- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing. I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.
DoubtingTom wrote:
I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.
Yeah, it does make you wonder what his motivations are. I feel sorry for Bill, not because of the disciplinary council but because he was in a position where he had some respect from leaders, at least at the local level, and he blew it. I think he was actually able to help people and did help people at one point. I did speak with him once, and as others have noted he used to be somewhat active here. It’s just sad.
That said, the overwhelming vast majority of the membership of the church would say “Bill who? Who is that?” Despite whatever publicizing he does, he’s barely a blip on the screen for some of us and nothing to the rest.
DoubtingTom wrote:
I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.
I can understand where Bill is coming from on this, though I don’t agree with his actions. He was forced to sign the document to attend. Otherwise, he would not have been allowed to attend the council. For someone who advocates openness and transparency in the Church, this is quite the predicament. There was no other way to have a solid record of the proceedings, which was important to Bill.
The Church doesn’t want to come under scrutiny. Bill wants others to scrutinize it. In fairness, I think we should scrutinize it. To quote J. Reuben Clark,
Quote:“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
But if I were in his shoes, I don’t think I’d show up. I think it’s usually safe to say, if someone is hiding something, it’s something they feel is worth hiding. It doesn’t reflect well on the Church to force censorship on those being tried, even by their own private councils.
He also badly misstated one of the High Councilor’s statements in the podcast. What he claimed and what the HC said (from BIll’s own recording of the meeting) are diametrically opposite. I liked Bill. My feelings have changed over time. I sincerely dislike how he handled the meeting – especially manufacturing a quote by the HC that obviously isn’t true.
In my mind, he has crossed an obvious line and become what he criticizes – whether or not that criticism is accurate.
Old Timer wrote:
He also badly misstated one of the High Councilor’s statements in the podcast. What he claimed and what the HC said (from BIll’s own recording of the meeting) are diametrically opposite.
Isn’t this as strong of a reason as any, for
whythat recording (and transparency in general) is so important? So that we all have access to the same information, and can make our judgments, not by emotion and favoritism, but by solid evidence. Old Timer wrote:
He also badly misstated one of the High Councilor’s statements in the podcast. What he claimed and what the HC said (from BIll’s own recording of the meeting) are diametrically opposite.
I too read what Bill reported to a news outlet and felt it to be “off”.
Quote:“One of the 12 high councilmen said, ‘We are here tonight to protect the integrity of the church, but from what Brother Reel has told us, the church doesn’t have any integrity,’ ” Reel said.
It just does not sound like anything that a high councilman would say in public. The more complete quote from the transcript is as follows.
Quote: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.
In context this man appears to be saying that the purpose of the council is to protect the integrity (I believe reputation might be a better descriptor here) of the church. Bill’s presentation has made clear that fromBill’s point of viewthe church has zero integrity and that Bill’s podcast is promoting that viewpoint. I believe this man to be summarizing his overall understanding of the meeting. IOW – “It was reported that Bill has been attacking the church, Bill just came in and gave a 60 minute presentation that attacked the church and confirmed the reports.” I agree that Bill misquoted this individual and took his words out of context to say something that he did not say. I like Bill. I believe that he got to where he is honestly. I believe that he started out as a more faithful version of the Mormon Stories podcast. His intent was to validate people and give them reasons to hope and hold on despite the messiness. Every podcast would open with the following words “Mormon Discussion Podcast is about helping Latter-Day Saints like you lead with faith while tackling deeper complex issues within Mormonism.” I went back about a year of podcasts to find that opening statement and they do not start that way anymore. Instead Bill’s response to his excommunication included the following quote which I believe to be very different from his founding intent:
Quote:Lastly I want to speak to those who fear the full deconstruction of their religious system. Many are scared of the unknown of what lies on the other side of deconstruction. Many fear that what the Church says about those who leave could be true. That without outer authorities within your specific tribe telling you how to live your life, your life will in fact fall apart. [snip] If your scared to grow up and out, know that your not alone. But when your ready…. lean into it. There is a huge beautiful world out here and like always, my hand is extended for you to hold and to walk through this beautiful thing we call life together. The world is bigger and more beautiful than Mormonism ever gave it credit for.
