NOM

Below is the money quote from one of the high councilmen at Bill Reel's disciplinary hearing last Tuesday night.

The context for this quote is that it is toward the end of the hearing.

Several high councilmen are asked by the stake president to render their opinion on whether the proceedings have been fair to Bill Reel. All say yes.

Then several high councilmen are asked by the stake president to render their opinion on whether the proceedings have been fair to the church.

That is when one high councilman drops this bombshell.

Yeah, I think this has been an opportunity to understand your point of view. I think that the purpose of the council, as was mentioned at the first—your integrity is not in question at all. It isn’t. The purpose of this council is to look at protecting the integrity of the church. And you mentioned that as well. And uh, but I believe that pretty much as you outlined every step of your presentation—if all that stuff (indistinguishable] there is no integrity left in the church. And so [indistinguishable] There are a lot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You’ve looked at sources as you’ve said [indistinguishable] All the information there leaves the church with zero integrity.

Amen RFM. Hope we can get more details in the future if BR chooses to reveal them.

Do you anticipate the church adjusting its procedures on DC's for apostasy based on this profound event? I can't imagine any SP who would want to expose his church broke leaders to this stuff.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:34 am

I can't imagine any SP who would want to expose his church broke leaders to this stuff.

I agree. I can totally see them making adjustments to how they handle these situations in the future. BR broke some new ground here by laying it all out in a way that showed he had integrity with sincere and real factual issues on the table in a very fair and well presented manner. He was fortunate his local leaders allowed that as I'm sure this is not often the case. But with their current handbook procedures they are painted into a corner. Either it looks and smells like a kangaroo because they handle it badly or the evidence get's put on the table for all to see and shakes things up, like it did in this case. If the COB changes policy and procedure they look bad like they refuse to face up to the truth. If local leaders try to take it head on, the "just have faith" mantra looks like a poor response. Church loses either way.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:23 am

Below is the money quote from one of the high councilmen at Bill Reel's disciplinary hearing last Tuesday night.

The context for this quote is that it is toward the end of the hearing.

Several high councilmen are asked by the stake president to render their opinion on whether the proceedings have been fair to Bill Reel. All say yes.

Then several high councilmen are asked by the stake president to render their opinion on whether the proceedings have been fair to the church.

That is when one high councilman drops this bombshell.

Yeah, I think this has been an opportunity to understand your point of view. I think that the purpose of the council, as was mentioned at the first—your integrity is not in question at all. It isn’t. The purpose of this council is to look at protecting the integrity of the church. And you mentioned that as well. And uh, but I believe that pretty much as you outlined every step of your presentation—if all that stuff (indistinguishable] there is no integrity left in the church. And so [indistinguishable] There are a lot of nuances there. You are a very intelligent man. You’ve looked at sources as you’ve said [indistinguishable] All the information there leaves the church with zero integrity.

Does this mean you recorded the meeting? And if so are you planning to release the recording?

All the best,
Bob

I know that Bill promised to not record the meeting. I would likely have been the bad guy and made sure that a recording happened through some nefarious means.

Strangely, the document Bill was required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary hearing appears to make no mention of a promise to not record the proceedings . . .

IOW there is nothing to protect. Well said anonymous high councilman.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:24 am

Strangely, the document Bill was required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary hearing appears to make no mention of a promise to not record the proceedings . . .

Below is a transcript of the entirety of the document participants at the disciplinary council were required to sign.

See if you can find any promise that the participants not record the proceedings.

Confidentiality Agreement and Acknowledgement

By signing this document, I acknowledge and agree to the following:
• I acknowledge that disciplinary councils in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are considered sacred and confidential. Therefore, participants are not allowed to make recordings of the proceedings, or to otherwise disclose or transmit the substance of the proceedings.
• I agree that I will not make use of any audio, video recording, or transmission of the entire meeting or the disciplinary council.
• I acknowledge that I have been asked not to make or permit anyone else to make any electronic transmission or any compilation of this disciplinary council.
• I acknowledge and agree that my participation in the disciplinary council is conditioned on this agreement and I will not be allowed to be present at the council if I do not sign this Acknowledgement and Agreement.

[Signature Lines in two columns]

Ummmm, what? Am I missing something? The document clearly says you can't record the meeting, or make any of it public.

If we have a copy of the signature line it probably is signed Paul Blart or something like that. Just because there is an audio recording doesn’t mean it was recorded by Bill.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:56 am

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:24 am

Strangely, the document Bill was required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary hearing appears to make no mention of a promise to not record the proceedings . . .

Below is a transcript of the entirety of the document participants at the disciplinary council were required to sign.

See if you can find any promise that the participants not record the proceedings.

Confidentiality Agreement and Acknowledgement

By signing this document, I acknowledge and agree to the following:

• I agree that I will not make use of any audio, video recording, or transmission of the entire meeting or the disciplinary council.
• I acknowledge that I have been asked not to make or permit anyone else to make any electronic transmission or any compilation of this disciplinary council.
• I acknowledge and agree that my participation in the disciplinary council is conditioned on this agreement and I will not be allowed to be present at the council if I do not sign this Acknowledgement and Agreement.

[Signature Lines in two columns]

Ok, I feel dumb but the line where it says:

I acknowledge that disciplinary councils in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are considered sacred and confidential. Therefore, participants are not allowed to make recordings of the proceedings, or to otherwise disclose or transmit the substance of the proceedings.

Is there some reason that this does not qualify as a directive to not record it?

One of the things that is interesting is that the church wants to use a legal means to prevent someone from recording the council. However, the church would also balk if that person (BR) said: "I'm not signing anything until I've had my attorney look it over and advise me."

By there being a recording made, I suppose the church would get all huffy about it and perhaps threaten something....but what a mess that would make! Can you imagine the church getting into a legal battle over this?...with little Bill Reel?

This makes me laugh.

If Bill signed it, he did it under duress....and THAT can in itself cause a skirmish.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:56 am

• I acknowledge that disciplinary councils in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are considered sacred and confidential. Therefore, participants are not allowed to make recordings of the proceedings, or to otherwise disclose or transmit the substance of the proceedings.

This at face value is a lie. There would have been a clerk in that room TAKING NOTES. Was he not a participant? Will he not "transmit the substance of the proceedings" to the COB?

I guess I just don't understand this.

I agree that I will not make use of any audio, video recording, or transmission of the entire meeting or the disciplinary council.

I can see a possible weakness that it does not say "entire meeting or any portion thereof." Is that the loophole?

Either way, if Bill did make a recording and if he releases it isn't there some danger of people saying, "well, so much for this integrity we've been hearing about." If someone else made the recording that's a different story, of course.

I'm guessing Mike Norton bugged the room. He posted video on FB of KULT news reporting as he walked through the building.

"Let's get out of here, this place gives me the creeps!"

https://www.facebook.com/10000949064507 ... 18/?type=3

If not Mike Norton, then someone else recorded from outside with standard recording equipment you can buy off the internet.

It's probably safe to say Bill Reel didn't record it, but someone did.

Consig, can NOM have the exclusive transcript dropped here first? That would be cool.

When someone on FB suggested bugging the room, Mike actually responded that it would be illegal and he did not recommend anyone do so. I think he figured out a way to record it, certainly, but I don’t know if that was the approach.

If so, congratulations on the set he carries around every day.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:41 pm

Consig, can NOM have the exclusive transcript dropped here first? That would be cool.

Keep your eyes on Bill's Facebook page.

Tick tick tick ...

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.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:34 am

Do you anticipate the church adjusting its procedures on DC's for apostasy based on this profound event? I can't imagine any SP who would want to expose his church broke leaders to this stuff.

Potentially, the Church could seek to insulate the local membership from being exposed to heretical ideas by sending in a trio of Church Inquisitors to render the excommunication verdict. That way they can get the intended results and not risk unintended consequences.



Our verdict is as follows: Excommunicate! Excommunicate! Excommunicate!

This trio of Church Inquisitors could even sense recording devices and eliminate them as necessary.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:17 pm

I agree that I will not make use of any audio, video recording, or transmission of the entire meeting or the disciplinary council.

I can see a possible weakness that it does not say "entire meeting or any portion thereof." Is that the loophole?

Either way, if Bill did make a recording and if he releases it isn't there some danger of people saying, "well, so much for this integrity we've been hearing about." If someone else made the recording that's a different story, of course.

Yes! This is exactly what struck me as I read through the purported NDA.

There is an "acknowledgment" that the councils are "sacred" and "participants are not allowed to make recordings."

But the only actual binding agreement on the NDA is to "not make use of any audio, video recording, or transmission of the entire meeting or the disciplinary council."

And that is if you consider an agreement "binding" when the one being disciplined is forced to sign the document as a condition precedent to attending his own disciplinary council.

I suspect this was not drafted by Kirton-McConkie.

And should it ever come to a point where this document has to be interpreted by a judge, the standard rule is that, in the case of any ambiguities, such ambiguities are construed against the party that drafted the document.