Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

[_Craig Paxton]

5. Spiritual Violence

Spiritual (or religious) violence occurs when someone uses a person’s spiritual beliefs to manipulate, dominate or control the person.

Spiritual violence includes, but is not limited to:
•Not allowing the person to follow her or his preferred spiritual or religious tradition;
•Forcing a spiritual or religious path or practice on another person;
•Belittling or making fun of a person’s spiritual or religious tradition, beliefs or practices; and,
•Using one’s spiritual or religious position, rituals or practices to manipulate, dominate or control a person.

Broken link and all, still sounds like touchy feely made-up bull ____.

But if you want to expand the use of violence to encompass things that are clearly not violent . . . I guess we can all be victims.

Do I really need to refer you to a Webster Dictionary? With all due respect, you’re just plain wrong insisting that spiritual violence isn’t a thing, or that spiritual violence isn’t really violent.

Please refer to definition “b”

violence noun
vi·​o·​lence | \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
Definition of violence
1a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

I repeat, church courts are spiritually violent.

[_Shinster]

The priest-penitent privilege is ALWAYS intended to protect the penitent, and NEVER the priest, NEVER the church. Attorney-client privilege, therapist-client privilege, doctor-client privilege, etc are ALL intended to protect client -- NOT the advisor. If, in any of these relationships, the priest, attorney, therapist, doctor, etc have something they need to keep confidential to protect themselves, there is something terribly wrong with that relationship.

The church is implying the sanctity of priest-penitent privilege while turning the concept on it's head and using it as a mechanism of abuse, control, and avoidance of accountability. The church's ethical duty is to protect the privacy of the person on trial. Period. The decision to record a church court is entirely up the person on trial. Period.

Despicable. God's church my a$$.

I agree with this.

1. It is always the penitent's privilege. If a penitent is on trial and the prosecutor calls the priest to testify as to what the penitent confessed, the penitent may claim the privilege so as to not allow the priest to testify.

If the priest is on trial and the penitent is called to testify to saucy comments made by the priest during the confessional, the priest may not claim the privilege.

2. The privilege exists only so long as the communication is private and privileged. If there is another person in the room during such confession, there is no privilege. The communication itself must be given in such a way as to bear the hallmarks of confidentiality in the first instance, or there is no privilege. The Catholic confessional is the classic instance of this.

But where Bill is in a room with numerous others, which he will be, the communication is not confidential at its outset, and therefore there is no privilege.

3. Bill is not confessing anything! This is not about using anything Bill confesses to against him! There is no privilege.

4. Finally, the "contract" Bill is required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary council is not binding because Bill is not being given anything in exchange for his signature. NDA's are enforceable as a legally binding contract because money is changing hands; there is a settlement given in exchange for the signature on the NDA.

If Bill is receiving no money, or anything else of benefit in exchange for signing what is effectively an NDA, it is void and legally unenforceable.

And I would love to see the church argue that Bill received something of benefit by being allowed entrance into the room where he is being excommunicated.

Just my two cents.

I'm sure Bill has read this, but I want to re-up this comment.

Please, Bill, think about recording this meeting.

P.S. mcjathan, that is a great comment. I wish I had written it myself.

[_sunstoned]

Mormon stories has just posted a podcast interview with Bill Reel. It is labeled his pre-excommunication interview. His excommunication "court" is scheduled for tomorrow night (November 27th) at 8:30.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/b ... 5oi8_1X7sE

[_I have a question]

I'm still of the opinion that any acquiescence to this process on the part of Bill is lending credibility to the process itself and the participants. Being part of the Church of people who follow Christ isn't conditional upon ones status on the membership roll of an institution that claims to be the arbiter of all things Jesus. I'd be tempted to blank the entire process and carry on as if my status hasn't changed. because in all meaningful ways, it hasn't.

[_toon]

Do I really need to refer you to a Webster Dictionary? With all due respect, you’re just plain wrong insisting that spiritual violence isn’t a thing, or that spiritual violence isn’t really violent.

Please refer to definition “b”

violence noun
vi·​o·​lence | \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
Definition of violence
1a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

I repeat, church courts are spiritually violent.

So (b) defines the term by using the term. That's not helpful. I suspect, however, that the use of the term in (b) refers back to (a), in that a violent treatment or procedure still must involve some use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

So, as I asked above, why the hyperbole or figurative use, when there are more accurate terms to describe the situation?

[_Craig Paxton]

Do I really need to refer you to a Webster Dictionary? With all due respect, you’re just plain wrong insisting that spiritual violence isn’t a thing, or that spiritual violence isn’t really violent.

Please refer to definition “b”

violence noun
vi·​o·​lence | \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
Definition of violence
1a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

I repeat, church courts are spiritually violent.

So (b) defines the term by using the term. That's not helpful. I suspect, however, that the use of the term in (b) refers back to (a), in that a violent treatment or procedure still must involve some use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

So, as I asked above, why the hyperbole or figurative use, when there are more accurate terms to describe the situation?

Well I will give you this...you are unrelenting. Might I suggest you take up your fight with Merriam-Webster.

[_candygal]

In a Mormon world:

If there is no spiritual violence...all that Christ went through before the Cross was all for naught.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just as a matter of possible interest, Sam Young is going to go there and says he'll live stream on Facebook after it's over.

[_Jersey Girl]

Protect LDS Children
18 mins ·

Tim and I are on our way to support our friend Bill Reel. The Mormon kangaroo court begins at 8:30pm. We'll be waiting outside until the tribunal's bitter end.

Sometime tonight we plan to broadcast by Facebook live.

[_toon]

Well I will give you this...you are unrelenting. Might I suggest you take up your fight with Merriam-Webster.

When violence means violent treatment, absent anything else, then what does it mean? I guess we could go to what "violent" means.

Miriam-Webster:

violent adjective
vi·​o·​lent | \ˈvī-ə-lənt \
Definition of violent
1a(1) : marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force
a violent attack
violent crime
The peaceful demonstration turned violent.

(2) : showing or including violence
violent movies

b : extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage
violent storms
violent coughing
2 : caused by physical force or violence : not natural
a violent death
3a : emotionally agitated to the point of using harmful physical force
became violent after an insult
b : prone to commit acts of violence
violent prison inmates
4a : notably forceful, furious, or vehement
a violent argument
a violent denunciation
b : EXTREME, INTENSE
violent pain
violent colors

So, i guess, when you get to 4(a) and (b), you get to figurative meanings.

So, given the connotations of violence or violent, even when used figuratively, why not use a more apt term, like abusive or manipulative, rather than one that is likely to be misunderstood and is typically associated with some physical action and harm?

I guess if you want to use the most extreme characterization, taking the exmormon reddit tribal approach, then violence it is.