flameburns623 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Mods: please review and remove if inappropriate. From his Facebook page: UPDATE GENERAL PUBLIC ON MEETING WITH STAKE PRESIDENT My Stake President has told me that excommunication is one of three possible outcomes for my use of Social Media (The other two are to stop using Social media the way I do, or to resign). While Salt Lake claims discipline is entirely a local matter, that does not seem to be how it is being relayed to me. His hand appears forced with these three options being the only ones available to him. My Stake President has said clearly that no one is claiming I am telling false facts. In fact no one is naming something I said as a problem due to it being false. In fact it is being acknowledged that tone seems to be the only thing on the table for the why of this process. No one has named one false perspective that I have shared. It appears from all said that no one wants to contest the truth of my postings or audio perspectives. Rather it appears Salt Lake in spite of my telling the truth, does not like my tone. Specifically they were upset with my posts about Elder Holland lying. Not because Elder Holland didn't lie, but because I didn't say it nicely enough or that I chose to say it at all. How do I defend tone in a church court when what I have said is demonstrably true? How can one defend the tone of his facts? Isn't that strange. The facts are deeply against the Church's narrative. So attacking folks on the facts is a lost cause. Now it is how nice you say you imposition of those facts. Yet, it is the tone and pressure of stating those facts publicly that have led to most social change in the Church and a present revamping of its narrative. No one has sat down with me to point out something false I am saying. All along the way the issue has been tone and not data. That to me is telling! Lastly, isn't it odd that a Apostle who lies (more than one occasion and demonstrable), can continue to be an apostle and not face and formal discipline but the guy who calls it out will in fact be eventually punished for doing so? That seems telling that the system protects a certain segment it considers above the religious law and will punish those who threaten that privilege. (There was another guy who pointed to such things.... what was his name again...... ?) I will stand for truth. That isn't changing. And I am not resigning. Elder Holland - Would you please help my Stake President to understand how you justified saying that we are experiencing double digit stake creation every week of our lives? Please this will be helpful in determining that my Church discipline is based on tone of the truth and not that I am stating something false about you. Thanks SCMC in passing this along. Lastly, I am at peace with this. Don't worry about my me personally on this front. The Church court when it occurs will be traumatizing and cause angst but that is a very separate thing from how my life is going and whether I am at peace with my relationship with Mormonism. If honesty is a problem. and people have to couch their honesty a certain way. Then that points to an institution and not the person being punished.
Popular Post cinepro Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 I don't understand why people get confused about this. Some things that are true about the Church are damaging to the Church if presented in the wrong way (or presented at all). Working to damage the Church is probably seen as an attack by the Church leadership, and they will (unsurprisingly) move to defend the Church. So presumably Bill would get ex'd not for "telling the truth", but for "attacking the Church (with the truth)." At some point, I think the Church does some of these actions out of mercy. I think it's possible for someone to be so miserable in the Church, and so mad at it, that the merciful thing to do is help them find peace by kicking them out. 18
Duncan Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 To me, he's the latest Exmo soup of the day superstar and in 2 weeks or less the social media limelight will move onto someone else 4
CA Steve Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, cinepro said: I don't understand why people get confused about this. Some things that are true about the Church are damaging to the Church if presented in the wrong way (or presented at all). Working to damage the Church is probably seen as an attack by the Church leadership, and they will (unsurprisingly) move to defend the Church. So presumably Bill would get ex'd not for "telling the truth", but for "attacking the Church (with the truth)." At some point, I think the Church does some of these actions out of mercy. I think it's possible for someone to be so miserable in the Church, and so mad at it, that the merciful thing to do is help them find peace by kicking them out. It's confusing because even leadership acknowledges they are fallible, but evidently one is not allowed to publicly point it out when they are. If it comes to that, Bill won't be tried for attacking the church, he will be tried for refusing to shut up. 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 I wish Bill the best of luck. Sadly, this was predictable. 3
