Mormon church backs bill that could prevent recording bishop interviews

[Joel]

Mormon church backs bill that could prevent recording bishop interviews

The LDS Church is supporting a bill that could protect church leaders from being recorded without their knowledge or consent.

“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.

The statement came after the church on Monday had declined comment amid speculation that Utah’s predominant faith was behind the legislation.

Former state Sen. Steve Urquhart on Monday said a legislator told him The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had asked for a bill requiring consent from all parties to record conversations.

The LDS Church wants HB330 passed because of “recently released recordings regarding the church,” Urquhart told a Salt Lake Tribune reporter Monday evening.

Urquhart said the lawmaker wanted to remain anonymous to avoid repercussions.

According to bill’s sponsor, Rep. V. Lowry Snow, R-St. George, the measure was a priority for the Salt Lake Chamber, but he confirmed the Mormon church has contacted him about the legislation.

Chamber President Lane Beattie said the business community wanted to protect people who think they’re having a private conversation.

Snow said he heard from LDS Church representatives after he began working on the bill.

“They are interested in the legislation and wanted to know when it was going to be out, and what would it would entail,” Snow said.

As to why the church is interested in the bill, Snow said, “I could speculate that it has to do with maintaining confidentiality, but that’s my speculation.”

He said other members of the state’s religious community also have contacted him about the legislation.

House Majority Leader Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, said he had not discussed the bill with anyone this session, until asked about it by The Tribune — but had heard that the Salt Lake Chamber was supporting it.

He said he isn’t surprised at talk that the LDS Church may be behind it “because some people think the church is behind everything up here.”

John Dehlin, of the “Mormon Stories” podcast, said he believes lobbyists with the LDS Church are encouraging lawmakers to vote for the bill.

“This will make it impossible to record Mormon bishops and stake president interviews, Mormon GAs [general authorities], etc. to hold them accountable for the things they say and do,” Dehlin wrote in a Facebook post Monday night.

Dehlin, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church for apostasy, said the bill is a “direct response” to his podcast, “Mormon Stories,” and requests for bishops and stake presidents to stop asking minors sexually explicit questions during private interviews.

A petition campaign is underway demanding a halt to the LDS Church’s practice of closed-door, one-on-one interviews by bishops with children — sometimes including inquiries about sexual matters — and had collected 14,442 signatures as of Tuesday.

Organizer Sam Young, a former Mormon bishop, has said the petition will be presented March 30 at the LDS Church’s downtown Salt Lake City headquarters.

Currently in Utah, it is legal for one person in a conversation to record it without the other party’s knowledge. The bill would make that illegal, and it would require that all parties consent to being recorded. Snow said the bill is about ”fairness,” and that people should get to decide whether they are recorded.

The bill provides for a number of exemptions. It still would be legal to record public officials or employees making statements related to their formal duty.

Other exemptions include instances where the person making the recording believed the communication was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment or abuse; was likely to be fraudulent, obscene or harassing in nature; or involved or conveyed threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm or injury.

But Dehlin said he is concerned that that wording in the bill won’t circulate widely enough.

“Even if there is some exception, when Utah gets known as a two-party consent state, I think it’s going to have a chilling effect on people feeling like it’s within their right to protect themselves,” he said. “The fine print isn’t going to get around.”

Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, whom Snow asked to sponsor the bill in the Senate, said he hadn’t been contacted by the LDS Church about this bill.

If the legislation passes, Utah would become the 13th two-party-consent state in the nation.

“I wrote a few Facebook posts this summer about Utah and the Mormon church being better off if the church walked through the front doors of the Capitol, instead of controlling outcomes by whispering instructions to legislative leadership,” Urquhart wrote to a Tribune reporter. “To my surprise, quite a few legislators told me they agreed.

I could see the bill passing, there are plenty of church broke politicians in Utah that will violate their own sincerely held values to fall in line with whatever the LDS Church wants:

Statement made by Utah Senator Madsen on the subject of SB296. Madsen observes that the church is endorsing a senate bill which would make discrimination illegal for businesses in Utah, while giving the church itself an exemption from those requirements. In the close of his comments he pulls back the curtain behind Utah politics by stating that even though he is against the bill, because the church supports it - he is compelled to support the bill.

