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

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Steve J said:

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

I have no idea.   This whole thing is ridiculous.

Whether he wanted this or not it was the blatantly obvious and unavoidable conclusion.

Nobody has to be in the wrong in the outcome.  Just a natural consequence of the situation.  There was no reason on either side for him to retain membership.

[ERMD]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Since you've had a lot of time in these proceedings, who better to ask? Do you guys ask questions to the one who is having the court? Because it seems like in several of these recordings I've listened to, there is only a statement and interchange with the SP only. Or are others asked to become part of the conversation? Or are they told to keep fairly quiet? 

I've been involved in many disciplinary councils, both on the ward and stake levels.  On the stake level, members of the high council can ask questions of clarification of fact, taking care not to inflict any more feelings of guilt or embarrassment i.e., "You did it HOW MANY TIMES?  What were you thinking?"

Edited December 4, 2018 by ERMD

[Bane]

Oooooh.  He "made Bishop" at 29!

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

[ERMD]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

If this is Whataburger, then I'll have a #2, no pickles, add grilled jalapenos.

[MustardSeed]

I’ll have a jalapeño burger.  Hold the jalapeño. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

The only way I would want you to answer would be to tell the truth. Why would I want otherwise? When you said you would be ok talking about it, I thought you were serious. Sorry for the offense.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

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

On the contrary, a private joke sometimes can be very funny, and there's a degree of satisfaction that no one else gets it.

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm pretty confident that at least some Apostle on a committee was privy to the proceedings.  Based on prior higher profile cases and knowledge that has come out afterwards, like with the September 6th and wasn't it Elder Oaks who was involved?  Anyway, there is prior precedent for this kind of involvement.  

The following are excerpts from “Up Close And Personal: The Life History of Malcolm Seth and Marian Jeppsen” relating to Avraham Giliadi's excommunication. Giliadi was one of the September 6. Malcolm Jeppsen was the area authority incharge.  Giliadi's state president resisted the pressure from Jeppsen to excommunicate.  The stake president was released for standing his ground.

Quote

 

His stake president was not interested in doing much about the problem. I prodded him two times and actually gave him a copy of a report from the correlation committee outlining his false doctrines that he was teaching. On his third visit to my office he thanked me for my counsel and was leaving when I put my arm around him and said “We’re short on counsel in this office but long on direction. I’m directing you to take action to correct or else excommunicate this man. He cannot be allowed to be teaching what he is teaching and remain a member of the Church.”

Still nothing happened, so he was released as a stake president. The new one called was a professor at BYU by the name of Leaun Otten. He was appraised of the problem, and moved to correct it quickly. I gave him permission to use his regional representative in any fashion he wanted, to cross boundaries of responsibility, and gather whatever evidence he felt he needed.

 

Giliadi was later reinstated and his excommunication was expunged from his record.  Apparently the state president was listening closer to the spirit than the area authority.

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because it is an insult to the local leaders who have to deal with these often difficult situations and recasts them as puppets setting up preordained theatrical farces. It is also an insult to the apostles who function as cowards in this scenario covering up their involvement and sacrificing local leadership as PR pawns for decisions they are not even making.

 

I was involved in one high profile disciplinary court.  My neighbor got involved in an schism type organization, and signed her name to a public (in the paper) anti-church declaration.  She was called into court, and I went with her as a support and to try to speak with Bishop about her situation.  My neighbor was having some mental health challenges that she was being treated for, and I felt the Bishop should know this.  

The Bishop was receptive but told me straight out (after the excommunication happened) that he had received direction from SLC (through the SP) that everyone who had signed that public document was to be excommunicated.  He told me he couldn't even disfellowship her. That was not an option.  Regardless what the church says, they do at times dictate to local leaders on matters of church discipline.

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Hulk Hogan is a high profile person, Whoopi Goldberg is a high profile person, Guy Fieri is a high profile person, Bill Reel is a "high profile person" in his own mind

He is high enough profile that the corporation in SLC took note.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The following are excerpts from “Up Close And Personal: The Life History of Malcolm Seth and Marian Jeppsen” relating to Avraham Giliadi's excommunication. Giliadi was one of the September 6. Malcolm Jeppsen was the area authority incharge.  Giliadi's state president resisted the pressure from Jeppsen to excommunicate.  The stake president was released for standing his ground.

Giliadi was later reinstated and his excommunication was expunged from his record.  Apparently the state president was listening closer to the spirit than the area authority.

This info is from Jeppsen's daughter, but told in first person.  Is she reading from her father's diary or is it a reconstruction or what?