Popular Post rongo Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: I don't understand why people get confused about this. Some things that are true about the Church are damaging to the Church if presented in the wrong way (or presented at all). Working to damage the Church is probably seen as an attack by the Church leadership, and they will (unsurprisingly) move to defend the Church. So presumably Bill would get ex'd not for "telling the truth", but for "attacking the Church (with the truth)." At some point, I think the Church does some of these actions out of mercy. I think it's possible for someone to be so miserable in the Church, and so mad at it, that the merciful thing to do is help them find peace by kicking them out. This. The meme, du jour, for apostates in disciplinary councils is "They didn't even deny or address my complaints/claims!" When a person is persistently attacking the Church, they are facing discipline for that alone. The relative validity of their complaints/claims has nothing to do with it, and isn't considered. I know that the talking point then becomes, "They can't handle the truth! They're afraid to address my complaint/claims!" but it is actually not that at all (in most cases). It's simply a black-and-white matter of people who persistently publicly attack the Church, and refuse to stop. As you indicate, it's really very simple. And, I would add, leaders are not afraid of the "issues." They are not going to allow a disciplinary council to turn into a PR circus with apostates calling the shots and grandstanding with their manifestos. 7
CA Steve Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 12 minutes ago, rongo said: This. The meme, du jour, for apostates in disciplinary councils is "They didn't even deny or address my complaints/claims!" When a person is persistently attacking the Church, they are facing discipline for that alone. The relative validity of their complaints/claims has nothing to do with it, and isn't considered. I know that the talking point then becomes, "They can't handle the truth! They're afraid to address my complaint/claims!" but it is actually not that at all (in most cases). It's simply a black-and-white matter of people who persistently publicly attack the Church, and refuse to stop. As you indicate, it's really very simple. And, I would add, leaders are not afraid of the "issues." They are not going to allow a disciplinary council to turn into a PR circus with apostates calling the shots and grandstanding with their manifestos. Then it isn't a court, it is merely a sentencing hearing. 2
Popular Post rongo Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Then it isn't a court, it is merely a sentencing hearing. Sure it is, but the questions under consideration are "Has he been attacking the Church, and if so, has he continued even after being told to stop?" "Is he at all repentant?" Etc. It isn't, "Are his claims against the Church accurate or 'true?' " For purposes of trying for apostasy, only the behavior is the focus. ETA: And, if his retort and defense is, "Well, Elder Holland really is a liar," anyone with a brain can see the outcome coming a mile away. I mean, his exhibit A is comments that he interprets a certain way, not black-and-white statements of fact from Elder Holland. But he'll try to pound that drum. It's the only defense for apostasy he has, really, but not a good one. He is now an apostate with respect to his behavior towards the Church, and I think even his defenders would concede that. Does anyone know whether he still harbors some sort of belief in God and the restoration? Or has he already thrown the baby out with the bathwater? Edited July 30, 2018 by rongo 5
HappyJackWagon Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, rongo said: Sure it is, but the questions under consideration are "Has he been attacking the Church, and if so, has he continued even after being told to stop?" "Is he at all repentant?" Etc. It isn't, "Are his claims against the Church accurate or 'true?' " For purposes of trying for apostasy, only the behavior is the focus. That's a pretty stark admission. It doesn't matter if what you say is right, if you argue/complain/attack the church, they you are wrong. Meaning the church can do no wrong. 2
ALarson Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 57 minutes ago, cinepro said: I don't understand why people get confused about this. Some things that are true about the Church are damaging to the Church if presented in the wrong way (or presented at all). Working to damage the Church is probably seen as an attack by the Church leadership, and they will (unsurprisingly) move to defend the Church. So presumably Bill would get ex'd not for "telling the truth", but for "attacking the Church (with the truth)." At some point, I think the Church does some of these actions out of mercy. I think it's possible for someone to be so miserable in the Church, and so mad at it, that the merciful thing to do is help them find peace by kicking them out. I agree. I have read that the Stake President is being very upfront that this came from Salt Lake and it's not just coming from Bill's local leaders.
