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

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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 going through a mock count that this conclusion implies. I have known many local leaders and I believe they would defer to the First Presidency if the First Presidency would 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.

I suspect the higher profile cases are handled differently.  

[Bob Crockett]

33 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.  

I can only speak from experience.  In one recent case in which I was involved, a person was involved in an anti-Mormon ministry at a local major evangelical church, and specifically targeted missionaries.  This person was a member of our stake.  The matter resolved before the DC was held, and it did not result in excommunication.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Steve J 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.....

Sure, I've been in plenty of rooms where an uncomfortable statement was made and people just moved on, without discussing it further.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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? 

You're running in circles here, not sure what your point is, sorry...

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

Most people subject to a disciplinary council would be rightly traumatized by the idea that anyone would want to record it. These cases seeking publicity are relatively rare.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

I'm pretty confident that at least some Apostle on a committee was privy to the proceedings.  Based on prior higher profile cases and knowledge that has come out afterwards, like with the September 6th and wasn't it Elder Oaks who was involved?  Anyway, there is prior precedent for this kind of involvement.  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

Seriously, you don't understand how the institution might care more about public and higher profile individuals?  

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're running in circles here, not sure what your point is, sorry...

trying to keep up with you

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I suspect the higher profile cases are handled differently.  

They are. Precautions are taken to protect the Church as a whole and the local leaders involved with council. That does not mean that apostles are dictating the results of DCs. They do not have to. They actually trust the good sense and inspiration of local leaders. Hard to believe but true.

[Steve J]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sure, I've been in plenty of rooms where an uncomfortable statement was made and people just moved on, without discussing it further.  

Sorry, but I remain extremely skeptical of BR reading of the situation based on not being able to hear the audio clearly throughout that part, the way the meeting proceeded, and BR motivation for having a stake councilman agree with him.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Seriously, you don't understand how the institution might care more about public and higher profile individuals?  

Hulk Hogan is a high profile person, Whoopi Goldberg is a high profile person, Guy Fieri is a high profile person, Bill Reel is a "high profile person" in his own mind

Edited December 3, 2018 by Duncan

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I can only speak from experience.  In one recent case in which I was involved, a person was involved in an anti-Mormon ministry at a local major evangelical church, and specifically targeted missionaries.  This person was a member of our stake.  The matter resolved before the DC was held, and it did not result in excommunication.

Would this person be considered high profile?  What do you think their scope of influence was?  I think that makes a big difference.  

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm pretty confident that at least some Apostle on a committee was privy to the proceedings.  Based on prior higher profile cases and knowledge that has come out afterwards, like with the September 6th and wasn't it Elder Oaks who was involved?  Anyway, there is prior precedent for this kind of involvement.  

They may have heard about it but I am waiting for precedent of dictating results or calling the Stake President and issuing instructions on what decision to reach.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

They are. Precautions are taken to protect the Church as a whole and the local leaders involved with council. That does not mean that apostles are dictating the results of DCs. They do not have to. They actually trust the good sense and inspiration of local leaders. Hard to believe but true.

Except that we have historical evidence to the contrary with the September six case.  I'm not really hung up on the idea that an Apostle had to be directly involved.  Its odd to me that when people question what the church news room says, we are told that the decisions coming from HQ are all strategically made with the leadership of the church being involved.  I have no reason to suspect differently for these higher profile disciplinary cases.  

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My opinion is just my opinion and is no more gossip and speculation than your opinion. 

Your opinion is founded on gossip and speculation, that's all.

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No need to get all judgey here.  

Oh, the irony.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Steve J]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I have no idea of how they interpreted the 19th century phrases comment since no one verbally responded.  And yes, all were aware of that the BOM used the KJV translation as they were aware of that for all parts of the BOM. 

And I never said the issues were't important, but some people are more concerned about Christ and his restored gospel. They are not bothered if the BOM contains the KJV and 19th century phrases since they have faith. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Steve J

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Hulk Hogan is a highe profile person, Whoopi Goldberg is a high profile person, Guy Fieri is a high profile person, Bill Reel is a "high profile person" in his own mind

By the broader societal standard very little in Mormonism even registers as high profile.  

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Most people subject to a disciplinary council would be rightly traumatized by the idea that anyone would want to record it. These cases seeking publicity are relatively rare.

Don't they usually have someone there taking notes ro the minutes of the meeting?  I wonder if so, if people are already rightly feeling traumatized if someone is recording it by note taking.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They may have heard about it but I am waiting for precedent of dictating results or calling the Stake President and issuing instructions on what decision to reach.

We'll be waiting for a very long time I suspect.  I can't imagine a scenario where the church intentionally becomes transparent on issues like this, what would possibly be their incentive to do so?  

[The Nehor]

This myth of apostles being heavily involved with local disciplinary matters seems to come from the ego of the subjects of the councils. They seem to need apostles to be involved on some level. Feeds into the martyr complex. The Stake President being a catspaw for “important people” gives their council a tragic air as they fight against a decision already reached and bravely defy the flunkies of the highest church councils.

Why else would they care if an Apostle was involved? It is not as if the decision would be different.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your opinion is founded on gossip and speculation, that's all.

Oh, the irony.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pot, meet kettle.  

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

By the broader societal standard very little in Mormonism even registers as high profile.  

you don't like Donny and Marie?!

[hope_for_things]

Just now, The Nehor said:

This myth of apostles being heavily involved with local disciplinary matters seems to come from the ego of the subjects of the councils. They seem to need apostles to be involved on some level. Feeds into the martyr complex. The Stake President being a catspaw for “important people” gives their council a tragic air as they fight against a decision already reached and bravely defy the flunkies of the highest church councils.

Why else would they care if an Apostle was involved? It is not as if the decision would be different.

Why the sensitivity about the idea of Apostles being involved?  I'm not even sure why thats troublesome to you.  

[Steve J]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

By the broader societal standard very little in Mormonism even registers as high profile.  

Jimmer Fredette, Bryce Harper, Mitt Romney, the guy from Imagine Dragons, Alex Boye, Stephen Covey(RIP), Elizabeth Smart, Harry Reid, etc... 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Except that we have historical evidence to the contrary with the September six case.  I'm not really hung up on the idea that an Apostle had to be directly involved.  Its odd to me that when people question what the church news room says, we are told that the decisions coming from HQ are all strategically made with the leadership of the church being involved.  I have no reason to suspect differently for these higher profile disciplinary cases.  

We do not have historical evidence in the so-called September Six cases. We have unsubstantiated rumors in one specific case out of the six spread primarily by the subject of the council.