Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Calm]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is Bill claiming that he has no responsibility to the church? I haven't seen that.

Is it wrong to expect leaders of an organization to be held accountable for misdeeds (I'm speaking generally, not specifically about Holland)? Perhaps it's a reflection of our political system that I've come to expect that all leaders are accountable and have a responsibility to the constituency which it serves, but I think it's good for all men to know they are accountable, not only to God, but also to the people.

I agree with this, which is why I would have no problem with a D.C. Being held for Elder Holland if he was consistently using inflammatory language to attack Bill Reel or another member in such a way to cause members to question their faith and covenants in order to determine if he had broken or rejected his covenants.  I think "lay" members are as responsible to the faith community as the leaders.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree with this, which is why I would have no problem with a D.C. Being held for Elder Holland if he was consistently using inflammatory language to attack Bill Reel or another member in such a way to cause members to question their faith and covenants in order to determine if he had broken or rejected his covenants.  I think "lay" members are as responsible to the faith community as the leaders.

Given the ultimatum from the stake president, it sounds as if they’ve already determined that he has broken or rejected his covenants. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/30/2018 at 12:17 PM, cinepro said:

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

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 is particularly true of the Alex Jones types who imagine lies and deception around every corner and in every heart -- except theirs.  He'll enjoy being a martyr.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is particularly true of the Alex Jones types who imagine lies and deception around every corner and in every heart -- except theirs.  He'll enjoy being a martyr.

Comparing him to Alex Jones is pretty harsh. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Given the ultimatum from the stake president, it sounds as if they’ve already determined that he has broken or rejected his covenants. 

That comes under the heading of normal "boundary maintenance" and Church discipline.  Charges are brought because someone thinks that they should be.  The Court is held to determine whether they are true or false.  The same applies to ultimatums to cease & desist.  Disobedience to a reasonable ultimatum is not at all inappropriate.  Even apostles have been exed for failure to follow the rules.

If, instead of being a yokel, Bill had been a professional reporter doing his job, he would be able to innocently point to his dispassionate account of the facts in the press.  Bill just doesn't get it.  Because of his recklessness, he may not be able to escape from the charge that he has violated his temple covenant not to speak ill of the Brethren.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Comparing him to Alex Jones is pretty harsh. 

True enough, but bear in mind that Facebook has had to curtail some of his statements online.  Judgments sometimes have to be made, despite our general wish not to interfere with free speech.  You can be sure that Alex Jones does not believe that he has done anything wrong.  He's just a victim.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Given the ultimatum from the stake president, it sounds as if they’ve already determined that he has broken or rejected his covenants. 

I think in many cases that is possible to do.  I suspect where there may be doubt if it has gone that far, most leaders would be working with the individual for months or years (as we saw happen with Dehlin) though there was always a choice to hold  D.C. earlier.

-------

It needs to be remembered the vast majority of DCs are private as are the vast majority of private counseling over concerns of covenant breaking, whatever they are.  We don't hear about any private sessions of GAs counseling with their leaders over concerns, so there may be assumptions it never happens, but we also don't hear about private sessions of counseling of any other member (unless the member chooses to publicize it), yet we wouldn't assume at these levels no counseling ever occurs.

On rare occasions we hear of the end results of GA discipline where it is announced a GA is excommunicated.  We can safely assume there were many private discussions prior to the formal announcement.  Why not assume there are also private sessions that other GAs may be having where they are counseled to modify their behaviour and do so?  Why assume there are different rules for leaders, that they are not being held accountable for any missteps or misdeeds and therefore the only way to hold them properly accountable is to publicly target them?

I am not saying one should just assume the level of holding them accountable would be acceptable to one if only one knew, but there seems to be this feeling that leaders are not held responsible for their errors from some (for example, in the language of HJW "is it wrong to expect leaders to be held accountable?").

Our church process of accountability is primarily private and confidential.  I think this is wise as people find it easier to change if they are not held up to public censure and placed into a defensive position.  I see no reason to have a different process for the lay member as the leader.  This does have the drawback of putting others at risk when behaviours are not immediately repented of and abuse of power or trust or any other form can continue, but our faith system is fundamentally based on repentance being fully available to all, so it does not surprise me that our leaders at times err on the side of mercy.

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Because of his recklessness, he may not be able to escape from the charge that he has violated his temple covenant not to speak ill of the Brethren.

For years I’ve been taught that “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” means criticizing church leaders - especially those higher in the hierarchy.

As I’ve been thinking and studying more about what this part of my covenant means, I’ve only gotten more confused. There’s a lot that’s been written over the years that sounds fine by itself, but doesn’t cross-reference well. It’s unfortunate because it’s clearly a covenant endowed members of the LDS church are committed to live by.

