I couldn't resist doing that. But thanks also for the article.
Reel is another in a long series. He started out trying to defend the church but over time was forced by honesty to acknowledge errors and eventually to become quite critical. Because he had a public following, the corporate executives have to excommunicate him.
Apologetics is a fraught business. You start out on the church's side and then either are turned into a pretzel by the changing doctrines and policies or maintain your integrity and are ostracized.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2018 02:57AM by Lot's Wife.
"Therefore, your in-person participation in the council is conditioned upon your signing a confidentiality agreement. This agreement will state that no part of the council proceedings will be recorded or made public in any way."
So, IF a person refuses/ declines to sign the NDA, how does LD$ Inc follow up? By Ex Comming the subject anyway as punishment for not co operating ?
So, IF a person does sign the NDA, after the subject person has been disciplined to the fullest extent possible, and the person then discloses what happened in the proceeding, how does LD$ inc follow up? with further disciplinary action? by excomming the subject again ?
Or, if you feel a need to respond, just send a letter back to them telling them that you don't recognize their authority to make any decisions and you will decide when and if you want to be excommunicated.
The whole thing is a joke.
He was already out of the belief system for all practical purposes. Excommunication is a shaming tool that only works on people who are scared of what their friends and family will think.
This guy had already declared, in so many words, that he's not a TBM. Everyone that matters to him presumably knew.
Is he now worried about not being able to take the sacrament? Is he concerned about not being able to go to the International House of Handshakes?
Now he says he has "found his way forward and found a renewed faith". That bit doesn't really make any sense. Once you've realized that Joseph Smith didn't really see an angel with a sword telling him that he had to sleep around with other women, how do you suddenly unsee that and end up with a "renewed faith" whatever that is?
Maybe he liked having a niche of being a rebellious insider and now that they're threatening to make him an outsider, he wants to pull back enough that they'll let him continue being an insider.
This is your brain: picture of a clean, well-formed egg.
This is your brain on Mormonism: picture of an egg being scrambled together with dust bunnies, cheerios and bird droppings.
This requirement to sign an NDA in order to be allowed to show up at your own church court seems very wrong. I would respond that I very much want to attend the church court but that I will not sign the NDA. I would tell them that those proceedings are only private if I want them to be private, and that I want them to be very public, not private. I would then tell them that I intend to be there but that I will not sign the NDA and that if they don't allow me to attend and participate in my own defense and to do it publicly, that I will sue the Stake and the church corporation for violating my rights. The church has no rights to privacy if they intend to act in private with participants who were coerced and threatened, and to the detriment of the coerced and threatened participant. Let the rest of the world decide if there was a kangaroo court or not. Let the rest of the world decide if it was a court of love or not a court of love. I would have my attorney send that letter with a stern warning of the impending law suit if they violate my legal rights. Let the courts of law set the precedent on this issue like they set about the church not being allowed to excommunicate those who submit resignations of their church membership. From a business perspective, this forced NDA idea is so wrong. The only way it would be legal is if it were a requirement that you sign an NDA before you can be baptized. And I dare them to try doing that. The person should at least get a copy of the NDA that the church wants them to sign, and make that document public.
Another strategy might be to sign the agreement and then secretly record and release the recording to the media and online, telling everyone that you did sign it but that the NDA is not legally valid because you were coerced and threatened with consequences that you could not defend against, unless you signed. Let the church sue you then if they think they can. Make that trial public also.
Let's say that you are black and that your supervisor at work screamed racial obscenities at you (used the 'N-word' amongst those obscenities) and that you told this supervisor that he can't use those personal insults on you. So he wrote you up for insubordination. A few days later, you get a notice from the HR department that you might be fired but that they want to hear your side of the story before they make a decision. But you can only attend that meeting if you will sign an NDA before the meeting with them. Maybe they want you to waive your rights to sue the company also. I don't think so. In a court of law, you could use the fact that you were not allowed to attend that meeting, against them. Their feeble attempt to get you to sign a document would only make them look bad.
Being a member of the Mormon church is not a good thing for any one. You really should resign if you are a member and haven't resigned yet. But the Mormon organization is very dirty from a moral perspective. They have no moral right to kick anyone out for complaining publicly about just how dirty and corrupt the Mormon church is. Resigning from a job is a completely different thing than being fired for cause, especially when the claim of so-called 'cause' is un-just. The same goes for your church. You really should resign from mormonism. But they shouldn't be able to fire you for un-just causes. If you point out their flaws to the public, they should apologize to you and fix those problems going forward. But the Mormon church will never apologize nor fix their morally broken social/eccliastical machine. So they need to be outed and abandoned by their members as a result. If they fight-back and play dirty, make them pay for it.... in cold hard cash and through the public humiliation they bring upon themselves in the process.
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2018 08:24AM by azsteve.
I looked it up. It appears that Utah is a one-party consent state, meaning the person in a trial could record the court hearing. The church has tried to get the law changed to require two-party consent, but that appears not to have happened (yet).
It appears that Reel or anyone else could agree to keep it confidential and then record it anyway. If the church wants to write up an NDA, people could provide the document to the media and thereby embarrass the church badly.
I also wonder if such an NDA would be legally enforceable. I'm not an expert, but there doesn't seem to be any quid pro the quo, if I can put it that way.
I would promise to keep it confidential and then break my promise. The church does that to members all the time.
a person targeted for excommunication may as well declare him or herself to be the boss of the people who are pretending to be the bosses. Just for fun.
Old Bosses: "We invite you to a 'Court of Love', to review your conduct and make a determination regarding your status as a member."
New Boss: "Sorry, you can't do that. God revealed to me that I am now the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Top President Guy with the Keys of Priesthood Revocation. I hereby revoke your priesthood authority and declare all of you to be excommunicated. You may appeal your excommunication at a special 'Court of Tepid Affection' that will be convened at the FunTimes Bowling Alley on 55th Street next week. Be there or be square...and excommunicated forever. Cash indulgences may be taken into account before a final determination is made concerning your status as members."