Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

BYU requires new hires to waive their right to clergy confidentiality


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What do you think an LDS bishop might ask a Catholic (or another non LDS) to give them an ecclesiastical endorsement?

My guess…Basically if they are living the honor code standards as currently relevant to their faith and if they would be willing to live the honor code standards while at BYU I am guessing.  I assume even nonmembers aren’t supposed to drink or smoke or drink coffee even when off campus as I remember a to-do over a ROTC teacher who wasn’t going to give them up.  He eventually moved the headquarters of the army? ROTC to UVU and taught classes only at BYU.  I also assume if by chance any nonmember took wine as part of communion, that would be waived as not an issue since it is recreational use that one is required to abstain from.

Looking online it appears to be Honor Code and church activity, but bishops can vary a great deal on these as one might require weekly attendance unless there is a good excuse besides ‘I didn’t want to go’ and others are okay if you show up once a semester.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

From a CES employee at bycommonconsent:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/09/02/how-to-beat-an-autocrat-fear-not-i-e-dont-cave-friends/
 

Quote

The new TR standard and endorsement questions have changed—for all of us. And the first wave of centralized firings has begun—at the level of the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office (ECO) in Salt Lake. Dozens of adjunct faculty, many who have worked for CES for years, given overtime and heart and health to students, received compensation for barely minimum wage, have received calls that they have been fired—even as the fall semester begins—with zero information as to the reason for their dismissal. (Can you imagine making such calls over and over? All in a day’s work.) 

The process is entirely opaque, and it is literally ruining people’s lives. Many are baffled—they have no idea why their endorsement would be removed—and some of their bishops swear it didn’t happen at their level. Theories range from a misinterpreted comment, whether in person or on social media, or a student’s report, or hearsay, or a system error.

Some of the questions the church is interested in:

Quote

“Does this member have a testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of its doctrine, including its teachings on marriage, family, and gender?

“Does this member support current church policies and practices and sustain the leaders of the Church?

“Has this member demonstrated an exemplary and extended pattern of avoiding pornography for at least one year?

“Please share any concerns you may have about recommending this member:

“This member will be an influence on youth and young adults. Your additional comments are needed for this endorsement. Please describe this member with regard to each of the following: Temple Worthiness, Church Attendance, Support of Church Leadership and Doctrine, Family Relationships, Testimony, Other Areas of Strength:”

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From a CES employee at bycommonconsent:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/09/02/how-to-beat-an-autocrat-fear-not-i-e-dont-cave-friends/
 

Some of the questions the church is interested in:

 

I would not be surprised if this was accurate (would also love to know the size of the faculty for CES to know what percentage dozens actually is), but has her identity been verified and has she been shown to be a reliable witness. If not, I think it would be useful to wait for confirming information that this is happening before getting upset or rejoicing or whatever about it. My guess is we will see an article in the Trib about it shortly. Hopefully they will verify the terminations occurred. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Great questions!

I don’t see any issue with the questions myself for someone hired to teach, but even more so help instill church principles into youth and young adults…or anyone for that matter. To instill commitment in a principle well, I think one has to have that commitment oneself. Why would any student believe a principle was worth standing up for if the one who was teaching them the principle didn’t care enough to stand up for the principle themselves?

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see any issue with the questions myself for someone hired to teach, but even more so help instill church principles into youth and young adults…or anyone for that matter. To instill commitment in a principle well, I think one has to have that commitment oneself. Why would any student believe a principle was worth standing up for if the one who was teaching them the principle didn’t care enough to stand up for the principle themselves?

Yeah, for people teaching religious doctrine these make sense. My biggest issue seeing this policy is the double standard when juxtaposed against violating the confidentiality of abusers. 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yeah, for people teaching religious doctrine these make sense. My biggest issue seeing this policy is the double standard when juxtaposed against violating the confidentiality of abusers. 

I think there's three confidentialities that are being talked about.

The first one is the right to not have your clergy testify (either in court or through discovery) of your behaviors is actually enshrined in law.  I don't want that every broken, nor even for horrible abusers. 

The second is that your clergy won't turn you in when you confess to a crime. There's studies that show breaking that confidentiality could actually worsen crimes.  I'm, personally, unsure of what should be done.

The third is that your clergy will keep your discussions private from your spouse, their spouse, other members of the congregation, your employer, the town gossip, etc.

For me, all three are different and should be examined separately.

For this situation, where the employer is asking for confidential information from your bishop, the bishop should say no. It shouldn't matter what I've signed. That confidentiality isn't a legal thing but a church thing. And our church does say that you have privacy when you talk to the bishop.  I don't know what the document that people are being asked to sign, but if it just gives the employer the permission to ask the bishop, then the bishop is obligated by church doctrine to not answer. And I think you might even be able to sue the bishop for breaking expected confidence.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

But suing and winning is another thing and I suspect weebles was talking about that.

