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

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why eye roll? 

If we can be respectful of orthodox members and the validation they feel when they hear something that speaks to their truth, why can't we honor others who feel similarly, even if we may disagree on particulars.  I think Bill is a fine person and a very good example of the kind of person that Mormonism should be proud of.  

What if I found him to be a self-important doofus? Particularly the part where he boasted about being called to be a bishop at a young age as some kind of proof of his previous faithfulness.

Also, reading the part where he supposedly was in the process of winning over a member of the High Council to believing the Church was without integrity in context made that idea pretty funny.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

After reading the transcript, I believe that the SP was fair in what BR was allowed to do and the time frame for which he could do it. 

I agree that the stake president allowed him to have "his say."

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am prejudiced, but in my own mind...Bill ran circles around them..

That's like applauding a boxer for landing punches on an opponent whose arms are tied behind his back.

A disciplinary council is not a forum for debating the merits of the truth claims of the Church.  They are, in essence, established as a given for the purposes of the proceeding.  That Bill Reel was given time to air his grievances says exactly nothing about the merits of those grievances, or whether those grievances have been or can be competently addressed.

I see this sort of thing all the time in court.  A party (often one who represents himself, and hence is only minimally aware of how the substantive and procedural law actually works) stands up and vents his spleen.  Well, okay.  He's had his say.  But being bombastic in court pretty much never sways the judge, nor does it alter the analysis of the underlying issues and the reasoned conclusions to be drawn therefrom.

So it is, I think, with Bill Reel.  He got to rattle off a bunch of disjointed complaints to a captive audience.  That audience appears to have treated him with respect and decorum.  But in the end, his tirade did not sway the stake presidency, nor did it alter the analysis of the underlying issues.  And in the end, he was excommunicated for apostasy, a reasoned conclusion that was surprising to nobody at all - including Bill Reel.

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

and made impressions of inquisitive truths to some council men there.  I don't know these people...I don't know them and yet..for the first time..I feel validated. 

I don't understand what you mean here.  What "inquisitive truths" do you have in mind?  We here on this board have probably discussed each and every topic Bill Reel raised in his comments during the Disciplinary Council.  We've spent tens of thousands of posts dissecting and debating these things.  In contrast, the disciplinary council was exceedingly circumspect and narrow in its purpose.

I also don't understand what you mean about feeling "validated."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I would agree that the court aspect in this case is just for appearances, there isn't an actual decision being made, as it has already been made.  But these aren't really courts anyway, in a traditional sense. 

I would recommend that if church HQ decides some high profile individual should be excommunicated, that they shouldn't put them through a sham court, instead they should just send them a letter and be done with it.  It would save a lot of time, and probably be less controversial in the media as it would just be one event, all said and done, not multiple events that get media attention at each stage in the process.  Just a clean break.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike calling it a court.

Nehor is correct.  This is a council, not a court.  The members of the council counsel together as to the proper course which should be taken.

  The purpose of church disciplinary councils are threefold:

1) To save the souls of transgressors

2) To protect the innocent

3) To safeguard the integrity of the church

It could be argued that all three come into play in this case.

Members of the church, especially endowed members of the church, have made covenants with God. These covenants, which members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe to be eternal in nature, are taken seriously both by God and by the church.  In many cases it is merciful to release an individual from the conditions of these covenants through excommunication.

If a member of the church is as dissatisfied with the church as Bill Reel seems to be, it would seem best that he be released from the covenants he has made.

Edited December 3, 2018 by ksfisher

[SouthernMo]

51 minutes ago, Duncan said:

hahahhahahahha! Were you a Koko B. Ware fan?! You didn't like the Ghosts of Mississippi or Diners, Drive ins and Dives???????? what's wrong with you?!  

There is nothing Guy Fieri won't deep fry!

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Steve J said:

It was the running circles around them comment that got the eye roll. If I stated that if some apologist came prepared with slides and allowed to speak to a group there not prepared to discuss those issues and said the same thing.. you, and many other posters would be out for blood. I made a relatively benign comment

I'm never out for blood, you don't seem to familiar with me if you think that.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What if I found him to be a self-important doofus? Particularly the part where he boasted about being called to be a bishop at a young age as some kind of proof of his previous faithfulness.

Also, reading the part where he supposedly was in the process of winning over a member of the High Council to believing the Church was without integrity in context made that idea pretty funny.

Its your prerogative what you want to call someone, but I don't think its accurate or kind.  

[SouthernMo]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I remember reading that Church HQ did inform the Stake President of where Quinn was (he was believed to be keeping a low profile. And yes, church HQ can let a Stake President or bishop know something is going on in their stake or ward that they are unaware of but that is not directing excommunications.

