Jump to content
cinepro

Bill Reel $150 Challenge to Church Newsroom

Recommended Posts

So it was answered before most people knew about it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So it was answered before most people knew about it

The challenge was originally issued on 1/7.  I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

............................

Bill Reel $150 Challenge to Church Newsroom

Quote

The reward is now at $150 for the two or more quotes from two prophets that substantiates the claim:

"Prophets (PLURAL) have taught (INFERS SOMEWHERE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD) that there will be no end (TEMPLE CHANGES WILL BE ONGOING FOREVER) to such (TEMPLE CHANGES) adjustments (THINGS ADDED AND REMOVED) as directed by the Lord to His servants."

..................................

The form in which the challenge was made was improper to begin with.  Bill should simply have asked whether changes in temple rites have in fact taken place over time, including during biblical times.  Change in temple rites has been a feature of both LDS and Israelite practice since earliest times.  The question which interests scholars has always been what changes, and for what purpose?  Hugh NIbley's "What is a Temple?" has always been a good place to start -- https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/what-temple .  After that, one should look at his "Christian Envy of the Temple" -- https://www.preteristarchive.com/1959_temple_nibley_envy/ .

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

There's this quote by the disaffected John Hyde in 1857, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs "There is one thing that is utterly ridiculous, the pretending to claim inspiration as its source. Its signs, tokens, marks
and ideas are plagiarized from masonry.  The whole affair is being constantly amended and corrected, and [Heber c.] Kimball often says, 'We will get it perfect by-and-bye.''

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Yawn.  

Just confirms what I have known and said about Bill from the beginning- that his understanding of the Church is pretty basic and actually from Bruce R and his relatives writings making it up as they go, in contradiction to the spirit of affirming change as Joseph did.  It's that old Mormon tradition stuff instead of what the scriptures actually say.  It reminds me of McConkie's statement of doctrine that Mormons do not use face cards.  

Just the whole concept of on-going revelation contradicts the idea that there "will be no changes".  

Either there can be revealed CHANGES - unprecedented - or there cannot.  That seems to be the whole point of on-going revelation!!

Even if the quotes were NOT found, on-going revelation revealed it in the statement of the 15 publicized on Jan 2 when the temple changes hit.

The idea that on-going revelation requires the precedent of doctrine revealed before is self-contradictory!!

"Oh you can have on-going revelation as long as it does not contradict what has been revealed before" is a complete contradiction of on-going revelation in the first place.

But it's Reel-ality to him.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

If the church newsroom knew about the bet (which I doubt) I bet they would be tickled pink that Bill Reel paid someone to provide their references!   That would be like Leah Remini paying someone for references supporting Scientology.  :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bill should simply have asked whether changes in temple rites have in fact taken place over time, including during biblical times. 

But that doesn't address what was said in the press release.  Perhaps the press release went about it wrongly and should have just pointed to changes over the eons to show consistency, but they appealed to prophets' comments so of course people will ask "what comments" if they are not personally aware of them,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'm surprised he asked the question, he also said he's looked into every "nook and cranny" of the Church and knows more than nearly everyone, so why is he asking? he should, by his own admission, already be familiar with this aspect of the Church. 

I agree if one claims to be an expert on the Church, they should be aware of the quotes or find them relatively easily given they would likely know the context in which they could be found.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There's this quote by the disaffected John Hyde in 1857, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs "There is one thing that is utterly ridiculous, the pretending to claim inspiration as its source. Its signs, tokens, marks
and ideas are plagiarized from masonry.  The whole affair is being constantly amended and corrected, and [Heber c.] Kimball often says, 'We will get it perfect by-and-bye.''

Yep- I hope this gets us all past the Masonry thing.  Using the same cultural symbols as others have used is like using an "R" as a symbol even though others have used "R"'s before!

One does not make up a new private language for everything one wants to say- no one would get the meaning without the context.  That is simply called "language"

Christianity is not new to signs- Catholics genuflect, and point their folded hands to heaven and do the sign of the cross before praying and no one worries about where those signs originated. 

In older versions of the initiatories an ostensible sign of the cross was done across the back and shoulders of the patron.  Similar practices in Orthodoxy also include similar signs.

Symbols are a language- it is not surprising that they would have many possible "sources" in the culture

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wilford Woodruff made a change, or maybe it was a correction, concerning the law of adoption where people were sealing themselves to other non related people:

"I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers, and there was a spirit manifested by some in that work that was not of God.
 I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people... (May 28, 1894)

There was the law of retribution or oath of vengeance that was removed where members were to pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc.

In the 1920's the length of the ceremony was reduced from 6 hours to 3 hours

And, believe it or not, another element disappeared in 1927 when kissing over the altar during vicarious sealings for the dead was abolished. I wonder if this kissing was going on between unmarried couples?

There have been a lot of changes over the decades so I don't know of any prophet who would claim that elements of the temple ceremonies would never change. 
 

Edited by JAHS

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, juliann said:

So Bill, the expert in all things Mormon, still hasn’t gotten the memo that you can find just about anything in copious LDS writings/records? 

I couldn’t get past the misuse of  “infer.” It’s like screeching chalk on a blackboard. 

Yeah that always drives me nuts as well.  It's basic vocabulary as far as I am concerned and I don't understand why people confuse those two.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Wilford Woodruff made a change, or maybe it was a correction, concerning the law of adoption where people were sealing themselves to other non related people:

"I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers, and there was a spirit manifested by some in that work that was not of God.
 I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people... (May 28, 1894)

There was the law of retribution or oath of vengeance that was removed where members were to pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc.

In the 1920's the length of the ceremony was reduced from 6 hours to 3 hours

And, believe it or not, another element disappeared in 1927 when kissing over the altar during vicarious sealings for the dead was abolished. I wonder if this kissing was going on between unmarried couples?

There have been a lot of changes over the decades so I don't know of any prophet who would claim that the basic important elements of the temple ceremonies would never change. 
 

Agreed.  It's funny that it is worded that one should be "adopted" to one's own natural father!  ;)  So even then the concept itself seems not to have been fully developed.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The conversation came from here:  https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/ag5geb/bill_reels_150_challenge_to_substantiate_the_fp/ee4ue4p/

and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/ag5geb/bill_reels_150_challenge_to_substantiate_the_fp/ee4nk8q/

Bill did not seem particularly persuaded and excited about declaring his contest had been won.  Kevin Owen (and another user, John H2), supplied several other quotes which weren't deemed acceptable by Bill's standards. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, juliann said:

So Bill, the expert in all things Mormon, still hasn’t gotten the memo that you can find just about anything in copious LDS writings/records? 

I couldn’t get past the misuse of  “infer.” It’s like screeching chalk on a blackboard. 

Note to self: Don't get excommunicated.

Share this post


Link to post

So does this mean someone will be pulling down all the Joseph Smith vs Russel M. Nelson memes that have been gleefully posted all over the Apostatesphere over the past two weeks ... and apologising for being dead wrong?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

That's the real news here - did $150 change hands?

I note that Mr Reel is soliciting contributions on his Facebook page to help cover the cost of paying out the wager ...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that Mr Reel is soliciting contributions on his Facebook page to help cover the cost of paying out the wager ...

Then perhaps he shouldn’t have made it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that Mr Reel is soliciting contributions on his Facebook page to help cover the cost of paying out the wager ...

🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

"I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers, and there was a spirit manifested by some in that work that was not of God.
 I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people... (May 28, 1894)

I have to wonder how the exception clause would play out in today's Church.

I  believe it is still practiced in a way today when adopted children and blended families are sealed.

The ordinance still exists, much like the plural marriage ceremonies.  It is just not the current default.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×