flameburns623 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Last night , RFM released a recording, with transcript, of Bill Reel's Disciplinary Council. Coyly, no one is admitting who recorded it. Speculation is that Bill had an ally among the High Council Members. I have a bridge in Saint Louis for sale to any who credits this. Link: https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/12/radio-free-mormon-046-bill-reels-disciplinary-council-the-recording/ Following that, early this morning, Bill Reel released an official statement confirming his excommunication: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/12/bill-reel-statement-on-excommunication/ 1 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, flameburns623 said: Last night , RFM released a recording, with transcript, of Bill Reel's Disciplinary Council. Coyly, no one is admitting who recorded it. Speculation is that Bill had an ally among the High Council Members. Didn't the members of the High Council agree in writing to not record or publicly divulge the disciplinary proceedings? So Bill Reel induced someone else to act dishonestly and dishonorably? That is disappointing. 1 minute ago, flameburns623 said: I have a bridge in Saint Louis for sale to any who credits this. Link: https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/12/radio-free-mormon-046-bill-reels-disciplinary-council-the-recording/ Following that, early this morning, Bill Reel released an official statement confirming his excommunication: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/12/bill-reel-statement-on-excommunication/ Some excerpts: "Mormonism one last time made it clear that the truth is not only not useful, but even more directly it is antithetical to Mormonism’s mission." "In regards to the Excommunication Document...it is just more of the many games that Mormonism plays." "Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie I needed to believe as a young man in order to change my life." "Our Family united in valuing truth and standing up for those who are marginalized and harmed led to our being hand in hand as we woke up to our lives." "A lot of folks encouraged me to resign but I went out doing what I have always done which is being a voice for those who for one reason or another don’t have a voice, standing up against the the dishonest telling of our narrative, and shining a light on leaders who lie and deceive in order to protect their authority." "I am proud of how I faced the challenges every step of the way in my journey." The same person saying all these horrible things about the Church . . . also fought against losing his membership in the Church. These horrible claims also remind me of this quote from Joseph Smith: Quote I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. Well, yes. Meanwhile, Bill Reel and his addiction to outrage continues. Not sure for how long. I hope he eventually turns from his current course and has a change of heart. Thanks, -Smac 12 Link to comment
Popular Post flameburns623 Posted December 3, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) Main thing I noticed in the DC transcript was everything was pretty civil. But Bill Reel doesn't know much about Reform Judaism. He, or whoever did the transcript, called it "Reformed", which is the first error: it's "Reform", present tense, because its adherents see Judaism perpetually in process of reforming. More to the point: if Orthodox Judaism is the correlate to True Believing Mormonism--Bill apparently doesn't know that for Orthodoxy, all versions of what is called "Progressive Judaism", encompassing Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, and Humanistic Judaisms--are inauthentic. "Charem", I think is the Hebrew. Means forbidden, or anathema. In Israel, the Chief Rabbinate only recognizes Orthodoxy for purpose of marriage, conversion to Judaism, or Jewish burial. At one time, I believe this restricted "aliyah" or emigration to Israel as well. And if one is not the offspring of a recognized Jewish mother, one must undergo Orthodox conversion. Elsewhere in the Diaspora, one who has converted under auspices of another denomination of Judaism cannot be a member of an Orthodox synagogue. Very akin to LDS excommunication status. (On top of this, there are tendencies within Orthodox Judaism which are uncomfortable with each other: Hasidism versus Modern Orthodox versus Progressive Orthodoxy). Edited December 3, 2018 by flameburns623 7 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 44 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: Last night , RFM released a recording, with transcript, of Bill Reel's Disciplinary Council. Coyly, no one is admitting who recorded it. Speculation is that Bill had an ally among the High Council Members. I have a bridge in Saint Louis for sale to any who credits this. Link: https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/12/radio-free-mormon-046-bill-reels-disciplinary-council-the-recording/ Following that, early this morning, Bill Reel released an official statement confirming his excommunication: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/12/bill-reel-statement-on-excommunication/ I listened to the recording, well at least the parts where Bill is talking, I couldn't really hear anyone else. It was actually very good, I thought Bill expressed himself quite well. Not surprised about the Excommunication, the only surprise would be if any of these high profile "courts of love" didn't result in excommunication. The outcomes are already decided on prior to the formality of the event. I don't think this was the purpose of these courts as they were originally intended. Its another one of those processes that was originally envisioned to work a certain way, and has gotten way off track along the way. 4 Link to comment
