Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Allegedly.

Exactly.  You seem to be assuming she's lying.  I'm assuming nothing.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that non-penitent communications with clergy are also privileged. 

So the law is the a clergy member who is publically accused of mistreating someone cannot defend himself?  That does seem screwy.  

Well I guess we'll never really know what happened, if she and her husband are just making it all up or not.  

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She apparently spoke to an area 70 who told her she has no other recourse and that her SP's view stands.  

priest-penitent privilege?  What do you think she was repenting of?  

Some reading is indicated.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Meaning that clergy can't be compelled to testify, right? It doesn't prevent them from sharing information they choose to share, does it?

Here's the relevant part of the statute:

Quote

A clergyman or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs.

In other words, you can't compel a clergy member to disclose privileged information. However, if the other party consents, he or she can share the information. As USU78 says, the church's policy is never to disclose privileged information, regardless of consent. That certainly makes it more difficult for the "penitent" if the clergy member does or says something wrong.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Exactly.  You seem to be assuming she's lying.  I'm assuming nothing.

You misunderstood me. Utter lack of credibility is not the same thing as assuming lies. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So the law is the a clergy member who is publically accused of mistreating someone cannot defend himself?  That does seem screwy.  

Well I guess we'll never really know what happened, if she and her husband are just making it all up or not.  

No, the law is that you can't compel a clergy member to disclose privileged information. They can voluntarily disclose such information if the penitent consents. It would be dishonest for a penitent to make accusations of a clergy member but insist that the clergy member keep the conversation confidential. 

[ttribe]

Just now, USU78 said:

You misunderstood me. Utter lack of credibility is not the same thing as assuming lies. 

Okay.  Let's assume, for the moment, that while her post-interview actions may harm her credibility, that everything she has said is actually true.  What then?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Here's the relevant part of the statute:

In other words, you can't compel a clergy member to disclose privileged information. However, if the other party consents, he or she can share the information. As USU78 says, the church's policy is never to disclose privileged information, regardless of consent. That certainly makes it more difficult for the "penitent" if the clergy member does or says something wrong.

I'm not sure this is a relevant part seeing as there is no confession on her part, in terms of confessing sins.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There wouldn't be a tattler if she's doing it openly in sacrament, would there? Everyone around her would notice. She refuses to be discrete. She just opens her blouse, doesn't care who's around, and does this. Let's say investigators are there and are also offended.

Honestly while I can understand those who think nothing should be done, I think this really is denying the conflicts it would cause in the ward and how it'd affect others.

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying this is what happened in this case. However I think by thinking through this issue one can see it might be more complex of an issue than some suggest. Especially if this is being done for activist reasons. (Again not saying that's the case here)

The reason I bring up this thought example is because while it may not apply in this case, it seems pretty clear from Twitter it's how at least a significant group think about the issue. People who might be completely offended if on a hike a guy goes pee within sight are here thinking that breasts should be able to be exposed at any time because they're not sexual. My guess, perhaps a bit cynical, is that we'll see soon women intentionally showing their breasts while breastfeeding to make a point.

But that's not what happened. Read the posts describing how this brought to the attention of priesthood leaders. It was done in the foyer, not the chapel so the bishop wouldn't  be in a position to notice himself.

Yeah, if people get offended on a hike, and then run and tell their bishop about it, I hope the bishop will tell them to mind their business and stop wasting his time.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure this is a relevant part seeing as there is no confession on her part, in terms of confessing sins.

The Supreme Court ruled that this part of the statute applies to non-penitents as well. 

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1994/910112.html

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Okay.  Let's assume, for the moment, that while her post-interview actions may harm her credibility, that everything she has said is actually true.  What then?

She's got three choices, as I see it: appeal to general church officers and see what happens; suck it up; or, if this is a make or break issue for her, resignation.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure this is a relevant part seeing as there is no confession on her part, in terms of confessing sins.

I think John's point from his previous post is that the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that the entirety of any closed door discussion between a clergy member and a member of the flock is considered privileged; regardless of whether there is a "confession" or not.

Edited July 26, 2018 by ttribe

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

No, the law is that you can't compel a clergy member to disclose privileged information. They can voluntarily disclose such information if the penitent consents. It would be dishonest for a penitent to make accusations of a clergy member but insist that the clergy member keep the conversation confidential. 