I like Bill. I believe him to have a big heart. I also believe that Bill’s position towards the church has changed. It no longer sounds like he is interested in helping people to stay. It sounds like he is actively encouraging people to leave.I feel sad – like I lost a friend. We walked together for a time on the path and developed some kinship. Our journeys have diverged – not right or wrong, just that we have gone seperate directions. That is the way with life. We do not sit still. If I were to see Bill now I believe it would be metaporically like seeing him from across the gulf of our different perspectives. I am trying to decribe how I feel. It feels sad – like I lost a friend
Quote:
There is a huge beautiful world out here and like always, my hand is extended for you to hold and to walk through this beautiful thing we call life together. The world is bigger and more beautiful than Mormonism ever gave it credit for.I agree with this — but unlike Bill, I don’t want to encourage people to leave. I want people to embrace the world of Mormonism to the extent their inner peace allows, while also recognizing there IS a big beautiful world out there.
I am speaking, as many will forecast, from my experience in the community. I found there is in fact a big, beautiful world of service available outside of Mormonism. It can be a nice break from the monotony of Mormonism (while still acknowledging credit to the new two hour block, new ministering program, etcetera). But at the time I went into the community, the monotony was pretty strong in the church. Not so in the community. You learn the church people are actually more inspiring in many cases (in their concern for relationships) than in the community, but there are a whole host of skills needed out there for people who want to serve — skills you will never develop in the church. New experiences, etcetera.
How many times have you seen women with 20 adult years in the church say they’ve served in just about every single leadership position and front line position there is for a woman (or a man in that case, except for maybe Bishop or SPresidency)? There comes a saturation point when you’ve pretty much done it all. The community provides a bigger world in which to grow and serve.
So, my intent is not to encourage people to leave, but when you need a break, or find the monotony is getting to you, or local relationships fail (as mine did), Bill is right — there is a whole world out there is big and beautiful and wants your service, and is willing to help you develop your own talents in ways the church can never provide.
So, he was excommunicated. I wasn’t surprised. He was openly antagonistic in the recording of the proceedings. I read over the excommunication letter, and I didn’t feel there was anything objectionable in it. The Stake President seemed to want to find common ground, but Bill had drawn his line in the sand. The sad part about all of this is that after someone is excommunicated, they tend to just kind of fade away on the social media landscape. I never hear from John Dehlin, or Kate Kelly anymore. I suspect Bill will also sort of fall off the map too. It’s when you have your membership intact and are still contributing in some way, that the messages to help people stay or to encourage change have the most impact.
However, I also recognize that sometimes people’s thoughts just lead them to the point they can’t really tolerate being a member of the church anymore.
It’s a kind of lesson for me — it’s easy to stew about the injustices, the inconsistencies, the interpersonal problems, the double standards, the lack of deference to individual needs when church resources or interests are also at stake. But if you dwell too much on those things, you might end up on the path of others who started out trying to help people, but who ended up openly antagonistic in church councils – sealing their fate.
To be that way reminds me a bit like the people n in Medal of Honor, a new Netflix series. It’s about people who received the highest medal of honor for valor in battle. One squad leader rushed a machine gun nest over an open field of 200 yards, while German soldiers fired 600 rounds a minute. He got shot down three times but got back up and kept running. He eventually arrived at the nest full of holes and overtook 6 Germans with machine guns. Then a new set of Germans approached him, and he took off running at them, shooting, and was fatally wounded.
The thought occurred to me that this soldier made the decision to die, or at least, accepted death in that moment, before he started running. He’d at least accepted that eventuality when he took that first step, alone, across the 200 yard field. Bill must’ve already excommunicated himself, and accepted it, before he went into the disciplinary proceedings. You have to stop yourself from getting there, or you’ll express it and seal your fate.
I also felt that Bill reached a point where he saw the church as a kind of enemy. I know how that feels, sort of. There are times when you sense their loyalty isn’t necessarily to good members, it’s to the church itself. I know that when I’ve been called in by priesthood leaders to discuss my activity, I kind of feel that way. Bishops are judges, juries, and sometimes executioners, all in one, so I’m really careful what I say. I stop short of considering them a full blown enemy, but they can be a dangerous force with which to reckon given their ability to impose discipline if you say the wrong thing, and there is, as we know, leadership roulette. I have felt that way when I’ve been treated unjustly, and then all the blame is heaped on myself for my resulting perception of the circumstances. And then when I heard reports they were speaking negatively about me after my own commitment crisis, while still being active and supporting my family, only aroused the we-versus-them mentality.
