Jump to content
flameburns623

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

It’s not that I took offense, it just seemed that you have an agenda or a position already established in which you believe DCs to be “fair.”

The way you asked in a binary way (fair or unfair), and weren’t willing to mutually determine what “fair” means hinted to me that you were less interested in understanding my experience, and more interested in sharing your position.

No agenda. No position. Simple question. Do you feel you were treated fairly according to what you think is fair?

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2018 at 8:45 AM, smac97 said:

Didn't the members of the High Council agree in writing to not record or publicly divulge the disciplinary proceedings?

So Bill Reel induced someone else to act dishonestly and dishonorably?  That is disappointing.

Some excerpts:

  • "Mormonism one last time made it clear that the truth is not only not useful, but even more directly it is antithetical to Mormonism’s mission."
  • "In regards to the Excommunication Document...it is just more of the many games that Mormonism plays."
  • "Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie I needed to believe as a young man in order to change my life."
  • "Our Family united in valuing truth and standing up for those who are marginalized and harmed led to our being hand in hand as we woke up to our lives."
  • "A lot of folks encouraged me to resign but I went out doing what I have always done which is being a voice for those who for one reason or another don’t have a voice, standing up against the the dishonest telling of our narrative, and shining a light on leaders who lie and deceive in order to protect their authority."
  • "I am proud of how I faced the challenges every step of the way in my journey."

The same person saying all these horrible things about the Church . . . also fought against losing his membership in the Church.

These horrible claims also remind me of this quote from Joseph Smith:

Well, yes.

Meanwhile, Bill Reel and his addiction to outrage continues.  Not sure for how long.  

I hope he eventually turns from his current course and has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Amazing that anyone would think that rebellious and unrepentant attitude would lead to anything but excommunication 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2018 at 9:56 AM, Judd said:

I just wish people would be honest about it, like with Sam Young’s, which made it obvious that if you were to hear him speak that you’d know he was the one with the mic on his body, thus we only get a distant recording of the stake president’s spiel.

What I find odd is that whenever they make these recordings all it does is make themselves look bad

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

What I find odd is that whenever they make these recordings all it does is make themselves look bad

Delusions of grandeur are a hell of a thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, tkv said:

That we live in a modern age doesn't change human nature. Obviously when someone is attempting to undermine an organization, it is damaging to the organization to provide membership to that individual. There are many analogies that could be made to various scenarios and organizations.

Well, I think in this case, Bill isn't really participating as an active member anymore.  So his "membership" is on paper only.  If he were showing up at church and causing a disruption, that would be another matter.  

I'm thinking about the freedom of speech in broader society example again.  People can protest things, as long as they don't do it on private property.  The country doesn't feel compelled to take away citizenship when someone is overly critical of America, yet there are limits to criticism, someone can't threaten the life of the President.  I think with all things there are limits, and there should be limits with what someone like Bill can do and still retain membership, I just don't think he crossed any lines in my opinion that should qualify someone for excommunication.  

Edited by hope_for_things

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the Zeitgeist that underpins support of apostates like BR. Authority is suspect and abusive unless it's liberal–progressive in orientation. The church doesn't have that orientation, so its authority is suspect and abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

There is nothing Guy Fieri won't deep fry!

His son?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I think in this case, Bill isn't really participating as an active member anymore.  So his "membership" is on paper only.  If he were showing up at church and causing a disruption, that would be another matter.  

I'm thinking about the freedom of speech in broader society example again.  People can protest things, as long as they don't do it on private property.  The country doesn't feel compelled to take away citizenship when someone is overly critical of America, yet there are limits to criticism, someone can't threaten the life of the President.  I think with all things there are limits, and there should be limits with what someone like Bill can do and still retain membership, I just don't think he crossed any lines in my opinion that should qualify someone for excommunication.  

He may not be attending, but he used his membership in the church to improve his relevance and legitimacy.  When someone does that, severing the relationship on paper makes sense.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

No. Mainly because things that were told to me that were possible were later told to me to be impossible.

example 1: My stake president assured me that my wife could join me for the council. When we arrived, he told us that there was a last-minute change of plan, and that she would not be allowed to join us.  She had to wait in the foyer. Alone.  This bait and switch seems unfair to me.

example 2: I was given a letter after my rebaptism telling me that an application to have my blessings restored would be considered after a year. I kept myself clean, and applied for my blessings to be restored one year and a couple of months later. The stake president informed me that he got a reply from the first presidency that informed him that because of the serious nature of my sins that my application to have my blessings restored would not be considered for at least two years. To have hope built up, then have it knocked down for no fault of my own doesn’t seem fair. My SP at the time agreed. This bait and switch seems unfair to me.

