Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

cinepro

By cinepro
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, provoman said:

Anyone know about Bill alleged statement made in a podcast that he woukd takedown some of his material if if ment he would not be excommunicated?

It wouldn’t surprise me if he said that and that he was sincere in saying it but... he would probably expect them to indicate why the material should be taken down — and I very much doubt that his local leaders or the general church leaders would be willing to do that.  It appears to me that they do not want to engage with him on the issues he raises.  And since he continues to get “louder” about those issues, they’ll ex him to make sure they don’t have to engage with him. 

2
Link to comment
stemelbow Grand Master

stemelbow

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Several of his “gotchas” are puerile but I think the most obvious evidence that he is not serious is he insists that he has a list of 24 questions his stake president could not “reconcile” from his “data driven” list proving the weakness of the Church’s position

I agree with the Nehor.  Some of these are only being couched as questions when they are not.  Some are poorly worded.  That is weird.  Take an extra minute and determine if they make sense.  Ultimately he should not have said these are 24 questions that are unanswered.  For the most part they aren't questions at all.  

I'm going to go ahead and address each question as if I were an SP who is faithful and knows at least something about these issues:

Quote
1.) Lucy Walker Conundrum – If Joseph Smith lied to Lucy about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife than I absolutely can not trust Joseph Smith. If God in fact did command Joseph then I absolutely can not place trust or love in a God who imposes that a daughter father relationship be made into a husband wife relationship. – http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
 

What can I say?  He offered the marriage claiming it was of God.  She prayed and God told her it was good.  Your stated conundrum is well stated.  What more can we do?  Either it was of God, or Joseph lied and the girl was tricked.  If it's of God, then I suppose God works in mysterious ways and we must accept that or we don't accept that and think he is not worth our love and trust, as you say.  We each must follow our own course on this.  I trust God and think whatever took place will be resolved in eternity.  Peace my son.  

Quote
2.) We now know that the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, JST, and Kinder hook plates (all 5 of Joseph Smith translation productions) include plagiarism from contemporary sources from Joseph Smith’s environment or sources long after when these productions were written (Ex: Book of Moses borrows heavily from Mathew Ch. 4). In light of such what space is there to abandon a historical approach to Joseph Smith”s translations and the Church as having literal authority and keys if we agree that to some extent these all are modern productions to at least some degree?

Maybe there should be space.  But I think your premise is debatable at the very least.  I think it was back in the 1980s when Blake Ostler presented the expansion model.  Thats a starting place to consider in your concerns stated above.  But as it is God works in mysterious ways.  We must accept that statement if we are to have faith in our religion at all.  He can use Joseph's environment for eternities benefit.  If have an issue with LDS scripture for these things then surely you must equally think all of Christian scripture is problematic, because the bible and it's various parts seems to suffer from the same issues.  it just so happens most of those were composed in their time and place, which happens to be millenia ago, rather than a couple of centuries.  

 

Quote
3.) Why do we neglect to tell people and avoid conversation at all costs of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation Where Jesus tells him directly that polygamy must never be ended?
 

Fair point.  But we have said many things that were once considered of God and revelation are not now.  We have also said things like the doctrine of explaining the priesthood ban was never doctrine, was never of God.  We simply pick and choose from the past to move forward with.  Luckily in a sense we have a plethora of substance from our past to work with.  But it also means we have plenty we must leave behind in order to move forward.  If in this question you mean you intend "the Church" to be the "we" then I'd suggest, we do it because we move forward and not look backward on the issue of polygamy.  I'd say it's fair for any member to say polygamy was not of God and yet think the Church is headed in the right direction today.  So, please my son, reconsider this.  Move forward with us.  

