No recording Bishops and Meetings

[moksha]

Those friends of Savanah who posted the video of her bishop telling her to sit down while she was bearing her testimony would now be breaking the law if the LDS Church/Utah State Legislature has its way. The same goes for those who record the embarrassing remarks from an Elder Bednar talk.

“Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” spokesman Eric Hawkins confirmed in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Former state Sen. Steve Urquhart said a legislator told him The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had asked for the bill, HB330, because it was upset over “recently released recordings regarding the church.”

Guess this means the Church has found their answer for Mormonleaks and many other people. Might as well forget having your daughter wear a wire to her bishop interview. The incriminating evidence would be used against her instead.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

[Hagoth]

It's like they're hanging a banner on the temple that says "SEE, WE DO HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!"

Unfortunately, there's a very thin cartoon veil between church and state in Utah, so this will probably pass. The membership will probably welcome it as a much needed wall on the border between Truth and Apostatonia.

[Just This Guy]

A few notes assuming it passes:

1. This would only affect Utah. Many of the leaks lately have been from outside Utah, so they would not be affected.
2. This only applies to private communications like bishop interviews. Public meetings would not be affected.
3. There in an exemption for "Other exemptions include instances where the person making the recording believed the communication was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment or abuse; ..." The problem is that the wording is vauge and would require a court to determin if there is reason to believe harassment was likely.
4. Reporters are not exempt, so the media will be one of the biggest groups fighting it because it interferes with their ability to do normal investigative reporting.
5. I do wonder if this could backfire spectacularly for the church. Everytime they go to sue someone for recording an interview, the recording now become part of the public court record. So if they are trying to suppress embarrassment, enforcing this could ensure that every recording is going to be heard far and wide.

[wtfluff]

Once again, if you live in the belly of the beast, contact your local elected officials and let them know your views. Let's see if the "other side" can actually make a difference in the theocracy.

It only takes a few minutes to send them an email. I actually got a reply back from my legislator.

http://act.commoncause.org/site/PageSer ... _list_page



Editing to add:

It's like they're hanging a banner on the temple that says "SEE, WE DO HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!"

Someone should have some signs printed up that we can stick in the grass on chapel street-corners:

House Bill 330: WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?

[Linked]

Once again, if you live in the belly of the beast, contact your local elected officials and let them know your views. Let's see if the "other side" can actually make a difference in the theocracy.

It only takes a few minutes to send them an email. I actually got a reply back from my legislator.

I live in the belly of the beast and plan to contact my state rep and senator. But it gave me pause as a mostly closeted apostate because my state senator is in my stake. Is my resistance to this bill going to get reported to my church leaders and cause me problems? Maybe.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This has ramifications way past protecting church leaders, the bill is horribly written with vague exceptions. It will protect corrupt legislators, and turn everyday folks with nanny cams or doorbell cams into criminals. Other 2 party states have much more clearly defined exceptions for media and citizens. This bill needs to die.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Once again, if you live in the belly of the beast, contact your local elected officials and let them know your views. Let's see if the "other side" can actually make a difference in the theocracy.

It only takes a few minutes to send them an email. I actually got a reply back from my legislator.

I live in the belly of the beast and plan to contact my state rep and senator. But it gave me pause as a mostly closeted apostate because my state senator is in my stake. Is my resistance to this bill going to get reported to my church leaders and cause me problems? Maybe.

You can also write the bill sponsors, Snow and Weiler. Their email addresses are listed on the bill webpage.

[Kishkumen]

Once again, if you live in the belly of the beast, contact your local elected officials and let them know your views. Let's see if the "other side" can actually make a difference in the theocracy.

It only takes a few minutes to send them an email. I actually got a reply back from my legislator.

I live in the belly of the beast and plan to contact my state rep and senator. But it gave me pause as a mostly closeted apostate because my state senator is in my stake. Is my resistance to this bill going to get reported to my church leaders and cause me problems? Maybe.

I can't stress this enough. If your Senator resides in your stake and there is backlash/retaliation it would be the story of all stories. Journalists would sell their right leg for a story like this. Yes, it would cause problems in your family, but the amount of attention it could receive would be immeasurable. You are called in to meet the BP/SP because you opposed a senate bill that the church wants passed and now you're in trouble with the church?
First, make sure you record that meeting with church leaders. Then share with the media. They would have a field day!

