Mystery Meat Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: In a digital age, there should be no problem with keeping and maintaining such records. We have a huge hole in a mountain devoted to storing a lot of records, if I recall. One thing you say confuses me, though. You say, "And this doesn't even begin to consider those people who take part in the disciplinary counsel who also have a right to confidentiality." I don't know who that would be. In my opinion, the only person with a "right to confidentiality" in the council is the person being disciplined. Nobody else who participates has any "right to confidentiality." In fact, making a record of the proceedings would tend to curb unwarranted excesses from any such others. This is flat out stupid. Every single participant has a right to privacy. 3
Mystery Meat Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: What goes on in a church court would be grounds for a lawsuit is a bit disturbing. If there was such a lawsuit, wouldn't a recording of the meeting be valuable in a court of law to determine what actually happened? The only reason for not wanting a recording is if something illegal took place and the church did not want any proof of that. Your response sounds pretty strange Often times in a disciplinary court, important counsel is given to the person. I think there would be an upside for the person having such a recording to remind him of the counsel that was given him. Members who seemed opposed to such a recording gives me great concern on what might be said that would be harmful to the church or the person. I do agree that both parties should have a recording of the event. Other than that, I don't see what the problem is. Again, this is flat out stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding. So the Church allows participants to record a meeting. Then they have to record the meeting to make sure any reproduction of the events is accurate and fair. But even then, would the church releasing its reproduction, even if it was accurate, be wise in this event? Did everyone provide consent to have it released? Then we have the issue of storing the recordings. What happens if there is a breach and someone gets access to it and releases it to the public? How much liability does the Church bear for having an individuals dirty laundry aired to the public? Could the very fact that someone was able to access the recordings be evidence of negligence on its face? What about the privacy of the other participants? Or any witnesses? Should a high councilman who is present be subject to public condemnation for asking questions dealing with things of sacred nature? If you were such a high councilman would you be willing to even participate in the council let alone ask some tough questions? Not a chance in hell. There are too many question marks with this. Legal fees alone for exploring all the potential ramifications and fallout would be high (us lawyers have to eat). The effect such recordings would have on the councils themselves would be enough to dramatically change how they operate and for the worse. Any lawyer worth his salt would discourage the church from allowing or recording any of these councils for privacy reasons alone. But there are lots of other reasons why it won't and shouldn't ever happen. 4
Mystery Meat Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm guessing any attempt to sue (that MM was talking about in regards to recordings be kept) would be on grounds of libel or slander should confidentiality be broken in a way the person didn't want or later regretted. Not because something illegal took place during the disciplinary council. But hopefully MM will clarify. Yes. The liability I was thinking of had nothing to do with some sort of illegal activity that took place during the meeting. It did have everything to do with the liability that keeping such records would natural impose. NOT WORTH THE RISK.
Mystery Meat Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: Well as you know, anyone can sue for anything they want. If there was a recording, there would be a facutal record of what actually occured rather than a he said, she said situation. Wouldn't the truth be the main concern of the church if such a court case arise? A recording would leave little doubt of what actually happened. Again, a stupid statement. People cannot sue anyone for anything they want. First, if you sued me for calling your statement stupid, any attorney who helped you bring the case would be sanctioned. Your case would be dismissed before it ever got anywhere near a courtroom. 1
Popular Post SmileyMcGee Posted February 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, bluebell said: It's hard to believe that he doesn't know why action is needed or is being taken. What are you talking about? All he did was.... -Copy and paste content from mormonthink and utah lighthouse ministry into a disorganized word doc -make the document publicly available online -create an entire website dedicated to the document and solicit donations to spread the word -claim that he went through a faith "transition" years ago...a bit more resolved than just experiencing doubt or questioning -And, my favorite, post a trailer of a possible CES Letter movie (hahahaha) Runnels is either an idiot or playing the martyr....I'm guessing martyr...false dichotomy, he may be both. Edited February 13, 2016 by SmileyMcGee spelling 5
Duncan Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 17 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: On one hand we have people who want church courts recorded and then on the other we have the Johnnie Cake's of the world who don't want anything from the past recorded and annotated and brought forward cha cha cha 1
rockpond Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said: Runnels is either an idiot or playing the martyr....I guessing martyr...false dichotomy, he may be both. Or neither. Perhaps he is upset that the Church's response to his questions is not to attempt answering them, but to excommunicate him. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 On February 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM, stemelbow said: Please ignore. Another problem with this clunky quote software.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: In a digital age, there should be no problem with keeping and maintaining such records Being in "a digital age" makes allowing such recording more problematic than ever, given the ease with which recordings can be manipulated, falsified, reproduced and shared across the Internet ad infinitum. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 Will pushing this back from this Sunday to March result in more publicity for this council or will it have had more press if it was this Sunday?
Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted February 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, rockpond said: Or neither. Perhaps he is upset that the Church's response to his questions is not to attempt answering them, but to excommunicate him. These are not questions. You have to be incredibly naive to think that his questions don't already have answers in his mind. He left the Church in his mind and heart well before writing the letter. This is evident by content that predates the letter. No, if he is exed, the Church will not be exing him for asking questions (and this is a stupid bit of tripe that folks hostile to the Church repeatedly like to toss out even though there is no evidence to support the absurdity of this charge) it will be because he is an apostate; one who is trying to persuade others to give up their faith, doubt eternal truths and damn themselves to hell. Edited February 12, 2016 by Mystery Meat 5
bluebell Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: Or neither. Perhaps he is upset that the Church's response to his questions is not to attempt answering them, but to excommunicate him. It seems clear, given what he said previous to the CES letter, that the questions he posed were rhetorical and meant to make a point rather than elicit information. 4
SmileyMcGee Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, rockpond said: Or neither. Perhaps he is upset that the Church's response to his questions is not to attempt answering them, but to excommunicate him. being upset is not the issue. his professed ignorance as to why he is facing discipline is the issue, he's not the sharpest knife if he literally has no idea. Do you really think that while he was doing his thing he never thought "i might get in trouble for this." Please. Stop the disingenuous nonsense. He can't be that stupid. Edited February 12, 2016 by SmileyMcGee 2
carbon dioxide Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 25 minutes ago, rockpond said: Or neither. Perhaps he is upset that the Church's response to his questions is not to attempt answering them, but to excommunicate him. An honest person would not ask the Church or anyone a laundry list of things on a variety of subjects. They would find 5 or 10 of the most important issues they are having a problem with and leave it at that. They would also seek out individuals they know who can answer the the questions and not just throw them out on the web and demand the Church respond to them.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: Again, this is flat out stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding. So the Church allows participants to record a meeting. Then they have to record the meeting to make sure any reproduction of the events is accurate and fair. But even then, would the church releasing its reproduction, even if it was accurate, be wise in this event? Did everyone provide consent to have it released? Then we have the issue of storing the recordings. What happens if there is a breach and someone gets access to it and releases it to the public? How much liability does the Church bear for having an individuals dirty laundry aired to the public? Could the very fact that someone was able to access the recordings be evidence of negligence on its face? What about the privacy of the other participants? Or any witnesses? Should a high councilman who is present be subject to public condemnation for asking questions dealing with things of sacred nature? If you were such a high councilman would you be willing to even participate in the council let alone ask some tough questions? Not a chance in hell. There are too many question marks with this. Legal fees alone for exploring all the potential ramifications and fallout would be high (us lawyers have to eat). The effect such recordings would have on the councils themselves would be enough to dramatically change how they operate and for the worse. Any lawyer worth his salt would discourage the church from allowing or recording any of these councils for privacy reasons alone. But there are lots of other reasons why it won't and shouldn't ever happen. Isn't consig some kind of lawyer? And he didn't think through all this stuff? My favorite: The accused is the only one with the right to confidentiality. Give me a break! If I ever needed representation and the choice were between the two of you, it would be the easiest decision I would ever have to make. Edited February 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: An honest person would not ask the Church or anyone a laundry list of things on a variety of subjects.... His explanation for writing the letter was so that his kids would know why he had left the Church. The subtitle is "Why I lost my testimony". He was providing answers, not looking for them by that point. (not debating your post, just using your post to make sense of why I am making this point. Edited February 12, 2016 by Calm
ttribe Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Isn't consig some kind of lawyer? And he didn't think through all this stuff? My favorite: The accused is the only one with the right to confidentiality. Give me a break! If I ever needed representation and the choice were between the two of you, it would be the easiest decision I would ever have to make. Nice low blow. I can't imagine you would take too kindly to someone publicly deriding your professional skill as a journalist in this forum. Edited February 12, 2016 by ttribe
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: Again, this is flat out stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding. So the Church allows participants to record a meeting. Then they have to record the meeting to make sure any reproduction of the events is accurate and fair. But even then, would the church releasing its reproduction, even if it was accurate, be wise in this event? Did everyone provide consent to have it released? Then we have the issue of storing the recordings. What happens if there is a breach and someone gets access to it and releases it to the public? How much liability does the Church bear for having an individuals dirty laundry aired to the public? Could the very fact that someone was able to access the recordings be evidence of negligence on its face? What about the privacy of the other participants? Or any witnesses? Should a high councilman who is present be subject to public condemnation for asking questions dealing with things of sacred nature? If you were such a high councilman would you be willing to even participate in the council let alone ask some tough questions? Not a chance in hell. There are too many question marks with this. Legal fees alone for exploring all the potential ramifications and fallout would be high (us lawyers have to eat). The effect such recordings would have on the councils themselves would be enough to dramatically change how they operate and for the worse. Any lawyer worth his salt would discourage the church from allowing or recording any of these councils for privacy reasons alone. But there are lots of other reasons why it won't and shouldn't ever happen. I can imagine a lot of high councilors, if the knew a council was being recorded and possibly be made public, just sitting there and keeping their mouths shut. That would really help the process. On the upside, everyone could probably be home in under an hour. Edited February 13, 2016 by ksfisher 1
california boy Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I think many people would be very reluctant to have disciplinary councils recorded. Very reluctant. I don't blame them for that at all. These are very private, very sacred matters. A written record is kept, which is sufficient for the Church's purposes. And if the purpose of such a suggestion is to prepare for anticipated litigation, that seems rather farfetched. Such lawsuits are extraordinarily rare. And to my knowledge, none has ever succeeded against the LDS Church. LDS disciplinary councils are ill-suited to give rise to the prima facie elements of a defamation claim. And then there are the First Amendment and Ecclesiastical Abstention issues to address. There really is no legitimate need to record a disciplinary council. And since it is a meeting convened by the Church, the Church gets to decide what does and does not happen there. Thanks, -Smac I think you lost track about what this discussion was about. The question came up that if the person who was being disciplined could record the council. I agree that probably most would not want it to be recorded. But what if someone asked to record the proceedings, should the church be able to accomodate that request.
