Disciplinary Hearing "Non-Recording Agreement"

[consiglieri]

I have obtained a "non-recording agreement" that a stake president in Idaho is requiring a husband and wife to sign as a condition to attending their own disciplinary hearing.

It was drawn up by the stake president, or someone on his behalf. Below is the "non-recording agreement" in its entirety, with the exception of the names.

___________________

Non-Recording Agreement

For the disciplinary council to be held on behalf of [Husband's first name] and [Wife's first name followed by couple's last name] in [city, state] at the stake center for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on [date], I agree that because of the confidential nature of the proceedings, I will not make any audio or video recording any of the proceedings, either openly or surreptitiously, and I will not suffer anyone to make any such recording on my behalf. Nor will I make any use of any recording of any portion of the proceedings that may be made without my knowledge.

I understand that while [state] is a “one-party consent” state, pursuant to [statute citation], and does not criminalize the recording of a conversation when one of the parties consents to the recording, I nevertheless acknowledge that certain parties to the proceedings have requested to not be recorded, and I agree to honor that request.

Made and agreed this [date].

_____________________________________________
Signature

_____________________________________________
Printed name

____________________

I do not know how legally binding such a document may be, but it strikes me as the antithesis of American jurisprudence, where court proceedings are required to be open to the public (except in extreme circumstances) and a meticulous word-for-word record is made of every hearing that occurs.

The LDS Church seems to have reversed the U.S. system; insisting on closed disciplinary hearings and no record being permitted.

It appears the LDS Church considers itself the victim in cases where recordings are made and released publicly, and is seeking to protect itself accordingly.

It does not seem to occur to LDS Church leaders that nothing should be happening in disciplinary hearings that the LDS church would be ashamed of having viewed publicly.

Thoughts?

--Consiglieri

Edited to delete name of city and state

[Just This Guy]

Sounds like the Stake knows that is is going to a messy COL. Something that would be embarrassing for the church if it was public.

You know, this could be an interesting examination of Mormonism. The BOM repeatedly goes off on the evils of secret combinations. "For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness." (2 Nephi 26:23) Yet the church is actively pushing to be able to protect their secret works.

[oliver_denom]

I wouldn't sign that.

It looks like it's time for someone to resign. These proceedings are inherently abusive and nothing good will come out of letting it continue or participating. The entire system is setup for the church to exercise its power over the individual through humiliation and shame. The only possible good of attending would be to expose it for what it is.

[deacon blues]

Sounds like legal posturing. Could a contrasting "recording agreement" be drawn up, that would be presented to the Stake President. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm way off base, but it seems like "legal jive" to me.

[Jeffret]

I will not suffer anyone to make any such recording on my behalf

This sounds like very odd, Mormon-specific wording. The phrasing evokes special meaning or connection to those who did the endowment prior to 1990, given the way the term "suffer" used to be used there. Lawyers may correct me, but I doubt using "suffer" like that is commonly used in legal documents.

[Jeffret]

The Church wants to control everything. Their desperation for control is most dominant in its disciplinary courts. They dictate how everything will proceed and the only option the accused is allowed is to submit.

[Not Buying It]

Under no circumstances should a member ever sign anything like that. They only want you to sign it so they can bully you in private without fear of anyone finding out.

Never, ever, ever, sign something like that. If they don't want to be recorded being bullies, then they shouldn't be bullies. End of story.

[moksha]

I can understand the Stake President's legalistic approach. If I was going to say stuff that was either illegal, unethical, or downright crazy and say some serious messed up crap (the most likely choice for me), I would not want to be recorded. However, if for some unexplained reason I chose to not be duplicitous, then I would ditch this waiver of rights since in that case, I would have nothing to fear.

"It profits a Stake President not if his abusiveness is later revealed to the press."
-- Handbook of Proverbs, Don't Get Caught Edition, Deseret Book, 2018

[wtfluff]

I wouldn't sign that.

Yep. Show up with the "camcorders" rolling, and make a big deal out of the "Non-Recording Agreement", mention secret combinations, and then hand over a resignation letter. Maybe pass out a Tall-Boy of PBR to each of the high-council first...