I'd just go back to the relevant part of the statute and say there was no confession of any sin.  So it seems if he's compelled to keep quiet about the accusations he's doing so with respect to Church law rather than secular law.  

But if she's making it all up with her husband then I'm not sure we'll ever know anyway, I suppose.  

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we have only 1 side of the story it's because only 1 side is willing to speak. The church isn't willing to give their side, therefore we don't know their side. It is their choice not to share their side. Why should the other party be unable to speak and share their side just because the church isn't willing to share the other side. That expectation isn't logical. By refusing to speak, the church doesn't somehow control the other party's ability to speak. You are granting way too much power and deference to the church when you assert that people can only speak if the church is also willing to speak. It's illogical.

Even if we only get one side of the story, we need to realize that it still is only one side of the story.

In my profession, I get one side of the story all the time.  I constantly hear about how bad so and so is, or the government, or whoever.   I even get paid money to believe and defend their side of the story. 

I can't, however, ignore the fact that there are other sides of the story.  I can't afford to.  My clients, perhaps unconsciously, tend to embellish, or at least heavily emphasize things that support their version and de-emphasize   things that don't or contradict their view. 

In this case we are getting one side of the story and we should expect embellishments, and emphasis on things that support her side.

[ttribe]

Just now, USU78 said:

She's got three choices, as I see it: appeal to general church officers and see what happens; suck it up; or, if this is a make or break issue for her, resignation.

That's, ummm, pretty harsh.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

The Supreme Court ruled that this part of the statute applies to non-penitents as well. 

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1994/910112.html

As I read it, I still find this irrelevant:

Quote

if they are intended to be confidential and are made for the purpose of seeking spiritual counseling, guidance, or advice from a cleric acting in his or her professional role and pursuant to the discipline of his or her church.

Who says this was intended to be confidential?  Who says she was seeking spiritual counseling, guidance, or advice?  

I'm not sure there is a direct correlation here.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think John's point from his previous post is that the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that the entirety of any closed door discussion between a clergy member and a member of the flock is considered privileged; regardless of whether is a "confession" or not.

Yup. In the case cited, the LDS church argued for a broader application of the statute to all such communications, and the court agreed:

Quote

We conclude that the term "confession" need not be construed to apply only to penitential communications and that a broad construction of that term is necessary to take into account the essential religious role clergy play in dealing with the wrongdoing of parishioners.

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, the law is that you can't compel a clergy member to disclose privileged information. They can voluntarily disclose such information if the penitent consents. It would be dishonest for a penitent to make accusations of a clergy member but insist that the clergy member keep the conversation confidential. 

So, for example, this lady could give the SP authorization to share his side of the story. Right. Then if he chooses not to share, that's his problem.

I assume this happened in Utah.

 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's, ummm, pretty harsh.  

What other choices does she have? As I see it, it's not at issue yet.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

As I read it, I still find this irrelevant:

Who says this was intended to be confidential?  Who says she was seeking spiritual counseling, guidance, or advice?  

I'm not sure there is a direct correlation here.  

By definition, a temple recommend interview is confidential. I would bet money that the church handbook explicitly says as much.

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

She's got three choices, as I see it: appeal to general church officers and see what happens; suck it up; or, if this is a make or break issue for her, resignation.

Are these three options your opinion, or is there an objective statute that outlines these three options?

[USU78]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

So, for example, this lady could give the SP authorization to share his side of the story. Right. Then if he chooses not to share, that's his problem.

I assume this happened in Utah.

 

He can't even if she says he can.

[USU78]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

Are these three options your opinion, or is there an objective statute that outlines these three options?

Can't think of anything else. Have you got other thoughts?

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

He can't even if she says he can.

Doesn't the privilege belong to the penitent? Can't one waive the privilege?

or are you saying Utah law says that the privilege belongs to both the penitent and the priest?

[USU78]

Just now, Danzo said:

Doesn't the privilege belong to the penitent? Can't one waive the privilege?

or are you saying Utah law says that the privilege belongs to both the penitent and the priest?

Here's where policy comes into play.