Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  Can you elaborate on this?  My perception is that the LDS Church is quite averse to litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I second this.  I know of a few cases that had to do with trademark protection (if you don't challenge at least some of others' misuse, you may lose the right to it as I understand), but have seen opportunities that haven't been taken.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

So after reading your link. Elder Holland related the story exactly as it was printed by Moyle's son, yet people call Elder Holland a liar because Moyles son got some of the details wrong --- and thats Elder Hollands fault???

people are queationing Mr. Holland on his him on his unpresidented church growth talk. They are questioning hin on his statements that 12 stakes were created during a certine week.  These things can be checked, and they have.   What his said and what he is claming is not true.

[Duncan]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I was not aware that the clam had become legal tender in Canada.  Or was it just you that requested compensation in clams?  Me, I'd much prefer shrimp.

only in selected areas, shrimp is more on the coastal regions🤔

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

only in selected areas, shrimp is more on the coastal regions🤔

If they were geoducks, you might have something there.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

people are queationing Mr. Holland on his him on his unpresidented church growth talk. They are questioning hin on his statements that 12 stakes were created during a certine week.  These things can be checked, and they have.   What his said and what he is claming is not true.

Do you agree that the Moyle anecdote should be removed from a list of alleged lies?

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  Can you elaborate on this?  My perception is that the LDS Church is quite averse to litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

A couple things quickly from my phone, prop 8, the wedding cake case, the requests for records dispute with the SLtrib & McKenna Denson.  

For historical issues, I’m thinking back to even 19th century things like polygamy cases and statehood.  

I’m just saying the church hasn’t shied away from using legal tools to promote its interests.  

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

I second this.  I know of a few cases that had to do with trademark protection (if you don't challenge at least some of others' misuse, you may lose the right to it as I understand), but have seen opportunities that haven't been taken.

Your recollection is accurate. The folks behind Lighthouse kept trying to seize urls and whatnot in order to divert traffic and control/limit LDS access to the public.

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Your recollection is accurate. The folks behind Lighthouse kept trying to seize urls and whatnot in order to divert traffic and control/limit LDS access to the public.

Sweet, innocent Sandra and loveable, old Gerald?  

Whodathunk!  

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

A couple things quickly from my phone, prop 8, the wedding cake case, the requests for records dispute with the SLtrib & McKenna Denson.  

For historical issues, I’m thinking back to even 19th century things like polygamy cases and statehood.  

I’m just saying the church hasn’t shied away from using legal tools to promote its interests.  

That it does on occasion doesn't mean it takes advantage of any likely opportunity where it would win, imo.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

That it does on occasion doesn't mean it takes advantage of any likely opportunity where it would win, imo.

Certainly, I’m sure they have many discussions as they debate these issues. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Certainly, I’m sure they have many discussions as they debate these issues. 

So you agree it is not a false dichotomy of choosing to sue in any case they believe they will likely win legally wise vs. if they don't sue, it means they believe they will lose.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you agree that the Moyle anecdote should be removed from a list of alleged lies?

yes

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

yes

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you agree it is not a false dichotomy of choosing to sue in any case they believe they will likely win legally wise vs. if they don't sue, it means they believe they will lose.

Of course not, there are other considerations

[JulieM]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you agree that the Moyle anecdote should be removed from a list of alleged lies?

I don’t believe that Elder Holland lied about this story.  He told it mostly as he’d either been told it or read it.  But it was posted earlier in this thread (a link) to where someone did more research and learned it couldn’t have happened as told (like he lost his leg just months before he died and the carving on the temple was done on a date way before that and other details plus no one knows why the 6 hour times frame was added as it wasn’t in the original souce and so on).  But that certainly doesn’t mean lies were told.  Moyle also may have been excommunicated (or at least disciplined).  But he was a great man either way imo.

I’ll look for that link if anyone’s interested.  It’s very interesting to read more details about this story.

Edited August 8, 2018 by JulieM

[Duncan]

Just now, JulieM said:

I don’t believe that Elder Holland lied about this story.  He told it mostly as he’d either been told it or read it.  But it was posted earlier in this thread (a link) to where someone did more research and learned it couldn’t have happened as told (like he lost his leg just months before he died and the carving on the temple was done on a date way before that and other details plus no one knows why the 6 hour times frame was added as it wasn’t in the original souce and so on).  But that certainly doesn’t mean lies were told.  Moyle also may have been excommunicated (or at least disciplined).  But he was a great man either way imo.

I’ll look for that link if anyone’s interested.  It’s very interesting to read more details about this story.

I agree, although Pres. Henry Moyle wasn't exed or anything, he was in charge of the missionary program and he was stripped of that responsibility when things went screwy mclouie

[smac97]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

A couple things quickly from my phone, prop 8,

This was a ballot initiative, not a lawsuit.

Quote

the wedding cake case,

The LDS Church participated in filing a "friend of the court" brief (along with numerous other religious organizations, representing a total of some 50 million Americans).

And this was one of 149 such briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which apparently is a record.

Quote

the requests for records dispute with the SLtrib

This one is legit.  I don't understand BYU's position on this one.  I'm not comfortable with it.