[SouthernMo]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The only way I would want you to answer would be to tell the truth. Why would I want otherwise? When you said you would be ok talking about it, I thought you were serious. Sorry for the offense.

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.

[TOmNossor]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Bill is sincere with respect to caring for people.  

I have no reason to believe that this statement is not true and thus I will assume it is.

I, however, conclude that if this statement is true, Bill Reel rejects the foundational (essential) claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is an apostate.  His desire to preserve his  membership is not for the right reasons  AND because of his other actions in addition to being an apostate, he should not be a member. 

In my experience with Bill Reel, he is an intelligent fellow who knows a good deal about the more difficult aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  That being said, he doesn’t know more about these things than I do IMO and he certainly doesn’t know more about these things than do dozens of folks on this board and hundreds of folks throughout the church all who are faithful committed members. 

I am on this board because I enjoy thinking about, reading about, dialoguing about these “more difficult aspects.”

What I NEVER EVER do, is thrust these things upon others.  I would never walk up to some faithful member of my ward and say, “You know the Book of Abraham ...”  To those who have encountered this or that issue, I do not present the 5 ugliest facts and then throw up my hands and say “Well ain’t that nice.”  Instead, I present the 5 ugliest facts and then my own thoughts on how to align those with a vision of the truth of the church.

Why do I behave differently than Bill Reel?   It is not because the church pays me.  It is not because I am not “sincere with respect to caring for people.”  It is because I believe that in general it is better for folks, myself included, to stay in the church and believe than to wander away spiritually or physically.  I believe the path Bill Reel walks with his head full of knowledge is less likely to lead him to God than the path walked by many members who have avoided “anti-Mormonism.”  I believe that all the anti-Mormon arguments properly understood do not substantially alter the basic truths of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I do not believe Bill Reel’s knowledge is essential to salvation.  I do believe that part of caring for people is caring if they will be happy in this life and eternally blessed in the life to come.  And I believe there is an eternal life and that being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in general the best (and certainly a very good) way to get through this life and to eternal life. 

It is my position that Bill Reel may care for people, but he does not believe that being a member of the CoJCoLDS is a large positive for the well being of people.  As such he is an apostate.

Charity, Tom

 

P.S. The question of whether the church should excommunicate apostates is another matter, but I lean heavily toward the idea that if a non-believing member knowingly acts in ways that are likely to drive people from the church they should be encouraged to cease and if they will not, it is appropriate for them to not continue to invite disbelieve in others as members (ie apostates who destroy others faith regularly should be excommunicated).  

Thomas the apostle doubted, but he continued to fellowship with the saints (and there is no evidence he tried to convince others to doubt).  On a glorious day, his doubt was replaced with faith.  I encourage those who doubt to fellowship with the saints, but not to act in ways that are likely to tear down faith in those around them (misery loves company, but this is not “caring for people.”

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no idea.   This whole thing is ridiculous.

Whether he wanted this or not it was the blatantly obvious and unavoidable conclusion.

Nobody has to be in the wrong in the outcome.  Just a natural consequence of the situation.  There was no reason on either side for him to retain membership.

Wait, what?   

You mean, there was some question about whether Bill Reel wanted to wrap himself in the comfortable, fashionable twin cloaks of martyrdom and victimhood?

Really?

Oh.  

OK.  

If you say so.  

 

(And Brother Reel, if you happen to be reading this, sorry about all of the emoticons.  I know how much you hate them.)

Edited December 4, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[TOmNossor]

14 hours 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 did not write my response to Hope_For_Things before I read this, but this is what I had in mind with my P.S.

The picture of St. Thomas doubting and yet fellowshipping with the saints is from Patrick Mason (not me).  I personally welcome those who, are “non-literal” believers for at least two reasons.

I believe the church is a good place to serve God even if you mostly consider your service to be to the human family.  These acts of service are positive for humans in this life regardless of what afterlife may exist.

I believe the church is a good place to have one’s faith re-kindled.  I think this is a positive, but it doesn’t need to be some all-consuming thing.  

 

As LDS we do not believe there is some point of no return and for all I know the “non-literal” believer is closer to God than I am.

 

That being said, if there is some value in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then having folks regularly encourage others to have some type of “faith crisis” is probably not a good thing.  I am sure my faith on the other side of a mercifully short period of doubt is MORE than my faith before.  I lean toward the view that such is a natural and positive step, but not something that one should be thrust into.  We do not seek physical and emotional trials (and we certainly do not try to inflict these trails upon those we love) even though we frequently believe they were (usually past tense) good for us.  I think spiritual trials are much the same.

Charity, TOm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ERMD said:

If this is Whataburger, then I'll have a #2, no pickles, add grilled jalapenos.

