DiscussMormonism.com

Equality wrote:I see Kish's point. If we who oppose the unethical practices employed by the Restoredchurchofjesuschristians in their "courts of love," how can we claim any moral high ground? People will justifiably dismiss our message out of hand if we stoop to the church's level.

It's for this same reason that I have always been critical of the family that hid Anne Frank from the Nazis in their attic. They broke the law--the law!--and engaged in lies and deception to hide her from the authorities. Sure, their cause was just; the Nazis were bad. But breaking the law and engaging in deception is wrong, too. The ends don't justify the means, after all. A proper martyr does things on the up and up, to ensure they are free from criticism that they are hypocritical.

Oh, I see, Bill Reel was in imminent danger and had to record himself lest he drop dead on the spot. Or, maybe, if he had not done so, the stake president and high council will have closed in on him and thrown him in an oven.

Good thinking, Bill!

Fence Sitter wrote:We need this kind of stuff to bring to light to the average member that what they are worshiping isn't God, but leadership.

I have a difficult time caring about an what average member worships or even thinks he or she is worshiping. To me, that's kind of like the debate over whether Mormons are Christian, or complaints that church services focus more on things other than Jesus. As someone who's not Christian, it would be petty for me to make an issue of that.

Fence Sitter wrote:The ironic thing here is that however absurd the Nazi comparisons seem to Reel's case, members themselves would tell you that they would prefer their child got murdered by whomever rather than apostatize from Christ's one and only true church. Better to die an early death here than loose your eternal birthright. Members need to be made aware that apostacy in the LDS church is defined as disobedience to any church leadership regardless of how wrong that leader is.

On the other hand, it may be absurd to compare voluntary participation in the processes of a voluntary association in a constitutional republic with the genocidal campaign of a mad totalitarian government.

Just spit ballin' here.

toon wrote:

Fence Sitter wrote:We need this kind of stuff to bring to light to the average member that what they are worshiping isn't God, but leadership.

I have a difficult time caring about what average member worships or even thinks he or she is worshiping. To me, that's kind of like the debate of whether Mormons are Christian, or complaints that church services focus more on things other than Jesus. As someone who's not Christian, it would be petty for me to make an issue of that.

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that I probably have over a hundred close direct relatives from just my father's side of the family who are "average members". Not to mention the number of close friends who also fall into that category as well as my wife.

Kishkumen wrote:
There is a difference, I think, between fighting for a good cause, like protecting children, and fighting against the LDS Church. Mike Norton is someone who has fought against the LDS Church and Mormonism, and has found validation and support when his work has had ancillary (but important) benefits for some people. But his primary motivation is his hatred of Mormonism.

I think Sam Young started out fighting for a good cause. Likewise with Bill Reel. Involving Mike Norton was a mistake because that muddied motivations and aims. I deeply disagree with the idea that the ends justify the means. If Mike Norton gets attention, the attention does not whitewash his religious bigotry. If one can achieve similar results without resorting to bigots and bigotry, then that is what one should do. If one must use Norton to get attention, then forego the attention, because buddying up to bigots is not worth the perceived benefit.

I know I'm acting as a broken record here but, we don't know that Norton's involvement was invited. We don't know if his services were enlisted or if he simply showed up earlier in the day to show us that he could get in the building or what he did later. People here say he has skill in surveillance techniques. We don't know what kind of recording device was used, if a person in the room was directly miked or if he planted a mike somewhere in the room. If a person in the room was miked we don't know if that was Mr. Reel or another person. For all we know (which is nothing but our imagination and conjecture at this point) a mike was planted on one of the facilitators of the DC or a family member such as Mrs. Reel who may have decided not to confirm anything with her husband as to keep him out of it.

Again, imagination and conjecture. That's all we have and likely all we'll ever have. I think it's wrong to make assumptions.

Back to the presence of Norton in general. We think we see him as an affiliate of both Reel and Young.

Is he? Is he a welcomed affiliate? If he is not a welcomed affiliate, do we honestly expect any of these men to tell him to stay the hell out and away from their individual causes so that folks can claim that the cause-movements (new phrase, I just invented it) are imploding on account of internal unrest from within their ranks?

In Sam's case (I know little to nothing about Reel) his movement embraces and acts as voice for the victims of child sexual abuse. Now, think like a Jersey Girl/child advocate here for a minute.

I have watched every single video recording and read every single statement I could get my eyes and hands on since I became aware of the Protect movement. I have witnessed Sam Young making himself hospitable to folks from what we might call the fringes (on account of the impact of their abuse and isolation) of LDS society and society at large, embracing them, welcoming them, willing to hear their expressions and learning from those folks, and valuing them when perhaps almost no one else in their lives does. They are his focus, his teachers and it is on their behalf that he presses forward in an effort to validate them and prevent these very same conditions from developing in the lives of potential child victims.

And you think that Sam Young who is invested in child advocacy in terms of reporting and preventing childhood sexual abuse in the LDS church should shy away from welcoming the presence of Mike Norton into his circle of people (victims and support people) who is exactly representative of the victims of the Protect movement because he IS one.

As I stated previously, I just recently learned this about Norton and having learned it, it's changed the way that I think about him. It likewise makes sense that he is welcomed and embraced by Sam Young.