Quote
4.) How do we reconcile Joseph Smith breaking all the rules of section 133 and polygamy?
– He does not get permission from Emma on most if not all of his plural marriages
– he does not only marry only virgins
he does not only marry women who are unmarried

I'm pretty sure you mean section 132.  But yes, I"ve seen reasons to think Joseph broke those rules.  But largely these rules weren't presented until after Joseph broke those rules.  So perhaps the part of the revelation as per the rules of polygamy weren't known until after Joseph broke the rules.  Perhaps it was that Joseph was told by God to practice polygamy any way he could.  So he did.  then as it got started God decided to implement some rules.  Granted I don't know what rules Joseph continued to break after July 1843 as it pertains to polygamy but if he did, then perhaps he felt justified to continue as the exception to the rule since it seemed that God was still behind him.  Perhaps as it was personal for him at that time, God spoke to him personally and said he's justified.  The revelation itself said he was justified in what he's done, after all.

Quote
5.) When history was not collectively observable and recordable and reportable, God flooded the whole earth, parted seas, restored limbs, sent balls of fire down at the pleading of his prophet, people turned to pillars of salt, talking donkeys, and healings instantaneously of severe diseases that no scientific explanation to date exists (leprosy, blindness, etc..) Once history became collectively observable, recordable, and shareable, these miracles have essentially ceased. What is more likely that God has withdrawn such things in the modern age or that such tales were fictional or incredibly embellished myth stories to begin with.

It is more likely, for sure, that the tales in the OT, and even in the New and the BoM for that matter, never happened.  I think there is room for members to think they were myths.  That the miraculous events described didn't happen or at least didn't happen as explained.  Someone doesn't have to think God flooded the world to think the Bible carries scriptural value.  Anyways, as per your question is what's more likely?  Well I answered that.

Quote
6.) 2000 stripling warriors battle against a larger more experienced army and not one soldier is killed. Many faint from blood loss but in an age of infection, not one gets gangrene and each of them without blood transfusions reports back to duty and a short while. In light of modern understanding and what is even in the realm of plausible, such a story is absurd. Other than imposing irrational thinking that “with God anything is possible” how do you reconcile such?
 

I don't know.  Maybe the story is myth or maybe it is exaggeration.  Maybe God made it happen as described through miracle.  I don't think it's inappropriate for a member to think any of these things.  I get that's it's not only unlikely but impossible without God.  But we each can reconcile it as we each see fit.  I personally think it was an exaggeration at the very least, and probably myth.  But I testify that the BoM is great and stuff. 

Quote
7.) Why does Elder Holland lie about Church growth?

Because he did.  we all lie.  In my experience every person has lied to some extent or another.  Is it inappropriate for an apostle to tell a lie?  I think it's impossible for him not to at some point.  At some point we each exaggerate, present what we want to to make our point.  I'm not mad at him for lying.  I wish him well and am glad I've been able to see when a leader lies at times.  I hope it's so rare we simply can absorb the lie and still continue forward in faith.  I hope you are able to forgive and forget.  He'll do better.  I'm actually glad you point this out, so he might be a little more careful in his own approach.  I think he will be.  

 

Quote

8.) Why is the Church always 30 to 50 years behind the corrupt and fallen world on essentially every social issue? (birth control, women working outside the home, women’s rights such as voting, race, cremation, and now LGBT issues) In light of having men who talk directly to God, should we not be leading in the progress of social issues and treatment of human beings?

I think the premise is debatable here too.  But I get your point.  The Church does seem to be behind in some measures.  While it's a great benefit we have very old people leading, the downfall happens to be we have to wait for leaders to catch us up with the rest as the old ideals fade.  I'm being very patient on that, realizing that when I'm 80 there'll be a whole new host of 20 and 30 year olds who want me to be caught up with the times and advances in the world somehow ignoring the paradigm I've built over the course of my 80 years.  Be patient  and be believing.  God will make things works.  This world is crazy seeming sometimes.  We are here, living while we each come up short in understanding the great God above, and yet we're asked to be perfect in some sense.  And yet we individually can't see what the great god above sees.  We see what we see and work with what we have.  I see our leaders as great men of God who see what they see and the time will come when others will be apostles who will see differently, and may have the benefit of a proven society on certain issues that the leaders today can't see.  I hope that makes sense.  In a very real way, there's only so much we know and only so much we can do.  