I’m aware example 2 does not relate to the day of the event, but if we view church discipline as a process, then we must consider events related to the process beyond the day of the hearing, which so many people get caught up in (like a marriage vs. a wedding).

Here’s where my cynicism checks in: There will be people on this board who will read this, and tell me or want to tell me all of the good and righteous reasons why my perspective is wrong - that the LDS process was/is fair. This is why it’s important to define ‘fair’ before having a discussion about it.

#1 seems unfair to me, but I would like to know the SP’s reasoning. I have been in DCs when the spouse was present, but I don’t remember any where the spouse was excluded like you describe. #2 Your application was considered as promised but not approved. Was approval promised in your original letter? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

His son?

I can’t claim that I know he would deep fry his own son. But, I’ve witnessed a patterned history of that man’s relationship with breading and fry oil.

Saying anything beyond that would be just speculation on my part.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

#1 seems unfair to me, but I would like to know the SP’s reasoning. I have been in DCs when the spouse was present, but I don’t remember any where the spouse was excluded like you describe. #2 Your application was considered as promised but not approved. Was approval promised in your original letter? 

 

Perhaps I wasn’t clear on #2.  Let me summarize more succinctly:

I was told by the first presidency that my application for a restoration of blessings would be considered after one year after rebaptism.

I applied after one year with hope that the first presidency would consider my application. I was wrong; they rejected my application.

The reason for rejection that the first presidency gave me had nothing to do with my progress, humility, or repentance. The letter told me that my application for a restoration of blessings would not be considered for at least two years after my rebaptism because my sins were more serious.

Why tell me that my application would be considered after a year, when it was not?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps I wasn’t clear on #2.  Let me summarize more succinctly:

I was told by the first presidency that my application for a restoration of blessings would be considered after one year after rebaptism.

I applied after one year with hope that the first presidency would consider my application. I was wrong; they rejected my application.

The reason for rejection that the first presidency gave me had nothing to do with my progress, humility, or repentance. The letter told me that my application for a restoration of blessings would not be considered for at least two years after my rebaptism because my sins were more serious.

Why tell me that my application would be considered after a year, when it was not?

I see.

You committed a BAD sin instead of one of those GOOD ones ;)  Makes perfect sense.

Sorry, man. Having the rug pulled out on you like that hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps I wasn’t clear on #2.  Let me summarize more succinctly:

I was told by the first presidency that my application for a restoration of blessings would be considered after one year after rebaptism.

I applied after one year with hope that the first presidency would consider my application. I was wrong; they rejected my application.

The reason for rejection that the first presidency gave me had nothing to do with my progress, humility, or repentance. The letter told me that my application for a restoration of blessings would not be considered for at least two years after my rebaptism because my sins were more serious.

Why tell me that my application would be considered after a year, when it was not?

THat's  not only being unfair but that is dishonest.  Sorry to hear of it.  Sorry you had to deal with and sorry to hear they treated someone so dishonestly.  It'd kind of like Bill saying he won't record the discipline meeting and did it anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

THat's  not only being unfair but that is dishonest.  Sorry to hear of it.  Sorry you had to deal with and sorry to hear they treated someone so dishonestly.  It'd kind of like Bill saying he won't record the discipline meeting and did it anyway.  

Over on the reddit forum someone posted a made-up pic of NNN up in the ceiling with his head poking out with a mic and then NNN replied and said that they weren't far off. Boy, very curious to know what NNN did. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see.

You committed a BAD sin instead of one of those GOOD ones ;)  Makes perfect sense.

Sorry, man. Having the rug pulled out on you like that hurts.

Thanks. I’m at peace with it now, but at the time, it was a rough struggle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He may not be attending, but he used his membership in the church to improve his relevance and legitimacy.  When someone does that, severing the relationship on paper makes sense.

