Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _toon »

Meadowchik wrote:An institution that is spiritually violent to its faithful will hardly be equipped to be decent to the apostates.


Maybe it's a pet peeve, but I dislike how "violent" has been redefined. Adding "spiritually" as a qualifier doesn't really change that.

As abhorrent, unfair, predetermined, etc. as the excommunication process can be, it's not violent.
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _toon »

mcjathan wrote:
Bill's Stake President wrote:Church disciplinary councils are sacred ecclesiastical proceeding and are intended to be strictly confidential. It would not be appropriate, for example, for anyone who attends the council (including you) to make a recording of it, whether for private or public use. Doing so would be a serious violation of the ecclesiastical purposes governing such councils and of the trust that is necessary for disciplinary councils to be effective.

The priest-penitent privilege is ALWAYS intended to protect the penitent, and NEVER the priest, NEVER the church. Attorney-client privilege, therapist-client privilege, doctor-client privilege, etc are ALL intended to protect client -- NOT the advisor. If, in any of these relationships, the priest, attorney, therapist, doctor, etc have something they need to keep confidential to protect themselves, there is something terribly wrong with that relationship.

The church is implying the sanctity of priest-penitent privilege while turning the concept on it's head and using it as a mechanism of abuse, control, and avoidance of accountability. The church's ethical duty is to protect the privacy of the person on trial. Period. The decision to record a church court is entirely up the person on trial. Period.

Despicable. God's church my a$$.


I don't think that's what they are implying. They aren't talking about whether a legal privilege should apply. They just want it to be confidential.
_Meadowchik
_Emeritus
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _Meadowchik »

toon wrote:
Meadowchik wrote:An institution that is spiritually violent to its faithful will hardly be equipped to be decent to the apostates.


Maybe it's a pet peeve, but I dislike how "violent" has been redefined. Adding "spiritually" as a qualifier doesn't really change that.

As abhorrent, unfair, predetermined, etc. as the excommunication process can be, it's not violent.


I like it and think it linguistically consistent. Enlightened civilisation is learning that the universality of religion does not make it morally good, and that it can in some cases be morally repugnant. "Spiritual violence" in my opinion perfectly fills a rhetorical void where we too-long believed men had a place. But that actually requires crossing a boundary that kind human beings to not invade, they do not make one person's spiritual experience their own territory. Mormonism does this from birth, while using doublespeak to say it does not.
_Mormon Think
_Emeritus
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _Mormon Think »

Good luck bro, but the way it will go is they will ask you if you posted such and such on the web and you can only answer yes or no. A yes is all they need and they bang the gavel and declare you guilty and label you an apostate. They will not listen to accounts of true, disturbing church history or anything else. Sad but true.

If it was a real court and not a church court, I would have gone to mine and brought up all sorts of evidence (to at least educate the others there about the issues that troubled me which prompted me to compile information on these issues for MormonThink.com.) But I was told by many others that have gone through the process e.g. Lyndon Lamborn, Grant Palmer that the church leaders would not allow those topics for discussion. Just simply answer Yes or No did I publish X?
_Craig Paxton
_Emeritus
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:28 pm

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _Craig Paxton »

toon wrote:
Meadowchik wrote:An institution that is spiritually violent to its faithful will hardly be equipped to be decent to the apostates.


Maybe it's a pet peeve, but I dislike how "violent" has been redefined. Adding "spiritually" as a qualifier doesn't really change that.

As abhorrent, unfair, predetermined, etc. as the excommunication process can be, it's not violent.



You've obviously never been involved with any of the so called courts of love if you don't believe that they are spiritually violent.
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace

"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick

“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _Shulem »

toon wrote:Maybe it's a pet peeve, but I dislike how "violent" has been redefined. Adding "spiritually" as a qualifier doesn't really change that.

As abhorrent, unfair, predetermined, etc. as the excommunication process can be, it's not violent.