No pickles? Get out of here you Philistine!

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

My neighbor got involved in an schism type organization, and signed her name to a public (in the paper) anti-church declaration.

Sounds to me like the church leaders were just following what is already stated in the church handbook regarding apostasy.
The stake president just got clarification from them that this particular situation applies.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ll have a jalapeño burger.  Hold the jalapeño. 

Note to self: Spit on this guy’s food.

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

He is high enough profile that the corporation in SLC took note.

but what is the evidence? Bill kept saying that but how does he know? I know he's dead but when Bill Reel bodyslams Andre the Giant then we can talk about high profile🤔😎

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but what is the evidence? Bill kept saying that but how does he know? I know he's dead but when Bill Reel bodyslams Andre the Giant then we can talk about high profile🤔😎

 It's a pretty easy logical flow.  The SP didn't know Bill at all, and told Bill he was called by SL about Bill a few times.  I get that you don't want to believe Bill on that.  So, let's think.  Bill moves into a new area and doesn't go to Church.  at some point his SP contacts him and wants to meet.  What causes an SP to want to meet with an inactive member before anyone else in the ward or stake?  You complain he wasn't high profile, but it appears he's known by some random guy wandering around some country to the north, at least.  So perhaps the SP was tuned in and was aware, we'll say, of Bill due to his high, or whatever level you want to see it, profile.  Yet we also know the Church at HQ is made aware of members who are seen as threats (see bubble chart from a couple years back found on Mormon Leaks).  

Is it more likely the SP knew of Bill and saw the need to excommunicate or is it more likely that HQ wanted Bill out?  The story, remember, as far as we know, is that Bill's SP was contacted multiple times by SL to do something about Bill.  There have been plenty of examples to demonstrate the lie told when the Church says these cases are only handled locally.  This appears to be one of those.  

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The following are excerpts from “Up Close And Personal: The Life History of Malcolm Seth and Marian Jeppsen” relating to Avraham Giliadi's excommunication. Giliadi was one of the September 6. Malcolm Jeppsen was the area authority incharge.  Giliadi's state president resisted the pressure from Jeppsen to excommunicate.  The stake president was released for standing his ground.

Giliadi was later reinstated and his excommunication was expunged from his record.  Apparently the state president was listening closer to the spirit than the area authority.

Thanks, this is one of many stories about things that have happened around discipline being coordinated and directed from HQ.  Which honestly, I don't see why some people have a problem with that idea, and why the church has tried to deny that this happens or some people feel upset or embarrassed that this kind of thing happens. 

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 It's a pretty easy logical flow.  The SP didn't know Bill at all, and told Bill he was called by SL about Bill a few times.  I get that you don't want to believe Bill on that.  So, let's think.  Bill moves into a new area and doesn't go to Church.  at some point his SP contacts him and wants to meet.  What causes an SP to want to meet with an inactive member before anyone else in the ward or stake?  You complain he wasn't high profile, but it appears he's known by some random guy wandering around some country to the north, at least.  So perhaps the SP was tuned in and was aware, we'll say, of Bill due to his high, or whatever level you want to see it, profile.  Yet we also know the Church at HQ is made aware of members who are seen as threats (see bubble chart from a couple years back found on Mormon Leaks).  

Is it more likely the SP knew of Bill and saw the need to excommunicate or is it more likely that HQ wanted Bill out?  The story, remember, as far as we know, is that Bill's SP was contacted multiple times by SL to do something about Bill.  There have been plenty of examples to demonstrate the lie told when the Church says these cases are only handled locally.  This appears to be one of those.  

I can come around to that, the way Bill talks is SLC wanted him exed (that's what I was driving at) he posted this picture of a Kangaroo Court and his SP was just the frontman and the decision was already made. I just wonder, if what you're saying is true is how SLC even knew of Bill. I wouldn't have heard of him if it were not for this forum, I know he's been on TV and stuff like that but I don't get St. George TV

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

I have no reason to believe that this statement is not true and thus I will assume it is.

I, however, conclude that if this statement is true, Bill Reel rejects the foundational (essential) claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is an apostate.  His desire to preserve his  membership is not for the right reasons  AND because of his other actions in addition to being an apostate, he should not be a member. 

In my experience with Bill Reel, he is an intelligent fellow who knows a good deal about the more difficult aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  That being said, he doesn’t know more about these things than I do IMO and he certainly doesn’t know more about these things than do dozens of folks on this board and hundreds of folks throughout the church all who are faithful committed members. 

I am on this board because I enjoy thinking about, reading about, dialoguing about these “more difficult aspects.”

