bsjkki Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) Interesting article from the Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-that-could-prevent-recording-bishop-interviews/ "The LDS Church is supporting a bill that could protect church leaders from being recorded without their knowledge or consent. “Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” spokesman Eric Hawkins confirmed in an emailed statement Tuesday." ... Former state Sen. Steve Urquhart on Monday said a legislator told him The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had asked for a bill requiring consent from all parties to record conversations. The LDS Church wants HB330 passed because of “recently released recordings regarding the church,” Urquhart told a Salt Lake Tribune reporter Monday evening. I've got mixed feelings about this. Edited February 7, 2018 by bsjkki Link to comment
kiwi57 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 17 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Interesting article from the Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-that-could-prevent-recording-bishop-interviews/ "The LDS Church is supporting a bill that could protect church leaders from being recorded without their knowledge or consent. “Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” spokesman Eric Hawkins confirmed in an emailed statement Tuesday." ... Former state Sen. Steve Urquhart on Monday said a legislator told him The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had asked for a bill requiring consent from all parties to record conversations. The LDS Church wants HB330 passed because of “recently released recordings regarding the church,” Urquhart told a Salt Lake Tribune reporter Monday evening. I've got mixed feelings about this. Why? Does the bill have less merit if ecclesiastical leaders are protected thereby? Is there some feeling that spying on your bishop is okay, but spying on your neighbour is wrong? What's the issue that you see? Link to comment
Duncan Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 for clarification this is for behind closed door interviews, CDC's and that kind of thing? I wonder if it's just for the Church or if it applies to other organizations. Plus too, if you feel your Bishop or seminary teacher is creeping on you a recorded audio would help to bring it to court Link to comment
Popular Post sunstoned Posted February 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 7, 2018 The timing on this is interesting. Perhaps this is coincidental. But this legislation is being pushed with the church's support just as the church's practice of ecclesiastical closed door interviews with miners is coming under fire. It would be interesting to know the details of the motivation for this bill. 5 Link to comment
Popular Post juliann Posted February 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 7, 2018 CA has had a 2 party law for as long as I'm aware of and nary one Mormon has been called out on it. People who are going on alert because they hear the M word haven't read the bill. It excepts every situation they are lamenting. What about abuse victims! Well, it allows for recordings. What about crime! Well, it exempts that... It even exempts recording solicitors. LOL But back in the real world, in CA I have protection that an off hand comment that may not be PC won't be recorded and blasted all over the internet so I'll lose my job. Most of all, isn't it interesting that the Trib didn't want its readers to see the bill? Where is a link? Could that be because it doesn't really prevent recording if you "reasonably believe" that even psychological abuse is going to occur. I'm not shy to call out things I think are harmful in church culture, but this one is a made-up crisis that is about as dishonest as it gets. Quote (d) Notwithstanding Subsection (7)(b), a wire, electronic, or oral communication may103 be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the104 recording reasonably believes that the communication:105 (i) is of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime,106 or disaster;107 (ii) is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury,108 abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or109 evidence of a crime;110 (iii) is likely to be fraudulent, obscene, or harassing in nature;111 (iv) occurs anonymously, repeatedly, or without invitation or at an inconvenient hour;112 (v) is intended to harass or is part of an ongoing pattern of harassment or abuse;113 (vi) relates to communications by a hostage holder as discussed in Section 54-3-24, or114 barricaded person, whether or not conversation ensues;115 (vii) involves a commercial solicitor, pollster, or other person unknown to the recipient116 of the communication; or117 (viii) consists of a statement by a public official or public employee in the performance118 of the public official's or public employee's official duty. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HB0330.html 17 Link to comment
Popular Post ksfisher Posted February 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 7, 2018 It does not seem unreasonable to expect that if two adults were to sit down and have a conversation, and one wanted to record the conversation, that that person would ask for the consent of the other. It would seem both proper and polite. 5 Link to comment
provoman Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) well I don’t expect Utah Legislators to put their thinking caps on...the thinking has been done for them. This bill is unnecessary. Utab is a 1 party state, but that changes when there is an expectation of privacy. Edited February 7, 2018 by provoman Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Those nasty evil Mormons.....expecting private confidential discussions to stay private and confidential......what a monstrous idea. 2 Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 So are you guys alright with a bishop or stake president recording a confession or discussion of sensitive information about a members personal life without their consent? 2 Link to comment