Additional evidence of apostolic involvement in the September Six excommunications (and one disfellowshipment) happened in the same month.  It is highly unlikely to me that six independent stake presidents felt individually compelled in the same month to hold disciplinary councils for six individuals whose 'offenses' were all so similar (writings that contradicted the correlated teachings and history of the church).

[SouthernMo]

29 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Are you possibly thinking of this David Haglund article in Slate?  According Haglund, it was Steve Benson (not Quinn) who supposedly received this information from Elder Oaks (apparently with Elder Maxwell present as well.)

"While Packer’s precise involvement remains a matter of dispute, what little is known hints at his interference. After Paul Toscano was excommunicated, Steve Benson, grandson of the then Mormon prophet, met privately with the apostles Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell, and asked them about—among many other things—the rumor that Packer had something to do with it. Oaks said Packer had met with Toscano’s stake president, and acknowledged that this was a mistake. When Benson asked why no one had stopped him, Oaks allegedly replied, “You can’t stage manage a grizzly bear.”

YES - that is what I was recalling.

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Nehor is correct.  This is a council, not a court.

Can you explain your position that you state so factually in light of this lesson material and article:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/the-principles-and-purposes-of-church-courts-lesson-41-section-102?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

Edited December 3, 2018 by SouthernMo

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Can you explain your position that you state so factually in light of this lesson material and article:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/the-principles-and-purposes-of-church-courts-lesson-41-section-102?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

Because they are called disciplinary councils in Handbook 1.

Your first link is from a 1981 manual.  Your second from a 1975 article. 

[CA Steve]

Is it unreasonable to expect that those participating in Bill's council would be familiar with what he was saying, and more so, be prepared to respond as to what was factually incorrect about it? 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Additional evidence of apostolic involvement in the September Six excommunications (and one disfellowshipment) happened in the same month.  It is highly unlikely to me that six independent stake presidents felt individually compelled in the same month to hold disciplinary councils for six individuals whose 'offenses' were all so similar (writings that contradicted the correlated teachings and history of the church).

I suspect someone in Salt Lake (though I doubt the apostles were heavily involved) contacted Stake Presidents and let them know what was going on in a short timeframe and I have no problem with that. Then the stake Presidents held the councils. Nothing wrong with that in my ever so humble opinion. I object primarily to the idea that the apostles are remotely dictating the outcomes of disciplinary councils.

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its your prerogative what you want to call someone, but I don't think its accurate or kind.  

I do not think the memes Bill was circulating denigrating the apostles are accurate or kind either.

But yeah, if I was in the room it might have taken conscious effort for me not to roll my eyes as I listen to him point out what a wonderful member he was and how faithful he clearly was because he was called to prominent positions. Then he lists off the “best of” from the book of anti cliches as if the council was called to consider the truthfulness of the gospel......none of which had any relevance to the purpose of the council. He was preaching to his podcast audience and wasting the time of the council. So yeah, self-important doofus.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Can you explain your position that you state so factually in light of this lesson material and article:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/the-principles-and-purposes-of-church-courts-lesson-41-section-102?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

Old manuals. We changed the terminology. In the early days of the Church they functioned more in the capacity of courts to settle civil disputes between members as a kind of arbitration. These and what we now call disciplinary councils both operated under the same rules and functioned more like courts. With the ending of one function the name was properly adjusted to describe their current function which is solely disciplinary now and functions as a council.

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Because they are called disciplinary councils in Handbook 1.

Your first link is from a 1981 manual.  Your second from a 1975 article. 

So the terminology has changed, but calling them a court is not without precedent.  Wonder why the 1981 manual is still used as a reference under disciplinary council?

Also, the age of a book does not necessarily determine whether or not its true/helpful or not.  I know a good book published in 1830 that Mormons still hold to like scripture!

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

though I doubt the apostles were heavily involved

Isn't it amazing that we (myself SURELY included) believe first what we want to believe, and second what evidence supports or refutes it?

My Grandpa was a mission president, and he was instructed by then Elder Monson to excommunicate and send home an young elder serving in his mission who had started an underground newspaper at BYU.  He refused.

But, there will be some who even upon reading that evidence still chose to believe that apostles would never get involved in such things...

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Is it unreasonable to expect that those participating in Bill's council would be familiar with what he was saying, and more so, be prepared to respond as to what was factually incorrect about it? 

Yes. A discussion and determination of the gospel’s truthfulness was not the purpose of the council. They were called to consider what, if any, disciplinary action to take against a Bill Reel. He then took an hour to elucidate why he was in apostasy. Fair enough, but it is not a defense. He was preaching to his dishonestly made recording audience. Ironic that he also boasted that no one could impugn his integrity in his comments while in the process of refuting himself.