ksfisher Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, california boy said: I think you lost track about what this discussion was about. The question came up that if the person who was being disciplined could record the council. I agree that probably most would not want it to be recorded. But what if someone asked to record the proceedings, should the church be able to accomodate that request. No, defiantly not. As has been mentioned before there exists the possibility of digital manipulation of the recording. I could imagine a scenario where a very different version of the recording is released to the public. And in the end no recording can in any way duplicate the spirit that is at the council. Nothing can record what the stake presidency feels as they kneel and pray together. And that is what is really important, it's understanding what the Lord's will is concerning the sinner. How do you record that? Edited February 13, 2016 by ksfisher 1
california boy Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: Again, this is flat out stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding. So the Church allows participants to record a meeting. Then they have to record the meeting to make sure any reproduction of the events is accurate and fair. But even then, would the church releasing its reproduction, even if it was accurate, be wise in this event? Did everyone provide consent to have it released? Then we have the issue of storing the recordings. What happens if there is a breach and someone gets access to it and releases it to the public? How much liability does the Church bear for having an individuals dirty laundry aired to the public? Could the very fact that someone was able to access the recordings be evidence of negligence on its face? What about the privacy of the other participants? Or any witnesses? Should a high councilman who is present be subject to public condemnation for asking questions dealing with things of sacred nature? If you were such a high councilman would you be willing to even participate in the council let alone ask some tough questions? Not a chance in hell. There are too many question marks with this. Legal fees alone for exploring all the potential ramifications and fallout would be high (us lawyers have to eat). The effect such recordings would have on the councils themselves would be enough to dramatically change how they operate and for the worse. Any lawyer worth his salt would discourage the church from allowing or recording any of these councils for privacy reasons alone. But there are lots of other reasons why it won't and shouldn't ever happen. I am not sure I buy all of your objections, but I can see how safeguarding a recording from being released accidentally could be problematic. I get a sense from what I read in these past couple of days is that Runnels is asking some pretty difficult questions about what is taught by the church. I am guessing that he feels just asking hard questions should not be grounds for excommunication. If a high councilman accused him of leading people away from the church without offering any proof, then I can see why he would want their answers on record. Let's speculate and say he gets excommunicated simply for his CES letter and the council has no evidence that he activally tried to do anything more than ask the questions, should he have a right to presenting the lack of any other proof to his followers? I personally know nothing about Runnels and his activities. I personally think the church can excommunicate any person they want for any reason they want. But if the grounds for excommunication is solely for asking hard questions, then the church should state that as the reason for the action and stand behind it. PS. You need to quit calling people stupid. This is a fourm that asks questions and receives answers. You don't need to insult people to present your answers. I will read what you say without the insults. Edited February 13, 2016 by california boy 1
ERMD Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 Keep in mind also that participation on the part of the person for whom the council is called is voluntary. It's not like a subpoena to a court of law. 3
Popular Post Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Quote I am guessing that he feels just asking hard questions should not be grounds for excommunication. He said this about himself in Nov 2012: Quote I'm BIC, RM, Temple Married who left the church a few months ago (haven't resigned yet)....I have a TBM wife who still takes kids to church. I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won't have to go through what I went through. Also as I posted a quote from him earlier, when he first started the letter stuff, he is telling people he will publicly post his letter so they can use it as well to do what he wants to do with it (convince someone else the Church is false). I think you have to pretty much ignore what he has said and done over the years to think it is him "just asking hard questions". He adapts his work to make it more "palatable" to LDS so they won't reject it out of hand (intelligent choice but demonstrates his main objective is not to ask questions to get answers, but to convince people the Church is a fraud). He has also publicly stated he doesn't care about the LDS Church anymore. He has stated his target audience are the fence sitters (with him hoping to convince them the Church is not true...my interpretation of the rest of his comment). To protest his excommunication given he is actively working to take people out of the Church and personally doesn't care about the Church anymore is at the very least contradictory. Edited February 13, 2016 by Calm 10
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 4 hours ago, ksfisher said: I can imagine a lot of high councilors, if the knew a council was being recorded and possibly be made public, just sitting there and keeping their mouths shut. That would really help the process. On the upside, everyone could probably be home in under an hour. You know a high councilor who keeps his mouth shut?
ksfisher Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: You know a high councilor who keeps his mouth shut? Several.
Recommended Posts