Jump to content
flameburns623

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

Recommended Posts

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/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Steve J
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Steve J

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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????😮

  • Like 3

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.

×
×
  • Create New...