Ethical guidance for a not completely hypothetical situation

[zil2]

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

The difficulty stems from the strongly held view/practice/policy, call it what you will, not to have missionaries involved in legal proceedings. I have a sort of out - I can say that I am simply following the directions of my Branch President. We had this conversation last night. And even though I don't feel comfortable with that decision I can uncomfortably follow it.

I have real problems with this policy and the whole "be good citizens" thing our Church teaches.  ETA: For that matter, I have issues with it and the whole "tell the truth" thing and the "be kind" thing, and I could go on but why.

Good luck to you, @askandanswer.  Don't envy your position.

Edited February 6 by zil2

[JohnsonJones]

Take the idea of if you were not a member, what would you do?

If it is something that you would normally report to the police or a lawyer, then you probably should report it to the police or authorities.  If it is not, then probably keep out of it.  Same would apply to whoever you would report it to.

Simply being a member does not grant any special immunity or rights beyond other citizens as far as I know. 

At the point that the authorities are made aware of something, and you have said all you know, than it becomes something between the lawyers, authorities, and the mission president.  He is the one that probably would be who decides whether missionaries get involved or not.

Missionaries get tickets, they have car accidents, and unfortunately, sometimes have legal matters.  The individual who presides over the mission and thus the missionaries is the one who gets to decide how to handle these matters.

Of more interest is how you KNOW the missionaries were actually witnesses to an event or not?  Were you also a witness?  In that case, it would probably be easier if you just told them what you saw and who was present.  If you are not a witness a question would arise how you would know who was or was not present? 

Is it hearsay?  Is it Gossip?  Both are not good reasons to try to get involved (in my opinion).  Unless you are positively absolute about the information you wish to give out, you probably should think harder about whether to give it out or not. 

If you are a witness in some way to the event though, you should probably tell them what YOU saw and heard and let the lawyer or authorities take it from there.

[mirkwood]

11 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Do you have any concerns about involving missionaries in criminal trials? 

 

A witness is a witness no matter who they are.

[mirkwood]

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 

The difficulty stems from the strongly held view/practice/policy, call it what you will, not to have missionaries involved in legal proceedings.

 

To be quite blunt it sounds like some local leaders are overstepping their roles/authority and imposing rules that do not exist.

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of more interest is how you KNOW the missionaries were actually witnesses to an event or not?  Were you also a witness?  In that case, it would probably be easier if you just told them what you saw and who was present.  If you are not a witness a question would arise how you would know who was or was not present? 

When the missionaries saw what happened, they called the counsellor in the District Presidency, who had been the Branch President at the time this person was baptised about 7 months ago.The counsellor in the District Presidency called me the next day and told me what he had been told and asked me to attend the court hearing the next day. The fact that the missionaries saw it was repeated by the Branch President a week or so later. 

[askandanswer]

Just now, askandanswer said:

When the missionaries saw what happened, they called the counsellor in the District Presidency, who had been the Branch President at the time this person was baptised about 7 months ago.The counsellor in the District Presidency called me the next day and told me what he had been told and asked me to attend the court hearing the next day. The fact that the missionaries saw it was repeated by the Branch President a week or so later. 

This afternoon the counsellor in the District Presidency reacted to a discussion I had with the Branch President last night when I mentioned that church policies were meaningless in the face of a sub poena. In his text he reminded me again of what he claimed were the church's policies and asked me not to make any mention of this to the lawyer. 

On a seperate but related matter, one sad thing is that this person is due in court on Thursday. Such is the level of ongoing internal chaos in, and staff departures from,  the Aboriginal organisation for legal aid, this guy hasn't seen a lawyer since his first court appearance in early December, no lawyer has been assigned to him, the organisation doesn't pick up the phone and even if you go to their office in person, as the counsellor in the District Presidency did today, you still can't find anyone who will talk to you. The organisation is in total meltdown and has been for many months.   

[zil2]

 

[LDSGator]

@zil

This guy fronted one of my all time favorite bands, The New York Dolls. An absolutely gorgeous version. I feel the spirit every time I hear this.    

