Scott Lloyd Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 So, he knew that he wasn't worthy to have a temple recommend and that he only had one because he lied, but his stake president is the bad guy for actually taking away something he knew he no longer qualified for? Is he delusional?I wonder why City Weekly and Mormon Expressions are giving this guy a forum. Even if we assume they are trying to spread bad press about the Church, this is not an effective way to do it. The guy is not a sympathetic character.
Damien the Leper Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 To re-state, it's pretty standard procedure for dealing with homosexual issues whether there was a sexual act or not. Still, are there assumptions being made? Are conclusions being made via silence? There are too many problems with this mess to really take sides for anyone.
rockpond Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 This story is from 2011. The ME podcast in which he apparently admits that he has no integrity, is from 2012. I'm guessing his claims got the minimal attention that they deserved. I think we'll always have this conflict where members who feel wronged by TR interviews or church courts will speak out and the leaders involved will maintain confidentiality. And since the event in question happened over three years ago, it doesn't appear that "hidden recording devices" have caught on as a solution.
Sleeper Cell Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 ? I am a school teacher. Suppose that when I taught my lessons I locked my classroom door and taught things that were inappropriate. Would you fault a student if he made a secret recording of my lessons as proof of my questionable material? Different situation. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when speaking to a classroom of students (as opposed to one student), especially if they are not there voluntarily. This wouldn’t necessarily make the recording legal, but I suppose the student could argue that he was justified in light of your illegal action of locking the door, thus preventing him (or at least intimidating him) from leaving. The stake president was conducting a private interview with a person who chose to participate, and who was free to leave at any time.
Thinking Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Federal law permits secretly recorded conversations when one party consents, "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.” Link His recording was not illegal. What would be illegal is if I secretly recorded their conversation without the consent of either.
Sleeper Cell Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 His recording was not illegal. What would be illegal is if I secretly recorded their conversation without the consent of either.It may not be against federal law, but it is against the law in some states. I have been told that in California, the consent of both parties is required. I am unfamiliar with the Utah law.
cinepro Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) It's weird to hear of a TR interview where the interviewee records the interviewer. Obviously, if the situation were reversed it would be a wildly inappropriate situation, since a TR interview can be someone confessional in nature. But I thought the Church had been fairly clear that the interviewer is supposed to stick to the questions as they are written, so I can't imagine why an interviewer would object to being recorded (or having his side of the interview made known) since the questions are already publicly known. But given the choice of hearing endless refrains of "we don't know what the Stake President really said!" or "he shouldn't have recorded him!", I'll take the complaints about recording. Edited April 23, 2014 by cinepro
rockpond Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 It's weird to hear of a TR interview where the interviewee records the interviewer. Obviously, if the situation were reversed it would be a wildly inappropriate situation, since a TR interview can be someone confessional in nature. But I thought the Church had been fairly clear that the interviewer is supposed to stick to the questions as they are written, so I can't imagine why an interviewer would object to being recorded (or having his side of the interview made known) since the questions are already publicly known. But given the choice of hearing endless refrains of "we don't know what the Stake President really said!" or "he shouldn't have recorded him!", I'll take the complaints about recording. It sounds to me like the interview was probably not just your standard TR renewal... sounds like there was some counseling going on. 3
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 As I suspected the context ruins the handwringing over those pesky domineering priesthood leaders and shows that said leaders were nicer then I think I would be in their place.
rpn Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) I am a school teacher. Suppose that when I taught my lessons I locked my classroom door and taught things that were inappropriate. Would you fault a student if he made a secret recording of my lessons as proof of my questionable material?There is a constitutional right to record public employees in the course of their performing public duties as part of the First Amendment right to petition government. Very different from these circumstances. But why would a church leader ever say anything that they were not prepared to be on the front page of a newspaper? Seems to me that advice that the would object to the member making public is stuff they shouldn't say in the first place. Edited April 24, 2014 by rpn
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 But why would a church leader ever say anything that they were not prepared to be on the front page of a newspaper? Seems to me that advice that the would object to the member making public is stuff they shouldn't say in the first place. Seriously? A Priesthood leader is giving individual counsel by the Spirit. Sometimes it is hard or difficult or offensive to the person hearing it or may seem wrong but is right due to inspiration and the Priesthood Leader having inspiration. I have said all kinds of things both as a Priesthood leader and to a Priesthood leader that I would not want on the front page. If you do not want advice from a Priesthood leader don't go see them. If you are so petty and vindictive that you need to air discussions with a Priesthood leader because you are insecure and need support then: 2
Bernard Gui Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 There is more information in the Weekly article that helps clarify the situation.... On the recording, the stake president expresses concerns that Call recently had taken his daughters to “gay bingo,” a monthly charitable fundraiser hosted by the Utah Pride Center and the drag/comedy troupe Utah Cyber Sluts. “I think it’s inappropriate to take children, and I really think it’s inappropriate for you to go, myself, to this gay bingo,” the stake president says on the recording. Later, the stake president says of the gay community, “They are conducting themselves in a manner that is definitely in opposition to teaching and practices of the gospel. I’ve talked to you about this, about your association with [gay people]. Last time you left here, you were willing to give up your four, or so, individuals.” Call responded that he’d thought about it, but wasn’t willing to give up his gay friends after all. The bracketed words make it appear the SP was talking about gay people as a group, but in truth he was referring to 4 individuals.I can understand the SP's concern about a Church employee associating with Utah Cyber Sluts. Or maybe I'm just closed minded. 2
canard78 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Hopefully his actions will result in the Brethren training SP's and BP's to stop this uncharitable practice. Having a close family member who was threatened by her BP with disciplanary action for one mild FB post in support of SSM, I can tell you actions such as this do far more harm than good.You might want to send your friend/BP this quote from President Monson: Regarding another question about whether church members could disagree with the faith's opposition to legalizing same-sex unions and still remain in good standing, he said the answer "depends on what the disagreement is.""If it's an apostasy situation, that would not be appropriate. If it's something political, there is room for opinion here and there on either side." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695250131/Thomas-S-Monson-named-as-new-LDS-Church-president.html?pg=2
Avatar4321 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I wonder why City Weekly and Mormon Expressions are giving this guy a forum. Even if we assume they are trying to spread bad press about the Church, this is not an effective way to do it. The guy is not a sympathetic character. Hoping people won't look too closely?