[Joel]

The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just passed a pro-LGBT piece of legislation in Utah.

Does that sound odd to you? It does to me, but it is essentially true.

For years, there have been those in the Utah legislature who have pushed for statewide legislation that would prevent businesses and landlords from prohibiting homosexuals from working at their business or renting a home from them; they called it a “statewide anti-discrimination” bill.

And for years the legislation failed.

Year after year the bill sponsor would bring the bill forward simply to have it die before it got off the ground, but this year was different. This year the most powerful entity in the state of Utah, the LDS Church, endorsed the legislation.

This year the legislation passed.

Having served in the Utah legislature, I have been asked several times what role the LDS Church really plays when it comes to Utah politics, and until now I have remained largely silent. While in the legislature I was a faithful member of the LDS Church; to speak of things that might bring embarrassment to the church would have been unwise, not to mention political suicide. Today, the issue is very topical with the recent passage of the pro-LGBT legislation, and I feel it is time to break the silence and provide some insight.

A common question from people is whether or not the LDS Church leadership gets whatever they want when it comes to Utah politics, and the answer is a resounding, “Yes; if the LDS Church wants something in Utah politics, they get it."

To be absolutely fair, they rarely want things badly enough to engage openly. The church is very selective regarding the legislation they engage. This is due to the fact that because most of Utah’s legislators are LDS members, the majority of legislation already aligns with the LDS Church position without their influence. During the three terms I served in the Utah House of Representatives, I was only approached twice by the LDS lobbyists for a vote.

John Taylor and Bill Evans are full-time employees of the LDS Church and their job is to monitor the Utah Government, and to act as the paid lobbyists on behalf of the church. They regularly meet with legislators behind closed doors, (as do other lobbyists, this is nothing nefarious or unusual,) to push the agenda of their employer.

When the LDS lobbyists contact a legislator, the conversation goes like this:

We are here to discuss such-and-such bill. We have received our orders “directly from the top,” and we want you to vote for this bill.

They mention that they received their orders “from the top,” so that the legislator would know unequivocally that the LDS Church’s First Presidency sent them.

The first piece of legislation they contacted me about dealt with alcohol. For better or worse, it is an unarguable fact that legislation regarding alcohol never gets passed without the express consent of the LDS Church. They control all changes to the state alcohol laws.

In 2008, SB 211 was proposed to remove “flavored malt beverages” from grocery stores and place them for sale in state liquor stores only. The day the bill was to be heard in the House of Representatives, I was summoned to the hall, where I was met by the LDS lobbyists. They gave me the “from the top” introduction, and then asked me to support the bill. I told them no. Although not a drinker, I simply could not bring myself to take a profit-producing legal product out of the hands of private business owners and give it to the state to sell. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Keep in mind, that in 2008 I was a faithful Mormon with a current temple recommend, and had only recently been released from my LDS leadership position as an Elders Quorum President. To tell my church leaders “no,” was anathema to how I was raised. As I turned to walk back into the chambers, one of the lobbyists said to me, “Don’t worry, voting against us will not affect your church membership status,” I was relieved.

SB 211 passed.

Learning how powerful the LDS Church was politically, several pro-life legislators and I set up a meeting in my office with the two LDS Church lobbyists. Our intention was to recruit the LDS Church in the battle for the right-to-life. For weeks we had worked on legislation that would prove to make Utah the leader in the fight against abortion. We presented our idea and expressed our eagerness to have the LDS church help in the fight to pass a bill that had failed the year before. They turned us down flat, telling us that “the First Presidency has made it clear to them that they will not engage on abortion issues.”

We asked them why they had come out so strongly on alcohol use, but would not engage in the fight for the life of a baby. And in what can only be described as a brief, unguarded moment, the head lobbyist expressed his confusion as to the apparent misappropriation of priorities, but they stuck to their guns.

