Jump to content
flameburns623

Bill Reel announces excommunication is official, as a recording of his Disciplinary Council is released.

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, baloney.  This isn't about the Church being "ashamed."  The Church treats these things with decorum and sanctity and confidentiality.

There are all sorts of circumstances where proceedings are not allowed to be recorded, and all sorts of perfectly legitimate reasons for not allowing recordings.

But for some, resentments against the Church run so deep, they just cannot allow for that possibility.  So the Church is evil.  "Ashamed."  "Totally manipulative."  "Hates transparency."  None of this silliness flies, but if a person is addicted to rage against the Church...

Gotta love the loaded premise.

Here's mine: "If the Church wants disciplinary matters to be held in confidence, and to be treated with sanctity and decorum, then prohibiting recordings makes a lot of sense.  Recording the proceedings would alter the calculus of behavior.  Recording the proceedings would facilitate a violation of confidentiality.  Recording the proceedings would lessen the sanctity and decorum of the meeting."

Chutzpah is my favorite Yiddish word.  Thank you for so amply demonstrating its meaning by presuming to dictate to the Church what its "standard policy should be."

No, that should not be the standard policy. 

Good luck going into a courtroom that does not allow recording of proceedings and insisting to the judge what the "standard policy should be" (while preserving for itself the right and need to record the proceedings).

Unless, of course, there are further considerations in play, such as confidentiality.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes I have lost a lot of respect for the church for how it treats those in the gay community.  And yes I have lost a lot of respect for you as well for how you attack the gay community to the point that I don't even like to respond to your posts.  But that has nothing to do with my comment.  

As far as I can tell, your argument for not allowing the person on trial to allow total transparency by recording the proceedings as to how they have been treated is because by allowing them to record the proceedings all sanctity and decorum would vanish?  Just how does that happen?  Do you feel all sanctity and decorum vanishes when General Conference is recorded?

It is more than ironic that you yourself relied on the recorded transcript concerning claims that the High Counselor comment about the church having no integrity.  Would you have been able to dispute that comment without the actual recording of the excommunication proceedings.  Bill didn't object to transparency.  It is the church that objects.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes I have lost a lot of respect for the church for how it treats those in the gay community.  

Meh.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

And yes I have lost a lot of respect for you as well for how you attack the gay community to the point that I don't even like to respond to your posts.  But that has nothing to do with my comment.  

Double meh.  I've done nothing of the sort.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

As far as I can tell, your argument for not allowing the person on trial to allow total transparency by recording the proceedings as to how they have been treated is because by allowing them to record the proceedings all sanctity and decorum would vanish?  Just how does that happen?  Do you feel all sanctity and decorum vanishes when General Conference is recorded?

I've laid out my thoughts already.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is more than ironic that you yourself relied on the recorded transcript concerning claims that the High Counselor comment about the church having no integrity.  Would you have been able to dispute that comment without the actual recording of the excommunication proceedings.  Bill didn't object to transparency.  It is the church that objects.

Again, the idea of the Church making and retaining and publishing audio/video recordings is creepy and boneheaded and profoundly unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's how I understood CB's comments here:

CB speaks of having disciplinary council proceedings not only recorded, but publicized?  To be exposed to "the light of day?"  All in the interests of "transparency?"  Um, what?  What sort of absurdity is that?

And CB goes even further than that.  He publicly accused the Church, by not recording and publicly disclosing disciplinary proceedings, of being "[dis]honorable."

Not according to California Boy, who faults the Church for A) not recording the entirety of the proceedings, and B) not publishing these recordings to the world ("the light of day").  

 

1

Yes you did misunderstand what I wrote.  I am not advocating for all church courts to be recorded and publicized.  I am advocating for the right of the person being put on trial to have the choice to record the proceedings if they so wish.  These people who have recorded their disciplinary hearings all think that what they have done is not an excommunicating act.  They want the public to know why the church thinks they should be excommunicated and let those following their situation to judge just how fair that verdict is.  Otherwise, is all those following their situation get is the verdict and not the justification the church used.  

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.

Double meh.  I've done nothing of the sort.

I've laid out my thoughts already.