At the same time, it’s not good to nurture those feelings. You do a kind of good as a member that I think makes it valuable to retain your membership. And when you add in my incredible faith in my own ability to make big mistakes, it’s even more important to stay a member and not antagonize the leaders.
SL, your post reminded me of the “olden” days & the way excommunications were announced. It was usually at the end of the ward priesthood & the Aaronic PH was dismissed. The Bishop would stand at the podium & make a brief announcement that someone
specifically was Excommunicated & the reason. As if to say, “let the shunning begin”. I’m glad they don’t do that anymore.
Minyan Man wrote:
SL, your post reminded me of the “olden” days & the way excommunications were announced. It was usually at the end of the wardpriesthood & the Aaronic PH was dismissed. The Bishop would stand at the podium & make a brief announcement that someone
specifically was Excommunicated & the reason. As if to say, “let the shunning begin”. I’m glad they don’t do that anymore.
Sometimes they have to announce it — not sure if the current handbook of instructions indicates it, but if the sin was widely known, there would be a public announcement so the membership knew it had been dealt with.
SilentDawning wrote:
…Sometimes they have to announce it — not sure if the current handbook of instructions indicates it, but if the sin was widely known, there would be a public announcement so the membership knew it had been dealt with.
Really. I didn’t know that. I can’t remember the last time a public announcement was made it our ward. Then again, Iam hard of hearing too.
The last I remember was about 30 years ago. They just said the person’s name and that they were excommunicated, but wouldn’t say why. It was the strangest thing. It’s like sharing a tidbit and then telling everyone you can’t say anything else. Not sure if this is a current requirement in the handbook though — would have to check. DoubtingTom wrote:
I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.
Now, wait a minute. I don’t see this as the same thing at all. Why was he told not to record it? Because they don’t want anyone to hear what goes on. And then later it turns out the disciplinary action was all about protecting the church image. (If the church actually cared about Bill and the people who listen to him they would be addressing the issues not punishing someone for having the issues and getting even more vocal about it when those issues stay unresolved.) So, to avoid a he said she said thing with the church afterward, he now has proof of what happened, and the people judging him didn’t change their behavior, were more honest, because they thought no one else would ever hear what happened.
(full disclosure, this thread is the first time I have heard of this guy)
LadyofRadiantJoy wrote:
DoubtingTom wrote:
I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.
Now, wait a minute. I don’t see this as the same thing at all. Why was he told not to record it? Because they don’t want anyone to hear what goes on. And then later it turns out the disciplinary action was all about protecting the church image. (If the church actually cared about Bill and the people who listen to him they would be addressing the issues not punishing someone for having the issues and getting even more vocal about it when those issues stay unresolved.) So, to avoid a he said she said thing with the church afterward, he now has proof of what happened, and the people judging him didn’t change their behavior, were more honest, because they thought no one else would ever hear what happened.
(full disclosure, this thread is the first time I have heard of this guy)
I have a mixed reaction to this. If you are about to take away someone’s membership, I don’t think you can expect them to honor any agreements about not publicizing the proceedings. When you are about to put someone into a disciplinary council, they are behind the eight ball, so I guess they will not have much agency to disagree about much of what you ask them to do. Also, I think everyone knew that he was going to be excommunicated anyway, so to me, asking him to sign is superfluous.
However, in most circumstances, when asked to do something, and you agree, it does put your integrity on the line to follow through. On the other hand, I know Bill sees the church like a dishonest entity itself, so that would tend to mitigate a person’s commitment to reciprocal honesty. Looking at it from Bill’s possible perspective, if you felt you’d been lied to for years, after giving up your time, a lot of your money, only to find, in your estimation, it’s not what it claims, would you feel badly about reneging on a promise?
I am looking at his from multiple angles, and like most issues in life where there are multiple sides, it’s not a clear cut judgment in my view, to consider Bill wholly in the wrong for publishing his transcript.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.