bsjkki Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 38 states are one party states and 12 are all party states. 7 hours ago, provoman said: well I don’t expect Utah Legislators to put their thinking caps on...the thinking has been done for them. This bill is unnecessary. Utab is a 1 party state, but that changes when there is an expectation of privacy. If this is true, what is the point of this legislation? I also think the many and vaguely defined exceptions make the new standard unenforceable. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900009626/bill-would-require-consent-to-record-a-conversation-in-utah.html Edited February 7, 2018 by bsjkki Link to comment
rongo Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I see no upside for the Church with this bill, honestly. I haven't read the bill, so I don't know what the legal/civil consequences of violating this law would be, but it would be lose-lose for the Church in any case. Say someone illegally records an interview and posts it online, and the content is embarrassing to the Church. The damage is done even if the Church prevails in court, and aggressively pursuing the recorder in court would be worse than doing nothing at all. It would backfire from a PR standpoint and make a martyr out of the recorder. The negative attention would be worse than if the Church did nothing at all. I think it's best to just assume in 2018 that conversations are going to be recorded, and to let that inform what you say. It's not ideal, and no one wants to be recorded without their knowledge and have it put online, but that's the way it is. 4 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 8 hours ago, juliann said: CA has had a 2 party law for as long as I'm aware of and nary one Mormon has been called out on it. People who are going on alert because they hear the M word haven't read the bill. It excepts every situation they are lamenting. What about abuse victims! Well, it allows for recordings. What about crime! Well, it exempts that... It even exempts recording solicitors. LOL But back in the real world, in CA I have protection that an off hand comment that may not be PC won't be recorded and blasted all over the internet so I'll lose my job. Most of all, isn't it interesting that the Trib didn't want its readers to see the bill? Where is a link? Could that be because it doesn't really prevent recording if you "reasonably believe" that even psychological abuse is going to occur. I'm not shy to call out things I think are harmful in church culture, but this one is a made-up crisis that is about as dishonest as it gets. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HB0330.html I think the story spoke specifically about the "reasonably believe" clause. But what does that mean? I suspect it means something different to each of us. But yes, the church's support of this bill is absolutely designed to protect itself from being embarrassed by recordings of GA's as well as local leaders. It's a protective move which makes a lot of sense from the church's perspective. However, imagine this relates to a school instead of the church. Imagine a school had a policy in which children and youth were called to have conversations about personal sxual beliefs and behaviors behind closed doors. Imagine that policy was being challenged by parents and that there had been a number of recordings that brought the problem to light. These recordings were embarrassing to the school and its teachers. Then imagine a new bill is introduced and supported by the teacher's union preventing the types of recordings that made the teachers accountable for things they said and did. Would that be acceptable? Or would it feel like the school and its teachers were trying to hide something and protect themselves, even at the possible harm to the students? 3 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, rongo said: I see no upside for the Church with this bill, honestly. I haven't read the bill, so I don't know what the legal/civil consequences of violating this law would be, but it would be lose-lose for the Church in any case. Say someone illegally records an interview and posts it online, and the content is embarrassing to the Church. The damage is done even if the Church prevails in court, and aggressively pursuing the recorder in court would be worse than doing nothing at all. It would backfire from a PR standpoint and make a martyr out of the recorder. The negative attention would be worse than if the Church did nothing at all. I think it's best to just assume in 2018 that conversations are going to be recorded, and to let that inform what you say. It's not ideal, and no one wants to be recorded without their knowledge and have it put online, but that's the way it is. The church has been very aggressive at protecting its rights to copyright under the law, even when it has caused some embarrassing PR. I think they would be very aggressive at protecting their rights under this law as well, if it is passed. The law has a chilling effect. It is aimed to discourage people from recording out of fear for suffering legal consequences. The story suggested it may even be a felony. WoW! So the upside for the church is they would have legal standing to go after the people who record and embarrass them. It would create a chilling effect and reduce the number of recordings of leaders that they view to be embarrassing. That's a pretty big upside for a church focused on PR. 1 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: So are you guys alright with a bishop or stake president recording a confession or discussion of sensitive information about a members personal life without their consent? Are you being serious? Do you think the church is supporting a law to protect individual's confessions from church leaders recording? That's laughable. All the church would need to do is have a policy against its leaders recording such things. If the policy is broken, that person is released. No law is necessary. 1 Link to comment