Then came 2011; the year my rose colored glasses regarding the LDS Church got scratched a bit.
HB116 was an extremely controversial bill dealing with illegal immigration and proposed issuing state worker cards to illegal immigrants. For at least two weeks prior to the final passage of HB116, the two church lobbyists practically lived in the back halls of the state capitol and in the office of house leadership. I was vocally opposed to the legislation, but was still contacted repeatedly by both lobbyists who attempted to change my opposition. The calls became frequent enough from the LDS Lobbyists, that I stopped taking them.

What bothered me most was when my local ecclesiastical leader contacted me and attempted to persuade me to vote for the bill as well. When I asked him, “Who from the Church headquarters had asked you to contact me?” he simply confirmed that he had been asked, but would not say by whom.

The night HB116 was debated for final passage was insane. There was intensity I had never felt before or after on the house floor. It was the intensity that comes only from political bullying, and it killed me to know that this time the “bully” was my own church.

I was approached by a younger representative who was on the verge of tears. He expressed to me that he had just gotten out of a “PPI meeting” and asked if I had had mine yet. I knew what he meant and I was sorry for him.

A legitimate “PPI” or “Personal Priesthood Interview” is conducted within the confines of the LDS Church. It is an ecclesiastical meeting between an LDS leader and a male member under their “authority.” When I was an Elders Quorum President, I held PPI’s with the elders under my charge. A PPI is used to check on the spiritual welfare of the man being interviewed, and to make sure they are on the “straight and narrow.” But that is not what this legislator meant…

What he had just experienced was an intense, closed-door meeting with select members of house leadership and the LDS Church lobbyists who made it abundantly clear that when HB116 came up for a vote, he was to support the bill, period.

Sometimes, if the legislator felt strongly enough about the legislation, they would allow him to vote against it, but ONLY after the bill had the necessary votes recorded to ensure passage. This was the deal this particular representative was under, and both he and I knew it. He was clearly shaken and expressed that he had no idea that his “church would do this kind of thing.” I hurt for him.

House leadership was split on HB116, so when I saw a member of house leadership who I knew was opposed to the bill walk onto the house floor, I went up to him and engaged him in conversation. The following is our word-for-word conversation:

Me: Hey, (name of House leader) how much of what is going on tonight regarding HB116 has to do with the LDS church?

Him: All of it; I hate this.

Me: It’s going to pass isn’t it?

Him: Yes, and in fact if the vote is close, I have to vote for it, I have no choice.”

Me: You had a PPI?

Him: Yep…(walks away).

HB116 passed as the LDS Church lobbyists looked on from the gallery.

I was not in the legislature this year, but the look and feel of the passing of HB116 and the current non-discrimination bill are quite the same. One can only guess how many legislators had “PPI’s” before the vote on the church-endorsed LGBT legislation, but there is no doubt in my mind, that as legislators read this blog, one or more of them will know precisely what I am talking about.

So, what role does the LDS Church really play when it comes to Utah politics? From my experience, it all depends on how badly the church wants a specific piece of legislation passed.

-Carl

[Joel]

Utahns spoke loudly against recording bill supported by the Salt Lake Chamber and Mormon church, so lawmakers have dropped it

Citing a rapid public backlash against their bill, lawmakers are backing away from their pitch to make sweeping changes to the Utah law that allows people to record conversations without alerting others who are being recorded.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the predominant religion in Utah and among legislators, put its support behind the bill shortly after it was filed, saying HB330 would have protected conversations between church leaders and members. Business groups originally sought the law change.

But that’s about all the support the measure’s sponsors received for their idea.

Legislators were inundated with calls, emails, texts and posts on social media almost universally against the bill.

“It does appear that this original concept was universally hated,” said Sen. Todd Weiler, a Woods Cross Republican and Senate sponsor of the bill.

Rep. V. Lowry Snow, a St. George Republican who sponsored the bill, said he’s asked the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee not to move the measure forward for now. He’s talking with the Salt Lake Chamber — the business group that Snow says asked for the bill — about whether to move ahead with a scaled-back version this session.

“There was a lot of negative input coming back,” Snow said. “A lot of it, not all of it, but a lot of it was misplaced. Because it was clear to me that they had also not read the exemptions that existed in the bill. Nevertheless, the feedback has been significant that has come back not in support.”