When are leaders (bishop all the way up the hierarchy to president of the church) anointed?  Except for the second anointing - which there is secrecy around - my anointing is the same as most of theirs.  Wouldn’t God have said “criticizing church leaders” if that’s what he meant?

What happens when LDS leaders are released? Are they un-anointed?  Then can we disparage those same men?

LDS writing that I’ve found teaches precious little about this that makes sense to me.  So, I live my covenant by trying to speak as kindly and as honestly as I can about those who have been endowed.  I think anyone who is endowed can be called “the Lord’s anointed.”

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Sam Young is doing his darndest to get people in Houston to be mad at the Church. Maybe the numbers out in Dallas might start ticking upwards . . . 

Sam who?  never  heard of him. Almost nobody in the rest of the world cares. The mountain west people take themselves too seriously in my opinion.

Just over 1% of Texans are LDS and we're the 5th most populace state of LDS in the U.S.A.  So while it may be a big deal in Utah - it doesn't play on Main Street U.S.A.

But hey....carry on.

Edited August 1, 2018 by mnn727

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

A number of posts have been written about this since I started on here months ago, but it’s important to me to point out:

Those members who believe and claim things of Mormonism are black and white, believing and not believing push people out.  If you believe your interpretation to be correct, and want to be an effective missionary to your faith, don’t make those of us who are ‘grey’, ‘doubting’, ‘searching’, or some other ‘in between’ adjective feel like we don’t belong in the LDS church.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

I don't care if you're doubting or whatever- that's fine, but when you start publicly railing against the Church and/or its leaders and trying to influence others - you've already removed yourself - time to make it formal and get on with your life.

Edited August 1, 2018 by mnn727

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I don't care if you're doubting or whatever- that's fine, but when you start publicly railing against the Church and/or its leaders and trying to influence others - you've already removed yourself - time to make it formal and get on with your life.

I understand the propriety of being vocal at the right times and places with the right audience.  But, your previous statement that I commented on is harsh and divisive. It does not clarify that you mean only to keep our “[doubts or whatever]” to ourselves.  

Your post: ”Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.”

Please, invite us to stay; invite us back.  Be careful not to push us away with your words.

 

[bdouglas]

Bro. Reel says he believes “deeply in Christ,” yet he probably spends hours and hours every week chipping away at the faith of his former LDS brothers and sisters. His is a wholly negative pursuit. It’s hard to find anything redemptive or Christlike about it.

There is also the matter of calling someone else a “liar”. Bill suggests he sees “a pattern of lying” in Elder Holland’s conduct. But I say baloney. Bro. Reel is a literalistic and simplistic thinker, what the scriptures refer to as “blindness of mind.”

I don’t doubt Bro. Reel’s belief in Christ, but I doubt his having absorbed one of Christ’s best known teachings, from Matthew 7:3-5:

 

Quote

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Bill is good at spotting the mote (whether it is really there or not) in Elder Holland’s eye, but he can’t see the beam in his own eye.

And what is this beam? It is his moral vanity. It is his simplistic and literalistic thinking. It is his love of the spotlight i.e. becoming an ex-Mormon polemicist——a paid ex-Mormon polemicist! (If you're really willing to shell out, you can become one of his "premium subscribers".)

You have left the church, Bill. Now why not leave it alone?

P.S. - In person, Bill is a very nice guy. I met him once at his pawn shop (or the pawn shop he manages). I bought a couple of tools, and we chatted for a bit. A very nice guy——which makes it sad to see him going down the ex-Mormon road and joining the ranks of Mr. Runnells, the Tanners, John Dehlin, et al. In short, it is sad to see him joining the ex-Mormon "haters".

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by bdouglas

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, DBMormon said:

another double standard is if apostles in their sin are protected from the standard church mechanisms of encouraging repentance yet those who raise a hand to it with a tone judged sinful are subject to them

As I stated earlier, Mr. Reel, if, somehow, I were given the opportunity to be punished for Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's sins rather than my own, while he, conversely, volunteered to be punished for my sins rather than for his own sins, I would take that offer every day and twice on Sunday.  Your mileage obviously varies.  To each, his own.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Given the ultimatum from the stake president, it sounds as if they’ve already determined that he has broken or rejected his covenants. 

One of those covenants involves what we say about leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  While, as I implied earlier, Bill Reel and his leaders must determine if that shoe fits one of his feet, it's not as though the very accusation itself is, in his case, absurd on its face.  It's not as though any reasonable person is compelled to conclude that there's no "there" there.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One of those covenants involves what we say about leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  While, as I implied earlier, Bill Reel and his leaders must determine if that shoe fits one of his feet, it's not as though the very accusation itself is, in his case, absurd on its face.  It's not as though no reasonable person could determine that there's no "there" there.

