Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is a good example. In an extreme case, where one continually hammers away with inflammatory accusations against Brother Blow, and refuses to stop when asked to by leaders . . . then, what? Should that person be allowed to continue to disrupt meetings and sow discord, anger, etc? Sometimes leaders prohibit members from being in the building out of necessity, and the extreme extension of this would be formal discipline. 

The official term that would fall under would be "conduct unbecoming a member." That's a phrase that is used, or has been used before. I think it completely relates to your hypothetical example, and I also think it applies to Bill Reel. 

1- what if no one has ever told me to stop hammering away at Mr. Blow on social media? Then one day they call me to a meeting and throw out an ultimatum that I cease all my social media (not just my comments about Mr Blow), and if I don't, I'll be disciplined. Or I can simply resign. Does that seem like a reasonable response for a situation involving average members? Of course not. It's only an issue because of the elite status of Elder Holland.

2- Bill hasn't been disrupting meetings so that reason for discipline doesn't apply.

3- "Conduct unbecoming" a member is the vague, throw away phrase that's used on virtually every DC. It would need to be shown why the conduct is unbecoming. Is making an accusation, even if accurate, unbecoming? Or just accusations against leaders? I think we know the answer to that. I don't have access to HB 1 any more. Can you show me a quote that says a person can be brought up for discipline for "conduct unbecoming"? I remember it being used as a justification in the final letter about the DC, but I don't recall it being used as justification for holding a DC. There's a difference.

4- Bill is not being accused of disrupting meetings or being inappropriate at church. My understanding is he hasn't been attending in 2018 so disciplining him to protect the sanctity of the building or meetings seems like a huge stretch. It seems much more likely that he's being disciplined because he criticized a leader(s). If that's true, one has to ask if criticizing another person (even if accurate) is justification for losing eternal salvation.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

1-If that's true, then he should have. People should always have the opportunity to change and show good faith desire to comply and stay. Only if they then refuse should it escalate, in my view.

 

 

----

Of course. One can even argue that the leaders are wrong and the martyr is correct, but they should at the same time acknowledge the Church's right to discipline for apostate behavior against church leaders and the church organization.

I think we all agree that Bill has been doing this, right? Even those who think he's right and the Church is wrong about ABC?

1- When eternal salvation is at stake it hardly seems right to allow human error to taint the process, which it always will, BTW. "Should have" doesn't really cut it. If leaders can't get it perfect, they shouldn't risk a person's salvation. And if one says "God will fix mistakes in the next life", my question would be, "then why not just wait until the next life when judgement will be perfect."

2- It's a scary thing to hear a justification for removing a person's eternal blessings because of their "apostate behavior against church leaders and the church organization." Is apostatizing from a person (church leader) really worth denying someone spiritual blessings? This sounds very similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding respect but we know what Jesus thought of that.

[JulieM]

20 hours ago, ALarson said:

You're right about the name!

But there are a lot of problems, errors and inconsistencies with the story as told in conference. 

Here's a good overview of these and it's interesting read:

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/28/fact-vs-fiction-john-rowe-moyle/

It certainly made a great faith promoting story though and I get that.

ETA:

This was stated in a comment on this blog:

Does anyone know more about this regarding Moyle?  (I was kind of skipping around the comments, so I'll keep looking too).  

Wow.  Fascinating to read!!!

That makes more sense than the story as originally told.  She did some good research.  There are many things she found that make the story impossible (such as walking that distance in only 6 hours even with two good legs) as told.  But here’s just (one about when the words were carved on the temple):

“But a second problem is when he broke his leg. In other versions of the story, he broke his leg in 1874 or at the age of 77 (about 1885). That Utah Enquirer blurb about him crushing his leg with a log was published June 12, 1888. The Deseret News article was published June 27, 1888. Unless this guy had a habit of crushing his legs, he wouldn’t have started wearing a prosthetic limb until much later in life, at the age of 80. And since he passed away in February 1889, he only got to wear that wooden leg a maximum of 8 months. Not a lot of time to recover and make a whole bunch of weekly trips to Salt Lake.

But he still could’ve climbed that scaffolding triumphantly and carved the words “Holiness to the Lord” during those few months he had his wooden leg, right? He could’ve… if those words hadn’t already been engraved on the temple several years earlier.”

