For the record, the transcript is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqrggr1shrkzp ... s.pdf?dl=0
I have a beef with how this quote has been represented. I think Bill is misrepresenting the HC, but not that he's necessarily doing it intentionally.
And uh, but I believe now, that pretty much as you outlined every step of your presentation, If you take all that, there is no integrity left in the church. And so that's a problem. There are a lot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You've looked at sources as you've said on both sides, all the information there. It leaves the church with zero integrity.
First, "if you take all that" probably indicates that the following statements are conditional, not absolute. I think any honest interpretation has to admit that. Seeing it presented with certainty as an absolute statement bothers me.
Second, half of the HCs who are invited to give closing statements are supposed to speak on behalf of the accused. It's not at all clear to me that the HC quoted above represented Bill, but the chances are decent.
We might try to use council procedure to infer whether the HC was assigned to represent Bill, but that doesn't work out well. Here's how it's supposed to go:
1. The SP invites two, four or six HCs to give their views.
2. An HC assigned to represent the church speaks.
3. An HC assigned to represent the accused speaks.
(Repeat 2 and 3 as necessary.)
4. The accused speaks.
5. The council is adjourned.
The SP had asked whether the proceedings were fair to the church, which doesn't sound like requesting closing statements to me, and he asked for only three. But the statements occured in the correct place to be closing statements, because then the SP invited Bill to speak, the SP spoke, and the council was adjourned.
I think the HC was either assigned to represent Bill, or he followed the spirit of the law and represented Bill anyway. On that basis, I have a hard time seeing the HC's statement as a grand admission of guilt. Add to that its conditional nature, and it seems nearly impossible that it was.
We know the DC was a kangaroo court. The transcript additionally shows that it wasn't well-run. It also suggests that the SP thought that respecting time constraints was more important than protecting Bill, but not more important than protecting the church or bearing his own testimony. I can understand signing an NDA in bad faith given the nature of DCs for apostasy. Further, the NDA exists only to protect the church, which is the opposite of the reason Handbook 1 gives for confidentiality, which is to protect the accused. It's worth its weight in used toilet paper.
Still, if Bill wants to maintain his integrity, I think he has to correct himself on his probable misrepresentation.
You were born to trust, not fear. It is your birthright.