Weiler went so far as to express regret in agreeing to sign onto the bill. (He hadn’t read it when he agreed, he said.)

“I’ve rarely seen a bill that has had so much opposition so quickly,” Weiler said Thursday. “Obviously, this idea is hitting a nerve with the public, and not in a good way.”

The bill would have made Utah one of about a dozen states with so-called two-party recording consent laws that effectively require all parties of a conversation to consent to being recorded.

The Mormon church offered its support in a statement shortly after the bill was filed. A former legislator said he’d been told the church was supporting it because the Salt Lake City-based faith was upset over recently released, surreptitious recordings.

“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 said Tuesday.

Hawkins didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday on the negative public backlash and the sponsors’ hitting brakes on the bill.

Lane Beattie, the outgoing president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber, said he was talking with Snow about how and whether to press forward with the bill this session.

“There were a lot of questions that came up that justifiably slowed the bill down,” Beattie said. “We’re very sensitive about” the public opinion.

The HB330 that Snow asked to have stalled in its introductory committee reverses the state’s recording law and provides certain scenarios when people could surreptitiously record.

Beattie said one possibility is drastically narrowing the bill, keeping Utah a one-party recording consent state and adding exemptions or scenarios into the existing law when people would need permission to record.

“We’re going to go back to the drawing board,” he said, adding that he recognized the 45-day session was nearly halfway through and he’d avoid a late push to pass a bill that appeared to “short-circuit public input.”

Whatever happens, Weiler said, the bill will either not pass or be scaled back.

“I’m confident it will not get out of the House in its current form, so I won’t have to worry about it,” he added. “It will either be significantly amended or it will just die for this session.”

[JohnnyL]

I like the bill.

[tdj]

The two party idea is what got those people convicted who went into planned parenthood clinics and got video,and audio of people admitting to selling the organs of unborn babies.

[sushi_chef]

`
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstet ... thood.html

utah planned parenthood branch backed by powerful eccles clan....


planned parenthood utah ctr
https://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UT ... utah%20ctr

"Eccles also took a strong stand against over- poplation and was a supporter of groups such as Zero Population and Planned Parenthood. Personal correspondence and public speeches arranged chronologically from 1951 to May 1972, when Eccles gave his last public address , are located in...
" http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv88424

https://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UT ... 20eugenics

eugenics, depopulation agenda, originally in england, exported to nazi germany, then moved to nazismized usa along with mk-ultra, ufo space technology etc, that should be interpreted of woonded head recovery in john revelation 13,

"3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns(democrat and republican parties) like a lamb(christianity), and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth ....
"

finian cunningham fourth reich
https://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UT ... th%20reich

[Joel]

The timing of this bill in the context of this Joseph Bishop story is interesting

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... march-2018

Churches Response

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by the president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, Joseph Bishop, 25 years earlier. They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time. The Church does not know what she said in that interview, but the Church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.

At the same time, the Church referred these allegations to the local ecclesiastical leaders of Joseph Bishop. Those leaders met with Mr. Bishop, who denied the allegations. Unable to verify the allegations, they did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time.

The matter resurfaced in 2016 when the same individual contacted a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado, and then again a few weeks ago in January 2018, when the Church was contacted by a lawyer representing her. He provided a copy of a recording that she had made of a conversation between her and 85-year-old Joseph Bishop in December 2017. Since that time, the Church has engaged in an investigation of this individual’s allegations. In the course of that investigation, both she and Mr. Bishop have been interviewed by outside legal counsel. Not surprisingly, the stories, timelines and recollections of those involved are dramatically different. This woman reaffirmed her allegations, and Mr. Bishop has again denied them. We have no record of an interview between Elder Carlos E. Asay (1926-1999) and this individual.

[downaletter]

The timing of this bill in the context of this Joseph Bishop story is interesting

I agree. This bill seemingly came out of nowhere...I think now we have a better idea as to why.

[inho]

The timing of this bill in the context of this Joseph Bishop story is interesting

You are not the only one who says that:
Were Incriminating MTC Mission President Statements a Factor in LDS Push for Two-Party Consent?

[Joel]

Thanks for sharing