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

[smac97]

35 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.  

That Bill Reel can be heard clearly, but nobody else can be, would suggest that Bill Reel recorded the council proceedings.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not surprised about the Excommunication, the only surprise would be if any of these high profile "courts of love" didn't result in excommunication. 

I'm not surprised, either.  Having read a fair bit of Bill Reel's statements about the Church, his apostasy seemed fairly apparent.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The outcomes are already decided on prior to the formality of the event. 

Meh.  That's sheer gossip and speculation on your part.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think this was the purpose of these courts as they were originally intended. 

I agree.  But then, your premise is flawed.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its another one of those processes that was originally envisioned to work a certain way, and has gotten way off track along the way.  

Again, sheer speculation and gossip on your part.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Steve J]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

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.  

No, his public actions have suggested that... Your tribalism consistently has you defending his actions. I'm sure the local newspapers just happened to pick up his story and talk to him.

[The Nehor]

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 have recorded ward level disciplinary councils. It was a written account and I kept it very high level about what was discussed in broad terms, very high level notes on whether there was vocal agreement or disagreement on a point, and that was pretty much it.

The only purposes for the record are to provide a base for anyone considering an appeal and to be available to future priesthood leaders if the person in the council later seeks readmittance or removal of disciplinary status. It is not court reporting. The reason to avoid recording specifics as I understand it is to prevent anyone involved from being unwilling to speak openly for fear of disparagement later (applies to both sides).

These people always seem to think they are Abinadi and their defense worth recording.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Steve J said:

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

Bill Reel attributed the risible statement to a member of the High Council, not the stake president.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Steve J]

Just now, smac97 said:

Bill Reel attributed the risible statement to a member of the High Council, not the stake president.

Thanks,

-Smac

ok. Sorry for the mistake.

[Duncan]

5 minutes 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.  

and your evidence is what? you honestly think that the brethren go over every case in the Church and decide and then tell the SP to do what they concluded? if that's true why is there an appeal process to the 1st Presidency, if they are the ones deciding it in the first place?

[Steve J]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I find that many orthodox members don't care, and when they find out about  the controversial and complex issues of church history they either don't care or accept the Church's position on it. In Bishopric meeting I mentioned that BOM has this popular 19th century phrase in that it meant this as part of a spiritual message.... No one blinked an eye. 

I have discussed the 2nd Isaiah issues with 3 former Bishops... All were aware of it... 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Steve J

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 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 couldn't hear this part of the audio, so I'll have to trust the transcript.  I have heard Bill talk about this on a podcast interview, and his interpretation of what the HC person meant when they said that the church doesn't have integrity left.  I would trust Bill's interpretation of what was said, over your reading of the text, because he was there and present in the room and you are just speculating as to what the HC person meant.  I would hold out the possibility that your interpretation might be correct, and Bill misread what was said, however since you weren't there in person, the probability is stronger that Bill's interpretation is correct as he was the witness to what was said.  

[Duncan]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I couldn't hear this part of the audio, so I'll have to trust the transcript.  I have heard Bill talk about this on a podcast interview, and his interpretation of what the HC person meant when they said that the church doesn't have integrity left.  I would trust Bill's interpretation of what was said, over your reading of the text, because he was there and present in the room and you are just speculating as to what the HC person meant.  I would hold out the possibility that your interpretation might be correct, and Bill misread what was said, however since you weren't there in person, the probability is stronger that Bill's interpretation is correct as he was the witness to what was said.  

but there is an audio and transcript, so we are there...

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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????😮

I remember Bill saying that his Stake President confirmed for him that SLC was involved, but I didn't remember him saying that they had already made a decision, maybe I missed that part.  

[The Nehor]

23 minutes 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.  

I have seen several disciplinary councils take place and, in only one case, did I see a recommendation from on high (Stake President to a Bishop) about what the outcome should probably be. The Stake President apologized before it took place and made it clear that the Bishop was to make the decision (which the bishop intended to do anyways) and did (no disciplinary action was taken in that case).

I don’t disagree that the First Presidency can and should step in on disciplinary matters if they choose. I do resent the implied infantilization of local leadership willing to go through a mock council that this conclusion implies. I have known many local leaders and I believe they would defer to the First Presidency if the First Presidency chose to hand down a decision without a council (as is the First Presidency’s right) but I suspect most if not all would balk if they were told to hold a council with a set decision handed to them and would recognize that as a farce.

In the aforementioned case the Bishop told the Stake President that if he wanted to make the decision he would have to convene a disciplinary council himself. It was resolved amicably and was more of a misunderstanding of intent rather then meddling from on high. Instructions for disciplinary matters are clear. Local leaders are told in the Handbook specifically NOT to go to higher leaders for advice on their decisions.

Edited December 3, 2018 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That Bill Reel can be heard clearly, but nobody else can be, would suggest that Bill Reel recorded the council proceedings.

I'm not surprised, either.  Having read a fair bit of Bill Reel's statements about the Church, his apostasy seemed fairly apparent.

Meh.  That's sheer gossip and speculation on your part.

I agree.  But then, your premise is flawed.

Again, sheer speculation and gossip on your part.

Thanks,

-Smac

My opinion is just my opinion and is no more gossip and speculation than your opinion.  No need to get all judgey here.  

[Steve J]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I couldn't hear this part of the audio, so I'll have to trust the transcript.  I have heard Bill talk about this on a podcast interview, and his interpretation of what the HC person meant when they said that the church doesn't have integrity left.  I would trust Bill's interpretation of what was said, over your reading of the text, because he was there and present in the room and you are just speculating as to what the HC person meant.  I would hold out the possibility that your interpretation might be correct, and Bill misread what was said, however since you weren't there in person, the probability is stronger that Bill's interpretation is correct as he was the witness to what was said.  