And this conclusion:

“Mormon pioneer myths are common (I’ve got a bunch in my own family), but they do need to be corrected at some point. Perpetuating these embellished stories does a disservice to both those ancestors and their descendants. John Moyle did break his leg, he did have an ingeniously engineered wooden leg (currently on display at the Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum if you ever want to take a peek), and he did spend many years of his life working on the temple. But details still matter, especially when you’re using his life as inspiration.”

 

I agree with that!  Thanks for posting this!!

(Oh.  The comments are great to read through too!)

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- When eternal salvation is at stake it hardly seems right to allow human error to taint the process, which it always will, BTW. "Should have" doesn't really cut it. If leaders can't get it perfect, they shouldn't risk a person's salvation. And if one says "God will fix mistakes in the next life", my question would be, "then why not just wait until the next life when judgement will be perfect."

2- It's a scary thing to hear a justification for removing a person's eternal blessings because of their "apostate behavior against church leaders and the church organization." Is apostatizing from a person (church leader) really worth denying someone spiritual blessings? This sounds very similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding respect but we know what Jesus thought of that.

Long suffering, meek, bearing one another's burdens, penitent are all ideals scripturally.   It appears to me the Church is at odds with scripture in too many ways.  

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

It is how one labels things that matters, imo.  One can talk about behaviours without horrific, inflammatory labeling....especially when it is debatable what the intent of the behaviour is.

For example, one can point to abuse cases and discuss how the Church can do better to prevent these.  A label of "abusive" as an institution along with a picture of a beaten face is unnecessary and inflammatory, shifting the discussion not into productive avenues of change, but defensive discussing the labeling.

The Church can only go so far to penalize.  It cannot jail people, it cannot make them pay fines.  When the upper limit is removing people from the community, this will need to include any of those who act to the extent of fully breaking the covenant or rejecting it no matter how they do so.  

An analogy would be a university.  Someone who cheats on an exam will be kicked out along with rapists, embezzlers, and murderers (one hopes).  Should the university not expel the cheater because the strongest penalty they are allowed to invoke is already being used for horrific crimes?  Or should the university expel the cheater because that is what they deserve and what the university needs to protect the value of its degree.

Further greater penalties for the rapists, embezzlers, and murderers or adultery in the case of the Church is the responsibility of the greater culture or God if the culture chooses to not accept that responsibility or is unable to act because of its own limits (level of evidence required or technicalities of law intended to protect the vulnerable).

And blogging that results in spiritual doubt among the members of a faith community with the potential of spiritual self destructive behaviours is not a minor thing, imo.  Spiritual pain and suffering is still pain and can leave scars and crippling of the soul from what I have seen, whether it is the heartbreak of a loved one or the pain of the one who has lost faith.

The fact the church can only go so far does not mean it has to take that step.. Additionally in the case  both of dessent in a church and cheating at a university,  people are punished or even tolerated (in the case of a church) without expulsion.  We don't have to do this. Kicking someone out for having "tone" problems is a public act that on its face looks worse than the case itself. Having codified apostasy as including disobedience to direction is part of the problem. If we are going to excommunicate people for publicly expressing opinions,  they should be given the chance to defend that opinion in a formal setting. Someone who is accused of cheating at a university would be given that same chance, not thrown out for failing to obey directions.  The current system does not provide any accountability to membership at large for those making these life changing decisions for others. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by CA Steve

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Context dude!

Come on obviously the boiling point of water has been pretty objectively stated.

You are mixing contexts- the exact point I try to make when I say that history cannot prove spiritual matters- the fact that Jesus died does not prove he is the savior of mankind (IF indeed he existed etc)

Your client made the same mistake

The way you walk has nothing to do with causing a royal flush objectively.

What i was saying is that in the realm of opinion nothing is objective- like the news, etc.   It is mixing the two that causes problems.

Feelings can only be "illusory" where compared with objective facts- otherwise they cannot be "illusory"

Your client probably thought that she was special because she could cause cards to act differently

If she thought that playing cards made her happy and she had fun- she would not be mistaken.  She enjoyed the rush.

If you think something makes you happy- it makes you happy!  How can you be mistaken that what makes you happy makes you happy?

Alma 32 talks about feelings, not scientific experiments!  It says have faith and try it.

If it makes you happy and grows in your life it is "true".