What I NEVER EVER do, is thrust these things upon others.  I would never walk up to some faithful member of my ward and say, “You know the Book of Abraham ...”  To those who have encountered this or that issue, I do not present the 5 ugliest facts and then throw up my hands and say “Well ain’t that nice.”  Instead, I present the 5 ugliest facts and then my own thoughts on how to align those with a vision of the truth of the church.

Why do I behave differently than Bill Reel?   It is not because the church pays me.  It is not because I am not “sincere with respect to caring for people.”  It is because I believe that in general it is better for folks, myself included, to stay in the church and believe than to wander away spiritually or physically.  I believe the path Bill Reel walks with his head full of knowledge is less likely to lead him to God than the path walked by many members who have avoided “anti-Mormonism.”  I believe that all the anti-Mormon arguments properly understood do not substantially alter the basic truths of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I do not believe Bill Reel’s knowledge is essential to salvation.  I do believe that part of caring for people is caring if they will be happy in this life and eternally blessed in the life to come.  And I believe there is an eternal life and that being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in general the best (and certainly a very good) way to get through this life and to eternal life. 

It is my position that Bill Reel may care for people, but he does not believe that being a member of the CoJCoLDS is a large positive for the well being of people.  As such he is an apostate.

Charity, Tom

 

P.S. The question of whether the church should excommunicate apostates is another matter, but I lean heavily toward the idea that if a non-believing member knowingly acts in ways that are likely to drive people from the church they should be encouraged to cease and if they will not, it is appropriate for them to not continue to invite disbelieve in others as members (ie apostates who destroy others faith regularly should be excommunicated).  

Thomas the apostle doubted, but he continued to fellowship with the saints (and there is no evidence he tried to convince others to doubt).  On a glorious day, his doubt was replaced with faith.  I encourage those who doubt to fellowship with the saints, but not to act in ways that are likely to tear down faith in those around them (misery loves company, but this is not “caring for people.”

I appreciate your opinion, and I think the way you're talking about how to treat people with respect and love is good advice for all of us to follow.  That said, I think the way you've described Bill Reel isn't accurate, and is really a straw man.  From what I understand in listening to Bill over the years, he has never been a person that was disruptive in his local ward, so your story about him going up to someone and dropping bombs of historical criticism, isn't at all accurate.  

As for what is essential for salvation or if the COJCOLDS has a net positive impact on peoples lives or not, I think those questions will vary widely by individual, and they are subjective questions with subjective answers.  I try to respect people all along the spectrum with respect to what they find value in.

I don't agree that people like Bill should be excommunicated, or labeled as apostate, I don't see a value in using those tools in a modern age.  I think the church should be open to people expressing a large amount of criticism online, much more than they seem to want to tolerate today.  We live in a society that considers freedom of speech to be a fundamental right of citizenship, and I think religious institutions ought to try and foster this basic human right.  People like Bill, someone who wasn't attending in his local ward, but just expressing his opinions online, ought to be completely tolerated.  He essentially had self selected out of the local tribe, and putting him through a mock trial and removing his name from the records is just a show, and its dumb.  

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 

I was involved in one high profile disciplinary court.  My neighbor got involved in an schism type organization, and signed her name to a public (in the paper) anti-church declaration.  She was called into court, and I went with her as a support and to try to speak with Bishop about her situation.  My neighbor was having some mental health challenges that she was being treated for, and I felt the Bishop should know this.  

The Bishop was receptive but told me straight out (after the excommunication happened) that he had received direction from SLC (through the SP) that everyone who had signed that public document was to be excommunicated.  He told me he couldn't even disfellowship her. That was not an option.  Regardless what the church says, they do at times dictate to local leaders on matters of church discipline.

I believe this.

IMO it would be very strange if SLC did NOT become involved in some of these high profile cases. Yet they seem to like the separation from the dirty work, claiming DC's are local. The system seems to be working pretty well. On occasion, if warranted, they give some direction from SLC, while the local leaders take the heat.

What does direction from SLC look like? I suppose it could vary, depending on the case. But at the very least I would expect that top leadership could "suggest" certain people be called in for DC's. IF a member of the Q15 suggested to the 70 or to the SP that Bill Reel should be called in for a DC for apostasy, it would be very strange if that did not happen. The presumption at that point would also be that, because Elder X believes Bill should be disciplined for apostasy, Bill is guilty of apostasy. Direction is given, or suggested, and lower leaders follow and sustain their higher leaders. Seems like a reasonable scenario.

[tkv]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't agree that people like Bill should be excommunicated, or labeled as apostate, I don't see a value in using those tools in a modern age.

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.