Holy crap! Too many philosophical contradictions here, I don't even know where to start:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13506154

1) OK - so the Mo's want to get him slam dunked into jail (no comment from me on whether that is good or bad), so they are testifying (by way of BYU faculty) that Mitchell's writings and actions have so much in common with LDS theology and dogma? Seriously? And this is supposed to help prove his sanity!?!?!

2) WTF? Why is his former Stake President testifying about things that were said in confidence between the two of them? I guess the Corp now sanctions a "statute of limitations" on how long eclesiastitesticles have to keep things shared in confidence private before they enjoy their 15 mins in the spotlight and do a book tour on Oprah?

3) Not that the Mitchell jazz has changed my fundamental opinion to begin with, but there is NO WAY IN HEAVEN OR HELL I will ever submit to "full disclosure" at the hands of any church leader ever again. Look where it can get you.

If you want confidentiality, talk to a Catholic priest.

In the Mormon church however, there is NO such thing.

In fact, people's private struggles get blabbed about in great detail in various meetings.

where the bishop or SP have failed to inform civil authorities of severe child abuse or domestic violence. Rather than tell on a fellow priesthood guy in an effort to save an innocent victim, they will cover up and call it "confidentiality."

I have been following this closely. I am just stunned!! Here are a few quotes from the Salt Lake Tribune article when Mitchell's psychiatrist testified:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50801948-76/mitchell-gayler-peterson-barzee.html.csp

“If you have some charisma and people skills, you can sell people on your ideas, Whitehead said, even if the ideas are bizarre." - Joseph Smith come to mind anyone??

"Mitchell believes he will be a central figure in an end-of-times battle between good and evil. Whitehead also said he confuses coincidences with communications from God." -Hmmm sound like any TBM's you know???

NEVER go through an "auditing" session with a Scientologist. They write down EVERYTHING and keep it for later use.

:)

The traditional priest-penitant privilege applies only to penitential confessions. It never applied to the kind of circumstances the SP described, at least the as described in this article.

Now, Utah has a different kind of statute which protects from disclosure "clergy communications." This is different and substantially more broad than the traditional privilege. IMO, Utah enacted this to make it more likely that bishops and SPs won't be called to testify in court even on matters that go far beyone the traditional privilege. In most states, however, the privilege is quite narrow and applies only where the penitant confesses to an ecclesiastical authority, the confession is making the confession as part of that person's religious discipline (in other words, the faith teaches or requires confession) and the ecclesiastical leader is required, as part of the discipline of the faith, to keep the confession confidential.

Under traditional priest-penitant rules, a good argument can be made that the privilege would only rarely apply within the LDS faith, but the church has put into place some written rules to help maintain the confidentialy of confessions.

Apart from confessions under the circumstances explained above, there is no legal privilege, and thus the "priest's testimony could be compelled under the law, and the "penitant" would have no valid legal objection to the testimony.

Nothing in the article's description of the SP's testimony suggests that his statements involved any confession by Mitchell, and the traditional privilege would plainly not apply.

Most of what the SP said involved Mitchell's observed behavior, which is fair game for testimony even under Utah's clergy communications privilege. In addition, I gather that the SP's communications with Mitchell took place quite a few years ago, when Mitchell was a "young man." That would have been long before Utah's current law was enacted.

Now, I don't disagree with what others have said, that you can't trust Mormon bishops and SPs to keep confidences, and if you want confidentiality, you should confess to a Catholic priest, but that is a different issue than what apparently happened here. Under these circumstances, I applaud Mitchell's SP for testifying against Mitchell.

Incidentally, quite a few years ago there was a Sunstone session on confession that included a Catholic priest from the SLC area. He stated that about 1/3 of the confessions that some Catholic priests hear in Salt Lake come from Mormons. The reason, of course, is that even Mormons who are believing enough that they think God wants them to confess know better than to confess to the bishop or SP.