That being said, I sincerely doubt it would cause problems by writing your representative to express your concerns. He would need to treat you the same as any constituent and he knows it. I wouldn't worry about it.

[wtfluff]

Once again, if you live in the belly of the beast, contact your local elected officials and let them know your views. Let's see if the "other side" can actually make a difference in the theocracy.

It only takes a few minutes to send them an email. I actually got a reply back from my legislator.

I live in the belly of the beast and plan to contact my state rep and senator. But it gave me pause as a mostly closeted apostate because my state senator is in my stake. Is my resistance to this bill going to get reported to my church leaders and cause me problems? Maybe.

As others have mentioned, your contacting you representatives doesn't "have to" have anything to do with "the church".

I used something extremely similar to what crazytapir posted over on Reddit:

I plead with you to oppose HB 330 which would turn Utah into a 2-party consent state with regards to audio and video recordings. The law as it has stood in the past DOES NOT need changing. HB 330 would only serve the interests of bad actors who want to keep their wrongdoings hidden. HB 330 hurts innocent victims who have limited abilities to otherwise gather evidence against those who are victimizing them.

[moksha]

Is my resistance to this bill going to get reported to my church leaders and cause me problems? Maybe.

When you speak to your state legislator, you would need to couch your opposition in terms that a conservative Republican could understand and appreciate, such as, "this would hinder the ability of valiant Utah businesses to spy on employees". Don't mention the Church at all or they would immediately tune you out.

[moksha]

A poster named HappyJackWagon made a very interesting post at another website:

But yes, the church's support of this bill is absolutely designed to protect itself from being embarrassed by recordings of GA's as well as local leaders. It's a protective move which makes a lot of sense from the church's perspective.

However, imagine this relates to a school instead of the church. Imagine a school had a policy in which children and youth were called to have conversations about personal sexual beliefs and behaviors behind closed doors. Imagine that policy was being challenged by parents and that there had been a number of recordings that brought the problem to light. These recordings were embarrassing to the school and its teachers. Then imagine a new bill is introduced and supported by the teacher's union preventing the types of recordings that made the teachers accountable for things they said and did. Would that be acceptable? Or would it feel like the school and its teachers were trying to hide something and protect themselves, even at the possible harm to the students?

[crossmyheart]

The bigger picture is that the leaders really are watching us and other sites and listening to what the disaffected community is saying. Did Sam Young tell people to start recording interviews or did that come from the DAMU?

[Emower]

Guys, you are reading this all wrong. This is about religious freedom, not hiding things. The freedom to oppress and make afraid...

[alas]

If there was ever any question about whether or not the church wants to protect children from abuse, this pretty much proves they only care about protecting their image. If they wanted to protect children, they would want these interviews recorded to monitor bishops to make sure they are not being abusive in any way. As has been pointed out, parents sitting outside the room does nothing to prevent child sexual abuse. I have two friends who were abused by the bishop asking intimate questions about every detail of their sexual experience, down to the color and lace on their underpants. This is NOT hearing a confession. This is the bishop listening to verbal porn that the poor girl feels uncomfortable with, but he is the bishop, so there can't be anything wrong with the questions he is asking. One of my friends got a clue by the bishop's heavy breathing. This is legislation designed to protect bishops who abuse. It has no other purpose. The church thinks that if they can keep abuse like this hidden and the perpetrator unexposed and unpunished that no harm is done. They have no clue to how damaging this kind of experience is to the teen.

[MoPag]

<snip>
This is legislation designed to protect bishops who abuse. It has no other purpose. The church thinks that if they can keep abuse like this hidden and the perpetrator unexposed and unpunished that no harm is done. They have no clue to how damaging this kind of experience is to the teen.

Nailed it!

I'm shocked the church is pursuing this in the wake of the Larry Nasser sex abuse scandal and in the middle of the #MeToo movement. Talk about being completely detached...

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

There seems to be a perfect storm of bad PR around this lately. Rob Porter ex-wife abuse and Nasser bringing attention to interview practices.

[2bizE]

If this passes, I will have to preface every meeting with “this meeting may be recorded for training and improvement purposes...”

[Kishkumen]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

It appears to be dead.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

It appears to be dead.

It's nice to see Todd Weiler express regret at co-sponsoring the bill. He was the only one to respond to my messages to legislators. He seems like a genuinely good person.

[Linked]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

It appears to be dead.

That is great news! My email worked! I'm honestly a little surprised.