As a practical matter no one in the council probably had time for an eight hour marathon back and forth if they did counter his points one by one and then the responses and counter arguments. Councils are specifically not a place to foster contention or any form of debate.

[ksfisher]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

o the terminology has changed, but calling them a court is not without precedent

It's not without past precedent, but I think calling it a council rather than a court is more helpful in understanding it's function and purpose.

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Wonder why the 1981 manual is still used as a reference under disciplinary council?

From what I scanned of it the information is still good.  I imagine that whenever the manual is redone it will be changed.

 

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Also, the age of a book does not necessarily determine whether or not its true/helpful or not.  I know a good book published in 1830 that Mormons still hold to like scripture!

True   However in this case terminology has changed and for the better in my opinion.

However, to make a probably unnecessary point, we don't use the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon any more.  Where errors made by the printer or in transcription have been found and deemed necessary to change the text has been changed.  The title of the book was even change to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ to better help us understand the purpose of the book.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its your prerogative what you want to call someone, but I don't think its accurate or kind.  

I do not think the memes Bill was circulating denigrating the apostles are accurate or kind either.

But yeah, if I was in the room it might have taken conscious effort for me not to roll my eyes as I listen to him point out what a wonderful member he was and how faithful he clearly was because he was called to prominent positions. Then he lists off the “best of” from the book of anti cliches as if the council was called to consider the truthfulness of the gospel......none of which had any relevance to the purpose of the council. He was preaching to his podcast audience and wasting the time of the council. So yeah, self-important doofus.

For what its worth, I don't approach things the same way as Bill does, its not my style.  But I also don't approach things the same way Elder Oaks does, and I even though he may come across as a self-important doofus to me sometimes, I typically try to just point out where I disagree with him rather than caricature him.  

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Isn't it amazing that we (myself SURELY included) believe first what we want to believe, and second what evidence supports or refutes it?

My Grandpa was a mission president, and he was instructed by then Elder Monson to excommunicate and send home an young elder serving in his mission who had started an underground newspaper at BYU.  He refused.

But, there will be some who even upon reading that evidence still chose to believe that apostles would never get involved in such things...

Actually supports what I said. The local leaders are not beholden to Salt Lake in the decisions of their disciplinary councils.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Also, the age of a book does not necessarily determine whether or not its true/helpful or not.  I know a good book published in 1830 that Mormons still hold to like scripture!

Yeah, but try using the 1830 edition in Church and watch people stare at the differences. 

[Wiki Wonka]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but the "money line" in the transcript appears to be incomplete and broken up from the remainder. If you take out "BR: Yeah" and notice that the next paragraph starts with a sentence fragment, "That we're all here to protect...", then it makes more sense:

---------------------

"(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 a lot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You've looked at sources as you've said on both sides, all the information there. It leaves the church with zero integrity.

BR: Yeah

HC: That we're all here to protect, and I think it's important, critical, in fact. Well. It's, and I think Brother Reel, as a member of this church, understands. You know, member of the church. And you're still in a better position to try to persuade other people to, to. Documents that you have, but also you've been critical. I think there's gonna be a discussion on all sides.

-------------------------

So perhaps it reads like this:

----------------------------

"There are a lot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You've looked at sources as you've said on both sides, all the information there. It leaves the church with zero integrity, that we're all here to protect, and I think it's important, critical, in fact."

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For what its worth, I don't approach things the same way as Bill does, its not my style.  But I also don't approach things the same way Elder Oaks does, and I even though he may come across as a self-important doofus to me sometimes, I typically try to just point out where I disagree with him rather than caricature him.  

So neither of us are kind or accurate?  

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes. A discussion and determination of the gospel’s truthfulness was not the purpose of the council. They were called to consider what, if any, disciplinary action to take against a Bill Reel. He then took an hour to elucidate why he was in apostasy. Fair enough, but it is not a defense. He was preaching to his dishonestly made recording audience. Ironic that he also boasted that no one could impugn his integrity in his comments while in the process of refuting himself.

As a practical matter no one in the council probably had time for an eight hour marathon back and forth if they did counter his points one by one and then the responses and counter arguments. Councils are specifically not a place to foster contention or any form of debate.

So if the council is not the time or place for such a discussion, when and when is it supposed to take place?

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So the terminology has changed, but calling them a court is not without precedent.  Wonder why the 1981 manual is still used as a reference under disciplinary council?

Also, the age of a book does not necessarily determine whether or not its true/helpful or not.  I know a good book published in 1830 that Mormons still hold to like scripture!

Have you ever participated in a disciplinary council (as a member of the council)?

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

So if the council is not the time or place for such a discussion, when and when is it supposed to take place?

Whenever you can convince someone to debate it with you? There is no set forum for it in the organized church. Nor should there be.