Losing at cards probably did not make your client happy even if the feeling she had that she could affect the cards did make her happy, therefore Alma 32 correctly analyzed the effect

Essentially the church is "true" because it works in peoples lives and makes them happy.  Therefore pragmatically the church is rightly considered "true" in the context of its purpose- the Plan of Happiness.  They follow the plan, it makes them happy, not rich, not rocket scientists or correct predictors of cards.  The purpose of the belief is to produce happiness and it does- for those for whom it works

It is as simple as that.  And yet folks think it has something to do with objective truth.  It does not.

It is not a theory about physics or how to make cards obey your will.

It's about being happy.

Nothing "illusory" about feelings at all if what you are talking about is feelings.

Truth is contextual.  Get over it. 

 

Your quote that I reacted to made it sound like you were advocating that there isn't any objectivity, that all objectivity is illusory, and our gut is the only thing we can trust. Thanks for the clarification dude. 👍

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- what if no one has ever told me to stop hammering away at Mr. Blow on social media? Then one day they call me to a meeting and throw out an ultimatum that I cease all my social media (not just my comments about Mr Blow), and if I don't, I'll be disciplined. Or I can simply resign. Does that seem like a reasonable response for a situation involving average members? Of course not. It's only an issue because of the elite status of Elder Holland.

2- Bill hasn't been disrupting meetings so that reason for discipline doesn't apply.

3- "Conduct unbecoming" a member is the vague, throw away phrase that's used on virtually every DC. It would need to be shown why the conduct is unbecoming. Is making an accusation, even if accurate, unbecoming? Or just accusations against leaders? I think we know the answer to that. I don't have access to HB 1 any more. Can you show me a quote that says a person can be brought up for discipline for "conduct unbecoming"? I remember it being used as a justification in the final letter about the DC, but I don't recall it being used as justification for holding a DC. There's a difference.

4- Bill is not being accused of disrupting meetings or being inappropriate at church. My understanding is he hasn't been attending in 2018 so disciplining him to protect the sanctity of the building or meetings seems like a huge stretch. It seems much more likely that he's being disciplined because he criticized a leader(s). If that's true, one has to ask if criticizing another person (even if accurate) is justification for losing eternal salvation.

Come to think of it, you may be right, plus the oft repeated quote below comes to mind, if the church is true, then they shouldn't be so worried, right? If I know that 1+1=2 then I'm not going to worry that someone will come along and persuade someone to believe it's actually 4 or 3. 

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” – President J. Reuben Clark

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's what you get for trying to make a nonsensical point.  

My point wasn't nonsensical simply because you failed to grasp it.  (Hint: Of course I know that it is not possible for me to suffer for Elder Holland's sins and vice-versa (Articles of Faith 1:2)).  Sure.  Any time.  You're very welcome.  I'm glad I could help.  Please don't hesitate to call on me if I can do anything else for you.  

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Come to think of it, you may be right, plus the oft repeated quote below comes to mind, if the church is true, then they shouldn't be so worried, right? If I know that 1+1=2 then I'm not going to worry that someone will come along and persuade someone to believe it's actually 4 or 3. 

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” – President J. Reuben Clark

 

 

Three guesses which side of that J. Reuben Clark quote the skeptical/critical/disaffected/et cetera/ad infinitum/ad nauseam come down on.

And in other news, soil is dirty, and water is wet.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Three guesses which side of that J. Reuben Clark quote the skeptical/critical/disaffected/et cetera/ad infinitum/ad nauseam come down on.

And in other news, soil is dirty, and water is wet.

Ken, come again, I'm very slow on the uptake. I think of that quote saying...bring anything you want to disprove something, because if it's true it can't be harmed. That's all. Why is a church of millions worried about Bill Reel? 

[phaedrus ut]

Even after suing Thomas Monson for Fraud, Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated. Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees made a music video demonstrating temple handshakes and spitting on Joseph Smith and hasn't been excommunicated.  Bill Reel is being threatened with excommunication because they don't like the "tone" of his otherwise accurate postings about Mormonism. 

Let that sink in for a minute. 

Phaedrus 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Even after suing Thomas Monson for Fraud, Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated. Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees made a music video demonstrating temple handshakes and spitting on Joseph Smith and hasn't been excommunicated.  Bill Reel is being threatened with excommunication because they don't like the "tone" of his otherwise accurate postings about Mormonism. 

Let that sink in for a minute. 