Duncan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I listened to the recording, well at least the parts where Bill is talking, I couldn't really hear anyone else. It was actually very good, I thought Bill expressed himself quite well. Not surprised about the Excommunication, the only surprise would be if any of these high profile "courts of love" didn't result in excommunication. The outcomes are already decided on prior to the formality of the event. I don't think this was the purpose of these courts as they were originally intended. Its another one of those processes that was originally envisioned to work a certain way, and has gotten way off track along the way. Did Bill Reel ever give evidence that his outcome was already decided? He kept saying it but never to my knowledge give any evidence. I know he wants to think he's a "high profile persona" according to his own words but what was his evidence? 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 50 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Mormonism one last time made it clear that the truth is not only not useful, but even more directly it is antithetical to Mormonism’s mission." "In regards to the Excommunication Document...it is just more of the many games that Mormonism plays." "Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie I needed to believe as a young man in order to change my life." "Our Family united in valuing truth and standing up for those who are marginalized and harmed led to our being hand in hand as we woke up to our lives." "A lot of folks encouraged me to resign but I went out doing what I have always done which is being a voice for those who for one reason or another don’t have a voice, standing up against the the dishonest telling of our narrative, and shining a light on leaders who lie and deceive in order to protect their authority." "I am proud of how I faced the challenges every step of the way in my journey." With all that chest beating did he bruise himself? 2 Link to comment
Judd Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I listened to the recording, well at least the parts where Bill is talking, I couldn't really hear anyone else. Gee golly. That must be a mystery for the ages as to why. 3 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, Duncan said: Did Bill Reel ever give evidence that his outcome was already decided? He kept saying it but never to my knowledge give any evidence. I know he wants to think he's a "high profile persona" according to his own words but what was his evidence? What kind of "evidence" could he have provided? I think he was just assuming it was decided based on prior precedent with other higher profile cases. To my knowledge he never claimed to have any insider evidence. I'm not sure that Bill cares about the ranking of how high profile his case is. That seems like a petty kind of thing to critique. Link to comment
Duncan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: What kind of "evidence" could he have provided? I think he was just assuming it was decided based on prior precedent with other higher profile cases. To my knowledge he never claimed to have any insider evidence. I'm not sure that Bill cares about the ranking of how high profile his case is. That seems like a petty kind of thing to critique. he said these things so he does care and so I wonder if he has evidence or why he would believe these things Link to comment
Steve J Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I listened to the recording, well at least the parts where Bill is talking, I couldn't really hear anyone else. It was actually very good, I thought Bill expressed himself quite well. Not surprised about the Excommunication, the only surprise would be if any of these high profile "courts of love" didn't result in excommunication. The outcomes are already decided on prior to the formality of the event. I don't think this was the purpose of these courts as they were originally intended. Its another one of those processes that was originally envisioned to work a certain way, and has gotten way off track along the way. I thought Bil Reel just rehashed information one can easily find on the internet.(all which has frequently been discussed on this board, FAIRMORMON, JSP, Kofford books, Signature Books, the Ensign, Church Essays, and in Deseret Books) Also his tone during the meeting was a far -cry from his internet persona. There likely would have been no court, if he conducted himself in a similar manner publicly. Obviously, he has come down to a negative conclusion about the Church(Which is his right), but I thought his actions regarding everything has been a farce to create outrage and position himself as a victim who "just had questions" and wanted to "protect the innocent and vulnerable." Edited December 3, 2018 by Steve J 2 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, Judd said: Gee golly. That must be a mystery for the ages as to why. I suspect he recorded it. Fine by me, because asking people not to record these things is silly. The stake has people specifically attend for the purposes of having a record of the event and to record the proceedings, although I don't know that they ever use audio recordings as a standard process, but I'm not sure why they couldn't. They don't want these proceedings getting out in the public because it never looks good for the church, as the entire process looks bad in our modern society. 3 Link to comment
