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 stake president.
I agree 100%. I was being interviewed by a counselor in the stake presidency one Sunday morning because I was on probation from a previous high council court. I told him the things that were going on in my life. He said something like the people who did these things in the Book of Mormon were "cast out". It was clear what was going to happen. I think I got my letter to appear on that Tuesday for a Thursday court. When they went around the room, everyone that was suppose to be on my side just said that I could call them anytime I wanted to talk. But the stake president did say that there was one person in the room who vehemently opposed the course of action the stake was going to take which I later learned was excommunication. That was his decision. And then the stake president got a letter from president Kimball saying that stake presidents in the area needed to be more patient when dealing with the youth of the Church. As I look back it was crazy to excommunicate a single nineteen year old for being truthful. Everything they heard came from me voluntarily within a few months of it happening. The irony is that because the LDS church is so punitive on sex outside of marriage, many single adults never say a word until after they are done with BYU and are married and established in the work place. Then they confess, do a clean year, and are rebaptized.
You know, I'm just taken aback by how stupid these men are, these men called to be in such important positions and have some kind of common sense and insight. They always seem to say or do the absolute stupidest things possible in such situations. The demand to sign the form is much worse than anything that they probably would have recorded.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
I've always assumed that I'm being recorded, because of the social climate and social trends, although I have a hard time believing anyone I've interacted with has. I don't think it's a bad thing to be aware of the possibility in the back of the mind. It makes one self-aware, and hopefully would prevent egregious "really stupid" comments or statements.
I think that the idea of having people fill out quasi-legal (but not legally-valid) paperwork prior to an interview or disciplinary council is ridiculous. If they're going to record, they're going to record regardless, and then you would just look silly for trying to stop it. The Church isn't ever going to go after someone legally for it --- that would be a PR disaster much worse than the actual sting operation.
As far as why notes of a DC would be taken, they are helpful in doing the paperwork sent to Salt Lake. Prior to the switch to all online submission, I submitted a very detailed transcript (well, an attempt at reconstructing a transcript based on meticulous notes) that showed the ebb and flow of deliberations, questions, objections, etc. Early on in my first term as bishop, I had such a detailed transcript from a BYU stake that was extremely helpful because it was so detailed and reconstructed the deliberations. This high council was sort of a who's who at BYU --- Richard L. Anderson, Eugene England, and others. I have tried to provide that level of helpful detail for future reconvened councils and priesthood leaders. Now that everything is online, the space granted for notes has been sharply curtailed, and such a detailed reconstruction isn't possible. My more recent DC paperwork has been much more terse.
Water Dog wrote: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 stake president got home. I'd email him a link.
For what it's worth, that was my recommendation as well.
Sign the agreement, then record and post.
Easy as one, two three.
The problem is the SP is dealing with people who think being honest in all their dealings matters . . .
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
grindael wrote:You know, I'm just taken aback by how stupid these men are, these men called to be in such important positions and have some kind of common sense and insight. They always seem to say or do the absolute stupidest things possible in such situations. The demand to sign the form is much worse than anything that they probably would have recorded.
From a legal perspective, it's a poorly drafted contract that is probably subject to being ruled unenforceable. Since Idaho is still a one-party state, this contract doesn't change the law so the recorder would not be subject to any criminal or civil penalties. The only real claim by the church is breach of contract. But that means the church needs to sue the couple in court!
The couple has a few things on their side - the agreement is not unilateral (it would be more likely to be enforceable if both the couple and the church agreed not to record...and if the church is recording and telling this couple that they can't...oooh, boy...good luck defending that K&McC). It also doesn't specify any remedies (like being able to get an injunction against the couple if they record and put it on the web....ooops). It should really also have an arbitration clause (to keep litigation private) and require the couple to pay the church's attorney's fees (to discourage them from violating).
So, if at the end of the day, the church is willing to take a public black eye to sue this couple, all they'll have is a claim for damages. Maybe an Idaho court would be sympathetic to the churches claim that some poor high councilman got his feelings hurt because they recorded when he requested not to, but on the whole, the risk of the church going after these guys seems slim.
Tuna_Surprise wrote:From a legal perspective, it's a poorly drafted contract that is probably subject to being ruled unenforceable. Since Idaho is still a one-party state, this contract doesn't change the law so the recorder would not be subject to any criminal or civil penalties. The only real claim by the church is breach of contract. But that means the church needs to sue the couple in court!
The couple has a few things on their side - the agreement is not unilateral (it would be more likely to be enforceable if both the couple and the church agreed not to record...and if the church is recording and telling this couple that they can't...oooh, boy...good luck defending that K&McC). It also doesn't specify any remedies (like being able to get an injunction against the couple if they record and put it on the web....ooops). It should really also have an arbitration clause (to keep litigation private) and require the couple to pay the church's attorney's fees (to discourage them from violating).
So, if at the end of the day, the church is willing to take a public black eye to sue this couple, all they'll have is a claim for damages. Maybe an Idaho court would be sympathetic to the churches claim that some poor high councilman got his feelings hurt because they recorded when he requested not to, but on the whole, the risk of the church going after these guys seems slim.
Record, return and report.
I would think the church would need to have all the members sign a non-recording/non-disclosure agreement prior to any hint of a disciplinary counsel. Make it more extensive, insert the arbitration clause, have a liquidated damages clause that includes injunctive remedies, and essentially make it a condition of continued membership in the Mormon club and that would seem to make it more likely to be enforceable.
Of course such a contract would make the church seem more cult like. Does anyone know if Scientology makes its members sign such an agreement?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Would this be an illegal contract, which I believe is null and void from the start. Can someone write a contract that supersedes state law? It smells of something like an extra-legal contract sort of like an extra legal marriages the church encouraged men and women to participate in; even though they were illegal.
The church should just make a recording, which includes the discussions when the couple is not present, and give a transcript to the couple. It's the right thing to do.
consiglieri wrote:For what it's worth, that was my recommendation as well.
Sign the agreement, then record and post.
Easy as one, two three.
The problem is the SP is dealing with people who think being honest in all their dealings matters . . .
The SP is not being honest. Honesty, more often than not, exists in a gray area. If the goal is to bring to light what this man is up to, do what you gotta do, sign his silly sheet of paper.
How True!!