New Press Release From John Dehlin

[smac97]

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?

 

Let's look at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (part of the overall federal wiretapping statute), which states:

 

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception 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.

A disciplinary proceeding held by a private religious group is "not acting under color of law," and John Dehlin will be part of the proceeding, and therefore "a party to the communication."  I doubt a surreptitious recording would be construed as being "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act."  Consequently, I do not think a recording would be unlawful under federal statute.

Next, let's look at Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4(7)(b) (part of Utah's Interception of Communications Act ), which is similar to the federal statute:

 

A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws.

The same analysis as used for the federal statute appears to apply to the state statute.

 

I suppose it is feasible that the Church could assert some sort of tort claim if John Dehlin A) agrees ahead of time to not record the disciplinary hearing, and B) surreptitiously does so anyway.  Perhaps the tort claim could be for some species of fraud or invasion of privacy.  If so, then a surreptitious recording could be construed as a violation of the state statute.  This seems like a stretch to me, though.  And even if this statute were implicated (the claim would be that John Dehlin used the recording to commit the tort of invasion of privacy or some such), it appears that there is no private right of action under it (although there may be a private right of action for fraud or invasion of privacy).  And even if there was a private right of action under the statute or under general principles of tort law, I doubt the Church would assert such claims.

 

I don't think the agreement was intended to be a legally enforceable instrument.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

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.

Local leaders refused to allow Denver Snuffer to attend when he insisted his children be present according to him or rather he refused to attend under those conditions. I see no reason why if Dehlin refuses to sign, the same thing wouldn't occur recorded or not.

[smac97]

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.

 

With respect, I disagree.  A disciplinary council is a religious gathering convened by the Church on the Church's property and presided over by a representative of the Church, the stake president.  John Dehlin has been invited to attend, but he doesn't call the shots.  The stake president presides, and it's his (or, more specifically, the Church's) call about whether it's recorded or not.  The Church also has privacy and religious liberty interests at stake.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited February 5, 2015 by smac97

[stemelbow]

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).

Perhaps precedent is reason enough to President King.

[KevinG]

Some people have an amazing talent for squeezing the 16th minute out of their 15 minutes of fame.

[KevinG]

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.

 

I think Elder Christofferson has addressed that quite well already.  

 

 

“We have members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues…but…in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines. That’s very different for us, than someone who feels one way or another on a political stance or a particular action…to support a group, Affirmation or any others that you named.”

 

See if you can spot where in that statement John Dehlin may have gone too far.

Edited February 5, 2015 by KevinG

[rongo]

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.

There are *always* notes taken. They are included in the documents sent to Salt Lake. I had my clerks write very detailed notes, including the give-and-take of deliberations (who said what, etc.). I adopted this habit from well-documented minutes that accompanied disciplinary councils I was working with (i.e., people who had received discipline and were working their way back, or people with annotated records), and included as detailed as possible notes on what was discussed and who said what. I found very detailed to be more helpful than simply the charge and the outcome.

[smac97]

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.

The Church proceeds pursuant to its doctrines, and on policies and guidelines based on those doctrines and on long experience. I think it's a bit presumptuous for armchair quarterbacks like us to tell the Church how to proceed in such matters.

The Church's position is a principled one.

Here's why... (IMO) Kate Kelly originally looked like the victim of ecclesiastical abuse when she shared her version of the disciplinary proceedings.

Kate Kelly moved heaven and earth to make the Church look bad. That's the way of apostates. But it makes no sense to capitulate to such reprehensible tactics.

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 recall that. My recollection was that she unilaterally released selected communications, and the Church stated that if she is going to release information she should release all communications, which she did, and which subsequently cast her in a lesser light.

Unfortunately, folks like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin are acting in rebellion and defiance against the Church, whereas the Church is trying to maintain civility and some semblance of fellowship with these folks. Such asymmetry could result in a downward spiral of spite, but the Church seems to be wanting to take the high road, and I think that's the right thing to do.

 

I believe that the point of confidentiality of our disciplinary councils is to protect the individual.

That is a point, but not the only one. Apostates Kate Kelly and Denver Snuffer tried to turn disciplinary proceedings into a circus, with the calculated intent of trying to tear down the Church and make it look bad. John Dehlin appears to be utilizing similar tactics, which I find unfortunate and reprehensible.

(I imagine some disagree with me there.)

Your statement is not incorrect, just incomplete.

But, Dehlin doesn't want his confidentiality protected.

Which is why he will almost certainly publish the proceedings to the world. But since there are more interests at stake than his, the Church has no need to capitulate to his demands that it alter its doctrinal/procedural posture relative to disciplinary proceedings.

We seem to be headed into a win-win situation if the Church stays the course. John Dehlin is not legally constrained from saying whatever he wants about the disciplinary council, so he gets what he wants. And the Church preserves the sanctity and propriety of the disciplinary counsel, so it gets what it wants.

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.

He is at liberty to take notes. So can his wife. He's said he and his wife don't want to take notes. That's their call, but they can't then legitimately complain about "secrecy," can they?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sky]

John Dehlin seems to be promoting atheistic/agnostic leanings and openly proclaiming that the leaders of the Church, both past and present, are in error.  He cannot do this if he wants to remain a member of the Church, and especially by using his influence to draw other members of the Church after him.  To me, this is the crux of what this disciplinary council is really all about.  

[rongo]

 

 

I don't think the agreement was intended to be a legally enforceable instrument.

