MTC Expansion

“We were involved in those kinds of problems and solutions all the time.”

Yes, they happen everywhere, except dictatorships, where there isn’t much choice…

On July 1, a Mormon Church stake president asked members of Provo’s Pleasant View First Ward during sacrament meeting to support the church’s First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in their decision to build the nine-story classroom building, which some neighbors had opposed because of its height.

The stake president then immediately announced that the ward would henceforth be known as the “Partially Obstructed View First Ward.” 😆

My uncle lives in this neighborhood and he told me about this. In his telling of it, the opposition got called to repentance for not supporting the brethren. Now they have egg on their faces for trying to serve the kingdom of God and Mammon at the same time. “Choose ye this day, who you will serve. But as for me and my house – we will serve the lord.”

I do not think that this is the perspective that the church leadership is taking but it is easy to see how some rank and file TBM’s can come to that conclusion. My uncle is a really great and sweet guy – he just has a different perspective.

Church spokesman Scott Trotter said in an email Monday that church leaders were not pressuring anyone or exercising their authority inappropriately. He confirmed that a stake president had told members the MTC plan had been approved by church leaders and asked for their support while urging them to respect those with differing views.

“To suggest that this was an attempt by Church leaders to exercise undue influence is without merit,” the email said.

FWIW, “undue influence” is a legal term.

Undue influence occurs when one person (the dominant party) takes advantage of another person’s mental, emotional, or physical weakness and unduly persuades that person (the servient party) to enter into a contract. The persuasion by the wrongdoer must overcome the free will of the innocent party…If there is a confidential relationship between persons – such as a lawyer and a client, a doctor and a patient, a psychiatrist and a patient – any contract made by the servient party that benefits the dominant party is presumed to be entered into under undue influence….The U.S. Court of Appeals stated: “Any species of coercion, whether physical, mental, or moral, which subverts the sound judgment and genuine desire of the individual, is enough to constitute undue influence.”

Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law, Henry Cheeseman – p 323-4

Is this “undue influence”? I find it interesting that the use of “moral coercion” to subvert the “sound judgment and genuine desire of the individual” is considered to be undue influence. But legally, I would say no. This does not meet the legal definition of undue influence because there is no contract being entered into. The church is merely asking parties drop their opposition.

Right or wrong is a matter of opinion but Mr. Trotter’s statement was technically correct, “To suggest that this was an attempt by Church leaders to exercise undue influence is without merit.”

I don’t think anyone is looking at this through legal eyes. One must ask if the church is doing all it can to reach a mutually satisfying solution between their needs for a 9 story building and the residents’ good faith in entering into a buying homes with an unobstructed view. To “call people to repentence” because they object to the expansion which violates the terms upon which they bought their homes, simply because it is good for the church, is one-sided.

I can see why we have D&C 121. The concept of a divinely appointed priesthoodbody certainly lends itself to abuse if people choose to let it. Such as when the church wants something that is good for itself, and then its leaders call them to repentence when they object — even when the matter is one of civil/municpal law.

This is a misuse of authority in my view. One would have to have been present in the Sacrament meeting where the SP “asked for support” to judge if it was a simple plea given with reasoning, or if it was tied to spiritual wellness, avoiding apostasy, sinning, violating covenants etcetera. I’m not sure anyone can judge based on the information given. Teh church spokesperson seems reasonable, but my experience in the church doesn’t preclude calls to repentance over issues like these from priesthood leaders.

Silent Dawning, I agree with you. On one hand, the church wants the area around the Salt Lake Temple to look better and I can understand that. But the people in this neighborhood surely bought in over the years with that assurance. They want their neighborhood to look nice too and to be able to have their view. Will this affect their property values?

This is why I love the Mormon Moment. The church’s actions have to be above bar because suddenly the world is watching. Lack of oversight always leads to abuse of power, but now secret actions are shouted from the rooftops, at least from the 9th story. A girl gets kicked out of the testing center for wearing skinny jeans (that weren’t), a bishop bans cross-dressing toddlers from the trunk or treat – I for one am thrilled that people are being kept in check by the Mormon Moment. The church has to take a stand on the rght side and not let zealots go unchecked.

This is why I love the Mormon Moment. The church’s actions have to be above bar because suddenly the world is watching. Lack of oversight always leads to abuse of power, but now secret actions are shouted from the rooftops, at least from the 9th story. A girl gets kicked out of the testing center for wearing skinny jeans (that weren’t), a bishop bans cross-dressing toddlers from the trunk or treat – I for one am thrilled that people are being kept in check by the Mormon Moment. The church has to take a stand on the rght side and not let zealots go unchecked.

Me too — and I’m also thankful for the Bloggernacle. And remember — we believe in “obeying the laws of the land”. So, if there are contractual obligations or bylaws at the local level, the the church is bound to abide by them.

Provided, however, they don’t tie supporting the initiative to TR worthiness…the phrase “supporting local leaders” could easily be taken as a reference to worthiness. I don’t believe the church should be playing that card on what is a civil matter that appears to benefit only them. We would need to know what the specific agreements and bylaws are with the people who bought the houses, and neither of us have that knowledge that I’m aware of…