Oh, you want violence, do you? How about the violence when Jesus descends from the heavens and burns up the apostates. Burns them to a crisp! How about that, for violence?
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _consiglieri »

mcjathan wrote:The priest-penitent privilege is ALWAYS intended to protect the penitent, and NEVER the priest, NEVER the church. Attorney-client privilege, therapist-client privilege, doctor-client privilege, etc are ALL intended to protect client -- NOT the advisor. If, in any of these relationships, the priest, attorney, therapist, doctor, etc have something they need to keep confidential to protect themselves, there is something terribly wrong with that relationship.

The church is implying the sanctity of priest-penitent privilege while turning the concept on it's head and using it as a mechanism of abuse, control, and avoidance of accountability. The church's ethical duty is to protect the privacy of the person on trial. Period. The decision to record a church court is entirely up the person on trial. Period.

Despicable. God's church my a$$.


I agree with this.

1. It is always the penitent's privilege. If a penitent is on trial and the prosecutor calls the priest to testify as to what the penitent confessed, the penitent may claim the privilege so as to not allow the priest to testify.

If the priest is on trial and the penitent is called to testify to saucy comments made by the priest during the confessional, the priest may not claim the privilege.

2. The privilege exists only so long as the communication is private and privileged. If there is another person in the room during such confession, there is no privilege. The communication itself must be given in such a way as to bear the hallmarks of confidentiality in the first instance, or there is no privilege. The Catholic confessional is the classic instance of this.

But where Bill is in a room with numerous others, which he will be, the communication is not confidential at its outset, and therefore there is no privilege.

3. Bill is not confessing anything! This is not about using anything Bill confesses to against him! There is no privilege.

4. Finally, the "contract" Bill is required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary council is not binding because Bill is not being given anything in exchange for his signature. NDA's are enforceable as a legally binding contract because money is changing hands; there is a settlement given in exchange for the signature on the NDA.

If Bill is receiving no money, or anything else of benefit in exchange for signing what is effectively an NDA, it is void and legally unenforceable.

And I would love to see the church argue that Bill received something of benefit by being allowed entrance into the room where he is being excommunicated.

Just my two cents.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _toon »

Shulem wrote:Oh, you want violence, do you? How about the violence when Jesus descends from the heavens and burns up the apostates. Burns them to a crisp! How about that, for violence?


Well, it's my understanding that Bill no longer believes the Church's truth claims, much less that his action will result in being burned in the last days. A hollow threat, or even implication, of something that cannot and will not ever happen is not violence.

Just as it's wrong to tell students that words are violence (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ce/533970/), it's ridiculous to claim that excommunication constitutes violence, even if we claim add "spiritual" as an adjective. That doesn't mean that an excommunication cannot cause real damage, mentally, emotionally, or even physically. Just that they're not violent.
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _toon »

consiglieri wrote:Finally, the "contract" Bill is required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary council is not binding because Bill is not being given anything in exchange for his signature. NDA's are enforceable as a legally binding contract because money is changing hands; there is a settlement given in exchange for the signature on the NDA.

If Bill is receiving no money, or anything else of benefit in exchange for signing what is effectively an NDA, it is void and legally unenforceable.


He's being provided an opportunity to attend and participate in a meeting that he arguably has no legal right to attend. (I say "arguably" because while I can see an argument that there's some legal right to attend, the chances of that argument prevailing in court are just under slim and closer to none.) And valuable consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If he doesn't view attendance and participating as a benefit, then he should have no problem not being there.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

Post by _Shulem »

toon wrote: it's ridiculous to claim that excommunication constitutes violence, even if we claim add "spiritual" as an adjective. That doesn't mean that an excommunication cannot cause real damage, mentally, emotionally, or even physically. Just that they're not violent.


5. Spiritual Violence

Spiritual (or religious) violence occurs when someone uses a person’s spiritual beliefs to manipulate, dominate or control the person.

Spiritual violence includes, but is not limited to:
•Not allowing the person to follow her or his preferred spiritual or religious tradition;
•Forcing a spiritual or religious path or practice on another person;
•Belittling or making fun of a person’s spiritual or religious tradition, beliefs or practices; and,
•Using one’s spiritual or religious position, rituals or practices to manipulate, dominate or control a person.

Post Reply