ALarson Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/1/0/f10167781a4e4adf/John_Dehlin_Apostasy_Press_Release_2-4-2015.pdf?c_id=8303159&expiration=1423161253&hwt=1353a481a40ae43a177f9c657974f83b I haven't read through this in it's entirety. I did read the first part and then skipped to the end where there's a copy of what John's Stake President is asking anyone in attendance to sign: Appendix D- Confidentiality Acknowledgement Sent to John by President Bryan King on February 5, 2015 CONFIDENTIALITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1. I acknowledge that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers disciplinary councils to be sacred and confidential and that, therefore, participants are not allowed to make recordings of the proceedings. 2. I acknowledge that I have been asked not to make any form of electronic recording or transmission of the disciplinary council for John Dehlin and that I have assured Church officers that I will comply with this request. 3. Accordingly, I agree that I will not use any device to make an audio or video recording of the proceedings of the disciplinary council for John Dehlin. 4. I acknowledge and agree that my participation in the disciplinary council is conditioned on this Agreement and that I will not be allowed to be present at the council if I do not sign this Acknowledgment.
USU78 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 You get the same when dealing with the government: if they want to record it, even surreptitiously where the law allows, they do, but you can't. 1
ERayR Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/1/0/f10167781a4e4adf/John_Dehlin_Apostasy_Press_Release_2-4-2015.pdf?c_id=8303159&expiration=1423161253&hwt=1353a481a40ae43a177f9c657974f83b I haven't read through this in it's entirety. I did read the first part and then skipped to the end where there's a copy of what John's Stake President is asking anyone in attendance to sign: Knowing that Church officials are bound by confidentiality Dehlin takes advantage and his creation is self serving and IMO is certainly one sided, 1
USU78 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Knowing that Church officials are bound by confidentiality Dehlin takes advantage and his creation is self serving and IMO is certainly one sided, There's also this: Any 15 year old with the right software can doctor an audio or video file.
why me Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) I believe that this has something to do with the recording of the temple ceremony. These days nothing is sacred and people cannot be trusted. Plus, video and recording divices can be put in all sorts of places on the clothes. So, the agreement with john is necessary. Edited February 5, 2015 by why me
rockpond Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/1/0/f10167781a4e4adf/John_Dehlin_Apostasy_Press_Release_2-4-2015.pdf?c_id=8303159&expiration=1423161253&hwt=1353a481a40ae43a177f9c657974f83b I haven't read through this in it's entirety. I did read the first part and then skipped to the end where there's a copy of what John's Stake President is asking anyone in attendance to sign: I think the Church has everything to gain by allowing a full transcript of the proceedings to be published. Make it conditioned upon Dehlin's agreement to publish it... on his site... but only in its entirety. Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings. But when her SP or Bishop (can't remember) gave her permission to release the full correspondence between the two of them, it showed a different story. I believe that the point of confidentiality of our disciplinary councils is to protect the individual. (I imagine some disagree with me there.) But, Dehlin doesn't want his confidentiality protected. And even if he does, as I wrote above, you could let the publishing of a transcript be his decision... as long as it's the full transcript. 3
ALarson Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 I think the Church has everything to gain by allowing a full transcript of the proceedings to be published. Make it conditioned upon Dehlin's agreement to publish it... on his site... but only in its entirety. Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings. But when her SP or Bishop (can't remember) gave her permission to release the full correspondence between the two of them, it showed a different story. I believe that the point of confidentiality of our disciplinary councils is to protect the individual. (I imagine some disagree with me there.) But, Dehlin doesn't want his confidentiality protected. And even if he does, as I wrote above, you could let the publishing of a transcript be his decision... as long as it's the full transcript.I agree with this and think it would be in everyone's best interest. I think that John has asked to have someone present to record the proceedings in writing (even a stake clerk, etc.). Hopefully that will happen.
ALarson Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 Any lawyers on here know how legally binding an agreement like this is? I would hope that no one would sign it and then go ahead and record the court anyway, but what could happen to them if they do this?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 It is HIS disciplinary counsel, HE should decide whether it is recorded or not, since the rule is in place to protect the participant's privacy. 1
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted February 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2015 How much privacy is there in ongoing trial currently being held court of public opinion? Just asking. Kevin Christensen Canonburg, PA 5
Calm Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I think the Church has everything to gain by allowing a full transcript of the proceedings to be published. Make it conditioned upon Dehlin's agreement to publish it... on his site... but only in its entirety. Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings. But when her SP or Bishop (can't remember) gave her permission to release the full correspondence between the two of them, it showed a different story. I believe that the point of confidentiality of our disciplinary councils is to protect the individual. (I imagine some disagree with me there.) But, Dehlin doesn't want his confidentiality protected. And even if he does, as I wrote above, you could let the publishing of a transcript be his decision... as long as it's the full transcript.The problem is setting a precedent, imo. Plus if all proceedings are recorded and published, that would generally make it harder for the person to come back if there were personal details shared that they are later ashamed of. 1
drums12 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I think the Church has everything to gain by allowing a full transcript of the proceedings to be published. Make it conditioned upon Dehlin's agreement to publish it... on his site... but only in its entirety. Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings. But when her SP or Bishop (can't remember) gave her permission to release the full correspondence between the two of them, it showed a different story. I believe that the point of confidentiality of our disciplinary councils is to protect the individual. (I imagine some disagree with me there.) But, Dehlin doesn't want his confidentiality protected. And even if he does, as I wrote above, you could let the publishing of a transcript be his decision... as long as it's the full transcript.This would only cause more criticism. As we've clearly learned, the Church can do nothing right in the eyes of critics. Therefore, were it to be public, they would cry "they're doing this as a show and it won't be an accurate depiction of a REAL disciplinary council." Additionally, as one who has been through two councils, I can attest that they are sacred and lack of confidentiality would largely detract from the purpose (which really is love unto repentance in spite of what the critics say). Finally, how much confidence could those who truly want to repent have that their councils would remain confidential. It would be a terrible precedent IMO. 4
Calm Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings. But when her SP or Bishop (can't remember) gave her permission to release the full correspondence between the two of them, it showed a different story.I don't believe they gave her permission but rather insisted she share everything that was written to her or they would if she chose to publish part of it. She wasn't present for the proceedings and thus could have only shared the information they sent to her. Edited February 5, 2015 by calmoriah
Mystery Meat Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 That press release is full of blatant spin. He is so clearly full of himself and trying to establish himself as a martyr, victim and hero. 4
Popular Post KevinG Posted February 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2015 I didn't read it, but the fact that he issued a press release says volumes about his intent. 6
rockpond Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I don't believe they gave her permission but rather insisted she share everything that was written to her or they would if she chose to publish part of it. She wasn't present for the proceedings and thus could have only shared the information they sent to her. My recollection is slightly different but yes, I agree, it wasn't the proceedings of the disciplinary council, it was only the correspondence. Maybe that's the route Dehlin could take... Skip the DC and ask for it to be handled through letters so that everything is recorded.