Mike Norton belongs in and to the Protect movement. He is one of the people being represented by it.

Hey, these guys can do as they like. I am entitled to my opinion regarding the choice to welcome Mike Norton into their ranks. I am deeply sorry that Mike has suffered, as he claims, because he was sexually abused. I don’t see that as a blank check to behave however he wants. I get the connection between Young and Norton in Norton’s victimhood, but that comes with a cost. Of course, the decision is Sam’s. If he chooses to accept Mike’s tactics because Mike is a victim, that’s his prerogative.

Now, I don’t know for a fact that he has. Mike’s role in Reel’s DC has better circumstantial evidence supporting it.

Still, as I said above, we can put Norton aside, and I disagree with recording the DC in order to publish it.

Kishkumen wrote:

Equality wrote:I see Kish's point. If we who oppose the unethical practices employed by the Restoredchurchofjesuschristians in their "courts of love," how can we claim any moral high ground? People will justifiably dismiss our message out of hand if we stoop to the church's level.

It's for this same reason that I have always been critical of the family that hid Anne Frank from the Nazis in their attic. They broke the law--the law!--and engaged in lies and deception to hide her from the authorities. Sure, their cause was just; the Nazis were bad. But breaking the law and engaging in deception is wrong, too. The ends don't justify the means, after all. A proper martyr does things on the up and up, to ensure they are free from criticism that they are hypocritical.

Oh, I see, Bill Reel was in imminent danger and had to record himself lest he drop dead on the spot. Or, maybe, if he had not done so, the stake president and high council will have closed in on him and thrown him in an oven.

Good thinking, Bill!

I would frame the issue this way: when confronting an institution with power, that uses that power in unethical ways, does the person confronting the unethical institution have an obligation to employ only the highest ethical standards in so doing? I.e., "when they go low, we go high?" Or, in the alternative, when confronting a powerful unethical institution is some deviation from only the highest ethical "means" justified?

By acknowledging that in the case where a powerful unethical institution poses an "imminent danger" such deviation is appropriate, you admit that as a matter of principle there are situations where deviating from the highest ethical means in confronting a powerful unethical institution is justified.

Are there any other circumstances beyond "imminent danger" where it might be justified? How about when the powerful unethical institution is defrauding people? Putting the health and safety of children at risk? Destroying families? Driving people to suicide? Some would argue--and I am one of them--that "imminent danger" is not the threshold for determining whether deviating from the highest possible ethical standard in confronting a powerful unethical institution is justified and that, even if it were, the "imminent danger" need not involve the individual confronting the institution but rather could include the victims of that institution's unethical practices. YMMV.

Equality wrote:Are there any other circumstances beyond "imminent danger" where it might be justified? How about when the powerful unethical institution is defrauding people? Putting the health and safety of children at risk? Destroying families? Driving people to suicide? Some would argue--and I am one of them--that "imminent danger" is not the threshold for determining whether deviating from the highest possible ethical standard in confronting a powerful unethical institution is justified and that, even if it were, the "imminent danger" need not involve the individual confronting the institution but rather could include the victims of that institution's unethical practices. YMMV.

Yes. It's not illegal to tape. He was essentially coerced into signing the NDA. What does he have to show for his possibly violating the NDA or someone else recording the DC?

He has a recording of church reps admitting that he spoke the truth and that the truth cannot be spoken by members of the church.

That is worth much to church members as well as non-members such as myself. Why? Because it corroborates what folks have been claiming for years.

How hard is this to understand?

Why am I doing this?

If Mr. Reel walked out of his DC, came to the mike and reported what had gone down--a vast majority of church members would think "So what he's saying is that the church reps said he was telling the truth and he can't tell the truth in the True Church. Right. Prove it."

Not only did he report what took place and what was admitted by the church reps, he's somehow got concrete evidence with which to prove his claim.

This is condemnation worthy? We should look down our noses based on what, a potential ethics violation?

Jersey Girl wrote:I know I'm acting as a broken record here but, we don't know that Norton's involvement was invited. We don't know if his services were enlisted or if he simply showed up earlier in the day to show us that he could get in the building or what he did later. People here say he has skill in surveillance techniques. We don't know what kind of recording device was used, if a person in the room was directly miked or if he planted a mike somewhere in the room. If a person in the room was miked we don't know if that was Mr. Reel or another person. For all we know (which is nothing but our imagination and conjecture at this point) a mike was planted on one of the facilitators of the DC or a family member such as Mrs. Reel who may have decided not to confirm anything with her husband as to keep him out of it.

Again, imagination and conjecture. That's all we have and likely all we'll ever have. I think it's wrong to make assumptions.

I believe Bill said that, while he didn't record it, he knew at the time that it was being recorded. He also has argued that the NDA wasn't worth the paper it was written on. And the recording showed up on his website and through the affiliated RFM shortly after the meeting. So concluding that he was at least complicit is not imagination and conjecture.

I'll agree that the conclusion is still largely based on circumstantial evidence. But circumstantial evidence, as opposed to mere imagination and conjecture, can be sufficient to prove a point.

Bill can simply clear this up if he wants. Instead, he's playing coy.