But the entity involved is BYU, not the LDS Church per se.

And BYU was sued, and hence had no choice but to participate.

Quote

& McKenna Denson.  

The LDS Church was sued by Ms. Denson.  It had no choice but to participate.

You said: "But the church has a history of using the courts to fight for its interests.  Even when the odds look bleak."  You have not presented a single instance of the LDS Church filing a lawsuit.

FWIW, the Church sued the Utah Lighthouse Ministry some years ago regarding a copyright issue.  That was in 1999, or nineteen years ago.

Quote

For historical issues, I’m thinking back to even 19th century things like polygamy cases and statehood.  

I’m just saying the church hasn’t shied away from using legal tools to promote its interests.  

I don't think you've shown that.  Not even close.

The LDS Church is not litigious.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 8, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I agree, although Pres. Henry Moyle wasn't exed or anything, he was in charge of the missionary program and he was stripped of that responsibility when things went screwy mclouie

"Screwy McLouie"?  Where can I find a dictionary of "Duncanisms"?  

[USU78]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

"Screwy McLouie"?  Where can I find a dictionary of "Duncanisms"?  

It's a Canuck thing

[smac97]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

Your recollection is accurate. The folks behind Lighthouse kept trying to seize urls and whatnot in order to divert traffic and control/limit LDS access to the public.

If you click on www.bookofmormon.com, you end up . . . at Sandra Tanner's website.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This was a ballot initiative, not a lawsuit.

The LDS Church participated in filing a "friend of the court" brief (along with numerous other religious organizations, representing a total of some 50 million Americans).

And this was one of 149 such briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which apparently is a record.

This one is legit.  I don't understand BYU's position on this one.  I'm not comfortable with it.

And it's BYU, not the LDS Church per se.

And BYU was sued, and hence had no choice but to participate.

The LDS Church was sued by Ms. Denson.  It had no choice but to participate.

You said: "But the church has a history of using the courts to fight for its interests.  Even when the odds look bleak."  You have not presented a single instance of the LDS Church filing a lawsuit.

FWIW, the Church sued the Utah Lighthouse Ministry some years ago regarding a copyright issue.  That was in 1999, or nineteen years ago.

I don't think you've shown that.  Not even close.

The LDS Church is not litigious.

Thanks,

-Smac

You don't get it, Smac97.  It's unchristian for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to defend itself, its associated entities, or its interests in courts of law, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of any accusations or arguments leveled against said parties or against their interests.  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70782-i-feel-like-we-all-should-agree-on-this-one-regardless-of-where-we-are-with-the-truth-claims-of-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209837427

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I agree, although Pres. Henry Moyle wasn't exed or anything, he was in charge of the missionary program and he was stripped of that responsibility when things went screwy mclouie

 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Screwy McLouie"?  Where can I find a dictionary of "Duncanisms"?  

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

It's a Canuck thing

Silly Canucks!   

[Damien the Leper]

27 pages and nothing of reasonable substance on the accusations against Holland. I've never been comfortable with Reel and I just don't trust him. Why make an issue out of a non-issue? Topics like this make me irritable. 

[Exiled]

34 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

27 pages and nothing of reasonable substance on the accusations against Holland. I've never been comfortable with Reel and I just don't trust him. Why make an issue out of a non-issue? Topics like this make me irritable. 

I think he was clearly exaggerating the 12 stakes per month claim.  Holland should have known the correct number as I would assume one of the 12 is intimately involved in these growth matters.  Even so, my guess is that Bill wants to talk about the issue of questioning authority and whether we can trust their claims, especially when we never know when they are speaking as men or otherwise.  So, even if one cannot prove malicious intent, why would Holland exaggerate like he does?  Why wouldn't he fact-check the idaho biker story prior to telling it?

Anyway, how about those Utes!  We might have a chance this year even though the schedule is really tough.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Valentinus said:

27 pages and nothing of reasonable substance on the accusations against Holland. I've never been comfortable with Reel and I just don't trust him. Why make an issue out of a non-issue? Topics like this make me irritable. 

Well, there aren't any such things as "innocent until proven guilty" and perhaps "giving people the benefit of the doubt" and due process and rules of evidence and procedure and so on in the court of public opinion.  In that court, all too often, a mere allegation serves as its own evidence, sufficient to arrest, incarcerate, try, convict, and execute an alleged wrongdoer (see, e.g., #metoo, although I'm not saying that no allegations born of the #metoo movement have substance; still, in some ways, #metoo is reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials or of the Anticommunist Hysteria of the 1950s).

Meanwhile, those on the receiving end of such treatment are left to ask, in the words of former Labor Secretary to President Reagan, Ray Donovan, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"  Been there.  In some ways, still there.  My earning power has been devastated, and my character eviscerated, by a few people of whom I'm led to ask (solely rhetorically, of course, since they'll probably never be held to account for what they've said and its effect on me), "Just exactly what is it that you're getting out of the fact that I'm barred, probably permanently, from making a living in my would-be chosen profession?  Does that elevate you in any way?  Are you better off because of it?  Is the profession?  Does it justify your existence, somehow?"