I think early on, his membership probably helped him get listeners to his podcast.  I think in recent years as the tone has changed to become more critical that he likely wasn't gaining new listeners from the more orthodox circles, and his membership status probably didn't help him any.  

Also, I'm not sure why severing the relationship on paper makes any real difference.  Its more symbolic than anything else.  I argued earlier that just by putting on this disciplinary series of events, actually draws more attention to the whole problem and probably increases Bills listenership and relevance. 

Also, I wonder if you saw this article the other day that gives some statistical backup to how these disciplinary actions may actually hurt the church as a whole.  Very interesting data.  

https://religionnews.com/2018/11/30/high-profile-excommunications-may-harm-mormon-retention-rates-in-the-long-run/

I think from a pragmatic perspective, there are compelling reasons for the church to change course on its current excommunication precedent.  I also think for theological purposes there are compelling reasons to change course.  And honestly, if I were asked to predict the future, I would say that they will very likely change course and become less aggressive in their boundary maintenance.  Taking all trends into consideration in society as a whole, it is becoming more tolerant and more transparent and this will influence the way things are handled in the future.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think early on, his membership probably helped him get listeners to his podcast.  I think in recent years as the tone has changed to become more critical that he likely wasn't gaining new listeners from the more orthodox circles, and his membership status probably didn't help him any.  

Also, I'm not sure why severing the relationship on paper makes any real difference.  Its more symbolic than anything else.  I argued earlier that just by putting on this disciplinary series of events, actually draws more attention to the whole problem and probably increases Bills listenership and relevance. 

Also, I wonder if you saw this article the other day that gives some statistical backup to how these disciplinary actions may actually hurt the church as a whole.  Very interesting data.  

https://religionnews.com/2018/11/30/high-profile-excommunications-may-harm-mormon-retention-rates-in-the-long-run/

I think from a pragmatic perspective, there are compelling reasons for the church to change course on its current excommunication precedent.  I also think for theological purposes there are compelling reasons to change course.  And honestly, if I were asked to predict the future, I would say that they will very likely change course and become less aggressive in their boundary maintenance.  Taking all trends into consideration in society as a whole, it is becoming more tolerant and more transparent and this will influence the way things are handled in the future.  

I wasn't really talking about the number of listeners, but rather, how much relevance the listeners gave Bill's words.  Members often give more relevance to the words of other members in good standing, whose words haven't been specifically refuted by the leadership of the church.  

I'm reminded of Julie Rowe (who never faced any disciplinary courts and backed right down when her books were called into question) and how her books were being taught over the pulpit and to the youth in a lot of wards until the church specifically denounced them (while making sure not to impugn her personally).  After that, even though she still has a member following, it's NOTHING like it was before.  

Her membership and the church's silence on the things she was saying led a lot of members to feel good about embracing her words.  When the church spoke up (and she backed the church's stance), many members stopped being Rowe-ites.  

It's important for the church to remind members that there are some things they can't preach and still be members of the church.  It's important for the individual and also for those who that individual influences.  It protects the flock (which is one of the specific purposes, outlined in scripture, for excommunication).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

With this NNN, does this guy have a job or wife/kids? how can he be at all these places and video recording stuff, doesn't he have other things going on in life? if I was married and my spouse told me yeah, i'm going to go follow someone around and harass them i'd be like ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............................

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't really talking about the number of listeners, but rather, how much relevance the listeners gave Bill's words.  Members often give more relevance to the words of other members in good standing, whose words haven't been specifically refuted by the leadership of the church.  

I'm reminded of Julie Rowe (who never faced any disciplinary courts and backed right down when her books were called into question) and how her books were being taught over the pulpit and to the youth in a lot of wards until the church specifically denounced them (while making sure not to impugn her personally).  After that, even though she still has a member following, it's NOTHING like it was before.  

Her membership and the church's silence on the things she was saying led a lot of members to feel good about embracing her words.  When the church spoke up (and she backed the church's stance), many members stopped being Rowe-ites.  

It's important for the church to remind members that there are some things they can't preach and still be members of the church.  It's important for the individual and also for those who that individual influences.  It protects the flock (which is one of the specific purposes, outlined in scripture, for excommunication).

