Stephen Bloor's excommunication - Problems

[_I have a question]

So he really does have a right to access to the minutes of that meeting, and he had a right to defend himself.

I agree that he has those rights.

[_I have a question]

Apparently data protection laws mean that sensitive information about an individual cannot be sent outside the EU. The European Area Presidency have confirmed that they have no records and the local bishop has confirmed the records are in the States.

Time for a solicitors letter.

[_Mary]

In context, because Steve was a bishop, he was told he couldn't just resign as a bishop, but had to either ask to have his name taken off the records, or face a disciplinary council.

Regardless of what he was told, even Bishops can simply resign their membership and the Church has to recognise that resignation.

Yes. That was one of the options given to him. Resign your membership, or we will ecommunicate you.
For reasons personal to Steve he wanted to remain a member. That they have excommunicated him, comes as no surprise. He has been vocal, but they appear to have done it by the backdoor, so to speak without a properly organised disciplinary council that was advertised to him as such.

This is an article The Independent ran on him last year.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 29281.html

[_annie]

In context, because Steve was a bishop, he was told he couldn't just resign as a bishop, but had to either ask to have his name taken off the records, or face a disciplinary council.

Regardless of what he was told, even Bishops can simply resign their membership and the Church has to recognise that resignation.

I wish Steve would use a word other than "resign" when referring to what happened while he was Bishop. His failure to do this makes it seem like he tried to resign from the church while he was Bishop, when in fact he asked to be *released* as Bishop (I believe they refused to release him, so declined to continue in the role).

[_Chap]

Apparently data protection laws mean that sensitive information about an individual cannot be sent outside the EU. The European Area Presidency have confirmed that they have no records and the local bishop has confirmed the records are in the States.

Time for a solicitors letter.

Yup. The law gives individuals quite strong recourse against an organization that tries to keep secret records on them.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yup. The law gives individuals quite strong recourse against an organization that tries to keep secret records on them.

When I was taking a look to learn more about this issue, I saw lots of articles about how churches handle their records to comply with the law. I was hoping maybe the Information Commissioner's office would act on his behalf and save him the cost of a solicitor, but it sounds like they can't or won't. If he wants to pursue it, it sounds like a visit to a solicitor is the next step.

I hope he does. The disclosure to the parents was out of line.

[_Mary]

I hope he takes it further also. SOme causes are worth fighting for. His parents are quite elderly, and probably already quite traumatized by Steve's public disaffection. It was pretty heartless.

Local leaders don't have to be perfect, goodness knows, none of us are, but sending texts with *your days are numbered* is pretty horrible. Of course we know what it means, but it could be read in a number of ways.

He is going to the meeting on Sunday I believe. They are playing games with him. (I have seen the correspondence in private groups, which Steve isn't yet releasing publicly).

Telling the guy it wasn't a disciplinary council, when it was, was pretty underhand. All messy stuff.

I can't attend on Sunday to show support as I am elsewhere with my son, so we asked Steve to start a petition so we could offer our signatures, which he agreed to do.

I know petitions aren't everyone's thing, but it is here if anyone is interested.

https://www.change.org/p/european-area- ... reason_msg

[_Mary]

Wow, the church noticed and issued a statement.

https://www.change.org/p/european-area- ... dium=email

[Schreech]

PETITION UPDATE

Church Statement

Stephen Bloor
Helston,
United Kingdom

4 NOV 2016 — 

The Church PR department has made a statement. 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respects any individual’s right and privilege to believe according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Choosing one’s own spiritual path is a God-given right. However, when a member of the Church persists in publicly advocating teachings in direct opposition to Church tenets, the member may lose his or her membership. The way is open to return to full fellowship in the Church after certain conditions are fulfilled, through the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ.

“In view of Mr Bloor’s public statements about the matter, we can confirm that, after ample opportunity for Mr Bloor to discuss his concerns with local ministers, and following internal Church procedures, Mr Bloor is no longer a member of the Church. He was properly informed of this outcome.

“Regarding Mr Bloor’s complaint of a data privacy violation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Great Britain) confirms that it complies with its responsibilities under the Data Protection Act, and has done so with Mr Bloor.”

There are several obvious lies in this statement. 

1. I have NOT advocated teachings in direct opposition to the Church. I've only asked questions about their unsavoury history and practises, and repeated quotes from their own accounts from the records of the Church in the past. 

2. They did not follow their own internal Church procedures as outlined in the Church Handbookof Instructions. It's unprecedented for the Church to remove a member's name from Church Records without that person's express request or permission. And more, to use 'Name Removal' instead of following their own Disciplinary Procedures.Not once in the letter inviting me to a 'meeting' or in the letter notifying me if the result of the 'meeting' do they use the phrase Disciplinary Procedures or the word excommunication. They always do this in cases of Apostacy, which in their definition is "advocating teachings in direct opposition to Church tenets." Just check the Church's own General Handbook of Instructions. 

3. The Church claims to adhere to Data Protection Regulations yet in my discussions with the Information Commissioner's Office they think otherwise. A simple response to the Church's Data Protection claims is why can't I have access to my own data?Why is it in the USA?Why in one letter do they say they have no information about me, and in an email from a local leader tell me the information is in Salt Lake City?They may say one thing, but they do another.

This is potentially a bigger story than it first appears. It reeks of a cunning desire to avoid adverse media attention.Their response is both interesting, and expected. The Church may make assurances about their adherence to Data Protection Regulations, but in my discussions with the Information Commissioner's Office they think otherwise.

The Church has a 186 year history of saying one thing and doing another. It started with Joseph Smith the founder, whilst illegally practising polygamy in the USA in the 1840s stated publicly that he had only one wife, in order to quell a popular uprising against the Church for breaking the law.

The second President of the Church Brigham Young even coined the phrase "Lying for the Lord."Anyone can now see the evidence from history clearly by looking at the old Church documents. An amazing resource iswww.cesletter.com &www.MormonThink.comThe public can make their own minds up when they see the evidence.In this particular case they haven't even followed their own policies in regards to Disciplinary Procedures, let alone the national law.

I have the evidence to prove it.If it's of interest I have the Church Handbook of Instructions stating how disciplinary action should be carried out, and the letters they sent me showing they clearly did not adhere to their own procedures.It's unprecedented for the Church to remove a member's name from Church Records without that person's express request or permission.

And more, to use 'Name Removal' instead of following their own Disciplinary Procedures.Notice they never use the phrase Disciplinary Procedures, I believe in an attempt to reduce the media interest after several high profile excommunication cases in the USA which caused them enormous embarrassment in the national and international media.

For example the cases of John Dehlin and Kate Kelly.Many people believe that they've not used the term excommunication in my particular case because of my involvement as a witness in the big fraud case against the Church in February 2014, in order to avoid the international media tying the two stories together.

[_Mary]

I have been using the term excommunication, and I guess in his case, the church just decided to remove his name from the records. A term used in their response, rather than excommunication.

Does this set a precedent for the church removing the records of people with whom they disagree, rather than face a disciplinary council?