Audio of Bill Reel's Disciplinary Council

[_Symmachus]

My point was to defend Bill's decision to record and publish his court in spite of signing a NDA. A belief I still stand by.

I don't see that it needs any defense here.

If it's a legal question, it's probably too technical an issue to even bother discussing for non-lawyers (like myself) and would have to be about procedures, precedents, and statutes.

If it's a question of perception—that is, if it's a political question—then there is something to the argument that it makes ex-Mormons look duplicitous. Oh well. Certain kinds of Mormons are going to think that anyway.

If it's an ethical question involving the two parties, which is what the discussion has so far been assuming, to my mind the recording would have to violate some ethical end that the NDA was meant to serve. NDAs are not legal instruments for maintaining an ethical principle or advancing an ethical goal, though—quite the opposite!—and they appeal to fear or self-interest, not ethics, for their force. So I don't see why violating them is an ethical question between two parties, even if it is a legal and political one. The church was going to do whatever it wanted and did not make a decision to move one way or another based on some good-faith promise from Bill Reel, nor did they promise him anything real in return, like money in exchange for his non-recording. The NDA was just a tactic to compel what they wanted by appealing to his fears of some kind of legal action against him. Why should he feel ethically bound, while under threat, to respect their wishes to avoid looking stupid and vicious? To my simple my mind, it's pretty simple: if X is about to beat you up and, in exchange for a promise from you to keep quiet, X promises not to beat you up as vigorously as X otherwise would, this isn't really a question of whether or not you were being honest when you go tell A, B, and C that X beat you up.

So it's not a question of ethics either as I see it. Maybe it's just a question of taste and tactics, and on that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

[_candygal]

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.

I agree with you here Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't see that it needs any defense here.

If it's a legal question, it's probably too technical an issue to even bother discussing for non-lawyers (like myself) and would have to be about procedures, precedents, and statutes.

If it's a question of perception—that is, if it's a political question—then there is something to the argument that it makes ex-Mormons look duplicitous. Oh well. Certain kinds of Mormons are going to think that anyway.

If it's an ethical question involving the two parties, which is what the discussion has so far been assuming, to my mind the recording would have to violate some ethical end that the NDA was meant to serve. NDAs are not legal instruments for maintaining an ethical principle or advancing an ethical goal, though—quite the opposite!—and they appeal to fear or self-interest, not ethics, for their force. So I don't see why violating them is an ethical question between two parties, even if it is a legal and political one. The church was going to do whatever it wanted and did not make a decision to move one way or another based on some good-faith promise from Bill Reel, nor did they promise him anything real in return, like money in exchange for his non-recording. The NDA was just a tactic to compel what they wanted by appealing to his fears of some kind of legal action against him. Why should he feel ethically bound, while under threat, to respect their wishes to avoid looking stupid and vicious? To my simple my mind, it's pretty simple: if X is about to beat you up and, in exchange for a promise from you to keep quiet, X promises not to beat you up as vigorously as X otherwise would, this isn't really a question of whether or not you were being honest when you go tell A, B, and C that X beat you up.

So it's not a question of ethics either as I see it. Maybe it's just a question of taste and tactics, and on that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

In addition to what Symmachus has stated, I'd like to invoke Kohlberg's Heinz Dilemma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

If Mr. Reel were solely about propping up his ego or position, I would think differently. But, since the recording does work to benefit others, I think it falls into the category of the Heinz Dilemma.

[_Res Ipsa]

I can't convey the depth of my disappointment in learning that the Heinz dilemma has nothing to do with ketchup.

[_Jersey Girl]

I agree with you here Jersey Girl

Thanks. I'm not sure which part or whole you agree with but with regard to Mike Norton, we cannot rightly say that we support the Protect movement (and I don't say that everyone does) and support it's effort to prevent future victims of childhood sexual abuse, and then want to push Mike Norton out of the picture without recognizing our own blatant and obtuse hypocrisy since he himself is a victim of church related childhood sexual abuse.