 

 

I agree. It's intent is, I think, to encourage good faith and good behavior on the part of John Dehlin. While not legally enforceable, it can be used to show that he acts in bad faith and can be disingenuous/dishonest.

[smac97]

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.

That's not his call. He does not get to dictate to the Church how it conducts its meetings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

There are *always* notes taken. They are included in the documents sent to Salt Lake. I had my clerks write very detailed notes, including the give-and-take of deliberations (who said what, etc.). I adopted this habit from well-documented minutes that accompanied disciplinary councils I was working with (i.e., people who had received discipline and were working their way back, or people with annotated records), and included as detailed as possible notes on what was discussed and who said what. I found very detailed to be more helpful than simply the charge and the outcome.

Awesome. let's design a way to intercept those notes so the whole story can be told and no one will be fooled by Dehlin's personal biases and agendas.

[rongo]

Also, what kind of a circus would it be if it were handled "only through letters." How long would that take. 

 

Completely unrealistic.

[smac97]

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.

As I understand it, he and his wife have not been prohibited from taking notes. Instead, he has said that they don't want to. He has also said he will abide by the stake president's requirement to not make a recording of the council.

Thanks,

-Smac

[KevinG]

Did the full article that the Maxwell Institute pulled in the earlier Dehlin vs. Peterson debate ever get published?  Dehlin purported to have pull with a member of the Quorum of the 70 at the time.  Other than claims that he was influential in the removal of Dr. Peterson, what was the final result?

 

Supposedly the article was critical of Dehlin's scholarship in studying membership trends in the church.

[smac97]

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).

I can think of many reasons, not the least of which is the incentive such a concession would create. Think of farces like the OJ Simpson trial and the Michael Jackson trial. These were solemn criminal proceedings turned into circuses, which is what OJ and Michael and their compatriots wanted.

The Church's disciplinary councils have limited similarities to criminal trials, but decorum and seriousness are some of them. There are also doctrinal reasons to treat such councils with sanctity. So when Denver Snuffer tried to turn his DC into a farce, the Church did not go along. The Church also held firm against Kate Kelly's attempts to manipulate her DC. I anticipate the Church will also hold firm against John Dehlin's efforts.

I see no value in the Church capitulating to the calculated machinations of apostates like Denver Snuffer and Kate Kelly. I do not think such efforts are made in good faith. They are unseemly, unserious and profane.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

Read Greg's timeline to demonstrate how little Dehlin was involved in the firing of Dan and others as editors. Notice Dan had agreed to pull the article with no argument for one thing, it was a nonissue by then.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

If by scholarship you mean his study using around 3000 self selected self identified disbelieving respondents to his online survey to come up with the reasons why people leave the Church, I can't remember but the survey at best measures only what the self selected group states and not in any way can that be used for conclusions about amore global group of leave takers save they may be possibilities…which we knew before the survey was done.

Edited February 5, 2015 by calmoriah

[ksfisher]

After reading through Dehlin's press release I'm left wondering why he wants to be part of an organization whose doctrine is so distant from what Dehlin seems to believe.  It seems obvious that Dehin is headed one direction, while the church is headed in another.

[Kenngo1969]

There's also this:  Any 15 year old with the right software can doctor an audio or video file.

But if you're 16, your outta luck!

 

(Sorry.  Couldn't resist! )

[Kenngo1969]

After reading through Dehlin's press release I'm left wondering why he wants to be part of an organization whose doctrine is so distant from what Dehlin seems to believe.  It seems obvious that Dehin is headed one direction, while the church is headed in another.

I wonder whether Dehlin really wants to be a part of the organization, or if he simply wants to exploit the pending action against him as a way to paint the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or at least some of its leaders) in the worst possible light.

[ksfisher]

I wonder whether Dehlin really wants to be a part of the organization, or if he simply wants to exploit the pending action against him as a way to paint the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or at least some of its leaders) in the worst possible light.

 

If he does really want to be a part of the church I can't understand why.  His personal beliefs seem to be so at odds with what the church teaches...I don't get why he wants to stay.

[smac97]

I wonder whether Dehlin really wants to be a part of the organization, or if he simply wants to exploit the pending action against him as a way to paint the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or at least some of its leaders) in the worst possible light.

Denver Snuffer used the same MO. So did Kate Kelly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

 

I think Elder Christofferson has addressed that quite well already.  

 

 

“We have members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues…but…in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines. That’s very different for us, than someone who feels one way or another on a political stance or a particular action…to support a group, Affirmation or any others that you named.”

 

See if you can spot where in that statement John Dehlin may have gone too far.

 

 

As much as I like that quote, I don't see it offering a lot of clarity.  It is very nice to know that we can support groups like Affirmation and Ordain Women.  But I still think it's been left a bit fuzzy as to what is "attacking the church and leaders" or trying to draw away others.

 

Personally, I think the case for Dehlin's excommunication doesn't need to even bring in his advocacy for women's ordination or gay marriage.

[rockpond]

That's not his call. He does not get to dictate to the Church how it conducts its meetings.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You'll note that I said "ask" not "dictate".

[KevinG]

I wonder whether Dehlin really wants to be a part of the organization, or if he simply wants to exploit the pending action against him as a way to paint the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or at least some of its leaders) in the worst possible light.

 

But but but...  the Apostles have his back.  Dr. Scratch assures us that they were behind the dePetersoning of the Maxwell institute.