Quote
9.) If past leaders knew certain doctrines by the divine influence to be true (adam God, blood atonement, doctrines around the why of the Race Ban) only to have future leaders declare by the same divine influence that past said teachings were false, how can trust modern leaders who claim to get their info from the same source?

I think you raise a good point, a fair one and a thoughtful one.  God works in mystery still.  he seems intent on letting us humans work through our biases and bigotry on our own, all too often.  It's difficult and not fair.  But it appears that's what he wants.  I think leaders have and even today assume their greatest ideas are God putting that lightbulb there.  In some cases it probably is, and in others it problably isn't.  That's just how God wants it.  He doesn't want perfection.  he doesn't want us to know all--not any of us.  He accepts that that means we're going to hurt people.  that hurt sucks and those hurt individuals, well, God will take care of them.  He'll make things right.  Just wait and see.  But in the meantime, we have to see this crap and accept that our leaders are only human, making mistakes because they simply can't see.  But they are trying.  God doesn't put every lightbulb they have over their heads, even if they think any certain one is from God.  

Quote

10.) Why do modern Prophets and apostles never perform a miracle, never prophesy, never perform as a seer, never get a unique revelation that shares new insights from God?

Again a debatable premise.  I think like Hinckley said, we have enough for now, in large measure.  But I also think God inspires subtly these days.  he gives little because there is a whole lot already for us to work out.  MIracles?  I don't know.  Did they ever happen?  They could have.  Some think the miracle is God keeps people in the Church, or tells them to avoid a certain place when disaster happens.  I don't know about that.  I've had some similar things strike me and it seems God helped me.  I think you raise a good concern, but dig deep and you will see.

Quote
11.) Are you aware of how Brigham Young took control of the Church? The 12 clearly based on the D&C and Joseph Smith’s own words did not have sole authority upon the death of Joseph but Brigham clearly imposed his will and worked to diminish and distance any person or group who were equal or had more authority and took control of the Church in ways that were abusive and threatening to others. Are you aware of this? How do I reconcile that?

God works in mysterious ways.  He needed Brigham to lead so the Church could become insular and polygamy would flourish.  I mean I don't know.  I don't think Brigham was as bad as you do.  But I recognize he was authoritative, that he was hard to get along with for many.  But it worked well enough.  I mean I ugess it did 

 

Quote
12.) Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery believed that Joseph Smith’s intimate relationship with Smith housemaid Fanny Alger was an affair and inappropriate. Knowing this and knowing that Joseph had intimate relationships with other young girls who worked in his home (The partridge sisters and Lucy Walker), how do I reconcile the data that Joseph seems to pressure young girls into intimate relationships with him and imposes that they keep such secret. In any other walk of our life we would be appalled. Here – we make justifications. How do I reconcile such?

The only way to accept polygamy is to accept the it was revelation from God to Joseph.  I realize Joseph married Fanny before the sealing power and before the revelation on polygamy but it seems to me he also thought it was God telling him to be a polygamist.  The Fanny story makes me uncomfortable for sure.  But, it happened and I admittedly don't know all the details of it.  I also believe the Church is true and Joseph started it, so it is possible he was asked of God to do that polygamy stuff, and for some reason felt justified in involving young girls as he did.  God will work it out and I'm eager someday to see why it happened as it did.  But we're here now and moving forward of course.  

 

I'm clearly getting tired of acting the part.  I'll leave this here now.  At least now Bill can't say no one can answer any of his questions.  I went through half and answered them as if I were his SP.  It wasn't that tough.  I wonder why no one here has tried nor why his leaders weren't able or willing to.  Easy stuff really.

