NOM

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:44 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:27 pm

MoPag wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:34 pm That is awesome! I'm glad you and Hermey got to go and represent NOM.

And Rob4Hope was able to catch a ride with Dehlin.

Did John ask him to pay for the gas and a hotel through donations to the OSF?

You are all funny.....

Anyway...there was a pretty good group of "who's who" down there on this. John and the "van crowd" did discuss things going down and back. Got to meet with Bill on 3 different occasions, one being a more restricted group setting. And I agree that, from Bill's perspective, there were some shelves loaded up in that meeting.

My expectation is he will get the normal Exed letter, but I think there will be several people in that HC group who will eventually have their own shelves crack--if they haven't cracked already.

What Bill was able to do is move the burden of "integrity" off his own shoulders, and onto the shoulders of the DC group. I can't help but laugh when I read that--that disciplinary council now have to come to terms with the question: "Do we discipline Bill who told the truth, and as a result protect and indemnify the leadership who did tell lies?....and does that make us party to the lies?"

It sure does folks! The members of the disciplinary council NOW get to be parties to lies. And their own integrity is being flushed.

Isn't the LDS church just a jolly old group?

consiglieri wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 am The single dumbest thing a stake president could do is take all of his top leadership, stick them in one room behind closed doors, and give Bill Reel 60 minutes to say anything he wants to them!

Truth.

consiglieri wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 am The single dumbest thing a stake president could do is take all of his top leadership, stick them in one room behind closed doors, and give Bill Reel 60 minutes to say anything he wants to them!

So glad he did though. I'm hoping to hear some of the results of that transaction someday.

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:58 pm

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:54 am Apparently he laid out a pretty good case:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... e-charges/

And that would be the critical difference. As I understand it most SPs as a rule don't allow a member to actually mount a defense. They get shut down pretty quick.

SPs and HCs exist to tell you what's going to happen, not to listen to what you think is happening. Their job is to counsel, not be counseled.

I'm amazed that this SP may have actually given Bill a chance to make his case. Maybe there actually are some non puppets out there.

I brought this up with my semi-apologist nuanced believing friend. He is under the impression that the accused in a church court is always given an opportunity to defend themselves. I have never been involved in any disciplinary councils, can someone who has shed some light on this?

consiglieri wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 am The single dumbest thing a stake president could do is take all of his top leadership, stick them in one room behind closed doors, and give Bill Reel 60 minutes to say anything he wants to them!

It may be dumb, but it is what integrity demands when you convene a court to take away someone's eternal blessings.

Linked wrote:

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:58 pm

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:54 am Apparently he laid out a pretty good case:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... e-charges/

And that would be the critical difference. As I understand it most SPs as a rule don't allow a member to actually mount a defense. They get shut down pretty quick.

SPs and HCs exist to tell you what's going to happen, not to listen to what you think is happening. Their job is to counsel, not be counseled.

I'm amazed that this SP may have actually given Bill a chance to make his case. Maybe there actually are some non puppets out there.

I brought this up with my semi-apologist nuanced believing friend. He is under the impression that the accused in a church court is always given an opportunity to defend themselves. I have never been involved in any disciplinary councils, can someone who has shed some light on this?

In theory it is supposed to work according to what is laid out in the D&C where 6 of the HC draw lots to be the defense for the accused the other 6 are like prosecutors. In real life, the stake presidency lays out the charges, the accused is given time to speak, then the HC asks questions of the accused. After that the accused leave, the SP asks more questions of the HC and the SP leaves to deliberate/pray and comes back with a decision. The HC then is asked to sustain it. Accused is brought back in and decision and penalities/restrictions are announced. Accused goes around and awkwardly shakes hands and leaves.

In Bills case the decision was delayed to be delivered by letter later on.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:01 am

Linked wrote:

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:58 pm


And that would be the critical difference. As I understand it most SPs as a rule don't allow a member to actually mount a defense. They get shut down pretty quick.

SPs and HCs exist to tell you what's going to happen, not to listen to what you think is happening. Their job is to counsel, not be counseled.

I'm amazed that this SP may have actually given Bill a chance to make his case. Maybe there actually are some non puppets out there.

I brought this up with my semi-apologist nuanced believing friend. He is under the impression that the accused in a church court is always given an opportunity to defend themselves. I have never been involved in any disciplinary councils, can someone who has shed some light on this?

In theory it is supposed to work according to what is laid out in the D&C where 6 of the HC draw lots to be the defense for the accused the other 6 are like prosecutors. In real life, the stake presidency lays out the charges, the accused is given time to speak, then the HC asks questions of the accused. After that the accused leave, the SP asks more questions of the HC and the SP leaves to deliberate/pray and comes back with a decision. The HC then is asked to sustain it. Accused is brought back in and decision and penalities/restrictions are announced. Accused goes around and awkwardly shakes hands and leaves.

In Bills case the decision was delayed to be delivered by letter later on.

Thanks for the response. Are there times where the accused was not given time to speak?

Linked wrote:

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:01 am

Linked wrote: I brought this up with my semi-apologist nuanced believing friend. He is under the impression that the accused in a church court is always given an opportunity to defend themselves. I have never been involved in any disciplinary councils, can someone who has shed some light on this?

In theory it is supposed to work according to what is laid out in the D&C where 6 of the HC draw lots to be the defense for the accused the other 6 are like prosecutors. In real life, the stake presidency lays out the charges, the accused is given time to speak, then the HC asks questions of the accused. After that the accused leave, the SP asks more questions of the HC and the SP leaves to deliberate/pray and comes back with a decision. The HC then is asked to sustain it. Accused is brought back in and decision and penalities/restrictions are announced. Accused goes around and awkwardly shakes hands and leaves.

In Bills case the decision was delayed to be delivered by letter later on.

Thanks for the response. Are there times where the accused was not given time to speak?

Not that I have heard of or experienced. Any case where the accused doesn't show up would probably count for that scenario.

I think it was gracious for the SP to allow Bill the amount of time he had, and to allow his wife to speak as well.

Truth be told, of all the courts I'm familiar with, this was one of the most gracious ones I've encountered. Its also a sign that the SP is, in some way, cutting his own pathway. I expect when all is said and done Bill will be excommunicated still,...but there is a growing move toward being open about the data.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out when its finally over.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:21 am Not that I have heard of or experienced. Any case where the accused doesn't show up would probably count for that scenario.

This is only anecdotal but I have heard of courts where time was given for the accused to make their case but when they began to lay out the historical problems they were shut down because the problems were, at that time, considered untrue, so the council (or SP) refused to hear them.

I'm not sure but it might have been the Lyndon Lamborn case? He wrote a book describing the ordeal he went through. It was ugly...

The church has changed it's tune somewhat since then seeing that particular case was just a harbinger of things to come. I think they have softened slightly because they are beginning to understand they're on the wrong side of history here.... literally.

Linked wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:10 am

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:01 am

Linked wrote:
I brought this up with my semi-apologist nuanced believing friend. He is under the impression that the accused in a church court is always given an opportunity to defend themselves. I have never been involved in any disciplinary councils, can someone who has shed some light on this?

In theory it is supposed to work according to what is laid out in the D&C where 6 of the HC draw lots to be the defense for the accused the other 6 are like prosecutors. In real life, the stake presidency lays out the charges, the accused is given time to speak, then the HC asks questions of the accused. After that the accused leave, the SP asks more questions of the HC and the SP leaves to deliberate/pray and comes back with a decision. The HC then is asked to sustain it. Accused is brought back in and decision and penalities/restrictions are announced. Accused goes around and awkwardly shakes hands and leaves.

In Bills case the decision was delayed to be delivered by letter later on.

Thanks for the response. Are there times where the accused was not given time to speak?

Watch Jeremy Runnell's tribunal and I think you will see that was the case.

The verdict was announced today. I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count...

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... hRN80HDSqo

Just read the post you linked to and shared my love and understanding to Bill. He is a GREAT and kind man. And, I don't think his influence is gunna wane. Like John Dehlin, it will continue. As time passes, more and more of these high-profile people will continue to be pushed out, and their collective voice, with the voices of the others, will NOT be good for the church.

Bill has sent in his appeal. Considering one of the people voting on it has his integrity called out by Bill, It's pretty clear that this has about a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... residency/

On one hand, it seems like he is beating a dead horse. On the other, he does clearly seem to have some sort of end game in mind here. It looks like he is framing this whole thing to clearly show that the church values sucking up above truth and honesty. I guess the next question is where will he go from here once he establishes that the Q15 are not for truth as they claim?

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:54 am It looks like he is framing this whole thing to clearly show that the church values sucking up above truth and honesty.

He already got his SP to clearly state that we must always side with the authorities, even when we know they are lying. I think the purpose of the appeal is to underscore that concept as clearly as possible:

1- Our leaders lie to us
2- They cannot be held accountable
3- Shame and expulsion for those who expect honesty and accountability from our leaders

I am supposing that there is a thread on NOM somewhere that talks about the recording from the court. I'm glad that someone recorded it.

I wish I had kept up on this. I think I may have been able to find a ride to the building (and if it was in Washington, there's a slim chance I could have walked to it, though I suspect it was not at a stake center that close to me). I would have liked to have been there in support of a fellow NOM member (member of this forum, not of the church).