rockpond Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 This would only cause more criticism. As we've clearly learned, the Church can do nothing right in the eyes of critics. Therefore, were it to be public, they would cry "they're doing this as a show and it won't be an accurate depiction of a REAL disciplinary council." Additionally, as one who has been through two councils, I can attest that they are sacred and lack of confidentiality would largely detract from the purpose (which really is love unto repentance in spite of what the critics say). Finally, how much confidence could those who truly want to repent have that their councils would remain confidential. It would be a terrible precedent IMO. I don't agree with your first paragraph. In Kelly's case I think it actually improved the image of the Church once members and the press saw the whole story. Regarding confidentiality, I think it would have to be left to Dehlin to decide if he wants it published or not. That way nobody would have to feel like their council would not remain confidential. All that said, I do agree with the problem of precedence. But I stand by my feeling that the Church would be better off for a full transcript to be out there because you know that Dehlin is going to publicly share his side.
rockpond Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) The problem is setting a precedent, imo. Plus if all proceedings are recorded and published, that would generally make it harder for the person to come back if there were personal details shared that they are later ashamed of. I agree with you on the problem of precedence. I guess it's just that I don't like the thought that next Monday morning all the media will have is Dehlin's side of what happened. Edited February 5, 2015 by rockpond
ALarson Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 I wonder if John has signed it? What will happen if John doesn't sign it but then still shows up to his court? Will they not allow him in? There is supposedly going to be a big crowd of his supporters there and someone would certainly record them refusing to let John in. Pretty crazy really, but I still agree with Rockpond on just allowing someone to take notes and no recording made.
stemelbow Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I agree with you on the problem of precedence. I guess it's just that I don't like the thought that next Monday morning all the media will have is Dehlin's side of what happened. What's there to be worried about if this how it happens? Are you thinking Dehlin will make things up or put an inaccurate spin on it? 1
ERayR Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I think the Church has everything to gain by allowing a full transcript of the proceedings to be published. Make it conditioned upon Dehlin's agreement to publish it... on his site... but only in its entirety. Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings. But when her SP or Bishop (can't remember) gave her permission to release the full correspondence between the two of them, it showed a different story. I believe that the point of confidentiality of our disciplinary councils is to protect the individual. (I imagine some disagree with me there.) But, Dehlin doesn't want his confidentiality protected. And even if he does, as I wrote above, you could let the publishing of a transcript be his decision... as long as it's the full transcript. It also protects the Church in case of a future change of mind. It is better to have a protocol and adhere to it, We are well aware that Dehlin wants all the publicity he can get and he doesn't mind a little creative narration.
rockpond Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 What's there to be worried about if this how it happens? Are you thinking Dehlin will make things up or put an inaccurate spin on it? There are two sides to every story. I think he'll hear and remember what is important to him. When he relates his account of what happens, it will reflect how he feels about it. And, he seems to feel that his SSM and OW support/advocacy are primary reasons why he is being excommunicated. It would be nice for the Church to show that those aren't actually primary reasons. Like it or not, John is making this a public matter. Other than possible issues with setting precedent, I see not other reason why the Church shouldn't honor his request (with the limitations I mentioned).
KevinG Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Beyond all political and public relations considerations... The church counsels are sacred events, and procedures taken from inspired leaders. Changing the nature of the events, reporting, deliberations, etc. is not something that is lightly done for political considerations. John Dehlin is certainly aware of the position he is putting the church in by demanding special consideration and treatment. He reminds me very much of the story about running ahead of the train. When a train leaves the station it moves slowly, and a passenger could easily be convinced that they can reach their goal faster by walking or running ahead of the train. However in the long run once the train picks up speed, the passenger who was not on the train would be left behind. Seeking to counsel the church is much like running ahead of a train. Even if you are headed in the right direction at first, leaving others behind, or fooling yourself into thinking you drive that train, will leave you on the outside looking in. A shorter version is, if you believe you are the smartest person in the room, you are wrong. 4
Recommended Posts