sophia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The traditional priest-penitant privilege applies
> only to penitential confessions. It never applied
> to the kind of circumstances the SP described, at
> least the as described in this article.
>
> Now, Utah has a different kind of statute which
> protects from disclosure "clergy communications."
> This is different and substantially more broad
> than the traditional privilege. IMO, Utah enacted
> this to make it more likely that bishops and SPs
> won't be called to testify in court even on
> matters that go far beyone the traditional
> privilege. In most states, however, the privilege
> is quite narrow and applies only where the
> penitant confesses to an ecclesiastical authority,
> the confession is making the confession as part of
> that person's religious discipline (in other
> words, the faith teaches or requires confession)
> and the ecclesiastical leader is required, as part
> of the discipline of the faith, to keep the
> confession confidential.
>
> Under traditional priest-penitant rules, a good
> argument can be made that the privilege would only
> rarely apply within the LDS faith, but the church
> has put into place some written rules to help
> maintain the confidentialy of confessions.
>
> Apart from confessions under the circumstances
> explained above, there is no legal privilege, and
> thus the "priest's testimony could be compelled
> under the law, and the "penitant" would have no
> valid legal objection to the testimony.
>
> Nothing in the article's description of the SP's
> testimony suggests that his statements involved
> any confession by Mitchell, and the traditional
> privilege would plainly not apply.
>
> Most of what the SP said involved Mitchell's
> observed behavior, which is fair game for
> testimony even under Utah's clergy communications
> privilege. In addition, I gather that the SP's
> communications with Mitchell took place quite a
> few years ago, when Mitchell was a "young man."
> That would have been long before Utah's current
> law was enacted.
>
> Now, I don't disagree with what others have said,
> that you can't trust Mormon bishops and SPs to
> keep confidences, and if you want confidentiality,
> you should confess to a Catholic priest, but that
> is a different issue than what apparently happened
> here. Under these circumstances, I applaud
> Mitchell's SP for testifying against Mitchell.
>
> Incidentally, quite a few years ago there was a
> Sunstone session on confession that included a
> Catholic priest from the SLC area. He stated that
> about 1/3 of the confessions that some Catholic
> priests hear in Salt Lake come from Mormons. The
> reason, of course, is that even Mormons who are
> believing enough that they think God wants them to
> confess know better than to confess to the bishop
> or SP.

As I understand it, a Catholic priest would be able to testify to something he had seen a parishioner do providing he didn't see it in a setting of confession. I agree that if the SP obseved behavior as opposed to having Mitchell confess the behavior, he is free to disclose it,

When the stake president discovered Mitchell had received a temple recommend from another bishop/stake president, he was upset about it. Why didn't he do anything about it then?

One of my favorite parts of the trial is Dan Peterson describing the crazy theology as "mainstream".

Sophia,

Thank you for that clarification on the legal aspects of confidentiality. There is certainly a lot more to the issue than I was aware of.

In a way, though, I think this kinda brings me back to my original point: while I have you to thank for clarifying for me here the actual legal interpretation of confidentiality and how it would likely be applied in a court of law, there is, nonetheless, the IMPLICATION within Mormon culture that anything shared with a leader, particularly behind closed doors, is done so in confidence. I can't imagine 1 in 1,000 U.S. members of the church share your legal insight. I can, however, envision most of them being just as naive as I was/am in believing that I would generally be safe in sharing something personal with a leader and hoping that leader would keep such information private unless it was explicitly stated otherwise. Have you ever been instructed otherwise, either in a classroom, personal setting or over the pulpit? By the same token, how many members realize just how much of their private lives a laid open for examination during ward counsel and executive committee meetings (or whatever they happened to be called this week by the CHOI)?

And before I wander too far on the subject, I should state that I do think Mitchell is a delusional douchebag who has perpetrated heinous crimes and deserves his punishment. On the other hand, I also can't help but feel sorry for him from the standpoint that much of his character is forged by his interaction with the Mormon faith.

I find it extremely interesting and telling how a certain portion of the church will settle at nothing until they see him pay for his crimes, and to bolster the case against him, they are more than willing to show how much of his rants parallel the teachings of the church, yet, there appears to be absent even the tiniest inkling of complicity in making him the man he is. Apparently, his "teachings" mirror the church, but the church is in no way responsible for augmenting, or perhaps even catalyzing his dementia. ("What? We gave him God's word. What he chose to do with it is his problem.")

The saddest component of this story is, of course, the perpetuation of the nightmare that Miss Smart has to endure throughout the proceedings. I hope/pray for her sake, that when this is all said and done and she returns to France, that her mission president will allow her to go back to the public square and play her harp because that is what she feels comfort in doing and it brings her solace and fulfillment, and not because it is a brilliant corporate p.r. tactic to capitalize on her ill-begotten celebrity to advance the work of proselytization.