Popular Post Bob Crockett Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I listened to the recording, well at least the parts where Bill is talking, I couldn't really hear anyone else. It was actually very good, I thought Bill expressed himself quite well. Not surprised about the Excommunication, the only surprise would be if any of these high profile "courts of love" didn't result in excommunication. The outcomes are already decided on prior to the formality of the event. I don't think this was the purpose of these courts as they were originally intended. Its another one of those processes that was originally envisioned to work a certain way, and has gotten way off track along the way. That just isn't true that all outcomes are already decided. Having been through many of these councils, in my experience only a small portion results in excommunication even though that is always a remedy. Bill wanted this outcome. Why? Who knows. 6 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Duncan said: he said these things so he does care and so I wonder if he has evidence or why he would believe these things He said what things? Did he say he had insider knowledge? I don't recall hearing him make that claim. Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Steve J said: I thought Bil Reel just rehased talking points one can easily find on the internet. Obviously, he has come down to a negative conclusion about the Church(Which is his right), but I thought his actions regarding everything has been a farce to create outrage and position himself as a victim who "just had questions" and wanted to "protect the innocent and vulnerable." It was new information for most of the people in his stake I would imagine. I think Bill is sincere with respect to caring for people. 1 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: That just isn't true that all outcomes are already decided. Having been through many of these councils, in my experience only a small portion results in excommunication even though that is always a remedy. Bill wanted this outcome. Why? Who knows. How do you know that these outcomes aren't already decided? I'm talking about cases like Bill's, where someone is a higher profile individual who's been publicly critical of the church. I think these cases are directed from HQ, and handled differently than the standard ones that are just handled at a local level. Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I listened to the recording, well at least the parts where Bill is talking, I couldn't really hear anyone else. It was actually very good, I thought Bill expressed himself quite well. Not surprised about the Excommunication, the only surprise would be if any of these high profile "courts of love" didn't result in excommunication. The outcomes are already decided on prior to the formality of the event. I don't think this was the purpose of these courts as they were originally intended. Its another one of those processes that was originally envisioned to work a certain way, and has gotten way off track along the way. I think the years of back-and-forth and examination of evidence demonstrates an effort to forestall excommunication. One advantage is that the issues receive plenty of airing and vetting. Link to comment
Steve J Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: It was new information for most of the people in his stake I would imagine. I think Bill is sincere with respect to caring for people. I doubt that most was new. Probably some of it, but my guess is that if you take lay members of a Christian church and presented them with critical information of the founding of Christianity and other historical topics you would get the same level of knowledge. I have no doubt he is sincere with respect for caring for people, but his actions also suggest he has a Messiah complex and relishes the opportunity to cast himself as the victim of the big bad lying Church. Edited December 3, 2018 by Steve J Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, CV75 said: I think the years of back-and-forth and examination of evidence demonstrates an effort to forestall excommunication. One advantage is that the issues receive plenty of airing and vetting. Once the disciplinary council date was set, I think that the outcome was already dictated from HQ, and that they really were just going through the motions. Prior to that, perhaps for years, there may have been debate and discussion around what to do about Bill. 1 Link to comment
Judd Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I suspect he recorded it. Fine by me, because asking people not to record these things is silly. The stake has people specifically attend for the purposes of having a record of the event and to record the proceedings, although I don't know that they ever use audio recordings as a standard process, but I'm not sure why they couldn't. They don't want these proceedings getting out in the public because it never looks good for the church, as the entire process looks bad in our modern society. I just wish people would be honest about it, like with Sam Young’s, which made it obvious that if you were to hear him speak that you’d know he was the one with the mic on his body, thus we only get a distant recording of the stake president’s spiel. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) So the transcript of the disciplinary council is available here. The transcript appears to be conclusive. It begins with the opening prayer (transcribed) and ends with the closing prayer (not transcribed, just "Closing Prayer"). Bill Reel previously posted this on Reddit: Quote It went 100 fold better than I thought it would. Every one in the room listened and I piled their shelves ten feet high with the truth. Everyone admitted I told the truth as far as they could tell. Only thing they could grasp at was that I told it the wrong way. High councilman: “here we are, having to protect the integrity of the church, and yet with what bro reel has shared the church has no integrity” 3-5 men in that room were deeply distressed over the info. And I am not overselling. I was calm and on my A-Game. Stake president acknowledged i had done nothing immoral and my integrity was high to begin with and had not taken a hit in this. Sadly it still appears he has little choice. No decision tonight. Said he would hand deliver the decision but his rhetoric indicated it was all but decided Some will doubt this but I would simply say, be patient The bit above about statement from the member of the High Council was quoted in The Spectrum: Quote Reel said his stake president is under intense pressure and the decision was likely made prior to Tuesday's meeting. As he was explaining the purpose of his podcast to the men in the room, Reel said, several members of the high council were shocked at what they were hearing, and many of them looked concerned. Reel said they told him they found this information disturbing. "One of the 12 high councilmen said, 'We are here tonight to protect the integrity of the church, but from what Brother Reel has told us, the church doesn't have any integrity,' " Reel said. Disciplinary meetings are confidential. The Spectrum could not independently verify what was said. Here is the transript portion (annotated as the "money line") that appears to be quoting the member of the High Council who was quoted/paraphrased above: Quote (1:38:21) HC (money line): Yeah, I think this has been an opportunity to understand your point of view. I think that the purpose of the Council, as was mentioned at the first, now your integrity is not in question at all. It isn't. The purpose of this council is to look at protecting the integrity of the church. And you mentioned that as well. And uh, but I believe now, that pretty much as you outlined every step of your presentation, If you take all that, there is no integrity left in the church. And so that's a problem. There are alot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You've looked at sources as you'vesaid on both sides, all the information there. It leaves the church with zero integrity. This is interesting. Bill Reel quoted the member of the High Council out of context, but it seems pretty clear that he (Reel) wanted to convey the idea that a member of the High Council agreed with him that the Church "doesn't have any integrity." However, in context, I think the statement from the High Council member is intended to summarize Bill Reel's position and perspective, not the members. Read it again (emphases added): Quote (1:38:21) HC (money line): Yeah, I think this has been an opportunity to understand your point of view. I think that the purpose of the Council, as was mentioned at the first, now your integrity is not in question at all. It isn't. The purpose of this council is to look at protecting the integrity of the church. And you mentioned that as well. And uh, but I believe now, that pretty much as you outlined every step of your presentation, If you take all that, there is no integrity left in the church. And so that's a problem. There are alot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You've looked at sources as you'vesaid on both sides, all the information there. It leaves the church with zero integrity. Judges in civil matters do this all the time, particularly where a litigant's argument is vague, or else is presented in a long, meandering way. The judge will listen, and then say "Okay, so your position is . . .", followed with a more concise and precise summary of the litigant's position. However, the judge isn't doing this to adopt the litigant's position, but to ensure that he has correctly understood it. Having summarized the litigant's position, and having secured from the litigant a confirmation of the accuracy of that summary, the judge can then proceed to render a decision on the dispute. Lawyers also utilize this rhetorical device. Sometimes during a deposition, sometimes during oral argument. This sort of thing relates to a Latin term, arguendo: Quote Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument. "Assuming, arguendo, that ..." and similar phrases are used in courtroom settings and academic legal settings, and occasionally in other domains, to designate provisional and unendorsed assumptions that will be made at the beginning of an argument in order to explore their implications. Assuming arguendo allows an attorney to examine the conclusions of premises without admitting that these premises—often the asserted facts of the opposing party—could be true. A criminal defense attorney may say, "if, arguendo, my client stole the internet data and password, then saving a life would have justified stealing it," thus suggesting that determining the client's guilt or innocence is pointless because they would cause identical legal effects. Particularly in an appellate court, a judge may ask an attorney what the effects of a different set of assumptions, made arguendo, about the facts governing a situation might be. Asking these questions is especially useful in exploring whether different fact patterns might limit the proper scope of a possible holding in a given case. I think this is what the member of the High Council was doing. He was "examin[ing] the conclusions of [Bill Reel's] premises without admitting that these premises ... [are] true." In that sense, I am glad that the member of the High Council did this. As Aristotle so aptly put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I think the member of the High Council was seeking to understand/entertain Bill Reel's position, without necessarily admitting the validity of it. That is not the impression, I think, that Bill Reel's Reddit post gives. He gave the impression that the High Council member had been persuaded to accept Reel's position. The context does not seem to support that. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 3, 2018 by smac97 11 Link to comment