What are we saying? That there is no place for a victim in the movement to recognize, affirm, and validate victims?

Victims already have got a belly full of not belonging.

[_Jersey Girl]

I can't convey the depth of my disappointment in learning that the Heinz dilemma has nothing to do with ketchup.

I apologize for getting you all jazzed and then letting you down.

[_Res Ipsa]

My point was to defend Bill's decision to record and publish his court in spite of signing a NDA. A belief I still stand by.

I don't see that it needs any defense here.

If it's a legal question, it's probably too technical an issue to even bother discussing for non-lawyers (like myself) and would have to be about procedures, precedents, and statutes.

If it's a question of perception—that is, if it's a political question—then there is something to the argument that it makes ex-Mormons look duplicitous. Oh well. Certain kinds of Mormons are going to think that anyway.

If it's an ethical question involving the two parties, which is what the discussion has so far been assuming, to my mind the recording would have to violate some ethical end that the NDA was meant to serve. NDAs are not legal instruments for maintaining an ethical principle or advancing an ethical goal, though—quite the opposite!—and they appeal to fear or self-interest, not ethics, for their force. So I don't see why violating them is an ethical question between two parties, even if it is a legal and political one. The church was going to do whatever it wanted and did not make a decision to move one way or another based on some good-faith promise from Bill Reel, nor did they promise him anything real in return, like money in exchange for his non-recording. The NDA was just a tactic to compel what they wanted by appealing to his fears of some kind of legal action against him. Why should he feel ethically bound, while under threat, to respect their wishes to avoid looking stupid and vicious? To my simple my mind, it's pretty simple: if X is about to beat you up and, in exchange for a promise from you to keep quiet, X promises not to beat you up as vigorously as X otherwise would, this isn't really a question of whether or not you were being honest when you go tell A, B, and C that X beat you up.

So it's not a question of ethics either as I see it. Maybe it's just a question of taste and tactics, and on that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

I think that the question of whether to mislead or deceive someone about one's intentions is always an ethical one. Referring to Jersey's link, there may be all kinds of ethical arguments that would justify doing so in a specific case. But not to see the argument as an ethical one, I think, seriously devalues honesty.

Beyond that, an NDA (what I grew up calling a confidentiality agreement) doesn't just benefit the church in this situation -- it also benefits the individuals in the meeting. We do something similar in mediations -- nothing that is said in the mediation can be used in prosecuting or defending the legal case. We do that because it allows the parties and their lawyers to speak candidly without having to worry about something they say in the mediation coming around to bite them in the ass at trial.

If the church members who sit on these disciplinary hearings believe that whatever they say may end up in the paper the next day, they simply aren't going to communicate anything. The member being considered for discipline will testify. Whoever the church wants to call as witnesses will testify. Period. There won't be any back and forth, or real opportunity for the member to engage and perhaps persuade the council. Arguably, that will harm those who are subjected to church discipline but don't intend to use what is said in the hearing as a platform to attack current current church practices.

So, I do think there is an ethical question here. I would label your argument as an ethical argument, rather than adopt the idea that the question itself involves no ethical quandary.

[_Res Ipsa]

I can't convey the depth of my disappointment in learning that the Heinz dilemma has nothing to do with ketchup.

I apologize for getting you all jazzed and then letting you down.

Seriously, though, the link was both interesting and helpful.

Even though it was ketchupless.

[_Symmachus]

I think that the question of whether to mislead or deceive someone about one's intentions is always an ethical one. Referring to Jersey's link, there may be all kinds of ethical arguments that would justify doing so in a specific case. But not to see the argument as an ethical one, I think, seriously devalues honesty.

If something is inherently and absolutely of value, it cannot by definition be devalued. It may devalue the individual, and that is what these BS NDAs used by the Church are meant to do.

Let me rephrase my last sentence: it is not a serious question of ethics but, like Karl Maeser's solemn vow never to leave a chalk circle, an extremely trivial one that distracts from the actual issue.