Bernard Gui Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 Hoping people won't look too closely?Precisely. The evidence is the headline.
Walden Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 However, what if his gay friends were hanging out in gay bars trying to piick up men? What if his gay friends were not making good choices for themselves? What if his gay friends were smoking dope? If I were an active church member and I began to hang out with the wrong crowd, ie, men who would visit brothels or take dope, or hung out in bars do you think that the bishop would be concerned? I think so. I see no cultish behavior. Just concern. We don't know the whole story. Would you want your children to hang out with such people as decribed above and if you would advise against your child being friends with such people, could we consider it cultish on your part?Yes, I would not care if my children were to hang out with gays....they do a few times a month when we visit their uncle. Are you conflating the fact of being a homosexual as being on par with drug addicts, alcoholics, womanizers, etc?
Calm Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Bad manners and cultish. Suing over having to hold a TR for job employment. Not sure what's on the books about an employee's rights, but it would seem to not separate church and state.If one works for the Church, can you explain please how one should remove the Church from that relationship?Is it cultish to ask someone if they are honest in their dealings or right in their relationships with their family? And if there are hints of abuse is it treating them as a child to pursue that line of questioning?It would appear by your standard the only noncultish question that should be asked is "do you want a recommend" because all others are ultimately not treating them as an adult capable of making their own decisions and judging whether they are worthy or not. 1
Calm Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Another commenter on a blog that can't be linked here said the following (it was posted anonymously so I am sure it must be true too):I in no way accept this as either truth or lies, but it is a good example of why it is impossible given the limited knowledge provided by the alleged recording (unless that has been verified by the SP) to make any valid and competent judgment at all. I think it is safe to say there are many conditions where it would have been inappropriate and other situations where it was a very reasonable demand.How sad for all involved if the two comments are true. So very tragic.How sad for the two commenters if they are lying and spreading slander about the man. Edited April 24, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Calm Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 ? I am a school teacher. Suppose that when I taught my lessons I locked my classroom door and taught things that were inappropriate. Would you fault a student if he made a secret recording of my lessons as proof of my questionable material?That would depend on if the student had tried other avenues of approach and been denied. I can see it as appropriate if he was shocked and just happened to have his phone so he turned it on, but if he knew in advance and planned on doing, it would be better to use other approaches first. I don't think one's first approach to any problematic relationship where there is seen as some trust existing should be secretly recording except in extreme cases (someone is putting you into a compromising position or sharing out of the blue information with you about harming someone, for example).
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 How sad for the two commenters if they are lying and spreading slander about the man. Yes. I felt pretty dirty posting it here given that it might not be true, but given the nature of the allegations and discussion I felt it might add to the conversation. Hopefully I didn't step over too many lines in the process.
Calm Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Given your posting history, I don't see you as the type that enjoys gossiping...and given the later interview the individual gave where he admits to lying, it seems best to include this stuff in any discussion so that people can see the history of the public discussion even if limited to know what went on privately.In what you read, was it ever explained why he went public with this in 2011 and then gave a public interview in 2012 staring he was lying in the TR interview? Both decisions to me sound foolish.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Given your posting history, I don't see you as the type that enjoys gossiping...and given the later interview the individual gave where he admits to lying, it seems best to include this stuff in any discussion so that people can see the history of the public discussion even if limited to know what went on privately.In what you read, was it ever explained why he went public with this in 2011 and then gave a public interview in 2012 staring he was lying in the TR interview? Both decisions to me sound foolish. From the podcast: One of my good friends asked if I would talk to a reporter at City Weekly....and he [the friend] said that I should get my story out there. And so kind of spur of the moment I said "Sure, let's do it." I didn't really think twice about it. I was contacted and was interviewed and that's how I went public. On the podcast, Mormon Expressions said they reached out to Call because "He's got a story that I think should be shared" Edited April 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
Storm Rider Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 There is more information in the Weekly article that helps clarify the situation.... The bracketed words make it appear the SP was talking about gay people as a group, but in truth he was referring to 4 individuals.I can understand the SP's concern about a Church employee associating with Utah Cyber Sluts. Or maybe I'm just closed minded. And now we have the truth about you! You are an uncharitable, evil fellow that is intolerant of free love, love of self, and completely wholesome activities such as the Utah Cyber Sluts - ideal for children - it build character and helps them to be tolerant of everyone and everything, which is the paramount moral quality of any enlightened individual. Yes, tolerance is the end all and be all of true enlightenment. Better yet, don't just be tolerant, but join in the fun. Morals are meaningless and you should know this if you desire true enlightenment.
Recommended Posts