Steve J Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: How do you know that these outcomes aren't already decided? I'm talking about cases like Bill's, where someone is a higher profile individual who's been publicly critical of the church. I think these cases are directed from HQ, and handled differently than the standard ones that are just handled at a local level. What if Bill stated that he got emotional and was angry, and that he stands by his opinion that what they stated wasn't all true that he regrets that he called the apostles liars and doesn't believe that they were??? Do YOU know what would have happened? Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Once the disciplinary council date was set, I think that the outcome was already dictated from HQ, and that they really were just going through the motions. Prior to that, perhaps for years, there may have been debate and discussion around what to do about Bill. Has that been your experience in the Church? Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Steve J said: I doubt that most was new. Probably some of it, but my guess is that if you take lay members of a Christian church and presented them with critical information of the founding of Christianity and other historical topics you would get the same level of knowledge. I have no doubt he is sincere with respect for caring for people, but his actions also suggest he has a Messiah complex and relishes the opportunity to cast himself as the victim of the big bad lying Church. I interact with orthodox members every week in my ward and throughout my life, and from my experience they really have very little knowledge about the controversial and complex issues of church history. They typically have some very surface idea that some problem exists and they may know some really weak apologetic argument that doesn't even come close to understanding the problem in the first place. As for the Messiah complex, that is a pretty uncharitable view to have about someone. Sounds like typical tribalistic bitterness. 2 Link to comment
Steve J Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: So the transcript of the disciplinary council is available here. The transcript appears to be conclusive. It begins with the opening prayer (transcribed) and ends with the closing prayer (not transcribed, just "Closing Prayer"). Bill Reel previously posted this on Reddit: The bit above about statement from the member of the High Council was quoted in The Spectrum: Here is the transript portion (annotated as the "money line") that appears to be quoting the member of the High Council who was quoted/paraphrased above: This is interesting. Bill Reel quoted the member of the High Council out of context, but it seems pretty clear that he (Reel) wanted to convey the idea that a member of the High Council agreed with him that the Church "doesn't have any integrity." However, in context, the statement from the High Council member is intended to summarize Bill Reel's position and perspective, not the members. Read it again (emphases added): Judges in civil matters do this all the time, particularly where a litigant's argument is vague, or else is presented in a long, meandering way. The judge will listen, and they say "Okay, so your position is . . .", followed with a more concise and precise summary of the litigant's position. However, the judge isn't doing this to adopt the litigant's position, but to ensure that he has correctly understood it. Having summarized the litigant's position, and having secured from the litigant a confirmation of the accuracy of that summary, the judge can then proceed to render a decision on the dispute. Lawyers also utilize this rhetorical device. Sometimes during a deposition, sometimes during oral argument. This sort of thing relates to a Latin terms, arguendo: I think this is what the member of the High Council was doing. He was "examin[ing] the conclusions of [Bill Reel's] premises without admitting that these premises ... [are] true." In that sense, I am glad that the member of the High Council did this. As Aristotle so aptly put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I think the member of the High Council was seeking to understand/entertain Bill Reel's position, without necessarily admitting the validity of it. That is not the impression, I think, that Bill Reel's Reddit post gives. He gave the impression that the High Council member had been persuaded to accept Reel's position. The context does not seem to support that. Thanks, -Smac I listened to that part and it was extremely muffled and made it hard to pick out portions that would have provided possibly greater context. Who knows what more the SP said, but it was difficult to fully get everything he stated Link to comment
Duncan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: He said what things? Did he say he had insider knowledge? I don't recall hearing him make that claim. he said that he is a "high profile persona" and he has said several times that SLC is involved and they made the decision, not his Stake President. I recall it. I wonder if he has evidence or yet again his statements have no basis in reality-i.e "Thousands of people are watching this proceeding ramp up" FB post Nov. 19. and he claims that Elder Holland embellishes????😮 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts