- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I guess I could have been clearer. When I say “we” I mean all members of the church, not just StayLDSers. nibbler wrote:
I guess I could have been clearer. When I say “we” I mean all members of the church, not just StayLDSers.“…All members of the Church” ended up here mostly because our desire to chase hope outstripped the desire to keep things more grounded.
That’s deep, Nibs. I guess in a lot of ways we StayLDSers still share a lot in our core with the active members.
I’m going to try to stay out of the philosophical clouds and just make this as simple as I can. If you (the person reading this) and I are ever talking privately and I say, “BTW, you’re not recording this right?” and you respond, “No, of course not,” and them my voice appears in your podcast, then I’m going to be frustrated that you were so dishonest and I will probably never speak to you again and if anybody asks for a character reference, I’ll say that you have a problem with lying. So, having said the above, now let me get up into the philosophical clouds. #1 – The Church has frequently in the past been guilty of a number of things we don’t like.
#2 – I don’t think that should be an excuse for us to pull the same kinds of tricks.
#3 – Bill is an individual and he has his own boat to steer. It doesn’t matter to me what he chooses to do and ultimately, whatever he chooses, I hope that he finds what he’s looking for.
But, here at StayLDS, we’re trying to live with the Church, right? We have a semi (though unofficial) mantra here about just trying to be good people… love your neighbor… help others when it’s needed… live the golden rule. I mean, these tend to be themes that recur here. I can’t come close to estimating how many times I’ve heard these basic concepts repeated here and elsewhere, among people who want to boil the gospel (or general spirituality) down to the most basic components.
I just don’t see how doing things that we would consider patently wrong in another circumstance can be considered to be a good idea at best or reasonable and justified at worst as long as it’s aimed at someone associated with the Church. The HCs, in this case, are not guilty of polygamy, or distorted truth claims, or the Ban, or… They are just people living their religion and running a volunteer organization.
The way I always try to view this, to make sure I’m not being unfair toward the Church because of my personal history, is to ask the man in the mirror if I would act the same way concerning a mosque or synagogue in my town.
On Own Now wrote:
The HCs,… are just people living their religion and running a volunteer organization.
yes. I agree. Well said. Which highlights that interesting dynamic…Bill is not really speaking to that group…but a bigger cause and audience.
They speak past each other.
Is there any legal recourse for breaking signed agreements? Does the church ever sue individuals?
Heber13 wrote:
On Own Now wrote:
The HCs,… are just people living their religion and running a volunteer organization.
yes. I agree. Well said. Which highlights that interesting dynamic…Bill is not really speaking to that group…but a bigger cause and audience.
Agreeing with this. Bill’s signed agreement was with the Church, not the HC. I’d also say his excommunication was more on the Church, than on those HC. The local leadership provide a “layer of protection” between the Church and the membership. The Church “used” them, Bill “used them… The HC, sadly, got caught in the crossfire.
On Own Now wrote:
Is there any legal recourse for breaking signed agreements? Does the church ever sue individuals?
I’d be willing to say, no. The only times I’ve heard of the Church “suing” have been for copyright infringement. But I highly doubt that agreement was legally enforceable, or worth the Church’s time to enforce even if it could.
dande48 wrote:
I highly doubt that agreement was legally enforceable, or worth the Church’s time to enforce even if it could.
agree.
Which makes the matter just on principle, right? It’s not going to matter if he keeps the agreement or not, it won’t matter if they excommunicate him or not.
The stone rolls on.
[img]https://media1.tenor.com/images/693b7f65de831d526c2fc81b9b18d874/tenor.gif [/img] I hope Bill doesn’t turn to crusade against the church now.
You know…I give Oliver Cowdery credit…once he chose to stay away from polygamy, not follow Brigham to SLC, we don’t have records that I know of showing he actively campaigned against the church or tried to prove anything or establish lies or truth. He just fell out of the story and lived his life. But wasn’t one of those who “once they left the church, they couldn’t leave the church alone.” Type examples. Maybe it made it easier for him to return and be rebatpized in 1848 because of how he handled his issues.
I finally got around to listening to Bill’s post-DC interview on Mormon Stories this morning. John asked him about the recording and signing the agreement. Bill left it somewhat vague because he doesn’t want people to be unable to pursue similar action if they feel it necessary. According to Bill, he knew there would be an attempted recording that night. He did not have the recording device. He did not push record on the device. He didn’t record it himself, in any way. The picture he took of the form to be signed was with the permission of the person that handed him the form.
When John asked if he signed it, he said he was handed the form and then they walked away, no one watched him sign it. He said he’d just leave it at that.
How, if at all, does that change anyone else’s opinion of what happened? If Bill knew an attempt but wasn’t involved in the planning or execution of it, does that still call his integrity into question? If you still see that as unethical, does it take away from the charge of hypocrisy (as he doesn’t appear to have lied about it)?
One of the defenses that was put forward about the recording was that Bill did wrong but then took ownership of his action – while the church seldom admits wrongdoing. This report from this MS interview sounds cagey or evasive to me. Bill may or may not have recorded anything. Bill may or may not have signed anything. It depends on your definition of the word “is”. (reference hearkening back to the evasive responses from the Clinton-Intern sex scandal)
Roy wrote:
One of the defenses that was put forward about the recording was that Bill did wrong but then took ownership of his action – while the church seldom admits wrongdoing.This report from this MS interview sounds cagey or evasive to me. Bill may or may not have recorded anything. Bill may or may not have signed anything. It depends on your definition of the word “is”. (reference hearkening back to the evasive responses from the Clinton-Intern sex scandal)
I think there’s some question as to whether he did or did not sign anything and he was certainly cagey about that.
He was pretty clear about saying he did not record or take part in recording.
IT_Veteran wrote:
Roy wrote:
One of the defenses that was put forward about the recording was that Bill did wrong but then took ownership of his action – while the church seldom admits wrongdoing.This report from this MS interview sounds cagey or evasive to me. Bill may or may not have recorded anything. Bill may or may not have signed anything. It depends on your definition of the word “is”. (reference hearkening back to the evasive responses from the Clinton-Intern sex scandal)
I think there’s some question as to whether he did or did not sign anything and he was certainly cagey about that.
He was pretty clear about saying he did not record or take part in recording.
He might have been cagey because of this part of the NDA:
Quote:
I agree that I will notmake use ofany audio, video recording, or transmission of the entire meeting or the disciplinary council.
Strange wording.
If Bill didn’t record it* – which I totally believe, then Bill shouldn’t have aired it. For me Bill’s own twisting of the events such as the High Council member who said the church is dishonest, but then in the recording, it didn’t come across the same way, – adds to his dishonesty in the process.
If he can call others out publicly, then twist things to suit his presentation, then have an outside source (the recording) leave a different impression, then is he really any better than those he accuses?
This continual justification that because “the Church” does it, therefore anyone can do it, doesn’t hold water with me. If you find the church dishonest, then feel free to walk away.
*(Sam’s was recorded the same way. Mike the temple recording guy did Sam’s. I don’t know who did Bill’s)
The only way to record it was to be there. Period. Therefore, the only possibilities are:
1) Someone else who was there the entire time Bill was there recorded it. I am 99.9% certain that didn’t happen, unless they allowed a witness to be there the entire time. If that was the case, Bill knew about it before it happened (since he would have chosen his witnesses), and nothing changes with regard to my feeling or comments about it.
2) Bill wore a wire, and someone else recorded it remotely. I am quite certain that is what happened. He can say he didn’t record it and be correct, technically – but he absolutely participated in getting it recorded. If that happened, nothing changes with regard to my feeling or comments about it.
What changes is my deepened . . . disappointment . . . in how he continues to hedge and obfuscate and duck the question of his dishonesty. It makes it look like he knows exactly what he did, went into it intending to do and say exactly what he did and said specifically in order to publish the recording, and then hemmed and hawed and used lawyer-speak to not have to admit any blame for doing what he did.
Seriously, it decreases my respect for him, and I had lost a degree of respect already.
Bill still went explicitly against the written agreement. On some level, I can see justification for that. Bill definitely took the HC’s words out of context to make his point. While I don’t agree with his interpretation, I can maayybee see how Bill would’ve interpreted that way. I’m glad we had access to the recording, so we can come to our own conclusions.
But blantantly abstrusiating and distorting the truth, is not something I can get behind. The Church does this, and I hate it. And now Bill did the same thing, and I hate it just as much. I thought by publishing the recording, he was more or less owning up to what he did. I would’ve respected that. But now… I’m tired of Bill. There’s not much left he can do that would be effective. I hope he moves on.
If Bill is using semantics and coded double meanings to protect his cause…he is not the first to use such a strategy. Quote:May 26, 1844 [Joseph] commented,
Quote:“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.”
If Joseph had looked diligently, could he have found additional legal wives? No. Could he have found additional wives according to Islamic traditions? No. He might have asked for the questioner to be more specific, and then the answer necessarily have been in the affirmative.
LDS scholar Danel Bachman observed: “Most of these denials stressed semantical and theological technicalities. That is, the language of the defense was carefully chosen to disavow practices that did not accurately represent Church doctrines.”
Todd Compton concurred: “Faced with the necessity of keeping polygamy secret, the Mormon authorities generally chose to disavow the practice, sometimes using language with coded double meanings.”
Not comparing Bill to Joseph, or threadjacking this towards polygamy….simply making a point that blunt open honesty isn’t always easy and is sometimes justified away by some, and not satisfactory to others, understandably.
Regardless, my opinion hasn’t changed.
I will be interested in how Bill handles himself forward, and if it will be fair and balanced and constructive if he keeps talking in public about Mormonism, or negative and angry towards the church.
It will play out.
Not too much to see here, IMO.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.