Popular Post rongo Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's a pretty stark admission. It doesn't matter if what you say is right, if you argue/complain/attack the church, they you are wrong. Meaning the church can do no wrong. I'm not admitting anything. I don't think his claims have merit, and if he were under me, anyone who knows me knows I wouldn't be afraid to talk for hours and days with him about his issues with the Church (I have been the go-to person for years on CES letter, social media issues, etc. stuff in my stake). But I also wouldn't allow the disciplinary council to be used for further grandstanding and martyrdom attempts. The Church simply has the right not to put up with repeated attacks from people who want to remain members. If they won't stop attacking, then the Church has the right to sever their membership so that their attacks don't continue to be from professed members. It's as simple as that. No one has to go out into his weeds to determine whether or not he has been and will continue to attack the Church. Interesting to me is his insistence that he will not resign. If that remains the case, he will be in elite company. All of the high-profile DCs lately (e.g., Jeremy Runnels, et. al.) have resigned "you can't fire me because I quit!"-style, rather than allow the Church the satisfaction of making the decision. I think this is actually what he will end up doing. It's a pride thing, and especially when you have people egging you on, pride doesn't let them submit to a Church decision. 5
Popular Post Duncan Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Known this for a while...Leave him alone okay? people would love to but he put it out there! the Church didn't, what was he expecting? like I say the Bill Reel's thrive on drama of their own making and paint themselves as the victim. The Church didn't ask him to put it out there, isn't he embarrased at all? Like when did a Church disciplinary Court become an advertised event? it's like celebrating getting arrested and being all surprised that people are like, well you broke the law and you get what you get Edited July 30, 2018 by Duncan 8
ALarson Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, Duncan said: people would love to but he put it out there! The truth? I agree that his tone, etc., is what got him into trouble. But what are you referring to ("It")?
Duncan Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, ALarson said: The truth? I agree that his tone, etc., is what got him into trouble. But what are you referring to ("It")? Bill Reel and the truth are like Americans and quality Coke products🥤 🤢I was talking about his court situation
CA Steve Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, rongo said: Sure it is, but the questions under consideration are "Has he been attacking the Church, and if so, has he continued even after being told to stop?" "Is he at all repentant?" Etc. It isn't, "Are his claims against the Church accurate or 'true?' " For purposes of trying for apostasy, only the behavior is the focus. ETA: And, if his retort and defense is, "Well, Elder Holland really is a liar," anyone with a brain can see the outcome coming a mile away. I mean, his exhibit A is comments that he interprets a certain way, not black-and-white statements of fact from Elder Holland. But he'll try to pound that drum. It's the only defense for apostasy he has, really, but not a good one. He is now an apostate with respect to his behavior towards the Church, and I think even his defenders would concede that. Does anyone know whether he still harbors some sort of belief in God and the restoration? Or has he already thrown the baby out with the bathwater? Rongo I do not agree, it isn't a court it is really a sentencing hearing because the most import charge against him, the one about him attacking the church, has already been decided. Whether or not you or I think he is doing that is not the point, the guy who is conducting the investigation has already made that decision and that's all that counts. It's like if my bishop came up to me and told me I was going to be excommunicated if I didn't stop beating my wife and the only thing under consideration from there on in was if I had repented of it and had stopped. Any facts I could present that I hadn't beaten my wife are not allowed in court because they don't want to turn it into a circus. Edited July 30, 2018 by CA Steve
blueglass Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 16 minutes ago, rongo said: (I have been the go-to person for years on CES letter, social media issues, etc. stuff in my stake). But I also wouldn't allow the disciplinary council to be used for further grandstanding and martyrdom attempts. As the go-to person on CES letter over the years, what are the top 3 issues from CES letter which trouble people? What were the counter-arguments you have used to help them overcome their doubts on these top 3 issues?