Phaedrus 

The only thing I can think it might be is that Tom Phillips had the Second Annointing and Tyler Glen is a celebrity? Good questions though. I have been wondering about Bill Reel on Social Media and the constant posts. I wish he'd gotten some feedback from the church, from Elder Holland perhaps. If they're aware of Bill, can't they just meet with him and clear up the problem? Or is it not that important? If they are aware enough to excommunicate him that is. 

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Even after suing Thomas Monson for Fraud, Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated. Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees made a music video demonstrating temple handshakes and spitting on Joseph Smith and hasn't been excommunicated.  Bill Reel is being threatened with excommunication because they don't like the "tone" of his otherwise accurate postings about Mormonism. 

Let that sink in for a minute. 

Phaedrus 

that's one option though right? and all of this is one sided so who really knows what was said. When you say "accurate" postings about Mormonism when was this? 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ken, come again, I'm very slow on the uptake. I think of that quote saying...bring anything you want to disprove something, because if it's true it can't be harmed. That's all. Why is a church of millions worried about Bill Reel? 

You may have reached a relatively comfortable state of detente with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, deciding (whatever problems you may have with the Church or with its leaders) and to to adopt, more or less, a "live-and-let-live" approach.  Fine-and-dandy, well-and-good.  If so, good for you and for anyone else who has opted for that approach.  In contrast, many others who have such problems with the Church of Jesus Christ (including, arguably, Bill Reel), have not decided to take such an approach.  Once, in response to your plea that the Church of Jesus Christ acknowledge the "zits" on its face which critics point out, I responded that you may be satisfied with the selective application of Clearasil to the alleged "zits," but many of the most vehement and virulent of the Church's critics would not: In contrast to you, they will not be satisfied until the Church of Jesus Christ lights its face on fire.

Neither you nor anyone else who is skeptical/critical/disaffected/et cetera/ad nauseam/ad infinitum of a particular organization needs to like the organization, needs to agree with the organization or with the boundaries the organization establishes and strives to maintain, et cetera.  Disagree all you wish.  But the fact of the matter remains that it's the organization's right to establish those boundaries, to maintain them, and to choose what actions it feels are prudent to take to police those boundaries.  

From the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bill Reel covenanted to not speak evil of the Lord's Anointed.  From the point of view of the Church of Jesus Christ, making such a covenant is a serious thing, not to be taken lightly. From the point of view of the Church of Jesus Christ, breaking such a covenant is an even more serious thing.  Although, as I said, Bill Reel's standing before God is between God and him, and his standing in the Church of Jesus Christ is between his leaders, God, and him, it's certainly not the case that no reasonable and reasonably-objective observer, knowing what Bill Reel has written about some of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ (one, in particular) could conclude that he has broken that covenant.

Furthermore, while you may be right that how much of a "threat" the Church of Jesus Christ (a "church of millions," as you point out) perceives in the person, words, and actions of Little Old Bill Reel (my descriptor) is debatable, such a threat, real or perceived, is not the only reason the Church may have for (potentially) taking action against Little Old Bill Reel: allowing him to continue to break a covenant which he has no intention of keeping is, from the Church's point of view, harmful to the welfare of his immortal soul;  potentially, it's even more harmful to allow him to continue breaking that covenant without consequences than it would be to release him from that covenant by excommunicating or disfellowshipping him.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Even after suing Thomas Monson for Fraud, Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated. Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees made a music video demonstrating temple handshakes and spitting on Joseph Smith and hasn't been excommunicated.  Bill Reel is being threatened with excommunication because they don't like the "tone" of his otherwise accurate postings about Mormonism. 

Let that sink in for a minute. 

Phaedrus 

I think the tone combined with his audience of influence is the other part.  The audience is largely people on the margins of membership more than those you've listed above.  Institutionally, the church views this as a threat and is taking action against it.  That makes sense to me, even if it isn't completely fair or rational, or even the best long term strategy, I can understand why they feel compelled to respond.  

[phaedrus ut]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 Bill Reel isn't the most honest person out there, let's be real. 

That's quite an accusation.  Do you have any examples of his dishonesty? 

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

When you say "accurate" postings about Mormonism when was this?

I can recall Bill from forums like this and various parts of the internet for I would guess 10 years or more.  I'm not active or a believer like Bill but I've never seen him trying to promote dubious facts about Mormonism. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would making inflammatory remarks about Bill justify a DC?