Again, the idea of the Church making and retaining and publishing audio/video recordings is creepy and boneheaded and profoundly unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've done nothing of that sort?  Did you forget this little diatribe against me and the gay community?  

Quote

 

SMAC

Our own California Boy, having reviewed this video, admits that the LDS Church does "have a right to voice it's opinion," but then ominously declared - to a board full of Mormons - that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions." 

These "consequences" include includes near riots at its places of worship. 

California Boy publicly declared on this board, knowing that it is heavily populated with Mormons, that he "like{s}" the above video.

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable going to a the Jewish community and something like "Jews have a right to voice their opinion, but you have to live with barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates of your synagogues as the consequences of your doing so"?

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable publicly expressing enjoyment at videos of profane and hate-filled riots at the gates of a synagogue?  Or a mosque?

3
Quote

 

Thank you for the clarification.  CB's prior remarks on this issue (in the context of the foregoing video) were pretty jarring and disturbing.  His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing.  He described it as his compatriots merely "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church.  To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.  Mob intimidation against a religious minority.  Because its members lawfully exercised its constitutional rights.  And California Boy "like{s}" it.  (Here's a bit more information about some of the things that happened in relation to Prop 8.)

I am concerned about the state of our society when people like California Boy feel at liberty to publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority - the Mormons - choose to exercise their constitutional rights in ways that he and his compatriots dislike.  I am concerned when otherwise good and decent people like California Boy nevertheless feel perfectly comfortable going to a venue heavily populated by Mormons and telling them that he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

 

Now look at the video and see if your diatribe has any accuracy to it.  To say you have not gone after me or the gay community is just not true.  You so distorted what actually happened in front of the temple and what I said about it just to further your agenda against the gay community and me personally.

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If only God can evaluate something then by definition it is subjective.  I really don’t get the push back, as if subjective were somehow a dirty word.  

Even your metaphor has flaws in that the person kicking may have been having a seizure or was being attacked bees.  

What Bill did, can be objectively evaluated, but whether it meets God’s approval or is in need of repentance is a subjective question.  

No, I said sometimes only God can evaluate it. I do not consider it a dirty word. I just do not believe it applies.

And yes, whether there is a need for repentance or God approves something is a more difficult question but fortunately the council was not deciding on that. They had to decide whether he was in apostasy from the Church and how willing he was to repent of such apostasy at the time of the Council. Those questions are much easier. He is in apostasy and he showed nothing in word or deed to suggest he would repent of it. Simple......

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, california boy said:

You've done nothing of that sort?  Did you forget this little diatribe against me and the gay community?  

Now look at the video and see if your diatribe has any accuracy to it.  To say you have not gone after me or the gay community is just not true.  You so distorted what actually happened in front of the temple and what I said about it just to further your agenda against the gay community and me personally.

A mob screaming at and literally shaking the gates of the Temple.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A mob screaming at and literally shaking the gates of the Temple.

Because we all know the gay community does not get to exercise their right of free speech?   Your arrogance in thinking that the church should be able to control the gay community to bend to it's dogma without protest is astounding.  When you intentionally enflame and demonize what actually happened because they had the audacity to protest against the church's involvement in taking away their civil right to marry the person they love.  How dare they.  Don't they know that they are all apostates for wanting to marry the person they love.  

And now I am once again reminded of why I no longer wish to respond to your posts.  You have nothing but contempt for the gay community and do all you can to mischaracterized and demonize them as well as what I actually post.  You really expect the LGBT community to roll over and not protest the travesty of their civil rights?   Unbelieveable.  At some point you are going to grow up and realize that the church can not just do whatever it wants without considering that some people might strongly disagree with what the church is doing.  This was a peaceful protest, noting like the "barely-contained and hate-filled riots" you tried to make it out to be. 

Your little personal jab at me that has derail this thread has gone on long enough.  I stand by my statement

Quote

Yes I have lost a lot of respect for the church for how it treats those in the gay community.  And yes I have lost a lot of respect for you as well for how you attack the gay community to the point that I don't even like to respond to your posts.  But that has nothing to do with my comment.