This is not a question of competing values. This was not a good-faith mediation where X could lead one way and Y another. It was always going to go only one way. They always do, which is why disciplinary councils are the last resort, not the first. 100 % of the substance of what is said in these things is so predictable that I don't even need to listen to the recording. These are not courts of any kind but administrative exercises in which the Church gives the unrepentant one final chance to recant by using the appearance of a court and the trappings of priesthood to exert pressure on the unrepentant to do so. They serve the interests of the Church only, not the person being "disciplined." It's a list ditch attempt to impose authority, when it is not simply about punishment. Dialogue is not the point of these administrative procedures; persuasion is impossible and coercion inevitable. These NDAs are tools in a strategy of coercion. They create a phony ethical dilemma that wouldn't otherwise exist and did not exist until the Church started using them as a way to exert more pressure on the excommunicants who developed their own coercive response (the recording).

Recasting this as some kind of ethical dilemma, then, is to accept the Church's characterization of what an excommunication in a Mormon context is, to grant legitimacy to a made-up ethical problem that is itself a mere tool of coercion meant to buttress the Church's narrative, and thus, in a small but not insignificant way, to lengthen its coercive reach—I mean, given how almost all of us feel about the Church, why are we even talking about this in the terms that it has set up? It's a bit mysterious to me. At any rate, it is good evidence of an effective tactic: now we are all talking about whether Bill Reel is an ethical person (who cares?), not how stupid and vicious the Church is.

I refer you to the the analogy made in my previous post.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think that the question of whether to mislead or deceive someone about one's intentions is always an ethical one. Referring to Jersey's link, there may be all kinds of ethical arguments that would justify doing so in a specific case. But not to see the argument as an ethical one, I think, seriously devalues honesty.

If something is inherently and absolutely of value, it cannot by definition be devalued. It may devalue the individual, and that is what these ____ NDAs used by the Church are meant to do.

Let me rephrase my last sentence: it is not a serious question of ethics but, like Karl Maeser's solemn vow never to leave a chalk circle, an extremely trivial one that distracts from the actual issue.

This is not a question of competing values. This was not a good-faith mediation where X could lead one way and Y another. It was always going to go only one way. They always do, which is why disciplinary councils are the last resort, not the first. 100 % of the substance of what is said in these things is so predictable that I don't even need to listen to the recording. These are not courts of any kind but administrative exercises in which the Church gives the unrepentant one final chance to recant by using the appearance of a court and the trappings of priesthood to exert pressure on the unrepentant to do so. They serve the interests of the Church only, not the person being "disciplined." It's a list ditch attempt to impose authority, when it is not simply about punishment. Dialogue is not the point of these administrative procedures; persuasion is impossible and coercion inevitable. These NDAs are tools in a strategy of coercion. They create a phony ethical dilemma that wouldn't otherwise exist and did not exist until the Church started using them as a way to exert more pressure on the excommunicants who develped their own coercive response (the recording).

Recasting this as some kind of ethical dilemma, then, is to accept the Church's characterization of what an excommunication in a Mormon context is, to grant legitimacy to a made-up ethical problem that is itself a mere tool of coercion meant to buttress the Church's narrative, and thus, in a small but not insignificant way, to lengthen it's coercive reach.

I refer you to the the analogy made in my previous post.

But isn't your argument, in substance, one of ethics? Distilled, it says something like it's ethical to mislead another person when that person is acting in bad faith toward you. But to get there, you have to make all sorts of judgments about how people are acting and their motivations. And, in my opinion, those kinds of judgments can't fairly be described as trivial. You focus on the Church as an organization, which I would do on your side of the argument, but what is revealed is not the inner thoughts of an organization but the words of the members in attendance. Should we consider any potential harm to them by having what they thought was confidential revealed in public, or is being part of a malicious organization a sufficient basis to dismiss consideration of whether it is ethical to lie to them? it just seems to me that there are substantial ethical questions to wrestle with, as in almost every case in trying to figure out how to act ethically in a world that is often not ethical.

Also, I don't believe in inherent and absolute value. To me, value is a human concept that can change based on human perception and action.