rongo Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, blueglass said: As the go-to person on CES letter over the years, what are the top 3 issues from CES letter which trouble people? What were the counter-arguments you have used to help them overcome their doubts on these top 3 issues? 1. Joseph Smith polygamy 2. Book of Mormon issues 3. Book of Abraham. And others, but those stand out. Counter-arguments and explanations would fill threads. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 15 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm not admitting anything. I don't think his claims have merit, and if he were under me, anyone who knows me knows I wouldn't be afraid to talk for hours and days with him about his issues with the Church (I have been the go-to person for years on CES letter, social media issues, etc. stuff in my stake). But I also wouldn't allow the disciplinary council to be used for further grandstanding and martyrdom attempts. The Church simply has the right not to put up with repeated attacks from people who want to remain members. If they won't stop attacking, then the Church has the right to sever their membership so that their attacks don't continue to be from professed members. It's as simple as that. No one has to go out into his weeds to determine whether or not he has been and will continue to attack the Church. Interesting to me is his insistence that he will not resign. If that remains the case, he will be in elite company. All of the high-profile DCs lately (e.g., Jeremy Runnels, et. al.) have resigned "you can't fire me because I quit!"-style, rather than allow the Church the satisfaction of making the decision. I think this is actually what he will end up doing. It's a pride thing, and especially when you have people egging you on, pride doesn't let them submit to a Church decision. Rongo, think about this a little bit. If he is disciplined for saying true things because his leaders think it makes the church look bad, or because they judge his tone to be negative, then the truth doesn't really matter much. I admit that Bill's tone can be a bit jarring at times but I think that style is sometimes effective at getting people to take notice of an issue. Imagine someone going into a criminal trial and being convicted, not because they broke the law, but because the judge didn't like the person's tone. It would look like a kangaroo court. You find it interesting that someone who values his membership in the church wouldn't merely resign when threatened? I suppose you can call it pride, but maybe he values his membership too much to give it up willingly. Perhaps he'd rather the leaders be forced to answer to God for X'ing him instead of him being forced to answer for resigning. BTW- I think you've got your info wrong. Aside from Runnells, I don't know of any of the high profile cases where the member resigned before being X'd. Dehlin, Kelly, et al were X'd. They didn't resign. Or am I misremembering. I think in most cases these "high profile" individuals don't resign. I think you've got that wrong. 4
Popular Post readstoomuch Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 When Bill first started, I really liked his podcast. They have just gotten more and more negative. I remember defending him on this board and a number disagreed with me. As I recall, he is a wolf in sheeps clothing and he will eventually be out of the Church one way or the other is what I heard. There are plenty of times I have disagreed with his conclusions. He will yell over you and is never wrong. Bill seems to only choose the negative, the most extreme cases. Historical analysis requires balance. Something John Turner does pretty well. Even if I don't agree with everything John Turner says. Hopefully, Bill finds peace. He has been pushing the envelope of excommunication for years. Surprised it took this long. 8
Jeanne Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 47 minutes ago, Duncan said: people would love to but he put it out there! the Church didn't, what was he expecting? like I say the Bill Reel's thrive on drama of their own making and paint themselves as the victim. The Church didn't ask him to put it out there, isn't he embarrased at all? Like when did a Church disciplinary Court become an advertised event? it's like celebrating getting arrested and being all surprised that people are like, well you broke the law and you get what you get I think Bill was expecting this. Being called out on any truths is like being a BYU professor in the late 60's and early 70's. Truth doesn't matter. What does matter is that Bill spoke up on things and willing to go down that rode that where the church will penalize someone for telling the truth. This is so back a@@ backwards. 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted July 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 30, 2018 No idea who this is but after reading the grammatical and rhetorical mess of a post quoted in the OP I also want him to stop using social media to communicate. Maybe he should try YouTube commenting? 7
Duncan Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, Jeanne said: I think Bill was expecting this. Being called out on any truths is like being a BYU professor in the late 60's and early 70's. Truth doesn't matter. What does matter is that Bill spoke up on things and willing to go down that rode that where the church will penalize someone for telling the truth. This is so back a@@ backwards. I am not so sure about that, Hugh Nibley and Truman Madsen were profs. back then and nobody said tickety boo to them. I think Bill was probably hoping to be the latest martyr for his version of things 3
stemelbow Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: I don't understand why people get confused about this. Some things that are true about the Church are damaging to the Church if presented in the wrong way (or presented at all). Working to damage the Church is probably seen as an attack by the Church leadership, and they will (unsurprisingly) move to defend the Church. So presumably Bill would get ex'd not for "telling the truth", but for "attacking the Church (with the truth)." At some point, I think the Church does some of these actions out of mercy. I think it's possible for someone to be so miserable in the Church, and so mad at it, that the merciful thing to do is help them find peace by kicking them out. The Church pretends the truth matters. THat's the point of confusion. As it is the Church is far less about what is true and far more about control.
Recommended Posts