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

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

God’s children aren’t tumors, though?

Its a metaphor.  If one likens the church to a body, it is necessary to protect the body against foreign invaders (people or ideas) and to take out parts that are diseased or it can spread and kill the individual.  In every case of excommunication, it is the decision or actions of the individual doing something they knew was wrong that caused it.   The Church is not to blame for the actions of these individuals.  The standards are pretty clear and universal.  No member accidentally gets exed.

Edited December 5, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[sunstoned]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

This info is from Jeppsen's daughter, but told in first person.  Is she reading from her father's diary or is it a reconstruction or what?

The transcript claims that his daughter was reading from her father's journal.

[SouthernMo]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, because it wouldn't be necessary.

I’d suggest that one acts more authentically when one is willing to use language to describe someone consistently - both to their face and behind their back.

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Its a metaphor.  If one likens the church to a body, it is necessary to protect the body against foreign invaders (people or ideas) and to take out parts that are diseased or it can spread and kill the individual.  In every case of excommunication, it is the decision or actions of the individual doing something they knew was wrong that caused it.   The Church is not to blame for the actions of these individuals.  The standards are pretty clear and universal.  No member accidentally gets exed.

I get that it’s a metaphor. While no metaphors are perfect, I think it’s wise to think through how using a certain metaphor to describe someone would make that person feel.

I’m not sure it elevates anyone to compare them to a tumor.

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

Sounds to me like the church leaders were just following what is already stated in the church handbook regarding apostasy.
The stake president just got clarification from them that this particular situation applies.

My understanding was that the SP was contacted by the COB and directed to hold court.  This was stated to me by the Bishop.  That is all I know, but it is a similar to what M. Quinn said happened to his SP.  This direct involvement is also what happened in the Avraham Gileadi court (see my other posting for details).

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

but what is the evidence? Bill kept saying that but how does he know? I know he's dead but when Bill Reel bodyslams Andre the Giant then we can talk about high profile🤔😎

Bill claims that his SP told him.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The transcript claims that his daughter was reading from her father's journal.

Good to know, thanks.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Bill claims that his SP told him.

and that's the thing, we just have his word on it and I was asking do we have the SP word to independantly verify it?

[sunstoned]

Just now, Duncan said:

and that's the thing, we just have his word on it and I was asking do we have the SP word to independantly verify it?

I think the Bill's statement is all we have.  I personally believe him, and what he said does seem to be consistent with high profile cases of this type.   

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think the Bill's statement is all we have.  I personally believe him, and what he said does seem to be consistent with high profile cases of this type.   

I don't but whatever! we've been over this! 

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I get that it’s a metaphor. While no metaphors are perfect, I think it’s wise to think through how using a certain metaphor to describe someone would make that person feel.

I’m not sure it elevates anyone to compare them to a tumor.

Considering the Savior’s metaphors about excommunicants and others opposed to the gospel (goats, swine, demon-possessed, dogs who consume their own vomit, etc) a tumor is not that bad.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Considering the Savior’s metaphors about excommunicants and others opposed to the gospel (goats, swine, demon-possessed, dogs who consume their own vomit, etc) a tumor is not that bad.

Perhaps. Would you compare someone to a tumor to their face?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is no reason to assume he has been reading this board the last few days though.  And sometimes when we have made mistakes, it gets so engrained it takes a sledgehammer to get us out of the rut, so even if in public view his brain may have rewritten what his eyes saw....assuming he actually looked at other references to review facts when remaking the claim.  He may not have done so, which would also explain the repetition of the significant error (I say significant because of the different implications betwen his wife vs. his son having the original and his son vs, his cousin's wife having the original).

He has been corrected before. No good reason at this point to be perpetuating this falsehood — especially while in the act of accusing an apostle of lying. The irony fairly reeks. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He has been corrected before. No good reason at this point to be perpetuating this falsehood — especially while in the act of accusing an apostle of lying. The irony fairly reeks. 

Are you sure?  Iirc, the correction was in that thread that I referenced where he asked for evidence Hyrum had done this multiple times, but again iirc he didn't post after the correction was made, so one can't insist he saw it.  Otoh, I could be mixing threads up.

It is a very strange error since the Church News article that he appeals to as evidence is clearly about George and Bathsheba Smith, not Hyrum.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Are you sure?  Iirc, the correction was in that thread that I referenced where he asked for evidence Hyrum had done this multiple times, but again iirc he didn't post after the correction was made, so one can't insist he saw it.

In one of the old threads you linked to, I clearly told him that there were two copies of the book with the dog-ear on the same page and that the Church History Department had established that the one Elder Holland held up was the one Hyrum read from. I said his understanding of the facts was garbled, too garbled for him to be making an issue of this thing. 

I admit I don’t know whether he stayed around long enough to read my post. But surely he got enough information on that thread to realize he had a deficient grasp of the facts and that he ought to look into it more thoroughly. Yet here he is, at this late date, doubling down on it as recently as in his appeal letter to the First Presidency. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In one of the old threads you linked to, I clearly told him that there were two copies of the book with the dog-ear on the same page and that the Church History Department had established that the one Elder Holland held up was the one Hyrum read from. I said his understanding of the facts was garbled, too garbled for him to be making an issue of this thing. 