Link to comment
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

If you read the thread between me and Hamba, you’ll see clearly that we’re setting agreements about what “facts” mean.

You seem to jump in on our discussion and weigh in without understanding that.

no, that's not what happened. You and Hamba were talking about facts and then out of the blue you talk about "God's existence" and then I said that Bill Reel is unsure about the historical Jesus but somehow believes in the Christ of faith and he doesn't believe the scriptures, then you said 

"My belief in god has nothing to do with Bill Reel’s. Why do you compare my faith with his, and when you find inconsistency call it weird?"

and then I said why are we all of sudden talking about your views on God on a thread about Bill Reel?

and now you say that I am not the one with understanding🙄

 

 
Link to comment
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree with the Nehor.  Some of these are only being couched as questions when they are not.  Some are poorly worded.  That is weird.  Take an extra minute and determine if they make sense.  Ultimately he should not have said these are 24 questions that are unanswered.  For the most part they aren't questions at all.  

I'm going to go ahead and address each question as if I were an SP who is faithful and knows at least something about these issues:

What can I say?  He offered the marriage claiming it was of God.  She prayed and God told her it was good.  Your stated conundrum is well stated.  What more can we do?  Either it was of God, or Joseph lied and the girl was tricked.  If it's of God, then I suppose God works in mysterious ways and we must accept that or we don't accept that and think he is not worth our love and trust, as you say.  We each must follow our own course on this.  I trust God and think whatever took place will be resolved in eternity.  Peace my son.  

Maybe there should be space.  But I think your premise is debatable at the very least.  I think it was back in the 1980s when Blake Ostler presented the expansion model.  Thats a starting place to consider in your concerns stated above.  But as it is God works in mysterious ways.  We must accept that statement if we are to have faith in our religion at all.  He can use Joseph's environment for eternities benefit.  If have an issue with LDS scripture for these things then surely you must equally think all of Christian scripture is problematic, because the bible and it's various parts seems to suffer from the same issues.  it just so happens most of those were composed in their time and place, which happens to be millenia ago, rather than a couple of centuries.  

 

Fair point.  But we have said many things that were once considered of God and revelation are not now.  We have also said things like the doctrine of explaining the priesthood ban was never doctrine, was never of God.  We simply pick and choose from the past to move forward with.  Luckily in a sense we have a plethora of substance from our past to work with.  But it also means we have plenty we must leave behind in order to move forward.  If in this question you mean you intend "the Church" to be the "we" then I'd suggest, we do it because we move forward and not look backward on the issue of polygamy.  I'd say it's fair for any member to say polygamy was not of God and yet think the Church is headed in the right direction today.  So, please my son, reconsider this.  Move forward with us.  

I'm pretty sure you mean section 132.  But yes, I"ve seen reasons to think Joseph broke those rules.  But largely these rules weren't presented until after Joseph broke those rules.  So perhaps the part of the revelation as per the rules of polygamy weren't known until after Joseph broke the rules.  Perhaps it was that Joseph was told by God to practice polygamy any way he could.  So he did.  then as it got started God decided to implement some rules.  Granted I don't know what rules Joseph continued to break after July 1843 as it pertains to polygamy but if he did, then perhaps he felt justified to continue as the exception to the rule since it seemed that God was still behind him.  Perhaps as it was personal for him at that time, God spoke to him personally and said he's justified.  The revelation itself said he was justified in what he's done, after all.

It is more likely, for sure, that the tales in the OT, and even in the New and the BoM for that matter, never happened.  I think there is room for members to think they were myths.  That the miraculous events described didn't happen or at least didn't happen as explained.  Someone doesn't have to think God flooded the world to think the Bible carries scriptural value.  Anyways, as per your question is what's more likely?  Well I answered that.

I don't know.  Maybe the story is myth or maybe it is exaggeration.  Maybe God made it happen as described through miracle.  I don't think it's inappropriate for a member to think any of these things.  I get that's it's not only unlikely but impossible without God.  But we each can reconcile it as we each see fit.  I personally think it was an exaggeration at the very least, and probably myth.  But I testify that the BoM is great and stuff. 

Because he did.  we all lie.  In my experience every person has lied to some extent or another.  Is it inappropriate for an apostle to tell a lie?  I think it's impossible for him not to at some point.  At some point we each exaggerate, present what we want to to make our point.  I'm not mad at him for lying.  I wish him well and am glad I've been able to see when a leader lies at times.  I hope it's so rare we simply can absorb the lie and still continue forward in faith.  I hope you are able to forgive and forget.  He'll do better.  I'm actually glad you point this out, so he might be a little more careful in his own approach.  I think he will be.  

 

I think the premise is debatable here too.  But I get your point.  The Church does seem to be behind in some measures.  While it's a great benefit we have very old people leading, the downfall happens to be we have to wait for leaders to catch us up with the rest as the old ideals fade.  I'm being very patient on that, realizing that when I'm 80 there'll be a whole new host of 20 and 30 year olds who want me to be caught up with the times and advances in the world somehow ignoring the paradigm I've built over the course of my 80 years.  Be patient  and be believing.  God will make things works.  This world is crazy seeming sometimes.  We are here, living while we each come up short in understanding the great God above, and yet we're asked to be perfect in some sense.  And yet we individually can't see what the great god above sees.  We see what we see and work with what we have.  I see our leaders as great men of God who see what they see and the time will come when others will be apostles who will see differently, and may have the benefit of a proven society on certain issues that the leaders today can't see.  I hope that makes sense.  In a very real way, there's only so much we know and only so much we can do.  

I think you raise a good point, a fair one and a thoughtful one.  God works in mystery still.  he seems intent on letting us humans work through our biases and bigotry on our own, all too often.  It's difficult and not fair.  But it appears that's what he wants.  I think leaders have and even today assume their greatest ideas are God putting that lightbulb there.  In some cases it probably is, and in others it problably isn't.  That's just how God wants it.  He doesn't want perfection.  he doesn't want us to know all--not any of us.  He accepts that that means we're going to hurt people.  that hurt sucks and those hurt individuals, well, God will take care of them.  He'll make things right.  Just wait and see.  But in the meantime, we have to see this crap and accept that our leaders are only human, making mistakes because they simply can't see.  But they are trying.  God doesn't put every lightbulb they have over their heads, even if they think any certain one is from God.  

Again a debatable premise.  I think like Hinckley said, we have enough for now, in large measure.  But I also think God inspires subtly these days.  he gives little because there is a whole lot already for us to work out.  MIracles?  I don't know.  Did they ever happen?  They could have.  Some think the miracle is God keeps people in the Church, or tells them to avoid a certain place when disaster happens.  I don't know about that.  I've had some similar things strike me and it seems God helped me.  I think you raise a good concern, but dig deep and you will see.

God works in mysterious ways.  He needed Brigham to lead so the Church could become insular and polygamy would flourish.  I mean I don't know.  I don't think Brigham was as bad as you do.  But I recognize he was authoritative, that he was hard to get along with for many.  But it worked well enough.  I mean I ugess it did 

 

The only way to accept polygamy is to accept the it was revelation from God to Joseph.  I realize Joseph married Fanny before the sealing power and before the revelation on polygamy but it seems to me he also thought it was God telling him to be a polygamist.  The Fanny story makes me uncomfortable for sure.  But, it happened and I admittedly don't know all the details of it.  I also believe the Church is true and Joseph started it, so it is possible he was asked of God to do that polygamy stuff, and for some reason felt justified in involving young girls as he did.  God will work it out and I'm eager someday to see why it happened as it did.  But we're here now and moving forward of course.  

 

I'm clearly getting tired of acting the part.  I'll leave this here now.  At least now Bill can't say no one can answer any of his questions.  I went through half and answered them as if I were his SP.  It wasn't that tough.  I wonder why no one here has tried nor why his leaders weren't able or willing to.  Easy stuff really.

IIRC correctly at least 3 (11, 10 and 7) of these have been discussed with him on here and i'm quite sure the rest or most of them has as well, just not with him or in ages past

1
Link to comment
SouthernMo Mentor

SouthernMo

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm clearly getting tired of acting the part.  I'll leave this here now.  At least now Bill can't say no one can answer any of his questions.  I went through half and answered them as if I were his SP.  It wasn't that tough.  I wonder why no one here has tried nor why his leaders weren't able or willing to.  Easy stuff really.

I wish I could give this a “like.”  Honest and well thought out.

My best guess as to why LDS leaders are hesitant to answer as you do is because there is a long tradition in our faith of authoritarianism. That is to say that leaders have been expected to have the answers, revelation, direction, and confidence to lead their respective ‘steeardships.’  Might admitting weakness in a correlated position or admitting doubt be viewed as non-authoritarian?

Link to comment
SouthernMo Mentor

SouthernMo

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

no, that's not what happened. You and Hamba were talking about facts and then out of the blue you talk about "God's existence" and then I said that Bill Reel is unsure about the historical Jesus but somehow believes in the Christ of faith and he doesn't believe the scriptures, then you said 

"My belief in god has nothing to do with Bill Reel’s. Why do you compare my faith with his, and when you find inconsistency call it weird?"

and then I said why are we all of sudden talking about your views on God on a thread about Bill Reel?

and now you say that I am not the one with understanding🙄

 

 

I guess I misunderstood your question.

You win!

1
Link to comment
rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I wish I could give this a “like.”  Honest and well thought out.

My best guess as to why LDS leaders are hesitant to answer as you do is because there is a long tradition in our faith of authoritarianism. That is to say that leaders have been expected to have the answers, revelation, direction, and confidence to lead their respective ‘steeardships.’  Might admitting weakness in a correlated position or admitting doubt be viewed as non-authoritarian?

Yes... since authority in the church is largely based on the existing narrative.

Link to comment
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I wish I could give this a “like.”  Honest and well thought out.

My best guess as to why LDS leaders are hesitant to answer as you do is because there is a long tradition in our faith of authoritarianism. That is to say that leaders have been expected to have the answers, revelation, direction, and confidence to lead their respective ‘steeardships.’  Might admitting weakness in a correlated position or admitting doubt be viewed as non-authoritarian?

My guess is that they sensed that Bill Reel was not acting in good faith.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  He is not looking for guidance.  He is looking to find fault and accuse and disparage.  He is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  

That is how I perceive Bill Reel.  I think there is disharmony between his motives (as evidenced by his rhetoric and behavior) and the environment necessary for seeking further light and truth under the guidance of the Spirit.

I don't think it's about authoritarianism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

3
Link to comment
stemelbow Grand Master

stemelbow

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My guess is that they sensed that Bill Reel was not acting in good faith.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  He is not looking for guidance.  He is looking to find fault and accuse and disparage.  He is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  

That is how I perceive Bill Reel.  I think there is disharmony between his motives (as evidenced by his rhetoric and behavior) and the environment necessary for seeking further light and truth under the guidance of the Spirit.

I don't think it's about authoritarianism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think you're being ridiculous in your assessments and conclusions about Bill.  I think he's fine.  His questions bring up standard issues.  H'es pointing out some of the standard issues that are of concern to him.  It's not his fault, that the responses and answers aren't satisfying.  He simply has a different take on it than you do.  That doesn't mean his intent is completely as you paint it.  People are generally more complex than that, smac. 

Link to comment
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're being ridiculous in your assessments and conclusions about Bill. 

As you like.  My assessments and conclusions have not been spun out of thin air.  They are based on his writings, and on my interactions with him.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think he's fine.  His questions bring up standard issues. 

And yet he's facing a likely excommunication.  So I don't think he's "fine," and his approach isn't very "standard."

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

H'es pointing out some of the standard issues that are of concern to him. 

And Sam Young just went on a diet and wanted to have a chit-chat with an apostle.

And Kate Kelly just wanted the Brethren to "prayerfully consider the ordination of women."

And Jeremy Runnells just had a few questions for the CES director.

C'mon.  He's done a lot more than that.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's not his fault, that the responses and answers aren't satisfying. 

You mean aren't subjectively satisfying to him?  Yes, that's on him.

And in any event, plenty of people struggle with their faith and are not disciplined.  I do not think you are accurately framing the circumstances here.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He simply has a different take on it than you do. 

I agree with that, but that's not the problem I have with his behavior.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That doesn't mean his intent is completely as you paint it. 

I agree.  His intent is, IMO, as I paint it for other reasons.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

People are generally more complex than that, smac. 

I am not saying Bill Reel is not complex.

What I am saying is that he is not sincere.  In his interactions with the Church, he is not sincere.  A rational and sincere member of the Church seeking information and guidance from leaders of the Church would not behave as he has.  They would not publicly disparage and insult and sneer at and express contempt, as he does.  They would not use accusatory language and loaded terms, as he does.  They would not publicly seek to persuade others to disregard or reject the leaders of the Church, as he does.  They would not pose absurd laundry lists of grievances on a message board, and then fault the leaders of the Church for not responding to them, as he has done.

Thanks,

-Smac

3
Link to comment
SouthernMo Mentor

SouthernMo

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My guess is that they sensed that Bill Reel was not acting in good faith.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  He is not looking for guidance.  He is looking to find fault and accuse and disparage.  He is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  

That is how I perceive Bill Reel.  I think there is disharmony between his motives (as evidenced by his rhetoric and behavior) and the environment necessary for seeking further light and truth under the guidance of the Spirit.

I don't think it's about authoritarianism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Perhaps.

While I certainly do not know, and don’t mean to correct, but offer another possibility.

If you’re right, I think he may have started more humble, submissive, and seeking. But, over time when someone asks questions about narratives that support an organization’s legitimacy that don’t have (satisfying) answers, he will soon become increasingly challenging (and bitter?).

Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're being ridiculous in your assessments and conclusions about Bill.  I think he's fine.  His questions bring up standard issues.  H'es pointing out some of the standard issues that are of concern to him.  It's not his fault, that the responses and answers aren't satisfying.  He simply has a different take on it than you do.  That doesn't mean his intent is completely as you paint it.  People are generally more complex than that, smac. 

Rep point!

Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It wouldn’t surprise me if he said that and that he was sincere in saying it but... he would probably expect them to indicate why the material should be taken down — and I very much doubt that his local leaders or the general church leaders would be willing to do that.  It appears to me that they do not want to engage with him on the issues he raises.  And since he continues to get “louder” about those issues, they’ll ex him to make sure they don’t have to engage with him. 

This.

Link to comment
stemelbow Grand Master

stemelbow

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  My assessments and conclusions have not been spun out of thin air.  They are based on his writings, and on my interactions with him.

And yet he's facing a likely excommunication.  So I don't think he's "fine," and his approach isn't very "standard."

And Sam Young just went on a diet and wanted to have a chit-chat with an apostle.

And Kate Kelly just wanted the Brethren to "prayerfully consider the ordination of women."

And Jeremy Runnells just had a few questions for the CES director.

C'mon.  He's done a lot more than that.

You mean aren't subjectively satisfying to him?  Yes, that's on him.

And in any event, plenty of people struggle with their faith and are not disciplined.  I do not think you are accurately framing the circumstances here.

I agree with that, but that's not the problem I have with his behavior.

I agree.  His intent is, IMO, as I paint it for other reasons.

I am not saying Bill Reel is not complex.

What I am saying is that he is not sincere.  In his interactions with the Church, he is not sincere.  A rational and sincere member of the Church seeking information and guidance from leaders of the Church would not behave as he has.  They would not publicly disparage and insult and sneer at and express contempt, as he does.  They would not use accusatory language and loaded terms, as he does.  They would not publicly seek to persuade others to disregard or reject the leaders of the Church, as he does.  They would not pose absurd laundry lists of grievances on a message board, and then fault the leaders of the Church for not responding to them, as he has done.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the response, Smac.  I don't think you've completely changed my mind.  I think you're being ridiculous in these discussions about Bill.  I dont' know that there's much for me to engage on that.  Do what you must, but I'm not sure there's much to say beyond my objection.  

Link to comment
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the response, Smac.  I don't think you've completely changed my mind.  I think you're being ridiculous in these discussions about Bill.  I dont' know that there's much for me to engage on that.  Do what you must, but I'm not sure there's much to say beyond my objection.  

Understood.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
flameburns623 Experienced

flameburns623

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps.

While I certainly do not know, and don’t mean to correct, but offer another possibility.

If you’re right, I think he may have started more humble, submissive, and seeking. But, over time when someone asks questions about narratives that support an organization’s legitimacy that don’t have (satisfying) answers, he will soon become increasingly challenging (and bitter?).

Which is exactly how Bill Reel describes his early faith crisis. Incidentally,  if you haven't heard any of his podcasts,  he actually contacted Elder Holland for help. And received some responses. He seems to have begun this process with high regard for Elder Jeffery Holland. 

I suspect the acrimony we see towards this particular Latter-Day apostle has partly  been due to the disillusionment Bill underwent when Elder Holland was unable to help.  

I am reminded of a kaballistic story that I know only third-hand from a Chaim Potok novel.  A very rich, wicked, but devout worshiper of idols came to the end of his days. Fearing his fate after a life of evil, he cried out to the sun, the moon, and stars he had given homage all his life, pleading mercy. By the grace of the true Almighty, these idols answered the wicked man and declared they could do nothing for him: they, themselves,  required mercy. And, grieving, the idolator bowed down and died. A voice from Heaven then declared that because of the rich man's great remorse, he would have a part in the World-to-Come.

Bill Reel has discovered that one whom he regarded highly needs mercy as much as Bill himself.

1
Link to comment
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm clearly getting tired of acting the part.  I'll leave this here now.  At least now Bill can't say no one can answer any of his questions.  I went through half and answered them as if I were his SP.  It wasn't that tough.  I wonder why no one here has tried nor why his leaders weren't able or willing to.  Easy stuff really.

I am sure that none of your answers are new to Bill.  I don't think he is being genuine in saying that no one can answer his questions - what he means to say is that no one can answer his questions in a way that is satisfying to him.  That is very different.

2
Link to comment
provoman Veteran

provoman

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Yes - he addressed this in his discussion with John Dehlin in his most recent Mormonstories podcast. 

Is it 1017 1018 podcast do you have a rough idea of the time stamp? I listened to what someone inducated was the time stamp, but could not find it? Just wanted to listen to it myself as it seems it might be misreported....I cant stand podcasts so I am unwilling to listen to a whole podcast.

Link to comment
rodheadlee Grand Master

rodheadlee

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So how can you disagree with his conclusions when you haven’t listened to or read his words?

I've been on this board for around 10 years, I've read plenty of his words and watched his disconnection unfold. I like Bill, there was a time I wished he was my bishop because i knew he would have given me a temple rec in spite of my failure to quit smoking. Perhaps you can respond to Nehor's comments on Bill's questions here

 http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71271-bill-reel-invited-to-disciplinary-council/?page=17     you'll have to scroll down a bit, I'm a bit of a barbarian with a computer.

 

Now I have to go move my boat to it's new slip, perhaps you can pray for me not to hit other boats or ram the docks with mine, the tide is wicked here.

 

1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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