1

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, california boy said:

Because we all know the gay community does not get to exercise their right of free speech?   Your arrogance in thinking that the church should be able to control the gay community to bend to it's dogma without protest is astounding.  When you intentionally enflame and demonize what actually happened because they had the audacity to protest against the church's involvement in taking away their civil right to marry the person they love.  How dare they.  Don't they know that they are all apostates for wanting to marry the person they love.  

And now I am once again reminded of why I no longer wish to respond to your posts.  You have nothing but contempt for the gay community and do all you can to mischaracterized and demonize them as well as what I actually post.  You really expect the LGBT community to roll over and not protest the travesty of their civil rights?   Unbelieveable.  At some point you are going to grow up and realize that the church can not just do whatever it wants without considering that some people might strongly disagree with what the church is doing.  This was a peaceful protest, noting like the "barely-contained and hate-filled riots" you tried to make it out to be. 

Your little personal jab at me that has derail this thread has gone on long enough.  I stand by my statement

 

A mob.  Screaming at the gates.

A mob.

A recap of the video:

At 1:33, someone screams "Go back to Utah!"  (Imagine a mob gathering to protest a group of homosexuals gathered for an event, banging on the doors and windows of the venue, and screaming at them to "Go back to San Francisco!" Would that be reasonably characterized as a "peaceful protest?")

At 1:35, someone yells "You wanted Armageddon?  You got Armageddon!"

At 1:43, someone walks by with a sign reading "MORMONS - Child-Molesting Bigots!!"  (Again, imagine a mob gathering and screaming at a group of homosexuals, with signs comparable to this one.  Would that be reasonably characterized as a "peaceful protest?")

At 5:08, the protesters rush and kick and shake and bang on the gates of the temple, screaming "Shame on you!"  One fellow yells "Devil worshippers!"  

At about 6:14, someone yells "You haven't seen the last of us!"  One protester even managed to break into the grounds of the temple itself.

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happen."

But for the rule of law (note the extensive law enforcement presence, literally protecting the temple and its patrons from the mob), I wonder what that mob would have done. 

CB claims that "[t]his was a peaceful protest , nothing like the 'barely-contained and hate-filled riots' you tried to make it out to be."

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is my understanding that a unified sustaining vote is highly preferred, but not technically required.

The counsellors have to sustain the decision. The rest of the council should be consulted until they do as well, but they have no veto:

Quote

After the stake president reaches a decision and his counsellors sustain it, he announces it to the high council and asks them as a group to sustain it. The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously. However, if one or more high councillors object to the decision, the stake president makes every effort to resolve the concerns and achieve unanimity. He may recall witnesses for further questioning. If necessary, the disciplinary council may again review the evidence, but not in the presence of the member.

Nevertheless, I have never before seen a stake disciplinary council not have a unanimous outcome. I have personally dissented as a counsellor in a bishopric, in which case we continued to discuss and seek revelation until we were unanimous. This is precisely as instructed as well:

Quote

The presiding officer is the judge. He makes the decision through inspiration and invites his counsellors to sustain it. If they have a different opinion, he listens and seeks to resolve the differences so the decision can be unanimous.

One of my great privileges has been to personally experience the power of revelation to resolve differences and generate complete and genuine unanimity in these matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Still, having participants sign an NDA before a DC seems to assume ill intent of the participants.

An assumption borne out how many times now when it comes to celebrity apostates? I feel quite confident the procedure is extremely rare to non-existent in any other context.

Quote

For the average member who could be subject to a DC for myriad reasons, there really isn't much info shared about the proceedings ... I think people are concerned, nervous, uncomfortable with being subject to a proceeding they know very little about.

I can count on the fingers of one foot the number of members I know who worry about being subject to Church discipline. The reasons are demonstrably not myriad, and the closest an 'average member' will ever get to the experience is as a member of a bishopric, a stake presidency or a high council.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  You don't know what he said or didn't say to Bill Reel.

If so, it was an exceedingly trivial, nitpicky one.

About your casual slurs against the stake president and the Church, yes.

Meh.  I'm not interesting really interested in the trivial semantic argument you are making.  It is the casual slur that I found objectionable.  