Interesting perspective. I remember the Julie Rowe furor quite well as we had many members in my ward really pushing the philosophy and books in classes. I had to say something to the ward about it. My opinion as bishop wasn't nearly as authoritative as SLC chiming in, but it seemed to work fine. People still held their personal opinions, but didn't teach them as gospel. That's all I hoped for.

But it illustrates that there is a level of action that can be taken outside of disciplining a person. Like you said, Julie Rowe's teachings were disavowed even though she didn't get cut off from the church or have her saving ordinances cancelled. Is there a similar level of correction the church could take so that people know they don't endorse a person's teachings, while not kicking them out of the church?

I'm reminded of this Joseph Smith quote...

Quote

I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

Honestly, I think most members are more quick to identify the rhetoric of the Bill Reels as outside the Mormon orthodoxy than they are the unorthodox teachings on the more conservative/fundamentalist side of things. Excommunication reinforces what members thought about Bill, but I don't really think it will do anything to his audience either way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

No. Mainly because things that were told to me that were possible were later told to me to be impossible.

example 1: My stake president assured me that my wife could join me for the council. When we arrived, he told us that there was a last-minute change of plan, and that she would not be allowed to join us.  She had to wait in the foyer. Alone.  This bait and switch seems unfair to me.

example 2: I was given a letter after my rebaptism telling me that an application to have my blessings restored would be considered after a year. I kept myself clean, and applied for my blessings to be restored one year and a couple of months later. The stake president informed me that he got a reply from the first presidency that informed him that because of the serious nature of my sins that my application to have my blessings restored would not be considered for at least two years. To have hope built up, then have it knocked down for no fault of my own doesn’t seem fair. My SP at the time agreed. This bait and switch seems unfair to me.

I’m aware example 2 does not relate to the day of the event, but if we view church discipline as a process, then we must consider events related to the process beyond the day of the hearing, which so many people get caught up in (like a marriage vs. a wedding).

Here’s where my cynicism checks in: There will be people on this board who will read this, and tell me or want to tell me all of the good and righteous reasons why my perspective is wrong - that the LDS process was/is fair. This is why it’s important to define ‘fair’ before having a discussion about it.

Your Stake President needs to train his mouth to stop making promises he either cannot or will not deliver on. Less sure about the second point as there are never guarantees on restorations or rebaptisms.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Bane said:

Oooooh.  He "made Bishop" at 29!

Can I touch him, so that I can feel just a little bit of how special he is?

Is that an accomplishment now?

many are called but few are chosen

Share this post


Link to post

I was on Bill`s Mormondiscussionpodcast site.  He had a list of 20 (25?) questions that he said his stake president couldn’t answer.  So, I looked at the first two.  The first one was about Lucy Walker who was married to Joseph at the age of 16 or 17.  She had been living in his house.  I think the best answer was Lucy Walkers words herself.  They were for the most part reaffirming in faith to me.  The question of cohabitation always seems to be the big one and there is some information.  None of it entirely convincing by itself, but certainly a possibility.  Stayed faithful her whole life.  I got into the Mormonism Feminist Houswives Year of Polygamy by looking up Lucy Walker and the outrage that people can have is certainly amazing.  There is occasionally someone calling for reason and just trying to understand, not judge using modern standards.  There is also quite a bit about the second question, which was a revelation supposedly to John Taylor about the New and Everlasting Covenant never being revoked.  It is somewhat questionable whether it was a real revelation and whether it was specifically talking about polygamy.  Also, was it ever going to be submitted to the process as the other revelations?  Neither one was a yes or no answer and it is obvious to me after indulging Bill a little over the last few years that no answer will really satisfy him.  It really seems to be about picking the Church apart for its flaws historically and with social issues.  We always seem to do wrong.  It is not surprising that he was excommunicated and one of the main answers about why still excommunicate people, is that we still have standards and we do enforce them, as imperfect as we are at it sometimes.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Delusions of grandeur are a hell of a thing.

I know. I’ve got tons of them.😁

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

What I find odd is that whenever they make these recordings all it does is make themselves look bad

Agreed, in the last batch of excommunications, that included recordings, when did the recording not make the person look bad?  To me, these individuals lose their integrity by releasing the audio.  The only time to consider releasing the audio is for fact checking or something severely bad occurred during the meeting.  

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.

×