 

[LDSGator]

If anyone is interested, the video I posted is from the documentary, New York Doll.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Doll

The Dolls were a vastly influential and moderately successful punk band from the 70’s. Kane was a member of the band and converted to the LDS faith late in life. Outstanding doc. 

Edited February 6 by LDSGator

[zil2]

Maybe we need an ordinary rendition, too (I couldn't find a version with all seven verses - it should be a crime not to sing all seven every time   ) :

 

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This afternoon the counsellor in the District Presidency reacted to a discussion I had with the Branch President last night when I mentioned that church policies were meaningless in the face of a sub poena. In his text he reminded me again of what he claimed were the church's policies and asked me not to make any mention of this to the lawyer. 

 

Pretty sure you won't find anything in the Church Handbook of Instructions to support his position of not involving the missionaries in a criminal investigation due to some rule or policy of the church.

[zil2]

19 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Pretty sure you won't find anything in the Church Handbook of Instructions to support his position of not involving the missionaries in a criminal investigation due to some rule or policy of the church.

These are the closest thing I could find, and the second doesn't seem in favor of this whole "don't let missionaries be witnesses" thing (though only by implication).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ-supplement/07-appendix?lang=eng&id=p205#p205

Quote

Immediately contact one of your mission leaders or another trusted leader if you experience, witness, or hear about any physical or sexual misconduct of any kind. This may include assaults, threats, or harassment.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ-supplement/07-appendix?lang=eng&id=p222#p222

Quote

Understand that if you are assaulted, no matter what you were doing, the assault is not your fault. You always have the choice to counsel with someone you trust and feel comfortable with, such as your mission president, his wife, civil authorities, or people at home. It is your decision whether to involve the police.

IMO, the missionaries should decide whether or not to come forward (and IMO, they should, if they actually witnessed the events in question).  Is it possible to bear false witness by keeping your mouth shut?  I wouldn't want that question lingering in my soul until I die.

ETA: Scratch that question.  IMO, that hymn I posted answers my question:

Quote

The tide of lying tongues I stemmed,

And honored him ’mid shame and scorn.

 

Edited February 6 by zil2

[mirkwood]

58 minutes ago, zil2 said:

 It is your decision whether to involve the police.

 

 

This is speaking as if the missionary were the victim.

 

For argument sake, let's say it also applies as being a witness.  That would be the missionary's choice, not the church leader.

[zil2]

17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

This is speaking as if the missionary were the victim.

I know.  Like I said, it's the closest I could find.

17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

For argument sake, let's say it also applies as being a witness.  That would be the missionary's choice, not the church leader.

My conclusion as well.

[NeuroTypical]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title251

Quote

38.8.23.1  Involvement or Documents in Legal Proceedings

Church leaders should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases for members in their units without first consulting with Church legal counsel. This same policy applies to speaking with or writing to lawyers or court personnel, including through email.

Leaders should speak with Church legal counsel if, in their Church capacities, they:
Believe they should testify or communicate in a legal matter.
Are being required by legal process to testify or communicate in a legal matter.
Are ordered to provide evidence.
Are asked to provide documents or information voluntarily.
Are asked to communicate with lawyers or civil authorities about legal proceedings, including sentencing or parole hearings.

However well intentioned, Church leaders sharing information in legal proceedings can be misinterpreted and damaging. Such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families. Following the Church’s policy also helps keep the Church from being inappropriately implicated in legal matters.

38.8.23.2  Testimony in Legal Proceedings

Church leaders may not testify on behalf of the Church in any legal proceeding without prior approval from the Office of General Counsel. This policy also applies to sentencing and parole hearings. Church leaders may not provide verbal or written evidence in their leadership capacity without this approval.

Leaders should not suggest or imply that their testimony in a legal proceeding represents the Church’s position.

Leaders should not influence the testimony of a witness in any legal proceeding.

Contact information for Church legal counsel is provided in 38.8.23.

 

So, that has to do with leaders.   I see nothing in the handbook about how missionaries can't be witnesses or testify in legal proceedings.  