I've said my piece, several times over.  I'll leave you to have the final word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  on my take, the SP said no one would record it.  Someone did.  Bill said he wouldn't, apparently, and he apparently did.  They are in the same category in that sense.  But as I said, if I were Bill I'd think the agreement was broken as soon as I noticed the SP had lied and had allowed someone to record the events.  You can make room for one and not the other, for whatever reason you like.  I like trying to be consistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

Because we all know the gay community does not get to exercise their right of free speech?   

 

What it does not get to do, or should not, is to terrorize and threaten. Had I been on the temple grounds that day, having come there to worship in peace, I would have been very frightened. 

If memory serves me, at least one member of the mob actually got inside the gates that day. One might ask, to what end? Suppose others had gained entry as well to reenforce one another. What would they have done?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

An assumption borne out how many times now when it comes to celebrity apostates? I feel quite confident the procedure is extremely rare to non-existent in any other context.

I can count on the fingers of one foot the number of members I know who worry about being subject to Church discipline. The reasons are demonstrably not myriad, and the closest an 'average member' will ever get to the experience is as a member of a bishopric, a stake presidency or a high council.

These days, it seems, one doesn’t fall into Church discipline by happenstance; one has to work at it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I so think that it was a foregone conclusion that there would be a Church clerk keeping minutes of the event. A written record of the matter would have to be maintained in case Bill ever opted to return to full membership.  

My notes from 1979, the first time I left the Church, were still on file, even though I had returned in 1988 and had been a member in good standing,  if largely inactive,  until my second resignation in 2008. The bishop involved in reinstating me in 2008 was actually more concerned about the stuff from 1979 than about my '08 resignation.  

As a former bishop,  Bill Reel must have known the Church would maintain such records.

Since Disciplinary Councils are currently set up much as an adversarial proceeding,  I think that (upon request) a transcript,  performed by an Independent stenographer whose fees were split between the subject and the local ward, would make the most sense. The subject of the DC gets a copy,  names expunged,  in case there are relevant inaccuracies which could be corrected, especially in event of an appeal or petition to reinstate.  

In Bill Reel's case,  his Disciplinary Council requited itself well. Bill is the one who came off badly--perhaps not a "clown" as I said earlier--that was a bit harsh,. I only inserted that in the context of my likening the whole affair to a circus. (I watched a lot of John Dehlin's live feed).

But, time after time,  while reading the transcript,  I asked myself,  "Bill: why are you bothering? Why didn't you resign and just have done with this?" I could see that all he was doing was establishing that he was no longer a believer, and that via his podcasts and social media,  was being very open about his unbelief. He wasn't a seeker struggling quietly to resolve matters. He had passed that point some time ago. 

In an organization which does not value open faith challenging questions,  the thing was a waste of people's time. There ARE  religious bodies which do welcome questioning members: I've told Bill so; and said here that he would make better use of his faculties and energy in such communities. 

I do understand that Disciplinary Councils are NOT actually investigative or  adversarial procedures.  Since these DC's are also never actually "counseling" sessions for the subject, either, I think the more pastoral thing to do is as I proposed earlier:

Do whatever counseling or consultation needs to happen in the Bishop's or Stake President's office, after notice has been served that in X amount of time,  a DC will convene.

Unless the subject of a DC denies whatever allegations of misconduct have led to that point,  start working on the solution rather than rehashing the transgression before witnesses.

Use the DC,  once convened, to provide oversight in case a particular leader is laboring under a misapprehension or has an axe to grind.  No reason for the subject of the DC to be invited or attend: just let them present any exculpatory evidence via an accounted advocate from among the Disciplinary Council.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What it does not get to do, or should not, is to terrorize and threaten. Had I been on the temple grounds that day, having come there to worship in peace, I would have been very frightened. 

If memory serves me, at least one member of the mob actually got inside the gates that day. One might ask, to what end? Suppose others had gained entry as well to reenforce one another. What would they have done?

