reveals nothing about the circumstances for the discipline and, as I have noted elsewhere, annotation is used for non-disciplinary purposes as well.

Well, Bob, that may be the case now, but I distinctly recall special instructions in the CHI of times past instructing annotation in the case of homosexuals in particular. They were quite clearly being singled out.

Nope. It never happened. It was never as you claimed. Not once was there ever an annotation in a member's file for the clerks and bishops to see which said: "This man is a homosexual."

You can continue to make it up and claim it, but it just never happened. You are confusing the basis for a disciplinary action with the annotation. An annotation may exist in a member's file for any number of reasons.

[_Trevor]

Nope. It never happened. It was never as you claimed. Not once was there ever an annotation in a member's file for the clerks and bishops to see which said: "This man is a homosexual."

You can continue to make it up and claim it, but it just never happened. You are confusing the basis for a disciplinary action with the annotation. An annotation may exist in a member's file for any number of reasons.

Let's see, Bob. In the 1999 CHI, the following passage, which I believe has already been quoted above, appears:

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 activities (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.

Now, strictly speaking, I can imagine that the the Church is not annotating a person's record with the phrase, "this man is a homosexual." What I don't believe is the notion that a person who has met these criteria simply has a red check placed on their records or some such. Are you telling me that the record will not indicate that "so and so has been disciplined for child abuse" or "so and so has repeatedly engaged in homosexual activities." Is it that the bishop has to call a special hotline to find out precisely what kind of problem he is dealing with? And if so, what sort of difference do you think that makes?

[_Danna]

Is it that the bishop has to call a special hotline to find out precisely what kind of problem he is dealing with? And if so, what sort of difference do you think that makes?

I think that that is exactly how they get around the issue of stating that there is nothing on the 'membership records'.

See my note above.

[_Trevor]

I think that that is exactly how they get around the issue of stating that there is nothing on the 'membership records'.

See my note above.

Danna, did you also get the sense from the passage that they are keeping tabs on the members who have had their names removed and annotating them as offenders to boot?

I see that you did notice all of that. Sorry for not reading your post more closely before now. Gotta say, it all seems pretty creepy to me. I would hate to be the poor schlep who goes around with an annotation. Word to the wise for all of you who think your personal business is no longer of concern to the LDS Church upon the removal of your name from LDS records. Yikes!

[_Danna]

Danna, did you also get the sense from the passage that they are keeping tabs on the members who have had their names removed and annotating them as offenders to boot?

Yes, a close look at Scratch's CHI extract reads that way. They can collect information 'before or after name removal/excommunication'. On any topic the church deems of harm to it.

In my past life, I spent time working with collecting, reporting, and organising sensitive information. Personal information would be coded (and often double coded), and separate reports filed under valid headings. So somewhere in COB there may be databases ostensibilty collecting information on generic rates of moral violations by year or similar. But if you have the right codes you can pull out what is effectively a dossier on a person.

Or they could just keep dossiers,and not call them 'membership' records as such. I am not sure what sort of official information or privacy laws operate in the US. For NZ the coding and filing under other categories is needed to avoid having to turn over all information held on a person. Everyone has the right to see any information held on them by anyone.

[_rcrocket]

Nope. The hot line does not reveal such information.

Pretend what you want. Say what you want.