Jump to content
flameburns623

Bill Reel announces excommunication is official, as a recording of his Disciplinary Council is released.

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We don’t need to quibble over definitions. I wasn’t there. Do you feel you were treated fairly? Were you subjected to insult or injustice? The brothers in councils in which I have participated took that responsibility seriously. 

If we’re not going to define fair, then I’ll answer the question the way you want me to: No one insulted me, and they all took their roles seriously.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, these councils don't have to have the appearance of an adversarial hearing. 

The same basic structure could be maintained with  modifications such as these:

1. The accused is notified not less than thirty days nor longer than sixty that a DC will be convened.  They are advised to whom they can submit evidence or testimony in their defense, and assigned a spokesperson who will present their evidence on their behalf. Evidence must be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the DC. They are given opportunity to arrange private meetings with their bishop or Stake President prior to the DC. While awaiting the DC all callings and privileges of membership are in suspension.  

2. A DC is held,  WITHOUT the presence of the accused or witnesses, and any evidence submitted discussed at that time. A transcript is taken for the member's record, a copy being made available to said member. 

3. The decision is made and sent to the member, with any adverse decision being effective FIFTEEN DAYS FOLLOWING the DC. The member can, once more, meet in private to discuss the reason for the DC. The member can also use the time to resign. 

4. Once final, the member can appeal as they currently are privileged to do. 

This can help avoid the circus atmosphere attending Disciplinary Councils currently.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

You know, these councils don't have to have the appearance of an adversarial hearing. 

The same basic structure could be maintained with  modifications such as these:

1. The accused is notified not less than thirty days nor longer than sixty that a DC will be convened.  They are advised to whom they can submit evidence or testimony in their defense, and assigned a spokesperson who will present their evidence on their behalf. Evidence must be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the DC. They are given opportunity to arrange private meetings with their bishop or Stake President prior to the DC. While awaiting the DC all callings and privileges of membership are in suspension.  

2. A DC is held,  WITHOUT the presence of the accused or witnesses, and any evidence submitted discussed at that time. A transcript is taken for the member's record, a copy being made available to said member. 

3. The decision is made and sent to the member, with any adverse decision being effective FIFTEEN DAYS FOLLOWING the DC. The member can, once more, meet in private to discuss the reason for the DC. The member can also use the time to resign. 

4. Once final, the member can appeal as they currently are privileged to do. 

This can help avoid the circus atmosphere attending Disciplinary Councils currently.  

These are not always followed. People have their own experiences, and I am sure that many stake presidents “follow the spirit” to do things differently at times. Mine did.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

You know, these councils don't have to have the appearance of an adversarial hearing. 

The same basic structure could be maintained with  modifications such as these:

1. The accused is notified not less than thirty days nor longer than sixty that a DC will be convened.  They are advised to whom they can submit evidence or testimony in their defense, and assigned a spokesperson who will present their evidence on their behalf. Evidence must be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the DC. They are given opportunity to arrange private meetings with their bishop or Stake President prior to the DC. While awaiting the DC all callings and privileges of membership are in suspension.  

2. A DC is held,  WITHOUT the presence of the accused or witnesses, and any evidence submitted discussed at that time. A transcript is taken for the member's record, a copy being made available to said member. 

3. The decision is made and sent to the member, with any adverse decision being effective FIFTEEN DAYS FOLLOWING the DC. The member can, once more, meet in private to discuss the reason for the DC. The member can also use the time to resign. 

4. Once final, the member can appeal as they currently are privileged to do. 

This can help avoid the circus atmosphere attending Disciplinary Councils currently.  

It is not a judicial proceeding; it is a call to repentance, which is completely personal. I don't see how any of your suggestions aid in that process. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Is there room in the church for "non-literal" participants who are not overly confrontational?  

At this point, I am "non-literal".  I have been open and honest with leadership, turned in my TR as I no longer recognize the apostles and prophet of the church as being "the only person on earth..." etc. etc., and no longer hold to priesthood authority.  These are still my friends though, my family, people I have grown up with - so I stay as a polite observer, do not participate in any class discussions, have only shared my concerns privately with a few people who know my situation (involves abuse by a bishopric member) and do enjoy many of the thoughts that are shared - just take a lot of things as Aesop's fables rather than actual truths...

 

Bill's discussion of the spirit was interesting... I thought I felt the spirit during Elder Holland's missionary story - then that story was retracted - https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html 

yea - it does tear one's faith apart when leadership is not honest.  TBM's don't understand how painful it is, when you find out everything that has been lied about - when those you thought were secure and trustworthy end up abusing your children... when the organization you thought would be a support is gone... a bit like a divorce, or finding your spouse was adulterous or something.  It is painful, I guess that is why they call it a faith "crisis".

Edited by changed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Steve J said:

Jimmer Fredette, Bryce Harper, Mitt Romney, the guy from Imagine Dragons, Alex Boye, Stephen Covey(RIP), Elizabeth Smart, Harry Reid, etc... 

In earlier days Ezra Taft Benson (U.S. Secretary of Agriculture while serving as an apostle), George Romney (Father of Mitt and himself a former candidate for U.S. president and ex-governor of Michigan), J. Willard Marriott, Jon M. Huntsman.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

These are not always followed. People have their own experiences, and I am sure that many stake presidents “follow the spirit” to do things differently at times. Mine did.

I was positing suggestions,  due to the way critics of the Church have misused the current process. 

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I was positing suggestions,  due to the way critics of the Church have misused the current process. 

Ah. Got it. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Yup. But we all know people who do draw value from their position in this organization, and that sense of value can drive them to great service. It can also be used to manipulate them.

Yes, and they should draw value and provide service in them. If they draw value and give greater service based on the prominence of their position they need to knock it off and fix that or they are almost certainly going to fall. Outside of a very few most members do not ride high in ever advancing prominent positions their whole life. 

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

why is this even a long thread. From his last posting it seems like he wanted this

 

Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie... 

 It wasn’t me who had something wrong…. something broken.  It took years to come to grips that it was in fact Mormonism that had a Crisis.  A Truth Crisis.  It had built its entire foundation on stories that simply don’t hold up.

Mormonism can not stand an honest investigation.  I learned this the hard way. 

Learning your Religion and the God your religion handed you are not what was claimed

 

The podcast will continue for the foreseeable future and I will continue to ensure that it offers the tools and resources to help others wake up and to deconstruct their religious system.  In fact I expect very little to change.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Steve J
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

You know, these councils don't have to have the appearance of an adversarial hearing. 

The same basic structure could be maintained with  modifications such as these:

1. The accused is notified not less than thirty days nor longer than sixty that a DC will be convened.  They are advised to whom they can submit evidence or testimony in their defense, and assigned a spokesperson who will present their evidence on their behalf. Evidence must be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the DC. They are given opportunity to arrange private meetings with their bishop or Stake President prior to the DC. While awaiting the DC all callings and privileges of membership are in suspension.  

2. A DC is held,  WITHOUT the presence of the accused or witnesses, and any evidence submitted discussed at that time. A transcript is taken for the member's record, a copy being made available to said member. 

3. The decision is made and sent to the member, with any adverse decision being effective FIFTEEN DAYS FOLLOWING the DC. The member can, once more, meet in private to discuss the reason for the DC. The member can also use the time to resign. 

4. Once final, the member can appeal as they currently are privileged to do. 

This can help avoid the circus atmosphere attending Disciplinary Councils currently.  

That sounds a lot like how a disciplinary council is convened for someone who is currently incarcerated.

I have to admit I would be uncomfortable with that structure generally. I think the person should have the option to attend if able. This might get rid of the attempts by a few to turn this into a circus but in many cases that end in probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication the ending also involves a loving admonition on how to return and is hopefully a spiritual experience and a step on the road to repentance. That would be lost if it was done without them and results sent in a letter.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

Is there room in the church for "non-literal" participants who are not overly confrontational?  

At this point, I am "non-literal".  I have been open and honest with leadership, turned in my TR as I no longer recognize the apostles and prophet of the church as being "the only person on earth..." etc. etc., and no longer hold to priesthood authority.  These are still my friends though, my family, people I have grown up with - so I stay as a polite observer, do not participate in any class discussions, have only shared my concerns privately with a few people who know my situation (involves abuse by a bishopric member) and do enjoy many of the thoughts that are shared - just take a lot of things as Aesop's fables rather than actual truths...

 

Bill's discussion of the spirit was interesting... I thought I felt the spirit during Elder Holland's missionary story - then that story was retracted - https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html 

yea - it does tear one's faith apart when leadership is not honest.  TBM's don't understand how painful it is, when you find out everything that has been lied about - when those you thought were secure and trustworthy end up abusing your children... when the organization you thought would be a support is gone... a bit like a divorce, or finding your spouse was adulterous or something.  It is painful, I guess that is why they call it a faith "crisis".

Yes, I believe there is room.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Steve J said:

why is this even a long thread. From his last posting it seems like he wanted this

 

Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie... 

 It wasn’t me who had something wrong…. something broken.  It took years to come to grips that it was in fact Mormonism that had a Crisis.  A Truth Crisis.  It had built its entire foundation on stories that simply don’t hold up.

Mormonism can not stand an honest investigation.  I learned this the hard way. 

Learning your Religion and the God your religion handed you are not what was claimed

 

The podcast will continue for the foreseeable future and I will continue to ensure that it offers the tools and resources to help others wake up and to deconstruct their religious system.  In fact I expect very little to change.

That is great sir but this is a Whataburger drivethrough. Would you like to order anything?

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Thank you for your testimony but this is a Whataburger drivethrough. Would you like to order anything?

Sorry for being dense... could you clarify your comment?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

Is there room in the church for "non-literal" participants who are not overly confrontational?  

At this point, I am "non-literal".  I have been open and honest with leadership, turned in my TR as I no longer recognize the apostles and prophet of the church as being "the only person on earth..." etc. etc., and no longer hold to priesthood authority.  These are still my friends though, my family, people I have grown up with - so I stay as a polite observer, do not participate in any class discussions, have only shared my concerns privately with a few people who know my situation (involves abuse by a bishopric member) and do enjoy many of the thoughts that are shared - just take a lot of things as Aesop's fables rather than actual truths...

 

Bill's discussion of the spirit was interesting... I thought I felt the spirit during Elder Holland's missionary story - then that story was retracted - https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html 

yea - it does tear one's faith apart when leadership is not honest.  TBM's don't understand how painful it is, when you find out everything that has been lied about - when those you thought were secure and trustworthy end up abusing your children... when the organization you thought would be a support is gone... a bit like a divorce, or finding your spouse was adulterous or something.  It is painful, I guess that is why they call it a faith "crisis".

I have asked myself that same question; I am, in many ways, in the same boat as you, but it has been my experience that when I do share my OWN views/beliefs with friends or family members who are still very active, there is, at times, and unfortunately, gaslighting, judgmental assumptions about how I came to my own conclusions, along with fear and sorrow that I no longer believe as they do. Some respect my own views, while others treat me like I have been overtaken by an evil spirit. 😂

I would like to think that there is room for such "non-literal" participants, but only as long as they keep quiet and don't express any of their own views publically (that might be outside of what the church teaches). IMO, your public views need to align with what the church wants/expects, and if not, there might be repercussions. IMO, there is only freedom of public thought/expression for members on certain subjects, as long as it aligns with what the church teaches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Sorry for being dense... could you clarify your comment?

Whenever anyone gets a little ridiculously overserious and starts preaching on this board I imagine them doing it at a fast food drive through to amuse myself.

I probably need to stop posting about it. I think I am the only one who finds it funny. I also screwed up the delivery. Fixed it in an edit above.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

..............................  I have toyed with the idea but not with seriousness. 

You might consider going to Israel for awhile, learning Hebrew, and making the orthodox conversion at the Chief Rabbinate.  Then you'd be eligible for Israeli citizenship (dual American & Israeli citizenship is legal).  If you want to keep kosher, marry an orthodox woman.  She'll take care of that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

In reading the letter informing Bill Reel that he was excommunicated, it stated that his "views and behavior are apostate" and that he acted in "clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church and its leaders."

What is the church's definition of "clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders?"

In other words, at what point in time do one's personal views/convictions cross into the area of apostasy?

There is no set line. If there were a clear line apostates would make a habit of dancing on the edge of it mocking our inability to boot them by our own rules. Most people who are removed for apostate teaching have been at it for a while before any action is taken.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Whenever anyone gets a little ridiculously overserious and starts preaching on this board I imagine them doing it at a fast food drive through to amuse myself.

I probably need to stop posting about it. I think I am the only one who finds it funny. I also screwed up the delivery. Fixed it in an edit above.

Do you know all I did was quote from Reel’s latest post?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Do you know all I did was quote from Reel’s latest post?

Yeah, I was not mocking you. I was mocking him.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Whenever anyone gets a little ridiculously overserious and starts preaching on this board I imagine them doing it at a fast food drive through to amuse myself.

I probably need to stop posting about it. I think I am the only one who finds it funny. I also screwed up the delivery. Fixed it in an edit above.

It was an "inside joke" with only one insider.  Not the most effective method of humor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no set line. If there were a clear line apostates would make a habit of dancing on the edge of it mocking our inability to boot them by our own rules. Most people who are removed for apostate teaching have been at it for a while before any action is taken.

That is kind of what I assumed as well, since church leadership has to deal with apostate behavior/activity on a case-by-case basis.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might consider going to Israel for awhile, learning Hebrew, and making the orthodox conversion at the Chief Rabbinate.  Then you'd be eligible for Israeli citizenship (dual American & Israeli citizenship is legal).  If you want to keep kosher, marry an orthodox woman.  She'll take care of that.

Mwahwhaha! 😄😄😄I can't even afford a trip to Salt Lake.  How would I afford a trip to Israel?

And my present wife would deeply object to my marriage to an Orthodox Jewish woman. 😄🤣🤣😄🤣🤣

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Steve J said:

why is this even a long thread. From his last posting it seems like he wanted this

Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie...  It wasn’t me who had something wrong…. something broken.  It took years to come to grips that it was in fact Mormonism that had a Crisis.  A Truth Crisis.  It had built its entire foundation on stories that simply don’t hold up.  Mormonism can not stand an honest investigation.  I learned this the hard way. Learning your Religion and the God your religion handed you are not what was claimed

The podcast will continue for the foreseeable future and I will continue to ensure that it offers the tools and resources to help others wake up and to deconstruct their religious system.  In fact I expect very little to change.

4

Steve, thanks for quoting Bill. I never quite understand why some of these conversations go on and on. Bill clearly stated his position; there is no need to doubt him; no one should be surprised that he was excommunicated. Too often these individuals come off as so outrageously smug and self-righteous. As a student of religion for some 50+ years, I see folks choke on gnats and swallow camels and then are shocked when almost everyone turns away from them. Their focus is not on Christ, not on his gospel, and not on scripture. Moving on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ttribe said:

It was an "inside joke" with only one insider.  Not the most effective method of humor.

Probably true, but I giggled for a good three minutes so I am going to call it a win anyways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×