provoman Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: So are you guys alright with a bishop or stake president recording a confession or discussion of sensitive information about a members personal life without their consent? I do not think your post is serious, but lets suppose you are being serious. If you are being serious, CURRENT Utah law covers the situation you jokingly bring up. CURRENT law prohibits recording when there is an expectation of privacy .... I doubt a Church Official (of any Church) would support the notion that a convesation between a congregant and the Church official behind closed doors IS NOT by default confidential. Many states already recognize the confidentiality of “confessionals”. So your joking aside, the current law prohibits Church leaders from recording; this proposed law unnecessary and in my opinion does not serve a noble purpose. Edited February 7, 2018 by provoman Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you being serious? Do you think the church is supporting a law to protect individual's confessions from church leaders recording? That's laughable. All the church would need to do is have a policy against its leaders recording such things. If the policy is broken, that person is released. No law is necessary. I suspect they were trying to point out the hypocrisy of protecting one party’s ability to secretly record and publish a private conversation and probably being horrified by the idea of the other party doing the same thing. If a person who felt they were ill-treated by a bishop released recordings and the bishop released other recordings embarrassing to that person would you see those as being equally valid or equally odious actions? Or are you biased? Edited February 7, 2018 by The Nehor 2 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I suspect they were trying to point out the hypocrisy of protecting one party’s ability to secretly record and publish a private conversation and probably being horrified by the idea of the other party doing the same thing. If a person who felt they were ill-tested by s bishop released recordings and the bishop released other recordings embarrassing to that person would you see those as being equally valid or equally odious actions? Or are you biased? Yeah, I definitely don't see those situations as being the same because the power dynamic is so skewed in favor of the church. I'm definitely bias against any large organization doing things to embarrass or harm the individual. There is a difference in power dynamic. In this case the church, the bishop or SP, the GA has the institutional power behind personal meetings. They are the ones with the upper hand and have the ability to harm the individual by the things they do, say, or require. The individual recording can only hope to level the playing field a little. So in that case, the only protection the individual has is to record the person to expose the bad behavior. If leaders are worried about that the things they say will be recorded and used to embarrass them, perhaps they should rethink what they are saying. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 3 hours ago, rongo said: I see no upside for the Church with this bill, honestly. I haven't read the bill, so I don't know what the legal/civil consequences of violating this law would be, but it would be lose-lose for the Church in any case. Say someone illegally records an interview and posts it online, and the content is embarrassing to the Church. The damage is done even if the Church prevails in court, and aggressively pursuing the recorder in court would be worse than doing nothing at all. It would backfire from a PR standpoint and make a martyr out of the recorder. The negative attention would be worse than if the Church did nothing at all. I think it's best to just assume in 2018 that conversations are going to be recorded, and to let that inform what you say. It's not ideal, and no one wants to be recorded without their knowledge and have it put online, but that's the way it is. It might be much easier to simply purchase and provide to each bishop and stake pres a device which jams any electronic device in his office so that it cannot be used to record or transmit. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yeah, I definitely don't see those situations as being the same because the power dynamic is so skewed in favor of the church. I'm definitely bias against any large organization doing things to embarrass or harm the individual. There is a difference in power dynamic. In this case the church, the bishop or SP, the GA has the institutional power behind personal meetings. They are the ones with the upper hand and have the ability to harm the individual by the things they do, say, or require. The individual recording can only hope to level the playing field a little. So in that case, the only protection the individual has is to record the person to expose the bad behavior. If leaders are worried about that the things they say will be recorded and used to embarrass them, perhaps they should rethink what they are saying. Actually the better protection from the church’s bad behavior which is so odious that you feel the need to record it for protection is just not to be interviewed at all, something entirely free to them. I disagree with the last statement completely. Knowing you are possibly being recorded changes how people interact. There is a reason I hang up at work if someone calls and says they are going to record our conversation. A bishop cannot give the sometimes harsh or difficult personal counsel people need via the Spirit if there is a good chance of it being played back later and analyzed by someone who is not the anticipated recipient. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy on both sides. In a society or legal system where covertly recording a bishop’s interview was acceptable I would have no problem with the church recording all interviews and releasing all of them attached to the person who did the covert leaking. The power dynamic is not as skewed as you suggest. The member can say whatever they want took place, edit their recording to make it sound worse, and outright lie about circumstances and because of confidentiality the bishop usually just has to take the smear campaign. 3 Link to comment
rongo Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It might be much easier to simply purchase and provide to each bishop and stake pres a device which jams any electronic device in his office so that it cannot be used to record or transmit. Old-school mini-tape recorders (analog)? Can you imagine the optics of that? Standard issue jamming equipment in bishops' offices? 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It might be much easier to simply purchase and provide to each bishop and stake pres a device which jams any electronic device in his office so that it cannot be used to record or transmit. I like this idea. My current chapel has a white noise generator right outside the bishop offices because the soundproofing for them was bad. We would just have to expand it to the offices and get a better model. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: Old-school mini-tape recorders (analog)? Can you imagine the optics of that? Standard issue jamming equipment in bishops' offices? Our optics are always going to be bad with these people. Who cares? 2 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It might be much easier to simply purchase and provide to each bishop and stake pres a device which jams any electronic device in his office so that it cannot be used to record or transmit. This wouldn't solve the problem of people recording GA's at firesides or conferences. I don't think they want those coming out either. Quote Nehor- Actually the better protection from the church’s bad behavior which is so odious that you feel the need to record it for protection is just not to be interviewed at all, something entirely free to them. That's not what I said. Have I suggested that I feel the need to record? But if someone is in a harsh situation where they are fearful that a leader might do or say something inappropriate, and are fearful that there will be no accountability without proof, then that would be fine with me. If a bishop or SP is confident in what they are saying, then I don't know why they should care if it comes out in the open. This tactic of passing a law to protect their interests against the little guy just wreaks of overplaying their power. Their is a petition going with close to 15,000 signatures asking them to change the way they do these interviews with youth. Has the church attempted in some way to resolve these concerns? I'm not aware of anything. There is a place for whistleblowers in our society and it's precisely because powerful institutions protect their own interests even if/when they behave badly and the only way corrections can be made is for that information to become known. 1 Link to comment
rongo Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 21 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Our optics are always going to be bad with these people. Who cares? We don't need to go around stepping on rakes needlessly. I'd like to jam electronics for reasons that make Scott Lloyd's head explode, but not for paranoid surreptitious recording reasons. I think jamming equipment would be really weird. And anyway, all you could do is disrupt internet connectivity. People could still record without internet. The chaperoning people might be on to something, though. Maybe we could just require all interviews to have Lois Lerner or Hillary Clinton present. Then, the digital file would be missing or destroyed. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: This wouldn't solve the problem of people recording GA's at firesides or conferences. I don't think they want those coming out either. That's not what I said. Have I suggested that I feel the need to record? But if someone is in a harsh situation where they are fearful that a leader might do or say something inappropriate, and are fearful that there will be no accountability without proof, then that would be fine with me. If a bishop or SP is confident in what they are saying, then I don't know why they should care if it comes out in the open. This tactic of passing a law to protect their interests against the little guy just wreaks of overplaying their power. Their is a petition going with close to 15,000 signatures asking them to change the way they do these interviews with youth. Has the church attempted in some way to resolve these concerns? I'm not aware of anything. There is a place for whistleblowers in our society and it's precisely because powerful institutions protect their own interests even if/when they behave badly and the only way corrections can be made is for that information to become known. If I was a bishop I would not always be 100% confident that what I would say would be taken the correct way if it was recorded. There is a petition. I admit I would be very curious as to how many of the signatories are actually faithful active members. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts