Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Really? I looked at your comments over the last year and have seen comments you made on twitter and facebook. None of your comments have even slightly demonstrated the specifics or spirit of that linked document. 

If you do believe those things (and only you know), it's impossible to come to that conclusion based on your public statements.

 

Edited by Steve J
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do you know he wasn't called in for a DC? and is he an active member?

The last word I read from him on the subject he said he hadn't resigned and wasn't called into a DC but he didn't consider himself a member. This was recently when the Sam Young court was in the news. 

Link to comment
Just now, phaedrus ut said:

The last word I read from him on the subject he said he hadn't resigned and wasn't called into a DC but he didn't consider himself a member. This was recently when the Sam Young court was in the news. 

I'm trying to think of Tom Phillips...........is he that wrestler in the WWE? That guy is a member?

Link to comment

It's too bad he has to sign a document and can't record it if he attends.  Maybe he can bug the room or something, I guess.  I wonder if that signing of the agreement will require that no one take notes from the meeting as well.  I thought they usually had a scribe to take notes.  

I admit I don't know how anyone is supposed to take these hearing seriously.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I suspect this will not shock many people, but Bill Reel (aka dbmormon) has received an invitation to his execution.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/bill-reel-disciplinary-court-is-imminent/

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly), but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Asking for a friend.

Don't know that I will help your friend much. A man cannot have two masters says our Master. Christians follow Yeshua, although they do so with some imperfection. We all struggle to understand the nature of God I think, and how to best follow. "Borderline" Christians have some room in the Church to believe and practice how they wish. However, when they begin to teach against founding doctrines of the Church or especially to draw others after them, I think that is where the Church has to draw the line. So when people like Jeremy Runnels begin to do such, but also begin to teach the Bible is not true, and their doubts about Christ, I do not feel Christ is obligated to keep Jeremy in His Church - after all, it is the Church of Jesus Christ - not the Church of Doubters. Those who have fallen to Satan's lies shouldn't want to stay in the Church anyway. The Church is not a social Christian club. 

Should the Church excommunicate a member for publishing a history the Church GAs do not like? or think is not inspiring? I don't think so - at least not typically. If that person is trying to draw people to their own little group "out of the Church", I think that should be grounds for excommunication. If they are denouncing central gospel teachings, I think that is grounds for excommunication. 

The issue really is where is the proper line for dissent in the Church. Can someone not sustain a leader and be a follower? I think so. I disagree with a number of past things in the Church. Just how much of that the Church is willing to stand is another question.  If someone wants to believe that the Book of Mormon is not historical, but still wants to be a follower of Christ, I say fine, but if he wants to teach that, that is where things become dicey. He certainly doesn't have the right to do so inside Church callings, if he is told not to do so. However, if he wants to publish a book expressing his views, I say why not? It is hard to argue from nothing, but many archaeologists do it. I think ultimately the truth has nothing to fear, and the more minds working on an issue, the closer to truth we will eventually come.  

The Catholic Church withstands a lot of differing opinions within itself, however, its refusal to accept differing POV on issues such as the nature of God, has caused it to splinter into many different churches over the millennia. The idea that you must understand God exactly like me, or you're not Christian goes back to the foundation of the Roman state Church - sadly. I do hope our Church does not follow their path. However, if dissenters wish to draw people away from the Church, yes, I do think there will be grounds for excommunication. Perhaps the spirit should guide us on what their true intentions are.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Steve J I dont' think you've fulfilled your promise to refrain from commenting as yet, considering the comments you've offered.  You only have a few more posts full of comments to fulfill the usual for this board, after making such a promise.  

Thank you for keeping me honest. This will be my last post. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I suspect this will not shock many people, but Bill Reel (aka dbmormon) has received an invitation to his execution.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/bill-reel-disciplinary-court-is-imminent/

 

 

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly), but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Asking for a friend.

 

I wonder if there is a civil claim/tort claim for recording the Council. I agree it is a private matter, and recording it is not a show of good form.

 

In Utah recording and/or publishing a convesartion, even if a party to that conservation, can lead to criminal and civil liability, if the oral communication is uttered "by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation, ..."

Utah Ann 77-23a-3

Utah Ann 77-23a-4

 

Seems no recording clauses could be standard issue for Church Court participation.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I suspect this will not shock many people, but Bill Reel (aka dbmormon) has received an invitation to his execution.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/bill-reel-disciplinary-court-is-imminent/

 

 

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly), but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Asking for a friend.

 

There already is, but they just can't go around in public or to fellow church members, declaring these things as true doctrines that they claim conflict with established church doctrines.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Bill Reel is being called before a disciplinary council but Tom Phillips actually sued Thomas S. Monson calling him and the church a fraud and is still a member.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

 

Phaedrus 

I think there are reasons that they cannot excommunicate him... given his status there may not be anything he can do to be ex'd.

Link to comment

Steve J says:

Quote

The LDS Church likes its "faithful" scholars. What makes a LDS Scholar "Faithful"? Simple! A LDS Scholar is "faithful" when in spite of knowing the data and the facts and such being their expertise, they prefer to make emotional appeals for the Church being true rather than make any appeal to the data that they are experts in?In other words it is their ability to set their scholar hat aside that makes an LDS scholar "faithful." A Faithful scholar instead is not a scholar at all in such conversations but rather an expert of emotional appeal with an educational degree around scholarship but knows full well that the scholarship he is an expert in, is not on his side of the argument. Arguments only based on the facts essentially never work out in favor of the Church's truth claims and hence a faithful scholar wants to do everything except appeal to scholarship.

Can you be specific and name some names?  And then can you demonstrate, rather than just assert, why any such scholar merits the status of generally representative of the whole diverse assembly of faithful LDS scholars?

This does not describe Nibley, Richard L. Anderson, John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Valerie Hudson, Blake Ostler, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch...  who exactly does it describe?  And if you can supply a specific example, can you show why that person or group, ought to be seen as representative of faithful scholars, rather than any of those I have named, or literally hundreds more like them, whose work is freely available at the Maxwell Institute or Interpreter websites and many other places.  I can be specific and do so with the authority of being on a couple of these lists:

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/authors/

https://interpreterfoundation.org/authors/

Regarding the claim regarding the church:

Quote

 It can not afford to have you actually seek truth objectively

It helps to consider what objectivity is, and is not.  Peter Novick spoke on the realities of the objective search for truth at a Sunstone several decades ago.

Quote

I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades [objectivity] has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.  (Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New,” Sunstone Symopium, 1989, 4 (transcript in my possession)

Steve J asks:

Quote

Wouldn't it be faster if Prophets, Seers and Revelators could just ask God?

If God had set things up so that he operated like a vending machine that dispensed both omniscience and moral perfection just for the asking, then perhaps things would be quicker... but speed is not the first and great value under which God operates:

Quote

D&C 9 has

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right

And D&C 1 has this:

Quote

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Kuhn observes that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation," so, one question worth asking whenever a person encounters something that they did not expect ought to be, "What should I expect?" Maybe there is a beam in my own eye that interferes with the clarity of my vision.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Steve J says:

Can you be specific and name some names?  And then can you demonstrate, rather than just assert, why any such scholar merits the status of generally representative of the whole diverse assembly of faithful LDS scholars?

This does not describe Nibley, Richard L. Anderson, John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Valerie Hudson, Blake Ostler, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch...  who exactly does it describe?  And if you can supply a specific example, can you show why that person or group, ought to be seen as representative of faithful scholars, rather than any of those I have named, or literally hundreds more like them, whose work is freely available at the Maxwell Institute or Interpreter websites and many other places.  I can be specific and do so with the authority of being on a couple of these lists:

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/authors/

https://interpreterfoundation.org/authors/

Regarding the claim regarding the church:

It helps to consider what objectivity is, and is not.  Peter Novick spoke on the realities of the objective search for truth at a Sunstone several decades ago.

Steve J asks:

If God had set things up so that he operated like a vending machine that dispensed both omniscience and moral perfection just for the asking, then perhaps things would be quicker... but speed is not the first and great value under which God operates:

And D&C 1 has this:

Kuhn observes that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation," so, one question worth asking whenever a person encounters something that they did not expect ought to be, "What should I expect?" Maybe there is a beam in my own eye that interferes with the clarity of my vision.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I thought Steve was quoting Bill Reel, but I could very much be wrong. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think there are reasons that they cannot excommunicate him... given his status there may not be anything he can do to be ex'd.

John D. Lee had received the same ceremony as Tom Phillips and he was excommunicated for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Lee's membership and former blessings were later restored at the Salt Lake Temple in a ceremony officiated by Ezra Taft Benson.  Whether they were restored because they should have never been taken in the first place or because of his families appeals I do not know. 

Phaedrus 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Steve J said:

The LDS Church likes its "faithful" scholars. What makes a LDS Scholar "Faithful"? Simple! A LDS Scholar is "faithful" when in spite of knowing the data and the facts and such being their expertise, they prefer to make emotional appeals for the Church being true rather than make any appeal to the data that they are experts in?

I don't know. I read Juanita Brooks "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" many years ago, also recently I read Todd Compton's "In Sacred Lonlieness": these are at least two authors who never made any "emotional appeals for the church being true" but remained (as in the case of Brooks) or have remained faithful members of the church.

And of course there is Hugh Nibley, who wrote, in his social criticism, of the "baffling contradictions" in our church culture, but was never hauled before any church court.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think he's referring to the Second Annointing Phillips received.

It's probably challenging to excommunicate someone who already had his calling and election made sure.

From what I’ve read, the church has excommunicated people who had received the second annointing before. 

Link to comment

First to let the cat out of the bag? No one is supposed be talking about the executions.

I’m sorry to hear about this disciplinary council.I was hoping he’d come back and choose faith..

 

Bill, I know you read this. If there is even a small fraction of a particle of faith in you, then Do what you need to do to get right with the Lord.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

...should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

It depends. I've become much more conservative with regards to some doctrines and issues, while also being wildly (if quietly) revolutionary on others. One of the issues on which I'm more conservative is that of Church discipline as it relates to core doctrines such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the existence of God and His ongoing role in the Plan of Salvation, and the power and authority of the priesthood. Surprising to me at least is the fact that I came to this view via a Lutheran Minister:

Quote

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I think doubts should be greeted with mercy and with understanding. I think stridently held beliefs contrary to the doctrines of the Church should be dealt with a degree of discipline. I say degree because I think that someone who does not believe in the priesthood, but who holds these beliefs privately and perhaps confides them to their bishop, should probably not have a temple recommend, but may not warrant disfellowshipment nor excommunication.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...