Audio of Bill Reel's Disciplinary Council

[_Kishkumen]

I have to agree with you, Craig. It’s obvious he had a hidden mic on him when he signed the NDA. His integrity can also be impugned while he is attacking the integrity of the Church.

Is excommunication a Badge of Honor to these guys? It seems like martyrdom to me. If I was called into a CoL, I would have simply sent them my resignation letter. Done. The End. If I felt a need to verbally interact with them, I would have attended, said my peace, then handed them my resignation. I don’t personally get allowing them to throw me out with a scarlet stain of supposedly righteous rejection, especially in Mormonville, when I could have FIRED them. It appears to be all for show and effect.

To each his own though ....

Bill Reel:

A lot of folks encouraged me to resign but I went out doing what I have always done which is being a voice for those who for one reason or another don’t have a voice, standing up against the the dishonest telling of our narrative, and shining a light on leaders who lie and deceive in order to protect their authority.

Here we see why it was important to Bill to go record his prepared diatribe. He felt he was a proxy for the kinds of people who have been contacting him over the years. This really is a staged drama, starring Bill Reel, crusader for justice and truth. Fair enough. He is right about the narrative not being factual, kind of like the Christ story. He is right about Holland telling bogus faith promoting stories and inflating statistics. I find these observations banal. They make for good podcast fodder, but do they rise to the level of disciplinary drama?

I suppose that is a question for the apostles to ask themselves. In our technological era, this stuff is obviously going to happen. Self-appointed crusader plays a game of chicken with church leaders, the church blinks and pulls the trigger on a DC, where the crusader gets the payoff of a recorded Abinadi speech calling the church to repentance. Church predictably ex-communicates crusader, creating a new ex-Mo martyr.

Is this still worth it to the LDS Church? They may have to find a different way. It looks like the research is showing this backfires. I would be tempted to simply inform the guy by letter that he has been ex-communicated for persisting in his activities after being counseled against it. Maybe the time for disciplinary councils for such people has passed. There may be other circumstances in which this would not be so costly, but the DC for a podcasting truth crusader is just a bad idea.

[_Dr Exiled]

I could be talking about politics and the underlying principles would be essentially the same.

This is a key point. Tribalism seems to be alive and well in spirit paradise ....

[_Dr Exiled]

Is this still worth it to the LDS Church? They may have to find a different way. It looks like the research is showing this backfires. I would be tempted to simply inform the guy by letter that he has been ex-communicated for persisting in his activities after being counseled against it. Maybe the time for disciplinary councils for such people has passed. There may be other circumstances in which this would not be so costly, but the DC for a podcasting truth crusader is just a bad idea.

The church cannot afford to accept alternative narratives at this point because their authority depends on it. Joseph Smith claimed to have had actual plates and that there were real live lamanites that needed converting (then he wanted to marry the converted lamanite women, even so, he still believed in actual lamanites). He made the dubious claim to have received his authority directly from biblical apostles, etc., etc. It demands a huge sacrifice of time and money that wouldn't be worth it to too many if the church admitted or tolerated the current narrative being exposed. So, out with those with public followings.

[_consiglieri]

You're next, consiglieri.

Bring it on, bad boy!

Now, were those Dobermans or Rottweilers that attacked those poor missionaries in southern California when tracting out the Hell's Angels clubhouse?

[_I have a question]

Now, were those Dobermans or Rottweilers that attacked those poor missionaries in southern California when tracting out the Hell's Angels clubhouse?

Whatever species they were, they were on the wrong road...

[_sunstoned]

John Dehlin just interviewed Bill Reel today. This of course is post-court. Bill goes through his court experience in deal. He said that he was not the one who recorded the court proceedings. The recording is on Dehlin's Facebook site.

https://www.Facebook.com/drjohndehlin/

[_Kishkumen]

John Dehlin just interviewed Bill Reel today. This of course is post-court. Bill goes through his court experience in deal. He said that he was not the one who recorded the court proceedings. The recording is on Dehlin's Facebook site.

https://www.Facebook.com/drjohndehlin/

Thanks for the news. It does not matter that he did not record it personally if he was complicit in the recording. Maybe as a matter of legal technicality it matters, but I would say that ethically it does not. Norton was boasting about his friendship with Reel a week before the court, and I sincerely doubt Reel was ignorant of the fact Norton would be trespassing and recording the DC.

[_Equality]

The NDA is not worth the paper it was printed on. First, to be a valid contract there must be a meeting of the minds; i.e., all the parties to the contract must be freely entering into it. Where there is an absence of this, and where the church is solely dictating the terms of the contract, the law has a word for that: unconscionable. Second, there must be consideration for the promises given. The church gave no consideration, not even a peppercorn, for Bill's promise. Because there was a lack of mutuality and no consideration for the "contract" the church attempted to force on Bill, the contract is a legal nullity, and there is no ethical duty for a party to bind himself to perform a legally deficient and, therefore, non-binding agreement.

The only party acting unethically here is the church, which tries to turn the clergy-penitent confidentiality privilege on its head. The penitent is the one with the privilege of confidentiality, not the clergy.

[_I have a question]

John Dehlin just interviewed Bill Reel today. This of course is post-court. Bill goes through his court experience in deal. He said that he was not the one who recorded the court proceedings. The recording is on Dehlin's Facebook site.

https://www.Facebook.com/drjohndehlin/

Thanks for the news. It does not matter that he did not record it personally if he was complicit in the recording. Maybe as a matter of legal technicality it matters, but I would say that ethically it does not. Norton was boasting about his friendship with Reel a week before the court, and I sincerely doubt Reel was ignorant of the fact Norton would be trespassing and recording the DC.

I agree. It's disappointing that Bill went down that road. It's like Nixon claiming he didn't break into the Watergate building.

[_toon]

The NDA is not worth the paper it was printed on. First, to be a valid contract there must be a meeting of the minds; i.e., all the parties to the contract must be freely entering into it. Where there is an absence of this, and where the church is solely dictating the terms of the contract, the law has a word for that: unconscionable. Second, there must be consideration for the promises given. The church gave no consideration, not even a peppercorn, for Bill's promise. Because there was a lack of mutuality and no consideration for the "contract" the church attempted to force on Bill, the contract is a legal nullity, and there is no ethical duty for a party to bind himself to perform a legally deficient and, therefore, non-binding agreement.

The only party acting unethically here is the church, which tries to turn the clergy-penitent confidentiality privilege on its head. The penitent is the one with the privilege of confidentiality, not the clergy.

Perhaps the NDA is unenforceable, both legally and practically.

But I'm not sold by your analysis. Reel had no enforceable legal right to be present. The church could have proceeded without him there and excommunicated him, and he would have had no legal recourse. So it would be difficult to claim that this is a contract of adhesion. Likewise, allowing him to be present is consideration, as consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If Reel saw value in being present, which I think is clear given how much he's since milked the event, then I don't see how that couldn't be considered sufficient consideration.

But even if it isn't enforceable, Reel's integrity here is still in question to the extent he was complicit in the recording. He promised not to record, and if he was complicit, he broke that promise.

Also, I think you misunderstand what the priest-penitent privilege is about.