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title251

 

So, that has to do with leaders.   I see nothing in the handbook about how missionaries can't be witnesses or testify in legal proceedings.  

I feel sorry for the missionaries that have gotten caught up in such drama. They are there to spread the gospel. Poor kids. 😞 

Edited February 6 by LDSGator

[zil2]

44 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I feel sorry for the missionaries that have gotten caught up in such drama. They are there to spread the gospel. Poor kids. 😞 

I feel sorry for everyone involved.

But I also feel strongly that those who witness a crime (truly witness it) should come forward and state what they saw and heard.  I feel even more strongly that if the state is abusing its authority (and it has been suggested here that it is), it is everyone's business and everyone who has direct knowledge should speak up.  And finally, I feel strongly that one should not abandon a brother to abuse for a supposed policy (or any other reason short of God himself telling you to keep your mouth shut).

(And yes, brother shouldn't have been committing criminal acts in the first place, but please consult King Benjamin for what to do with that thought. )

[LDSGator]

Just now, zil2 said:

I feel sorry for everyone involved.

But I also feel strongly that those who witness a crime (truly witness it) should come forward and state what they saw and heard.  I feel even more strongly that if the state is abusing its authority (and it has been suggested here that it is), it is everyone's business and everyone who has direct knowledge should speak up.  And finally, I feel strongly that one should not abandon a brother to abuse for a supposed policy (or any other reason short of God himself telling you to keep your mouth shut).

(And yes, brother shouldn't have been committing criminal acts in the first place, but please consult King Benjamin for what to do with that thought. )

Oh, agree. I checked out of the details here, and I was only speaking about the missionary involvement. 

[laronius]

Contact the mission president. He holds the keys for the missionaries.

[JohnsonJones]

On 2/6/2024 at 6:44 AM, askandanswer said:

When the missionaries saw what happened, they called the counsellor in the District Presidency, who had been the Branch President at the time this person was baptised about 7 months ago.The counsellor in the District Presidency called me the next day and told me what he had been told and asked me to attend the court hearing the next day. The fact that the missionaries saw it was repeated by the Branch President a week or so later. 

This sounds like it would be hearsay (I heard it from someone else who heard it from the witness).  I'd say if you are truly still concerned, tell the Mission President as @laronius mentioned above and let him handle it from there. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/5/2024 at 12:09 PM, askandanswer said:

It may be the case that the church has had to choose between, on the one hand, maintaining its practice of preventing missionaries from serving as witnesses in criminal trials and concealing, or not making available, important evidence that could result in an impoverished person with a clean criminal record receiving a sentence that would be harsher than it might otherwise have been, or on the other hand, allowing the missionary to testify, thereby serving the interests of justice and reducing the severity of the sentence that is likely to be given, and that the church has chosen to protect the missionary to the detriment of the accused.

My question is what is the moral and ethical thing to do in this situation. Should I let the lawyer know that there might be one, possibly two witnesses who could provide evidence that may run counter to the police narrative, or should I follow the church line and say nothing to anybody about the  missionaries? And if I say nothing, would I then be complicit in what could be labelled a conspiracy of silence aimed at influencing the course of justice in a manner that is likely to adversely impact on a poor and highly vulnerable person? My inclination at present is to follow my Priesthood leaders and keep quiet about the missionaries. How might you handle such a matter?

I flatly deny that the Church as a whole has any such policy or practice regarding missionaries testifying.  Elizabeth Smart came home from her mission to testify against her kidnappers—multiple times, IIRC.

I could *hypothetically* see why local leaders in a particular area (particularly one where government corruption may be an issue) might prefer to stay out of legal proceedings.  But, if they’re leaning on third parties/lay members to stay silent or hide evidence . . . the Church could get in a lot of trouble for that.

I would tell my leaders that I intend to inform legal authorities/ defense counsel/ whatever of the situation on such-and-such a date unless they instruct me in writing by virtue of their priesthood and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that I must remain silent.  And if they do write such a letter, my next step is to forward a copy of it to the Area Presidency.

 

Edited February 7 by Just_A_Guy