Oh please. This protest against the church is no different than any normal nonviolent protest that goes on regularly in this country.  Claiming the public sidewalk in front of the temple is on temple grounds is another inflamed and inaccurate characterizations. No threats of violence were made.  No near riot occurred.  Absolutely ZERO arrests were made.  No one was harmed in any way. Those that support the civil rights of the gay community have the right to protest the horrific actions of the church.  They did so in a peaceful manner that the law allows. It is nothing like the inflamed ""barely-contained and hate-filled riots" that SMAC characterized this protest says to gin up those that don't think gays should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit and the laws of this country allow.  Well, guess what Scott, YOU AND THE CHURCH DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF WHO I LOVE AND WHO I WANT TO LIVE MY LIFE WITH.  And YES, those that support equal rights for the gay community do in fact also have the right to peacefully protest in front of the temple on public sidewalks against an institution that wants to suppress those constitutional rights.  To continue to think that you and the church that you belong to can dictate those civil rights is beyond yours and the church's control.  Thank God.

And you wonder why I and so many others have lost respect for the church.  You wonder why so many millennials are leaving the church.  You wonder why so many faithful members are leaving this institution whose actions against the gay community the can no longer support.  You wonder why more and more people are unwilling to listen to this "gospel" of discrimination.  Did the church not learn anything on how it discriminated against Blacks?  In the long run, it is the church and its members that loose.

If you want to talk about this more, open a thread.  I have plenty to say on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

A mob.  Screaming at the gates.

A mob.

A recap of the video:

At 1:33, someone screams "Go back to Utah!"  (Imagine a mob gathering to protest a group of homosexuals gathered for an event, banging on the doors and windows of the venue, and screaming at them to "Go back to San Francisco!" Would that be reasonably characterized as a "peaceful protest?")

At 1:35, someone yells "You wanted Armageddon?  You got Armageddon!"

At 1:43, someone walks by with a sign reading "MORMONS - Child-Molesting Bigots!!"

At 5:08, the protesters rush and kick and shake and bang on the gates of th temple, screaming "Shame on you!"  One fellow yells "Devil worshippers!"  At about 6:14, someone yells "You haven't seen the last of us!"  One protester even managed to break into the grounds of the temple itself.

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happen."

But for the rule of law (note the extensive law enforcement presence, literally protecting the temple and its patrons from the mob), I wonder what that mob would have done. 

CB claims that "[t]his was a peaceful protest , nothing like the 'barely-contained and hate-filled riots' you tried to make it out to be."

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Open a thread.  I have plenty to say on how you villainize those that support the civil rights of the gay community.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Open a thread.  I have plenty to say on how you villainize those that support the civil rights of the gay community.

No, thanks.

I disagree with you on this point ("this point" being the YouTube video).  We've hashed that out several times now.

I am grateful for the rule of law, and the law enforcement officers, that protected the temple and its patrons from the mob screaming at its gates.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What it does not get to do, or should not, is to terrorize and threaten. Had I been on the temple grounds that day, having come there to worship in peace, I would have been very frightened. 

If memory serves me, at least one member of the mob actually got inside the gates that day. One might ask, to what end? Suppose others had gained entry as well to reenforce one another. What would they have done?

Open a tread.  I have plenty to say about. how you characterize those that support the rights of all Americans including those that are gay.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I so think that it was a foregone conclusion that there would be a Church clerk keeping minutes of the event. A written record of the matter would have to be maintained in case Bill ever opted to return to full membership.  

My notes from 1979, the first time I left the Church, were still on file, even though I had returned in 1988 and had been a member in good standing,  if largely inactive,  until my second resignation in 2008. The bishop involved in reinstating me in 2008 was actually more concerned about the stuff from 1979 than about my '08 resignation.  

As a former bishop,  Bill Reel must have known the Church would maintain such records.

Since Disciplinary Councils are currently set up much as an adversarial proceeding,  I think that (upon request) a transcript,  performed by an Independent stenographer whose fees were split between the subject and the local ward, would make the most sense. The subject of the DC gets a copy,  names expunged,  in case there are relevant inaccuracies which could be corrected, especially in event of an appeal or petition to reinstate.  

In Bill Reel's case,  his Disciplinary Council requited itself well. Bill is the one who came off badly--perhaps not a "clown" as I said earlier--that was a bit harsh,. I only inserted that in the context of my likening the whole affair to a circus. (I watched a lot of John Dehlin's live feed).

But, time after time,  while reading the transcript,  I asked myself,  "Bill: why are you bothering? Why didn't you resign and just have done with this?" I could see that all he was doing was establishing that he was no longer a believer, and that via his podcasts and social media,  was being very open about his unbelief. He wasn't a seeker struggling quietly to resolve matters. He had passed that point some time ago. 