I admit I don’t know whether he stayed around long enough to read my post. But surely he got enough information on that thread to realize he had a deficient grasp of the facts and that he ought to look into it more thoroughly. Yet here he is, at this late date, doubling down on it as recently as in his appeal letter to the First Presidency. 

Yeah, the whole thing is weirdly inflated by him imo and he made a poor effort of claiming the DN article was using the wrong book by not even bothering to look at the conference video or pictures he linked to, but I am talking specifically about the Bathsheba error for which there is no wiggle room, no opinion that maybe the book was a different color or worn versus near mint condition....she was George's wife, not Hyrum's.  That is like messing up 1+2=3.  It is not interpretation or perception.  And her being a cousin's wife instead is such an integral detail to which book is the more likely one, messing up destroys his argument imo.

When people ask what do you think of Reel's list of criticisms, you can say "look at the one he chooses to headline his attack on Elder Holland as a liar; he got the fundamental fact of Bathsheba's husband wrong for years; if this is how he pays attention to details, doesn't speak well of his claims, does it?"  It is such an easy target, no detailed explanation required, just he can't even get the relationship correct, do you trust him to analyze more complicated stuff?  

It makes for a great sound bite attack.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Calm

[flameburns623]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And signing a statement swearing that one won't record something and then recording that very thing is, well, dishonest. In fact, one could make a solid case that the act of signing the statement in such a case is a blatant lie. No doubt Mr Reel has been able to justify this lie in the service of what seems to him to be some greater good, but the situation is certainly pregnant with both irony and hypocrisy.

Has he acknowledged being the one who recorded the DC? It was not released by him and initial conversation tried to imply that the person recording might have been a sympathetic member of the Council.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

Has he acknowledged being the one who recorded the DC?

Not that I'm aware of; in fact, I think he has specifically denied it by claiming that the recorder wasn't his and wasn't operated by him. (Interesting details!) But as others have already acknowledged, when only one speaker can be heard clearly on a recording, we already know where the recording was made. But even if that weren't the case, Mr Reel has said that he knew 'someone' was planning a recording. That means he knew someone was lying to the stake president and the rest of the council. Then by sharing the recording, he endorsed the lie. Alternatively, he knew that 'someone' had placed a recorder on his person and operated it for him. That's genuinely possible too. But in either case, it's dishonesty and deceit all the way down regardless of the actual details.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[flameburns623]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not that I'm aware of. But as others have already acknowledged, when only one speaker can be heard clearly on a recording, we already know where the recording was made. But even if that weren't the case, Bill has said that he knew 'someone' was planning a recording. That means he knew someone was lying to the stake president and the rest of the council. Then by sharing the recording, he endorsed the lie. It's dishonesty and deceit all the way down regardless of the actual details.

Speculation on Facebook,  some of it by people professing to be attorneys,  is that requiring a nondisclosure agreement in order to participate in the Disciplinary Council is probably illegal and unenforceable on at least a couple of grounds. 

1. Because the Church has a clerk talking notes of the DC which are not made available to the person subject to the DC, but which would remain on file to be used against the subject of a Disciplinary Council,  should that subject ever seek readmission to Church membership. This asymmetry is said to be something no court would uphold. 

2. There is no quid pro quo nor consideration paid. The Church apparently perceives a benefit from such a nondisclosure agreement,  but the subject of the Disciplinary Council,  even if they do NOT perceive any benefit accruing to themselves,  must sign or be denied opportunity to participate on their own behalf.  

I am not an attorney.  These two points make some sense to me, as a layman. But they may not hold water in actual law. Short of an actual court hearing,  I don't know if we could know the legalities of any  certainty.  But anyone with actual legal background is welcome to opine. (And if the arguments I outlined above are actually preposterous to a trained attorney,  please dry the tears of laughter from your eyes before replying. 😁 We wouldn't want you to cause moisture damage to your electronic device. 😁😀😁)

Superficially,  I am thinking that if either of the above are true under law--and, to some extent even if the agreement were lawful, owing to the lack of transparency being displayed by the Church--there are some fair questions of ethical conduct which could be raised against the Church as well.  (These are the kinds of transparency issues raised against other churches vis'a'vis internal investigations of clerical abuse,  for example. Secrecy in such matters--at least when some involved would feel safer if things were done with maximum openness--simply looks less than Christlike). 

Although,  again,  the transcript shows that Bill Reel was treated with due consideration and given a fair hearing during the DC. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm completely unconcerned with whether or not a non-recording agreement is legally enforceable. The issue is an ethical one, and it's not the Church that has behaved unethically here. Mr Reel was invited to participate in the council. He chose to. He was asked to abide by certain rules. He (or 'someone' working with him) didn't.