I don’t know. In another thread I saw several references to the church being sued about privilege violation in oregon. From what I saw that case was dismissed. So <shrug>. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Great questions!

I’d say the sole focus on the left wing of the church is misplaced. I’d say people teaching now disavowed racist doctrines (like professor bott), preppers, anti-mask and anti-vaccine folks should be equally rooted out. My experience growing up in the church, liberal views were shunned, but conservative views, while maybe not embraced, were certainly well tolerated. 
 

When it comes to LGBTQ issues, we’ve had several threads here in recent months where full on hate and paranoia towards these groups comes through (not from anywhere near the majority of the faithful, but the fringes). 
 

I get why the brethren focus on the liberal wing. These people are more likely to direct “musket fire” towards church leaders. But as for what drives young people out of the church in larger numbers? I’d put my money on those spouting anti LGBTQ rhetoric (For instance the poster here bit ago that railed on gay missionaries) , over the liberal wing. 
 

That said I’m an apostate, so take all that with a huge grain of salt.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

How in the world do you “demonstrate” avoiding pornography?  🤦‍♀️

Not just demonstrate but do so in an “exemplary” fashion.

“Has this member demonstrated an exemplary and extended pattern of avoiding pornography for at least one year?

If I were the bishop I would be tempted to put: “This member avoids pornography but in a very mediocre fashion. To my knowledge no member has commented on this person’s exemplary pornography avoidance. To the best of my knowledge they just avoid it. Now you should make this other member in my ward a teacher. He posts on social media every time he is tempted by pornography and even posts pictures of the pornography avoided. These posts show up an average of three or four times a day. How do I recommend him to join your faculty?”

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From a CES employee at bycommonconsent:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/09/02/how-to-beat-an-autocrat-fear-not-i-e-dont-cave-friends/
 

Some of the questions the church is interested in:

 

and all of this is supposed to be answered by some overworked Bishop? I would be like A B B A A B B A, like just clicking of the boxes ! what does porn use have to do with anything?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and all of this is supposed to be answered by some overworked Bishop? I would be like A B B A A B B A, like just clicking of the boxes ! what does porn use have to do with anything?

What amounts to yearly letters of recommendation for the same job over and over again.

Year 2 Bishop writes: “Nothing changed, see last year’s recommendation”
Year 3 Bishop writes: “Getting tired of this, stop it.”
Year 4 Bishop writes: “If you ask me one more time for this I am going to withdraw your membership for repeated unChristlike conduct so leave me alone.”
Year 5 Bishop writes: “You are hereby summoned to a membership council to be held at…….”

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say the sole focus on the left wing of the church is misplaced. I’d say people teaching now disavowed racist doctrines (like professor bott), preppers, anti-mask and anti-vaccine folks should be equally rooted out.

Those questions could apply to both extremes.  It would be interesting to see the reasons for termination since the source was claiming some didn’t know why.  Perhaps the list included strident anti-vacciners who suggested the Prophet and church leadership were off the rails on this.

Link to comment
On 8/31/2022 at 4:50 PM, jkwilliams said:

I've said my piece. If my daughter-in-law shook my grandson to death, I wouldn't be bringing it up in public and putting it in those terms. I find it disturbing and creepy, at the least. But that's just me. 

It is not just you.  She is using a horrible tragedy to teach "spiritual" lessons or make such points.  And she is certainly distorting the facts.  And yea it is creepy.

Link to comment
On 9/3/2022 at 7:36 AM, Calm said:

I would not be surprised if this was accurate (would also love to know the size of the faculty for CES to know what percentage dozens actually is), but has her identity been verified and has she been shown to be a reliable witness. If not, I think it would be useful to wait for confirming information that this is happening before getting upset or rejoicing or whatever about it. My guess is we will see an article in the Trib about it shortly. Hopefully they will verify the terminations occurred. 


Good advice. 

Since I won’t be getting past the Trib paywall, I’ll rely on you to relay to us the content of such an article. Unless, of course, a wire service picks it up, in which case it would be accessible to anyone.  

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 9/3/2022 at 5:53 PM, Raingirl said:

How in the world do you “demonstrate” avoiding pornography?  🤦‍♀️

Just guessing here, but the way the question is worded (with the inclusion of the phrase “for at least one year”) suggests to me that it is directed to individuals who are known to have struggled with pornography addiction in the past but have kicked the habit. Such persons might be required to show in some measurable way that they now have that tendency under control. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...