- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
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?
Does anyone know if that letter Bill recieved, and the non-disclosure agreement is customary in a disciplinary hearing? Because it seems like the Church made him sign that non-disclosures specifically becausehe was Bill, and because they knew Bill would’ve recorded it otherwise. Their highest chance of him not recording it was to make him sign an agreement, whereas most other members would’ve probably refrained if they simply asked them not to.
Quote:Does anyone know if that letter Bill recieved, and the non-disclosure agreement is customary in a disciplinary hearing? Because it seems like the Church made him sign that non-disclosures specifically becausehe was Bill, and because they knew Bill would’ve recorded it otherwise. Their highest chance of him not recording it was to make him sign an agreement, whereas most other members would’ve probably refrained if they simply asked them not to.
I believe it is standard. At least in the ones we have been having the past few years. I remember Sam being upset that his was recorded from outside the window. He had asked that no one do it.
This is a great discussion. The only thing I would like to bring up is…let’s say one of us in this forum either ends up working for the leadership in Salt Lake City or gets a calling which allows any of us to be around the prophets and apostles and whoever finds out there is a good amount of corruption at the top? What do you we do then? Who in the church do we tell? Do any of you know? Just something that came to my mind. Ilovechrist77 wrote:
This is a great discussion. The only thing I would like to bring up is…let’s say one of us in this forum either ends up working for the leadership in Salt Lake City or gets a calling which allows any of us to be around the prophets and apostles and whoever finds out there is a good amount of corruption at the top? What do you we do then? Who in the church do we tell? Do any of you know? Just something that came to my mind.
There is the concept of the “Noble Lie”. It is defined as an untruth which must be propogated and maintained, for the greater societal good. If the Church was false, and corrupt to its core, and you were in the right position, you
couldunveil the truth. But what would that do? Many people would still believe, no matter how much evidence was piled up against it. And others who listened… what would happen to them? Many would flee from the arms of one corrupt master right to another. If it’s one of the Q12, you could report it to the first presidency. But the prophet is impossible to be deposed by Church authority for any reason. Doctrinally, I think we are told if he became corrupt God would remove him; so his continued existance is evidence of his lack of corruption. If you found legal corruption… at least in America, laws have a hard time touching any religious leaders or institutions, no matter how corrupt or conniving they are. Even if they did get legally convicted…
[img=https://66.media.tumblr.com/3ad5e6df284c06468fc3297d99cbbbf5/tumblr_ph0l7vb3jN1vd3huco1_540.gif][/img] 
[img=https://66.media.tumblr.com/eddf6ea7da0f05c6bf9dd346685a5108/tumblr_ph0l7vb3jN1vd3huco2_540.gif][/img] I agree that I am of two minds on the issue of the NDA. On one hand – I have been told by a bishop that I have covenanted my lifelong loyalty to this church and that should not change if I have any integrity. The idea that I make lifelong binding commitments starting at the age of 8 years old seems preposterous.
On the other hand – I believe in keeping my options open and not burning bridges. Recording the disciplinary council seems to have lost any opportunity to separate without acrimony.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:
This is a great discussion. The only thing I would like to bring up is…let’s say one of us in this forum either ends up working for the leadership in Salt Lake City or gets a calling which allows any of us to be around the prophets and apostles and whoever finds out there is a good amount of corruption at the top? What do you we do then? Who in the church do we tell? Do any of you know? Just something that came to my mind.
The good news is that there does not seem to be much hint of corruption in the modern church Q15 leadership. Do the current leaders run the church more business like than some of us would like? Yes. Do they practice full disclosure? No. Do they downplay problematic themes while highlighting faith promoting narratives? Yes, of course! But on anything that might even approach legal culpability the current leaders of the church appear to be squeaky clean.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:
The only thing I would like to bring up is…let’s say one of us in this forum either ends up working for the leadership in Salt Lake City or gets a calling which allows any of us to be around the prophets and apostles and whoever finds out there is a good amount of corruption at the top? What do you we do then?
You call the police.On the topic of recording a private proceeding and then publishing it. Sorry. There is no ambiguity here. This is simply wrong. One thing that frustrates me in our so-called modern world is how often people will turn to subjective viewpoints to justify objectively bad acts. We know the Church does this. I guess now we can say conclusively: people like us (Bill) are guilty of this, too. On Own Now wrote:
On the topic of recording a private proceeding and then publishing it. Sorry. There is no ambiguity here. This is simply wrong. One thing that frustrates me in our so-called modern world is how often people will turn to subjective viewpoints to justify objectively bad acts. We know the Church does this. I guess now we can say conclusively: people like us (Bill) are guilty of this, too.
I simply see it differently. This disciplinary council, at it’s core, is about Bill. The stake president and high council believe it has an effect on Bill’s eternal salvation, even if he doesn’t. I don’t think they should have any expectation of confidentiality – that should be up to the accused. I can see why they would want the person subject to the proceedings to have their privacy maintained, but if that person wants to waive it, it should be their decision.
I also don’t see a problem with him reneging on the agreement for one reason – it’s coerced. If he refused to sign it they simply hold the DC without him. That’s not really providing him a reasonable alternative – especially if you believe that it affects his salvation.
Nothing was coerced. Nothing. He had a choice: sign it, make a promise not to record it, and get excommunicated; not sign it, not make a promise not to record it, and get excommunicated. He KNEW what the outcome would be, given what he has said and done. His choice was to be honest in the situation or be dishonest in the situation. He chose to be dishonest.
Everyone knows I rarely speak in absolutes, but I speak in absolutes about this: Bill intentionally lied. He wasn’t coerced. One of his primary criticisms of church leaders was that they were willing to lie to help their cause. He chose to lie to help his cause. In that instance, he was a hypocrite who became what he accused others of being.
I have sympathy for him, but he had a choice and he made his choice freely and completely on his own.
One more important point, and I am going to quote him directly to the best of my ability:
In a Facebook thread about him, Bill responded by saying one of his primary purposes of attending the council was to “prove to them they didn’t know shiz”. Bill lost much of his integrity by recording the council; he lost perhaps all of his humility by going in with that purpose.
I feel deeply for him, but he chose his course. Excusing that as coerced and lacking choice actually belittles him and the choice he made.
Curt, totally agree. I think people like us might find a cautionary tale in this whole thing. Bill suffered the same kind of FC as the rest of us. Like us, he tried to figure out a way ahead. He was a long-time contributor to StayLDS and seemed (in my memory) to be mostly trying to work it out toward finding peace. Yet, it’s apparent now that, instead, he has become more frustrated and contrary to the Church. This final stab on his way out is kind of shocking from the Bill of years past.
What I’m going to take away from this (and a current thread regarding anger that Roy started) is not to allow anger to rise unfettered; in fact, I’d say I probably need to fight against it actively. I have a goal in mind for my mental/spiritual state, thinking on this whole thing makes me realize that my goals for my future might be a bit more fragile than I have considered. I suppose this outcome is what Bill wants, and if so, I hope he finds the resolution he seeks. But for me, I’m trying to find and live in peace.
In some ways I see this as similar to the story of Peter and denying Jesus. (I do recognize that there are different interpretations of the story, let’s go with the “common” interpretation that Peter didn’t think he be in that position.) Any member could be Peter. He did not doubt that Jesus was who he claimed to be and refuted Jesus when he told Peter he would deny him. Yet there he was. Every time I hear someone testify something like “I know with every fiber of my being [fill in the blank]” or something similar I think of Peter. Most of us here have been through a faith crisis/transition, and to some extent many of us have heard the cock crow and even wondered, as Peter may have, “How did I get here? All I was doing was seeking peace.” I continue to seek peace (I believe that’s what everyone seeks in life), but I am ever wary of the power of the dark side.
