- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
IT_Veteran wrote:
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.
Having been on the other side of table (as a high councilor) it is standard that no recordings are made or permitted for either party. It’s been a couple years since my last one and I don’t recall there being something the individual signed but even if there was that likely took place before the council convened with just the SP and the individual. I think the sort of standard letter that goes out does have a statement about recording as well.
The other thing I think some of us are looking at from a different point of view is that church discipline councils are not courts of law (as in a government legal system) and are not run the same way. In the US the legal system is adversarial, me vs. you, us. vs. them, prosecution vs. defense, etc., and I think that’s not so different in most of the civilized world. In the US there is also the presumption of innocence, which is protected to some extent by the Constitution. Disciplinary councils are not meant to be adversarial – there is no “prosecution vs. defense.” The person is allowed to present “evidence” of his or her innocence or in his or her defense, just as the council is able to present evidence but that is the extent of the similarity. There are some other technical intricacies (like the drawing lots among the high council) and I will not go so far as to use the “court of love” thing (which is not an official church thing) but it is not at all like a court of law.
Bottom line here is that excommunication was the likely outcome either way – the agreement not to record had no affect on that. I think Reuben summed that up fairly. Unless I’m misunderstanding something here, the SP and council didn’t know he was covertly recording the proceedings until after. I don’t think that changes anything about whether Bill was dishonest in that particular aspect – he signed an agreement and reneged and whether or not anyone thinks it was justified to do so it was still dishonest.
Let me simplify this. Take Bill the Church and the HC out of it and just talk in general terms. Recording someone else against their will and publishing it is wrong. The only exception is if the other person is committing a crime. A person might think in his/her mind (subjectively) that he/she has the moral high ground. But doing it shows that they don’t.
So, getting back to Bill, is the Church committing a crime here? No. They are committing a disagreement. Bill doesn’t like their argument, so he is literally, absolutely and unabashedly trying to shame the Church. Where is the moral high ground in trying to shame another party with whom you disagree? It lies in a person’s own mind. It is as if they are saying, I am right, therefore, decency doesn’t apply to me.
DarkJedi wrote:
The other thing I think some of us are looking at from a different point of view is that church discipline councils are not courts of law (as in a government legal system) and are not run the same way.
I agree they are different, and should be treated differently to some extent. But I also feel like they should have more in common. The Church Disciplinary Councils determine your standing and membership in the Church. According to Church doctrine, your membership and standing is “a big deal”. My Dad served in the SP for well over a decade, and I remember him telling me that even if it’s later discovered that the council made an error in judgement (let’s say, if new evidence came to light), and someone were excommunicated unjustly, the excommunicated would still need to be re-baptized and have their blessings restored. He also emphasized that even in the eyes of God (who knew the truth all along), that person would not be considered a member until the ordinances had been restored (although, if the mistake was never caught, God would make it right in the next life).
With consequences as severe, wouldn’t it make sense to record the hearing at the accused request, should they be concerned about a fair “trial”? I could see them not wanting to record it in all instances. I could see it being very useful, should the “trial” need to be revisited. It would also be useful, if the accused felt they got an unfair hearing, to elevate the council’s decision to the FP, instead of the accused and the SP having a lot of “he said, she said”.
To that extent, I think there are reasons why courts of law are run a certain way, and our disciplinary councils ought to adopt some of those practices for many of the same reasons.
dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
The other thing I think some of us are looking at from a different point of view is that church discipline councils are not courts of law (as in a government legal system) and are not run the same way.
I agree they are different, and should be treated differently to some extent. But I also feel like they should have more in common. The Church Disciplinary Councils determine your standing and membership in the Church. According to Church doctrine, your membership and standing is “a big deal”. My Dad served in the SP for well over a decade, and I remember him telling me that even if it’s later discovered that the council made an error in judgement (let’s say, if new evidence came to light), and someone were excommunicated unjustly, the excommunicated would still need to be re-baptized and have their blessings restored. He also emphasized that even in the eyes of God (who knew the truth all along), that person would not be considered a member until the ordinances had been restored (although, if the mistake was never caught, God would make it right in the next life).
With consequences as severe, wouldn’t it make sense to record the hearing at the accused request, should they be concerned about a fair “trial”? I could see them not wanting to record it in all instances. I could see it being very useful, should the “trial” need to be revisited. It would also be useful, if the accused felt they got an unfair hearing, to elevate the council’s decision to the FP, instead of the accused and the SP having a lot of “he said, she said”.
To that extent, I think there are reasons why courts of law are run a certain way, and our disciplinary councils ought to adopt some of those practices for many of the same reasons.
I think at one time, perhaps as recently as the 1980s or 90s, disciplinary councils were more adversarial and as I recall were even called “church courts.” I disagree that they should be more like the judicial system and I think should be more like they are now (and even more removed from the judicial model). If they do have eternal consequence, and I do not personally believe they do, all of that will be worked out in eternity anyway – just like the people who didn’t get married or are sealed to people they don’t want to be sealed to. As for recording, again if there are eternal ramifications “angels above us are silent notes taking….”
Don’t assume things in my comments that aren’t there. It is easy to read between the lines, but I work VERY hard not to have meaning hidden between the lines. If I don’t say it, I don’t mean it. I neither said nor meant what has been criticized or characterized from my comment. I could go back and explain exactly what is misunderstood about my last comment in the responses to it, but I don’t have time right now. What I would ask simply is to re-read what I actually wrote and focus ONLY on my actual words.
This is important in everything we write about any relationship, but it especially is critical in tricky, complex, nuanced relationships – like most of us here have with the Church. I am NOT a traditional, orthodox member, so don’t read what I write assuming I am expressing a traditional, orthodox viewpoint. If I am doing that, I will say so upfront and blatantly.
So, please re-read what I actually wrote and respond only to that, if you want to respond to it.
(Sorry if that sounds harsh. I just don’t like having to “defend” things I don’t say and don’t believe.)
Curt, I think your comment is addressed to me, but I’m not sure. If so, I apologize. This human stuff is tricky. I perceive more meaning as being between the lines than most people do. I can make this implicit stuff explicit more accurately in person, where I can observe and ask questions.
I saw some implicit steps in a chain of reasoning, so I made them explicit. Regardless of whether your comment is addressed to me, I made a mistake in not asking you if I had filled them in correctly.
IT_Veteran wrote:
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.
If I were Bill, I’d have felt coerced. This is because of the situation — he was about to “stand trial” to so speak, for his actions. Previously, the Stake President had expressed a desire for a reconciliation, provided Bill met certain requirements, so an excommunication was not 100% certain. In the excommunication letter, the SP also indicated excommunication was not the result for which he’d hoped either.
Whether Bill knew he was going to be excommunicated, or intended to say things that would inevitably lead to excommunication, to me, is irrelevant. To ask someone to sign something that protects the church’s interests primarily before a trial where the church has the power to excommunicate you, amounts to a kind of pressure that would encourage people to sign it out of fear.
Plus, people will do what they will do. If you are going to influence someone’s life through excommunication this way, then, I guess you better take the heat if the person decides to tell others. I personally wouldn’t make someone sign they won’t tell their story. I doubt if it’s legally binding (I don’t see any consideration given, which is part of a legally binding contract), so I think it actually looks worse on the church making someone sign, rather than letting them tell their story.
If you excommunicate someone, they no longer have anything to lose — and bad press is an outcome of a policy that includes excommunication. If you are going to go with excommunication as part of your policy, you have to own the positives and negatives associated with it.
However, I do think that as far as integrity goes, Bill went in believing excommunication was the only outcome based on his intended behavior. To sign and then not follow through does lack integrity. However, I think the outcome — excommunication — mitigates the situation somewhat. And this is only after taking Bill’s perspective, post excommunication.
Also, telling one’s story is therapeutic. It’s part of the healing process for some people. I’d only expect people to keep quiet about it if there was a continued relationship through continued church membership after the council.
So, in my view, I wouldn’t be asking for a gag agreement when about to hold a court for someone.
I would have kept my promise under disfellowshipment, probation, or no punishment taken. Although I place a high value on keeping promises, I don’t hold Bill the black and white definition of integrity given the fact he was excommunicated.
I have some more time right now, so I will try to dig further into this. I am going to re-quote my last comment and extrapolate on it. Quote:Nothing was coerced. Nothing.
Coercion occurs when choice is removed – when someone forces someone else to do something. Implied coercion (or soft coercion) occurs when someone feels they have no choice, especially if they want a particular outcome.
1) Bill had a choice at every step along the process, including at his disciplinary council. He was not coerced, literally, implicitly, or explicitly. Based on his own statements, he attended with the express intention of being excommunicated. Thus, there was no implied or soft coercion, because he had chosen the outcome already. The Church had nothing they could hold over his head in a coercive manner.
2) Bill recorded and published the disciplinary council. He didn’t just talk about it afterward. He didn’t just “share his story”. He recorded it. He promised he would not do so. He did so. He intentionally lied. That is clearcut. Whether someone feels he was justified or not, he obviously attended with a predetermined plan to lie.
3) Bill twisted the words of at least one participant when he told his story afterward, and he did it in such a way that people who have never participated in a disciplinary council would not have realized he had done so. (The high counselor whom he quoted was assigned a perspective from which to view the proceedings. Half look at it from the Church’s side; half look at it from the accused person’s side.) Bill took a summary comment of Bill’s words and quoted it as if the high counselor was expressing his own belief. That appears to have been intentionally manipulative and dishonest; if so, it was reprehensible.
Quote: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.
Bill went into the disciplinary council with a plan. That is obvious from his actions and from his own words. He knew he would be excommunicated in the end. He made that choice. He was going to do what he wanted to do no matter what – and part of that “no matter what” was a decision beforehand to lie when he signed the agreement. Again, someone can agree or disagree with that decision, but it was his decision. He had a choice; he made a choice; he was not coerced in any way. He planned out what he would do carefully, intentionally, and in great detail. He retained his agency throughout the process. He just had to sacrifice some of his integrity to do it.
Quote: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.
1) One of Bill’s major complaints was that he said church leaders lied to protect their interests as church leaders. He pounded that point. He listed five times he believed Elder Holland had lied. He published a podcast titled “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire” about Elder Holland. Frankly, all five of the charges of lying are nuanced and can be interpreted, reasonably, as not being lies. They might have been, but they aren’t nearly as clear-cut as Bill claimed they were.
2) Bill weakened his position tremendously by lying with regard to his disciplinary council – in two ways: a) He lied about not recording the proceedings. 2) He lied about what the high councilor meant when he quoted that man’s summary statement.
3) Summary: Bill acted in the exact same way he accused church leaders of acting – and his case was obvious, undeniable lying. He lost ALL moral high ground he might have had prior to the disciplinary council when it comes to honesty.
Quote:I have sympathy for him, but he had a choice and he made his choice freely and completely on his own.
I truly do have sympathy for Bill. He was passionate about helping people, and he helped people. However, looking at the entire situation as someone who knows him and has seen it all transpire, he changed radically over time. His actions over time changed who he was as a person, as happens to each and every person on Earth, in one way or another. He went from being Bill, the person who helped people cope as they chose to stay, and became Bill, the opponent of the LDS Church. That evolution is crystal clear to me, although I understand it still is subjective.
I am NOT attacking or even criticizing Bill for making that ultimate choice. It is not my choice, but it was his. Fine. I am saying his choice also included lying and being dishonest, which makes him a hypocrite in the context of his complaints. He became whom he accused others of being. I lament that outcome and loss – but he has to own it.
Quote:One more important point, and I am going to quote him directly to the best of my ability:
It is important to me to be as precise as possible in the next statement, since it is a HUGE issue in my mind.
Quote: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.
“Perhaps all of his humility” might be an exaggeration, even with the qualifying “perhaps”. I probably should have softened that description a bit. However, he lost, at least, a LOT of his humility when he decided he knew everything and that everyone else were ignorant fools – that they “didn’t know shiz”. That admission by Bill himself illustrates a big part of the evolution I mentioned above. Throughout the process, he went from a humble, caring, honest servant to an arrogant, condescending opponent who was willing to lie in multiple ways to obtain his goals.
Quote: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.
This final point is important to me. Bill legitimately might be seen as a victim in some ways, but he made a conscious choice to do what he did and end up where he ended up. There were elements of “being acted upon”, but, in the end, he “acted” as an “agent unto himself”. He deserves recognition of that simple fact. Taking it away from him is wrong and disempowering.
I have made and continue to make different choices than Bill did and does, but I also want to be acknowledged as having made and making my own choices. I don’t want anyone to try to take that away from me by saying I had no choice. I don’t want to do that to Bill. I want to do unto him as I would want others to do unto me.
If we do nothing else, I hope we refrain from making Bill a helpless victim. He had the privilege of / power to make his own decisions. He intentionally eliminated possible coercion. He did what he chose to do. He did so in a dishonest, arrogant manner, and I see his mischaracterization of the high councilor as reprehensible. However, I respect his right to act as he did and his decision to maintain control over the outcomes and choose his actions. We shouldn’t take that away from him.
Here is a short summary of my last comment: We can make people victims in two ways: 1) By removing their ability to choose; 2) By denying they had the ability to choose when they actually did choose.
Both approaches are victimization.There are tremendously negative consequences to both ways of victimizing people. I don’t want to victimize Bill by denying he had the ability to choose when he clearly made his own choice(s). I owe him that, even though his choices are different than mine.
SilentDawning wrote:
Previously, the Stake President had expressed a desire for a reconciliation, provided Bill met certain requirements, so an excommunication was not 100% certain. In the excommunication letter, the SP also indicated excommunication was not the result for which he’d hoped either.
TBH, I think the letters said this more or less to protect the “good name of the Church”. Or at least put it in a more positive light. The council arose because Bill did things the “Church” did not want him to do. If Bill persisted, the Church was going to excommunicate him. Bill wasn’t willing to stop. His excommunication at the time of the council was a foregone conclusion.
Because honestly, if Bill hadn’t been excommunicated during that council, he would’ve been the moment the Church found out he broke the agreement. If Bill had felt he was going to stay, or wanted to stay, or at the very least would’ve liked to rejoin in the future, he wouldn’t have recorded it.
Old Timer wrote:
Coercion occurs when choice is removed – when someone forces someone else to do something. Implied coercion (or soft coercion) occurs when someone feels they have no choice, especially if they want a particular outcome.
You’re technically right about this: Bill had a choice. He chose to record the disciplinary council. The only way to do this was to sign the agreement saying he wouldn’t. The Church did everything it could to remove this “choice”, hence the agreement. But there was no other way for Bill to record it, so he signed in. It was “attempted coersion”. Or at the very least, the Church would’ve coerced Bill into not recording it if they could.
In fairness to Bill’s integrity, he was honest about being dishonest with the agreement. From Bill’s perspective, the Church lied, decieved, and broke their mutual agreement. Is it just to lie to someone who has lied and decieved you? Are there justifications for lying? If a company forces you to sign an agreement stating not to reveal any proprietary documents, and you come across several which show highly illicit/unethical behavior, don’t you have a greater duty to the community than your company? Shouldn’t you neg on the agreement and bring the issues of the company to light? Are those Church employees who post to mormonLeaks acting unethically?
Would I have recorded it, were I in Bill’s shoes? No. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say Bill acted without integrity. He stayed true to his principles, and was open about the entire thing. More open than the Church is, at any rate.
I am saying he lost a degree of his integrity – especially since dishonesty was one of his central claims. I said he was a hypocrite with regard to his focus on honesty. It’s disingenuous to pound a point repeatedly and use it as a reason to reject someone then turn around and do the exact same thing. When someone does that, they lose a degree of their integrity. I don’t want to condemn Bill, but I won’t excuse him, either. He did what he did. He deserves to own it completely.
IMO “coerce” is too strong of a word but I’m also going to have to disagree, at least on some level. If you want to attend your own disciplinary council you will have to acquiesce to our demands. If you don’t agree to our demands, you can’t attend your own disciplinary council.
Coercion implies force or threats, that’s why I feel it is too strong of a word; however, they are in the position of power, they are in a position to make all the demands, those demands are inflexible. Play by the rules or leave. I don’t think anyone would enjoy being subject to that but I still feel it falls short of coercion.
Their club, their rules, I get it.
I don’t agree with the decision to sign the agreement with intent to later violate said agreement. In my opinion that was a mistake.
Old Timer wrote:
3) Bill twisted the words of at least one participant when he told his story afterward, and he did it in such a way that people who have never participated in a disciplinary council would not have realized he had done so. (The high counselor whom he quoted was assigned a perspective from which to view the proceedings. Half look at it from the Church’s side; half look at it from the acccused person’s side.) Bill took a summary comment of Bill’s words and quoted it as if the high counselor was expressing his own belief. That appears to have been intentionally manipulative and dishonest; if so, it was reprehensible.
Old Timer wrote:
2) Bill weakened his position tremendously by lying with regard to his disciplinary council – in two ways: a) He lied about not recording the proceedings. 2) He lied about what the high counselor meant when he quoted that man’s summary statement.
Here I do disagree. Two people can listen to the exact same speech and come away with two entirely different conclusions. I have no way of knowing what Bill really thinks; whether he is intentionally misrepresenting the high councilman or whether Bill interpreted something that the high councilman said differently than the high councilman’s intent.
In my opinion the high councilman was simply restating Bill’s argument, not agreeing with it. Here’s where the recording helped, it provided context. Now, because Bill released the recording I admit that I’m giving Bill the benefit of the doubt. If he wanted to misrepresent the high councilman why provide the context? I think it’s more the case of Bill hearing what he wanted to hear. At least in my mind there’s enough doubt surrounding it so as to not consider it another strike against Bill.
nibbler wrote:
I don’t agree with the decision to sign the agreement with intent to later violate said agreement. In my opinion that was a mistake.That is my whole issue with it.
I can grant the possibility that BIll truly thought the high counselor was validating and agreeing with him. I have to believe it is only a slight possibility, since Bill understands the process from previous experience. If he truly believes that, it points to a degree of delusion, frankly, but all of us have areas of delusion. In the end, I just can’t believe he didn’t understand the man’s position, and I don’t want to believe he is delusional. It is weird that I prefer he be lying about it than be delusional about it. I will have to think more about that, but it is my honest reaction.
I probably am putting myself in the shoes of the man he is misrepresenting.
Old Timer wrote:
I can grant the possibility that BIll truly thought the high counselor was validating and agreeing with him. I have to believe it is only a slight possibility, since Bill understands the process from previous experience. If he truly believes that, it points to a degree of delusion, frankly, but all of us have areas of delusion.
I don’t think he has to be all that delusional. All he has to do is refuse to follow a train of thought that puts him in the shoes of someone he doesn’t want to identify with anymore. That’s easy to do, and even easier when it feels righteous.
There might be motivated forgetting happening, too. One thing I’ve noticed about the exmo community is that many claim to remember what it’s like to be a believer, and many say things that suggest they don’t. I’m left to conclude that at least in some of them, when they choose to move from “us” to “them,” their life as a believer is slowly replaced by an exmo cartoon.
EDIT: After reviewing the relevant parts of Handbook 1, D&C 102, and the transcript, I have one more informed opinion and some uncertainty about the role of the HC.
First, now I don’t think Bill has replaced his memories with a cartoon. I think that’s clear from what he says about his life as a full-on believer.
Second, it’s not at all clear whether the HC who said the church has no integrity (but see below) was assigned to speak on Bill’s behalf. In closing statements, the even-numbered HCs speak for the accused, but this guy was third. On the other hand, the SP had asked whether the proceedings were fair to the church, which doesn’t sound like requesting closing statements to me, and he asked only for three. If he had been requesting closing statements, there should have been two, four or six.
IMO, the HC was either assigned to represent Bill, or assigned to represent the church but represented Bill anyway.
Here’s the thing, though: to support the idea that Bill has been taking the statement out of context, the role of the HC doesn’t matter. Here’s what the transcript says:
Quote:
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.
I think any fair interpretation of this has to acknowledge that “there is no integrity left in the church” is likely to be intended as a conditional statement, not an absolute one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.