Above, another poster seemed to be very worried about what certain people might say to an apostate's face. If I had a friend who told me to my face that he would keep a conversation in strict confidence, and then he posted a recording of the conversation online, I know how I'd feel. Zero integrity. Zero.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm completely unconcerned with whether or not a non-recording agreement is legally enforceable. The issue is an ethical one, and it's not the Church that has behaved unethically here. Mr Reel was invited to participate in the council. He chose to. He was asked to abide by certain rules. He (or 'someone' working with him) didn't.

Above, another poster seemed to be very worried about what certain people might say to an apostate's face. If I had a friend who told me to my face that he would keep a conversation in strict confidence, and then he posted a recording of the conversation online, I know how I'd feel. Zero integrity. Zero.

Your first paragraph is why I believe the Church is at least as immoral in this matter as Bill Reel.  If the Council is about Bill Reel,  and will involve his standing in the Church, he has a moral RIGHT to be there if he chooses (unless some other mechanism for answering the allegations is provided).

To defend his standing and make a case for why he should not be disciplined. 

And Bill Reel, being the subject of the Disciplinary Council,  is the only person with the moral right to determine if he wants the proceedings to be private.  If he elects privacy,  then he is entitled to the strictest privacy under law (understanding that churches are mandated to report certain types of matters).

If he wishes the proceedings  public, my view is the Church has no moral rights to insist the matter be kept secret. 

There may be no statute under law which can force the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to behave morally in these matters. But, by my lights, for the Church even to suggest a nondisclosure agreement is unethical behavior. 

Your second paragraph overlooks that it is not YOU but the other party . . .in this case, Bill Reel . . . who is the subject of the information at stake. Bill Reel is always free to share any and all information about himself that he elects. Or to maintain his own privacy.  

Frirnships, like church membership,  are voluntary associations.  If someone elects to make information about themselves public which you prefer they keep private,  you are free to dissociate yourself from such a friendship.  But neither you nor the Church, morally speaking, have veto rights over another being's privacy.  

All of which bypasses another germaine point: Bill Reel agreed that "he" would not record. Apparently,  "he" did NOT. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by flameburns623

[flameburns623]

One other thing. 

Bill Reel clearly no longer respects several of the key figures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

He no longer believes,  even in a  nuanced or thoughtful manner,  the things that the Church teaches.

He no longer planned to participate in Church functions.

His podcasts,  he acknowledges, are no longer primarily geared to helping LDS members remain faithful while adjusting to a different type of understanding about difficult issues.  To the contrary,  they seem designed to help facilitate the exit from LDS membership in a manner most satisfactory to an exiting member.

The decision to convene a Disciplinary Council was reasonable.  Bill's only reason for not simply resigning was to make a circus of the proceedings.  

As a  Freemason and a  Shriner, I happen to like circuses.  Except when neither peanuts nor cotton candy are available. 

This was a particularly poor circus. Bill made a clown of himself. He was free to do it.  And, believing that he did so because he is on a quest,  a pilgrimage,  for higher truth,  I wish him all the best.

But I have seen better circuses and much better clowns.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

If the Council is about Bill Reel,  and will involve his standing in the Church, he has a moral RIGHT to be there if he chooses (unless some other mechanism for answering the allegations is provided).

Persons can submit a written representation. That's always been an offer in every disciplinary council letter I've ever written/sent/seen.

Quote

And Bill Reel, being the subject of the Disciplinary Council,  is the only person with the moral right to determine if he wants the proceedings to be private ... If he wishes the proceedings  public, my view is the Church has no moral rights to insist the matter be kept secret. 

Nonsense. In any conversation, either party has the moral right to request confidentiality. And if the other party disagrees, s/he has the moral right to refuse to engage, even if it means walking out midway. What a person of integrity won't do is agree to confidentiality and then intentionally break it.

Quote

Frirnships, like church membership,  are voluntary associations.  If someone elects to make information about themselves public which you prefer they keep private,  you are free to dissociate yourself from such a friendship.

But recording a private conversation is not information about one person. It involves literally every person who speaks up during the conversation. You're right, of course, that 'friends' sometimes reveal the contents of confidential conversations. Friends with any integrity do not.

Quote

All of which bypasses another germaine point: Bill Reel agreed that "he" would not record. Apparently,  "he" did NOT. 

No, he just somehow happened to have someone else's recording device on his body. Completely different. 

[flameburns623]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 . . . No, he just somehow happened to have someone else's recording device on his body. Completely different. 

We speculate that he did. His wife could have been wearing it, beside him. It could have been somewhere in the room near him. 

Nonsense. In any conversation, either party has the moral right to request confidentiality. And if the other party disagrees, s/he has the moral right to refuse to engage, even if it means walking out midway. What a person of integrity won't do is agree to confidentiality and then intentionally break it.

One of the participants (the Church) IS  recording the proceedings.  A symmetrical relationship accords the privilege to both parties.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

His wife could have been wearing it, beside him.

Yep. Completely different. 

Quote

One of the participants (the Church) IS  recording the proceedings.  A symmetrical relationship accords the privilege to both parties.  

The first time that the Church releases the audio recording of a disciplinary council online, I'll concede the point about symmetry.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan