Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t disagree. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem correct to say the disciplinary council is being held to see if he has broken his covenants.

I was speaking generically iirc and I believe in some cases this will be true, in others it won't be.

Apostasy is a big accusation and I would hope that leaders spend a lot of time with the person prior to coming to this conclusion in most cases, so chances are in most cases the leaders will already know what the person's position is well enough beforehand.  In a few (percentagewise), it will be drawn from just the public record as there is no chance to speak to the person and the D.C. will be about whether the member stands by that record or is willing to retract it if they are willing to attend.

[strappinglad]

In the world of " stories" as told by speakers, there are stories , true stories, and really true stories. J Golden Kimball had lots of stories that he told and were told about him. I wonder which category many of them fit in. If Bill were actively seeking fibs in J Golden's era, it would be open field running.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

In the world of " stories" as told by speakers, there are stories , true stories, and really true stories. J Golden Kimball had lots of stories that he told and were told about him. I wonder which category many of them fit in. If Bill were actively seeking fibs in J Golden's era, it would be open field running.

And J. Golden wouldn't give a damn! 🤣

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was speaking generically iirc and I believe in some cases this will be true, in others it won't be.

Apostasy is a big accusation and I would hope that leaders spend a lot of time with the person prior to coming to this conclusion in most cases, so chances are in most cases the leaders will already know what the person's position is well enough beforehand.  In a few (percentagewise), it will be drawn from just the public record as there is no chance to speak to the person and the D.C. will be about whether the member stands by that record or is willing to retract it if they are willing to attend.

At a minimum, it allows the person the opportunity to formally answer the charges and respond to them. 

In an apostasy case, the person has been given opportunities to "cease and desist." It is the defiant continuance after the ultimatums are given that usually triggers the DC. From a human nature standpoint, it is very difficult to back down at this point (doubly so if you are a podcaster and are playing to your audience) because of face-saving. It would take a lot of humility and a strong desire to stay in the Church (even at the cost of your pride) and make amends to stop the process at that point.  

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

You know. I am really starting to laugh at all these things. Outside of the Mountain west and a few apologists, nobody in the world pays any attention to things like this. Ask your average person in Dallas or New York or anywhere else and if they even know what a Mormon is, they would think its funny that people fight about stuff like this. Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

You are so correct on this.  

[smac97]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

You know. I am really starting to laugh at all these things. Outside of the Mountain west and a few apologists, nobody in the world pays any attention to things like this. Ask your average person in Dallas or New York or anywhere else and if they even know what a Mormon is, they would think its funny that people fight about stuff like this. Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

The average person in the Mountain west doesn't know Bill Reel, either. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

You're right about the name!

But there are a lot of problems, errors and inconsistencies with the story as told in conference. 

Here's a good overview of these and it's interesting read:

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/28/fact-vs-fiction-john-rowe-moyle/

It certainly made a great faith promoting story though and I get that.

ETA:

This was stated in a comment on this blog:

Does anyone know more about this regarding Moyle?  (I was kind of skipping around the comments, so I'll keep looking too).  

Meh. 

[Mystery Meat]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The average person in the Mountain west doesn't know Bill Reel, either. 

Thanks,

-Smac

1

He is too busy trying to feel superior to us dumb Mountain West Mormons who take themselves too seriously.

The scriptures clearly say that the way to build Zion is to mock and belittle other members of the church if you recall.

If only us stupid, Utah Mormons were as smart and savvy as our Mormon superiors in the Mission Field.

If only...

Edited August 1, 2018 by Mystery Meat

[Michael Sudworth]

6 hours ago, mnn727 said:

You know. I am really starting to laugh at all these things. Outside of the Mountain west and a few apologists, nobody in the world pays any attention to things like this. Ask your average person in Dallas or New York or anywhere else and if they even know what a Mormon is, they would think its funny that people fight about stuff like this. 

Hello MNM

I don't think your logic here is sound.

Simply because something isn't widely known, doesn't mean it doesn't have significant impact on the lives of those involved.  This thread is 11 pages in, after all, so certainly there are folks who have feelings one way or the other about Brother Reel.

Quote

Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

Who are we to tell others what relationship they should have with the Church?  I have a good friend who grew up in SLC back in the 50's and 60's.  This person isn't a believing member, maybe shows up to Church once every couple of years for a baby blessing.

Yet, this person still considers themselves Mormon and they have a great appreciation for the culture and values this person was raised with.  

There is much to love about the LDS Church  even if one doubts or disbelieves.  I don't think we should shut the door on anyone.

Having said that, Brother Reel -- much like John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, and the Toscanos -- has been poking the Church for years.  He knew it would come to this, and I suspect that is what he wants.  Brother Reel will be lauded in the exmo community for a while.  But it will fade.

If folks buy into this manufactured theatre as if it is real,  then they are pretty dimwitted.

[Rain]

15 hours ago, mnn727 said:

You know. I am really starting to laugh at all these things. Outside of the Mountain west and a few apologists, nobody in the world pays any attention to things like this. Ask your average person in Dallas or New York or anywhere else and if they even know what a Mormon is, they would think its funny that people fight about stuff like this. Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

The average person in the Mountain west doesn't know Bill Reel, either. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I had never heard of him when I lived in Utah. Never heard of him on any of my other LDS based boards over the years. Never heard of him in AZ since I have been here. The only place I have heard of him is through this board.

I have never figured out why some people who live outside of Utah feel the need to tear down Utah/mountain west/mormon corridor, especially when everything that people in Utah are accused of can be found outside of it as well.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Rain

[Calm]

Quote

Who are we to tell others what relationship they should have with the Church? 

I don't think anyone has a right to define someone's relationship with the Church.

The Church (which as a community has given authority to its leaders to speak for it) also has the right to define its relationship with people, whether or not it accepts them as members and what it requires of people to be so.

Many members believe our leaders are inspired in how they determine the requirements.  I think one can debate the inspiration, but it is ridiculous to debate the right of a private organization to define who gets to belong to it...and take the consequences of that definition, good and bad.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

Can't feelings be illusory too?  Many have gone after nonsense over the years because their gut told them to do it.  I had a client (here in Las Vegas) once claim that she had this magical way of walking into some random bar sitting down and then hitting a royal flush.  This was in the context of a bankruptcy consultation and I thought at the time that she should just do her thing, hit a royal, and save her house that way.  So, if one cannot trust that anything is objective,  how does one trust anything?  How do you determine whether or not some financial investment is good or not if you cannot trust that something is objective?

Context dude!

Come on obviously the boiling point of water has been pretty objectively stated.

You are mixing contexts- the exact point I try to make when I say that history cannot prove spiritual matters- the fact that Jesus died does not prove he is the savior of mankind (IF indeed he existed etc)

Your client made the same mistake

The way you walk has nothing to do with causing a royal flush objectively.

What i was saying is that in the realm of opinion nothing is objective- like the news, etc.   It is mixing the two that causes problems.

Feelings can only be "illusory" where compared with objective facts- otherwise they cannot be "illusory"

Your client probably thought that she was special because she could cause cards to act differently

If she thought that playing cards made her happy and she had fun- she would not be mistaken.  She enjoyed the rush.

If you think something makes you happy- it makes you happy!  How can you be mistaken that what makes you happy makes you happy?

Alma 32 talks about feelings, not scientific experiments!  It says have faith and try it.

If it makes you happy and grows in your life it is "true".

Losing at cards probably did not make your client happy even if the feeling she had that she could affect the cards did make her happy, therefore Alma 32 correctly analyzed the effect

Essentially the church is "true" because it works in peoples lives and makes them happy.  Therefore pragmatically the church is rightly considered "true" in the context of its purpose- the Plan of Happiness.  They follow the plan, it makes them happy, not rich, not rocket scientists or correct predictors of cards.  The purpose of the belief is to produce happiness and it does- for those for whom it works

It is as simple as that.  And yet folks think it has something to do with objective truth.  It does not.

It is not a theory about physics or how to make cards obey your will.

It's about being happy.

Nothing "illusory" about feelings at all if what you are talking about is feelings.

Truth is contextual.  Get over it. 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Michael Sudworth]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think anyone has a right to define someone's relationship with the Church.

The Church (which as a community has given authority to its leaders to speak for it) also has the right to define its relationship with people, whether or not it accepts them as members and what it requires of people to be so.

Many members believe our leaders are inspired in how they determine the requirements.  I think one can debate the inspiration, but it is ridiculous to debate the right of a private organization to define who gets to belong to it...and take the consequences of that definition, good and bad.

I completely agree with this.  Being a member of a community is, ultimately, a choice. It is a relationship.  

I personally think highly of Brother Reel.  I like him a lot.  But he is doing the precise opposite of what one should do.  To Brother Reel, I would say: who are you to try and dictate Church policy by using agitation?

Not sure where Brother Reel is working these days but I imagine if he did a podcast about his boss in very public and negative way -- EVEN IF WHAT WAS SAID WAS TRUE -- Brother Reel would be rightfully be fired.

I'm not saying there aren't areas where the Church can improve.  I believe both the "sister in Parowan" and Elder Holland should be part of the conversation about how to work through and address the things people may be concerned about.  But treating the Church as if it were Congress to be lobbied and pressured, is a mistake on several levels.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Michael Sudworth

[Calm]

Quote

But he is doing the precise opposite of what one should do. 

If what he truly wants is to be accepted by the community as a fully committed member or in LDSspeak, living his covenants.

If his intent is something else, such as get excommunicated, he is right on track, imo.

[Michael Sudworth]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

If what he truly wants is to be accepted by the community as a fully committed member or in LDSspeak, living his covenants.

If his intent is something else, such as get excommunicated, he is right on track, imo.

Having listened to Bill for a while, I believe that he started out with the absolute best of intentions. Really trying to bridge the gap between doubter and believer.

However, I think at some point Brother Reel became disaffected.  After this his podcasts were much more negative.  While his early episodes were legitimately helpful, the past couple of years have been overwhelmingly negative and antagonistic.

As I said above, anyone who things this theatre and eventual outcome are real, they must be pretty dim.

 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Having listened to Bill for a while, I believe that he started out with the absolute best of intentions. Really trying to bridge the gap between doubter and believer.

However, I think at some point Brother Reel became disaffected.  After this his podcasts were much more negative.  While his early episodes were legitimately helpful, the past couple of years have been overwhelmingly negative and antagonistic.

I wonder if this sort of progression has likewise been manifest in John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer, and others.  I'd like to think that these folks likewise started with "the best of intentions," but over time became "disaffected" (as opposed to them having ulterior motives from the get-go).

The two big ingredients in this process seem to be 1) incremental increases in public fault-finding against the Church (particularly its leaders), and 2) setting oneself up as a voice of authority and influence that is is alternative and superior to that of the leaders of the Church.

I wonder if Ingredient #1 is, for some, a precursor to ingredient #2.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 1, 2018 by smac97

[flameburns623]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this sort of progression has likewise been manifest in John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer, and others.  I'd like to think that these folks likewise started with "the best of intentions," but over time became "disaffected."  

The two big ingredients in this process seem to be 1) incremental increases in public fault-finding against the Church (particularly its leaders), and 2) setting oneself up as a voice of authority and influence that is is alternative and superior to that of the leaders of the Church.

I wonder if Ingredient #1 is, for some, a precursor to ingredient #2.  And when these 

Thanks,

-Smac

You may know better than I but each started from different places. 

IIRC:

John Dehlin was helping Mormon LGBT youth.

Bill Reel was something of an LDS apologist.  

Kate Kelly was an LDS feminist.  

Denver Snuffer was seeking a purer expression of holiness and obedience and greater fidelity to the known historical record. (Among the four,  he remains thoroughly devout and has in fact inspired a burgeoning schismatic movement). 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

You may know better than I but each started from different places. 

IIRC:

John Dehlin was helping Mormon LGBT youth.

Bill Reel was something of an LDS apologist.  

Kate Kelly was an LDS feminist.  

Denver Snuffer was seeking a purer expression of holiness and obedience and greater fidelity to the known historical record. (Among the four,  he remains thoroughly devout and has in fact inspired a burgeoning schismatic movement). 

I don't know Dehline or Kelly or Snuffer personally.  But I'd like to think that they all started from the same "place" in terms of having a genuine desire to build up and strengthen the our community of faith.  However, each of these efforts eventually went off the rails, such as these folks are now actively working against the Church.

Chapter 27 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith  ("Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy") was not intended to be a "How To" guide.  But check out some of the quotes from it:

• “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy."
• “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”
• “It is in consequence of aspiring men that Kirtland has been forsaken. How frequently has your humble servant been envied in his office by such characters, who endeavored to raise themselves to power at his expense, and seeing it impossible to do so, resorted to foul slander and abuse, and other means to effect his overthrow. Such characters have ever been the first to cry out against the Presidency, and publish their faults and foibles to the four winds of heaven.”
• “There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors."
• “From what source emanated the principle which has ever been manifested by apostates from the true Church to persecute with double diligence, and seek with double perseverance, to destroy those whom they once professed to love, with whom they once communed, and with whom they once covenanted to strive with every power in righteousness to obtain the rest of God?"

As for Bro. Reel, I don't know him, either.  But his gradual alienation from and hostility and antagonism toward the LDS Church and its leaders has been a sad thing to observe.  I hope he has a change of heart.  I really do.  I hope he can figure out a way to set aside his present course of action and remain in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Michael Sudworth]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this sort of progression has likewise been manifest in John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer, and others.  I'd like to think that these folks likewise started with "the best of intentions," but over time became "disaffected" (as opposed to them having ulterior motives from the get-go).

With the exception of Kate Kelly, I do think there was change over time in how the Church was approached and discussed.  Kelly was a disbelieving and insincere agitator from the beginning IMO.

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The two big ingredients in this process seem to be 1) incremental increases in public fault-finding against the Church (particularly its leaders), and 2) setting oneself up as a voice of authority and influence that is is alternative and superior to that of the leaders of the Church.

I think this is a good description.  But, with the exception of Denver Snuffer, I don't think that these folks set themselves up as alternative or superior authority to Church leaders.  Rather, they set themselves up as "authorities" within the exmo crowd.  Once they gave up on the Church, they all sought "martyrdom" and the 15 minutes of accolades it provides.  

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

[Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Congratulations!  Hands down and running away, you win today's, "Boy-Did-I-Miss-That-Poster's-Point-By-A-Mile" Award!  

That's what you get for trying to make a nonsensical point.  

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I completely agree with this.  Being a member of a community is, ultimately, a choice. It is a relationship.  

I personally think highly of Brother Reel.  I like him a lot.  But he is doing the precise opposite of what one should do.  To Brother Reel, I would say: who are you to try and dictate Church policy by using agitation?

Not sure where Brother Reel is working these days but I imagine if he did a podcast about his boss in very public and negative way -- EVEN IF WHAT WAS SAID WAS TRUE -- Brother Reel would be rightfully be fired.

I'm not saying there aren't areas where the Church can improve.  I believe both the "sister in Parowan" and Elder Holland should be part of the conversation about how to work through and address the things people may be concerned about.  But treating the Church as if it were Congress to be lobbied and pressured, is a mistake on several levels.

We can all agree, I'm guessing, that the Church acts far more corporate than churchy in many matters--there's far less concern about listening, fixing and helping and far more concern about control. You are correct to create the picture of him getting fired for speaking out against his boss.  Just as a boss and corporation is more about business interests, survival so is the Church.  They each are far less about truth, honesty, and what's best for the masses, even if all sides conclude they have those as priorities.  At some point we all would be wise to speak out against our bosses if the bosses are causing problems to the stated goals.  I suppose that's the biggest issue that has arisen from this more than anything.  Some think it's without question a good thing to ex a member who dares explore his/her thoughts and feelings as it pertains to messages given by the leaders and concludes problems.  It's even being proposed that a conversation on such things is useless and besides the point.  the point strictly is that someone dare offer his/her thoughts on certain things said by leaders.  

We can pretend "tone" matters the mostest, I suppose.  But tone is only decried because someone dares to say it like it is, it seems to me.  

I'm not sure it matters at all if Bill is ex'd or not--it likely doesn't matter for him in the long run and I see no positive outcome for the church.  He'll still feel it necessary, it seems to me, to say what he feels needs to be said.  He'll likely continue a following.  it'll all matter if, when it's all said and done, his interest remains and whether those associated with Mormonism feel challenged by him.  

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree with this, which is why I would have no problem with a D.C. Being held for Elder Holland if he was consistently using inflammatory language to attack Bill Reel or another member in such a way to cause members to question their faith and covenants in order to determine if he had broken or rejected his covenants.  I think "lay" members are as responsible to the faith community as the leaders.

Would making inflammatory remarks about Bill justify a DC?

If I make inflammatory accusations against Joe Blow in my ward, is that cause for a DC? On what grounds? Because people might believe what I said about Joe Blow? Of course not. If a person's testimony is damaged because of my accusations against Joe Blow or Elder Holland, then that would seem to speak more to a problem with a system that places so much reliance on the infallibility of people. That leadership would be so scared of this possibility seems to show that they are aware that people rely too much on the high expectations the church sets for its leaders. Removing people from criticism because that criticism (even if true) could hurt testimonies is a huge problem, don't you think? It shows a weakness of the organizational structure. Criticizing another person should not be justification for a man to discipline another and revoke all spiritual blessings that could lead to exaltation.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

At a minimum, it allows the person the opportunity to formally answer the charges and respond to them. 

In an apostasy case, the person has been given opportunities to "cease and desist." It is the defiant continuance after the ultimatums are given that usually triggers the DC. From a human nature standpoint, it is very difficult to back down at this point (doubly so if you are a podcaster and are playing to your audience) because of face-saving. It would take a lot of humility and a strong desire to stay in the Church (even at the cost of your pride) and make amends to stop the process at that point.  

I think it should be clear that we're talking about apostasy against church leaders and the church organization. Many assume that's the same thing as apostatizing from Christ, but it's not.

As Bill stated earlier,  the SP had never asked him to cease and desist prior to making the ultimatum. Meeting to issue an ultimatum isn't counseling. That's bullying.

[rongo]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Would making inflammatory remarks about Bill justify a DC?

If I make inflammatory accusations against Joe Blow in my ward, is that cause for a DC? On what grounds? Because people might believe what I said about Joe Blow? Of course not. If a person's testimony is damaged because of my accusations against Joe Blow or Elder Holland, then that would seem to speak more to a problem with a system that places so much reliance on the infallibility of people. That leadership would be so scared of this possibility seems to show that they are aware that people rely too much on the high expectations the church sets for its leaders. Removing people from criticism because that criticism (even if true) could hurt testimonies is a huge problem, don't you think? It shows a weakness of the organizational structure. Criticizing another person should not be justification for a man to discipline another and revoke all spiritual blessings that could lead to exaltation.

This is a good example. In an extreme case, where one continually hammers away with inflammatory accusations against Brother Blow, and refuses to stop when asked to by leaders . . . then, what? Should that person be allowed to continue to disrupt meetings and sow discord, anger, etc? Sometimes leaders prohibit members from being in the building out of necessity, and the extreme extension of this would be formal discipline. 

The official term that would fall under would be "conduct unbecoming a member." That's a phrase that is used, or has been used before. I think it completely relates to your hypothetical example, and I also think it applies to Bill Reel. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As Bill stated earlier,  the SP had never asked him to cease and desist prior to making the ultimatum. Meeting to issue an ultimatum isn't counseling. That's bullying.

If that's true, then he should have. People should always have the opportunity to change and show good faith desire to comply and stay. Only if they then refuse should it escalate, in my view.

I think it should be clear that we're talking about apostasy against church leaders and the church organization.

----

Of course. One can even argue that the leaders are wrong and the martyr is correct, but they should at the same time acknowledge the Church's right to discipline for apostate behavior against church leaders and the church organization.

I think we all agree that Bill has been doing this, right? Even those who think he's right and the Church is wrong about ABC?

Edited August 1, 2018 by rongo