[Flaming Meaux]

I will not suffer anyone to make any such recording on my behalf

This sounds like very odd, Mormon-specific wording. The phrasing evokes special meaning or connection to those who did the endowment prior to 1990, given the way the term "suffer" used to be used there. Lawyers may correct me, but I doubt using "suffer" like that is commonly used in legal documents.

It is very odd wording, and certainly not common to contracts I deal with. Whether it is Mormon-specific wording or wording that is common to both Mormons and other quasi-religious real estate management corporations masquerading as religions I cannot say, having not had sufficient experience with the latter class of organizations.

[Jeffret]

It is very odd wording, and certainly not common to contracts I deal with. Whether it is Mormon-specific wording or wording that is common to both Mormons and other quasi-religious real estate management corporations masquerading as religions I cannot say, having not had sufficient experience with the latter class of organizations.

Did you go through the temple endowment prior to 1990? To me the phrasing really calls to mind the old penalties.

[MerrieMiss]

And this is the exact kind of thing that would upset my husband. Not that he'll ever know about this specifically because it isn't news, but if he were in a situation in a bishopric, as a clerk, etc. where this kind of thing was done, it would only add to his shelf. The church really does the most damage itself.

[MerrieMiss]

I wonder who drew up the document? And what level in the church it was sanctioned, if at all? I'm surprised the couple was permitted to leave with a copy of it.

[Hagoth]

So what happens if you don't sign it? Court o' Love cancelled? Call a second CoL to discipline you for not signing the no-record agreement for the first one, and then expect you to sign for the second?

[consiglieri]

So what happens if you don't sign it? Court o' Love cancelled? Call a second CoL to discipline you for not signing the no-record agreement for the first one, and then expect you to sign for the second?

My understanding is that the cost of not signing is non-admittance to the court of love, which will go on with or without them.

It is the price of admission to their own kangaroo court.

[1smartdodog]

After hearing about so many counsels like this, it seems to me they are just a proceedural thing when the decision has already been made. so I would sign it show up just to spite them and make them do the dirty deed.

On the flip side you could claim all sorts of crazy stuff after the fact and claim no recording was allowed so how could they prove you wrong.

[Flaming Meaux]

It is very odd wording, and certainly not common to contracts I deal with. Whether it is Mormon-specific wording or wording that is common to both Mormons and other quasi-religious real estate management corporations masquerading as religions I cannot say, having not had sufficient experience with the latter class of organizations.

Did you go through the temple endowment prior to 1990? To me the phrasing really calls to mind the old penalties.

I did not--but it is a pretty common formulation that is apparent throughout scriptures originating with Joseph Smith; one of those odd phrases he picked up from its much more limited usage in the Bible and then just started using it all over the place to make his text sound more "biblical."

[Rob4Hope]

WOW!...I just read the letter a little and it made me angry!...

You know, if the court is at the stake level, the doors are shut, and you have 16 men there minimum who you may have to face down. And they don't want you to have a recording? Kindof sounds like a mixed deck.

ALL church councils like this immediately give me the image of a big black widow spider hovering over the fly in the middle of the web. "Trust me. You are safe here..."

Gives me the total creepoids!

[Mormorrisey]

Thanks for posting this, consiglieri.

I've heard that they've been doing this lately to all the snuffer/remnant folks that they're rounding up (the Idaho address tends to give that game away) but this is great to have it in your hands. And it's ridiculous. Unless they've made a change to the handbook that says this is ok, and they tried to make one sign it, this could be a procedural snafu that can be used in appeal. I certainly wouldn't sign it, even if I had zero plans to record. Certainly they can't make you sign a document of this nature and if you refuse, hold the council anyways. Well, I know they CAN, but I would fight it. If they have a clerk to record, my clerk is my smartphone, so suck it up, sunshine. I think they're so used to getting their way, that a little blowback freaks them out and you could just go in.

In any event, it's pretty telling when the Lord's true law firm has its tentacles even in local councils o' love.

[consiglieri]

I wonder who drew up the document? And what level in the church it was sanctioned, if at all? I'm surprised the couple was permitted to leave with a copy of it.

I noted that the document has only one signature line, as if it were a template for multiple usage, and not tailored for a document that requires the signature of two parties.

In other words, it has probably been used before this.