DarkJedi wrote:
In some ways I see this as similar to the story of Peter and denying Jesus. (I do recognize that there are different interpretations of the story, let’s go with the “common” interpretation that Peter didn’t think he be in that position.) Any member could be Peter. He did not doubt that Jesus was who he claimed to be and refuted Jesus when he told Peter he would deny him. Yet there he was. Every time I hear someone testify something like “I know with every fiber of my being [fill in the blank]” or something similar I think of Peter.M
ost of us here have been through a faith crisis/transition, and to some extent many of us have heard the cock crow and even wondered, as Peter may have, “How did I get here? All I was doing was seeking peace.”I continue to seek peace (I believe that’s what everyone seeks in life), but I am ever wary of the power of the dark side.
This is very timely. I was in a position where I had to interact with a tile setter recently, and he said he couldn’t work on Saturday for religious reasons. I told him I understood as “I used to be a Mormon”. I didn’t premeditate that answer, it just came out. I was shocked at myself as I heard myself say it.
I walked away wondering how I got to that point. I AM still a Mormon, and identify with the religion, but how did I get to the point that I could say ‘I used to be a Mormon’ by default? As DJ said, I truly have been only seeking peace. And I have generally found it — more than any other point in my life, and I feel at peace with the church — and more when I’m not around it at all.
But I am still a Mormon, and do Mormon things a lot.
Old Timer wrote:
Nothing was coerced. Nothing.He had a choice: sign it, make a promise not to record it, and get excommunicated; not sign it, not make a promise not to record it, and get excommunicated. He KNEW what the outcome would be, given what he has said and done. His choice was to be honest in the situation or be dishonest in the situation. He chose to be dishonest.
I think you and I are just going to disagree on this point. I see the options offered as slightly different than you do, I think:
1) Sign it and make your defense against excommunication. The SP and HC, at least, believed they would hold a fair hearing (presumably).
2) Don’t sign it and we’ll excommunicate you
Now, Bill did likely know the outcome – he probably saw the hearing as less than fair from the get go. That doesn’t mean that the letter isn’t intended to coerce him into signing and remaining silent. Refusing to be coerced isn’t the same as not being subjected to coercion.
I think Curt’s argument for Bill’s wrongdoing goes like this. The outcome was going to be excommunication. Bill would make sure it was. So he had a few choices: 1. Don’t sign, don’t attend, and be excommunicated.
2. Sign, attend, don’t record, and be excommunicated.
3. Sign, attend, record, and be excommunicated.
Removing unnecessary or common parts and substituting some known consequences, we have
1. Don’t go out with a bang and be honest.
2. Go out with a private bang and be honest.
3. Go out with a public bang and be dishonest.
Curt thinks the public bang has no moral value (or negative moral value), so he’s only looking at the honesty part. I think Bill probably considered the public bang to be a moral good, and weighed it against being honest.
As far as coercion goes, Bill knowing the consequences can in no way absolve the church. If I’ve got a gun to your head and I’m making demands, your knowing I’ll shoot you doesn’t absolve me of coercion, either. In fact, your knowledge is critical to making the coercion work. So I hope that wasn’t the argument. (It’s not really clear to me.)
I think whether he thinks he was coerced depends a lot on how he regards excommunication.
If it’s only rejection from his tribe, and he doesn’t think much of his tribe, then there was no actual coercion.
If to him it’s like spiritual death, or he attaches a lot of meaning to his membership even indirectly (e.g. via his and his wife’s sealing, or friendships) then he was coerced.
I’m going to go out on a limb and claim that he probably didn’t think much of his membership.
This is a separate question from whether the church
intendedto coerce him. Whoever was responsible for the NDA almost certainly regards membership as necessary to get to the Celestial Kingdom. To them, excommunication is like spiritual death.
But they might have regarded Bill as already being spiritually dead, or have been reasoning about excommunication from his point of view. Or maybe they knew that he would likely use his day in court to indict the church, and wanted some rope to hang him with if he did. So many unknowns!
So here’s what I think.
1. From Bill’s point of view, signing the NDA in bad faith was probably a necessary evil done in the service of a greater good.
2. Bill probably didn’t feel coerced by the threat to his membership.
3. The church might have intended to coerce Bill into giving up his right to publicize his own disciplinary council.
This is all aside from whether using an NDA to keep disciplinary courts secret is ethical in the first place. I lean toward “no.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.