Really??? The high councilman states that the "church has no integrity left" and the proceeding just goes on talking about Christ love, etc...

 

ok.....

[Tacenda]

1 hour 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/

 

Listened and read both. With technology and with a friend like NNN, I believe one could wear a recording device right? And it seemed like the only time you could hear anything well it was when Bill was speaking. My bet is that it was put onto Bill, and maybe he could plead the fifth, or let NNN put the device on him without his knowledge, haha. One way of getting around it huh? 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have recorded ward level disciplinary councils. It was a written account and I kept it very high level about what was discussed in broad terms, very high level notes on whether there was vocal agreement or disagreement on a point, and that was pretty much it.

The only purposes for the record are to provide a base for anyone considering an appeal and to be available to future priesthood leaders if the person in the council later seeks readmittance or removal of disciplinary status. It is not court reporting. The reason to avoid recording specifics as I understand it is to prevent anyone involved from being unwilling to speak openly for fear of disparagement later (applies to both sides).

These people always seem to think they are Abinadi and their defense worth recording.

Thanks for the additional clarity on what you've experienced as a recorder.  That sounds about right from what I recall as well from having served on a HC in the past.  It is of interest that in the early church the HC proceedings were recorded in greater detail.  Perhaps this changed somewhere along the way, not sure when.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and your evidence is what? you honestly think that the brethren go over every case in the Church and decide and then tell the SP to do what they concluded? if that's true why is there an appeal process to the 1st Presidency, if they are the ones deciding it in the first place?

I didn't say every case was reviewed by HQ, that would be absurd, I think just the higher profile ones.  I never claimed to have insider evidence.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listened and read both. With technology and with a friend like NNN, I believe one could wear a recording device right? And it seemed like the only time you could hear anything well it was when Bill was speaking. My bet is that it was put onto Bill, and maybe he could plead the fifth, or let NNN put the device on him without his knowledge, haha. One way of getting around it huh? 

Welp, time to implement strip searches.

[Tacenda]

28 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.  

Ditto! 

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I remember Bill saying that his Stake President confirmed for him that SLC was involved, but I didn't remember him saying that they had already made a decision, maybe I missed that part.  

but again what is his evidence, did his SP tell him that? or are we supposed to take Bill's word for it? you said before "Did he say he had insider knowledge?  I don't recall hearing him make that claim."

I would imagine the SP has "insider" info if he was actually in communication with SLC , so now you remember he said his SP had the inside scoop, right? 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Steve J said:

I find that many orthodox members don't care, and when they find out about  the controversial and complex issues of church history they either don't care or accept the Church's position on it. In Bishopric meeting I mentioned that BOM has this popular 19th century phrases in that meant this as part of a spiritual message.... No one blinked an eye. 

I have discussed the 2nd Isaiah issues with 3 former Bishops... All were aware of it... 

Lots of people don't care about politics either, but that doesn't mean that the issues facing our country aren't important.  People rarely connect the dots when small short statements are made, like you mentioned about the 19th century phrases in the BoM.  I imagine nearly nobody in that meeting thought for even a second that the point you made is actually evidence that the BoM may not be historical.  

I'm glad to hear that some Bishops were aware of issues with Duetero-Isaiah.   Did they comprehend the implications that this meant the quotations in the BoM were anachronistic and couldn't have been written by ancient Nephites, but instead were dependent on the KJV, meaning that Joseph is the source of that material?  

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I remember Bill saying that his Stake President confirmed for him that SLC was involved, but I didn't remember him saying that they had already made a decision, maybe I missed that part.  

I am sure they did speak to the Stake President though I suspect it was more likely he spoke to the Legal department and/or the Public Relations department who probably have given advice on how to handle the possible publicity and how to avoid anything that could be construed as legally actionable in the run up to and the council itself. In fact I would be surprised if they did not contact him (or that the Stake President initiated contact to seek advice on these matters).

I know of an ongoing situation right now where a Bishop and Stake President are both now on a first name basis with people in SLC administration helping to deal with a difficult and potentially explosive PR/legal situation. There will probably be councils at some point. No one has told the Bishop what to do if these happen (and there will almost certainly be at least one).

I do find it very unlikely that an Apostle called the Stake President and told him what decision to make.

Edited December 3, 2018 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but there is an audio and transcript, so we are there...

Body language is of course a very important factor.  

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't say every case was reviewed by HQ, that would be absurd, I think just the higher profile ones.  I never claimed to have insider evidence.  

why not though? what makes BiIl so dang special? That's a question who can answer- Bill claimed his SP was a frontman and insider for this but SLC already decided and you didn't remember but now you remember or something

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have recorded ward level disciplinary councils. It was a written account and I kept it very high level about what was discussed in broad terms, very high level notes on whether there was vocal agreement or disagreement on a point, and that was pretty much it.

The only purposes for the record are to provide a base for anyone considering an appeal and to be available to future priesthood leaders if the person in the council later seeks readmittance or removal of disciplinary status. It is not court reporting. The reason to avoid recording specifics as I understand it is to prevent anyone involved from being unwilling to speak openly for fear of disparagement later (applies to both sides).

These people always seem to think they are Abinadi and their defense worth recording.

I think it would be a good idea to allow everyone a means to record for the safety of all. I know those that are the subject of these proceedings would like it to prove that the court is for a specific thing and backing against anyone saying it was for something else or for more than what it was. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Body language is of course a very important factor.  

🙄