I don’t disagree. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem correct to say the disciplinary council is being held to see if he has broken his covenants.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

... Bill is good at spotting the mote (whether it is really there or not) in Elder Holland’s eye, but he can’t see the beam in his own eye. ...

Yes, Matthew 7:3 does seem rather appropos of this discussion, doesn't it?

Quote

P.S. - In person, Bill is a very nice guy. I met him once in his pawn shop (of the pawn shop he manages). I bought a couple of tools, and we chatted for a bit. A very nice guy——which makes it sad to see him going down the ex-Mormon road and joining the ranks of Mr. Runnells, the Tanners, John Dehlin i.e. joining the ranks of those who make ex-Mormonism a career, in fact a paying career.

Well, they, in stark contrast to us poor, benighted, gullible, believing souls, are the illuminati BDouglas.  Alas, if only.  

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, Matthew 7:3 does seem rather appropos of this discussion, doesn't it?

Well, they, in stark contrast to us poor, benighted, gullible, believing souls, are the illuminati BDouglas.  Alas, if only.  

I didn’t realize being an ex-Mormon could be profitable. I must be doing something wrong. 

Seriously, though, why do people say we have to “leave the church alone”? Many people actually find the church interesting, even long after they’ve left the church. Heck, Don Bradley might never have come back to the church had he “left it alone.”

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Cognitive Dissonance is MO in Faith/Religion business...One has to be good at compartmentalizing the reality/facts/beliefs.

That's right!  You got us, AM!  The gig is up!  We're only faithful because, somehow, we've managed to quell the Cog-Dis which, eventually and inevitably, will overtake all of us!  (Sigh! Welp, it was fun while it lasted!  Will the last person out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights? ) 

[SouthernMo]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One of those covenants involves what we say about leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Would you explain how you understand this covenant to me?  I assume you’re referring to the covenant LDS make in the temple as part of the Law of the Gospel?  We should refrain from “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”.  Is this what you’re posting about?

Edited August 1, 2018 by SouthernMo

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Given the ultimatum from the stake president, it sounds as if they’ve already determined that he has broken or rejected his covenants. 

Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Would you explain how you understand this covenant to me?  I assume you’re referring to the covenant LDS make in the temple as part of the Law of the Gospel?  We should refrain from “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”.  Is this what you’re posting about?

As interesting as that seemingly-as-yet-unexplored corner of our vast orb might be, I don't wish to accompany you down that rabbit hole, but, by all means, I hope you have tons of fun exploring it on your own!  

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As I stated earlier, Mr. Reel, if, somehow, I were given the opportunity to be punished for Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's sins rather than my own, while he, conversely, volunteered to be punished for my sins rather than for his own sins, I would take that offer every day and twice on Sunday.  Your mileage obviously varies.  To each, his own.

Why do you want so badly to be punished for another’s sins?  The mortal situation we find ourselves in comes with the cost of not really understanding the extent, depth, nor frequency of another’s sins. The problem with your claim here is your just posturing.  It becomes meaningless.  I get you don’t like Bills activities and think there is certain sin involved, but worrying about e Holland’s state because his words have been the source of so many problems seems to miss the point.  It’s not his eternal state in question but whether what he has said in some instances is good useful or helpful.  If he’s been wrong on those questions then it is fine not fair someone point that out.  

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As interesting as that seemingly-as-yet-unexplored corner of our vast orb might be, I don't wish to accompany you down that rabbit hole, but, by all means, I hope you have tons of fun exploring it on your own!  

Alright - we all have to live our covenants as we understand them. I just like to hear other thoughts and perspectives because I find insights useful to triangulate against what I’ve read and what has been revealed to me.

[strappinglad]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m just saying it doesn’t seem correct to say the disciplinary council is being held to see if he has broken his covenants.

The DC MUST be held in order to impose the punishment that is warranted . You may look upon it as a foregone conclusion/rubber stamp if you want .The SP after meeting with many involved , has decided that a DC is needed. He may already be convinced of guilt, BUT evidence may be brought out during the DC that changes his mind. Even God is said to have reconsidered destroying a place because circumstances changed.

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why do you want so badly to be punished for another’s sins?  The mortal situation we find ourselves in comes with the cost of not really understanding the extent, depth, nor frequency of another’s sins. The problem with your claim here is your just posturing.  It becomes meaningless.  I get you don’t like Bills activities and think there is certain sin involved, but worrying about e Holland’s state because his words have been the source of so many problems seems to miss the point.  It’s not his eternal state in question but whether what he has said in some instances is good useful or helpful.  If he’s been wrong on those questions then it is fine not fair someone point that out.  

[Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Congratulations!  Hands down and running away, you win today's, "Boy-Did-I-Miss-That-Poster's-Point-By-A-Mile" Award!