In an organization which does not value open faith challenging questions,  the thing was a waste of people's time. There ARE  religious bodies which do welcome questioning members: I've told Bill so; and said here that he would make better use of his faculties and energy in such communities. 

I do understand that Disciplinary Councils are NOT actually investigative or  adversarial procedures.  Since these DC's are also never actually "counseling" sessions for the subject, either, I think the more pastoral thing to do is as I proposed earlier:

Do whatever counseling or consultation needs to happen in the Bishop's or Stake President's office, after notice has been served that in X amount of time,  a DC will convene.

Unless the subject of a DC denies whatever allegations of misconduct have led to that point,  start working on the solution rather than rehashing the transgression before witnesses.

Use the DC,  once convened, to provide oversight in case a particular leader is laboring under a misapprehension or has an axe to grind.  No reason for the subject of the DC to be invited or attend: just let them present any exculpatory evidence via an accounted advocate from among the Disciplinary Council.

 

what gets me is he talks about integrity and yet he secretly recorded it, doesn't he have any intregrity himself? there is a word in the english language and the word is hypocrisy🤔

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what gets me is he talks about integrity and yet he secretly recorded it,

Or his wife did (she was in the room, I believe).  Or he colluded with someone, who put a recorder in his pocket (his idea of "plausible deniability," perhaps).

Or a member of the High Council or stake presidency or the clerk or executive secretary (less plausible, but still possible).

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

doesn't he have any intregrity himself?

It's not an all-or-nothing thing, I suppose.

But he's definitely taking a hit in that department.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Open a tread.  I have plenty to say about. how you characterize those that support the rights of all Americans including those that are gay.

Your rants have long since grown repetitive and, frankly, boring. Why would I want to open a thread to enable more of the same from you? 

For that matter, why would you need me to do that? Have you lost the power/privilege to do it on your own behalf?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or his wife did (she was in the room, I believe).  Or he colluded with someone, who put a recorder in his pocket (his idea of "plausible deniability," perhaps).

Or a member of the High Council or stake presidency or the clerk or executive secretary (less plausible, but still possible).

It's not an all-or-nothing thing, I suppose.

But he's definitely taking a hit in that department.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think his integrity takes a hit with his heading his list of gripes with an accusation that has long ago been debunked (pertaining to Elder Holland and the Book of Mormon he displayed in conference). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2018 at 7:51 AM, 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.  

As I have been the ultimate decisionmaker, I can say that nobody was telling me what to do.  Having said that, I don't see any problem with commentary coming from without the local organization.  When I was a teenager my uncle was a stake president and he held a court to excommunicate an apostle's sister.  The apostle tried to intervene to stop or frustrate it and my uncle proceeded nonetheless.  So there is nothing wrong with somebody from salt lake having some sort of commentary. 

 

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve always said that the foundational question is whether or not you believe the church is all it claims to be.  If you don’t, then what is there to reform? And if you do, what business do you think the rank-and-file have trying to dictate policy, doctrine, or even the presentation of church history to the GAs? A huge amount of intellectual dishonesty lies in the conceit that you, as a church member, care so much about the institution that you think it right to promote some kind of organic reform effort...for its own good. Paraphrasing William F. Buckley, I’d sooner entrust the highest levels of church administration to the 400-or-so missionaries who will report next week at the Provo MTC than to the dissident “Mormon intellectual” community.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As I have been the ultimate decisionmaker, I can say that nobody was telling me what to do.  Having said that, I don't see any problem with commentary coming from without the local organization.  When I was a teenager my uncle was a stake president and he held a court to excommunicate an apostle's sister.  The apostle tried to intervene to stop or frustrate it and my uncle proceeded nonetheless.  So there is nothing wrong with somebody from salt lake having some sort of commentary. 

 

Did you handle any higher profile decisions like this before?  I suspect that there are exceptions to the standard rule for handling disciplinary courts.  

You're probably familiar with some of the other stories out there about Apostles telling a SP that they need to discipline someone and being released from their calling for not following orders.  I imagine there are all kinds of stories about various different things happening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×