If I make inflammatory accusations against Joe Blow in my ward, is that cause for a DC? On what grounds? Because people might believe what I said about Joe Blow? Of course not. If a person's testimony is damaged because of my accusations against Joe Blow or Elder Holland, then that would seem to speak more to a problem with a system that places so much reliance on the infallibility of people. That leadership would be so scared of this possibility seems to show that they are aware that people rely too much on the high expectations the church sets for its leaders. Removing people from criticism because that criticism (even if true) could hurt testimonies is a huge problem, don't you think? It shows a weakness of the organizational structure. Criticizing another person should not be justification for a man to discipline another and revoke all spiritual blessings that could lead to exaltation.

If the leadership was scared, they would be acting immediately upon any hints of disaffection being caused.  That they allow years for local leaders to choose to act even when there is plenty of evidence of disruption of faith does not demonstrate fear to me.

And as I qualified...it is criticism that encourages loss of faith in others...not just criticism alone.  The qualifier is the most important aspect imo.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the tone combined with his audience of influence is the other part.  The audience is largely people on the margins of membership more than those you've listed above.  Institutionally, the church views this as a threat and is taking action against it.  That makes sense to me, even if it isn't completely fair or rational, or even the best long term strategy, I can understand why they feel compelled to respond.  

The first purpose of an institution is to protect itself. So in that sense, the church's action, in the short term, is rational and to be expected.

When these kinds of discussions come up I'm always struck by how fragile the church organization and testimonies of so many members seem to be that they need to be protected from a guy on the internet.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

That's quite an accusation.  Do you have any examples of his dishonesty? 

I can recall Bill from forums like this and various parts of the internet for I would guess 10 years or more.  I'm not active or a believer like Bill but I've never seen him trying to promote dubious facts about Mormonism. 

 

Phaedrus 

yes, but there is that part about not cross posting so I can't takes stuff he said elsewhere, which is why I edited that part out from my post. I have seen him do that, ever listen to his podcasts? 

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The only thing I can think it might be is that Tom Phillips had the Second Annointing and Tyler Glen is a celebrity? Good questions though. I have been wondering about Bill Reel on Social Media and the constant posts. I wish he'd gotten some feedback from the church, from Elder Holland perhaps. If they're aware of Bill, can't they just meet with him and clear up the problem? Or is it not that important? If they are aware enough to excommunicate him that is. 

I am not being nasty here...but celebrity is everything....a PR of sorts.  Tom had that second annointing...they will leave that be perhaps....

[phaedrus ut]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes, but there is that part about not cross posting so I can't takes stuff he said elsewhere, which is why I edited that part out from my post. I have seen him do that, ever listen to his podcasts? 

So you are still claiming he is dishonest but you're not allowed to prove it because of board rules? 

[SouthernMo]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

From the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bill Reel covenanted to not speak evil of the Lord's Anointed.  

It's hard for me to follow your position/argument when you earlier indicated to me that trying to understand the covenant of refraining from 'evil speaking of the Lord's anointed' is a 'rabbit hole.'  You noted that [understanding that covenant] is a "seemingly-as-yet-unexplored corner of our vast orb."

Why are you unable to define your understanding of the covenant, but condemn Bill Reel for not keeping it?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes, but there is that part about not cross posting so I can't takes stuff he said elsewhere, which is why I edited that part out from my post. I have seen him do that, ever listen to his podcasts? 

I've never known Bill to be dishonest. He may interpret some things in a way you wouldn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's not honest. Even without cross posting, do you have examples of dishonesty. You must have that opinion for a reason so I'm curious what leads you to believe that.

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Even after suing Thomas Monson for Fraud, Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated. Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees made a music video demonstrating temple handshakes and spitting on Joseph Smith and hasn't been excommunicated.  Bill Reel is being threatened with excommunication because they don't like the "tone" of his otherwise accurate postings about Mormonism. 

Isn't that like complaining that because one thief didn't face prosecution that prosecuting a thief is wrong. Not really understanding the logic here. I thought Tom Phillips hard renounced his membership long ago. If he hasn't been exed even if in absentia he should be.  I can't see anyone confused there. Tyler Glenn seems a more unique case due to the LGBT issues so I can understand that. Plus I think he's been fairly silent since that video while Reel has apparently  been pretty consistent in his criticism and drawing an audience. (For the record I've not followed what Reel says, never heard his podcast, and know almost nothing about him - so I don't have any particular views there)

Edited August 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The first purpose of an institution is to protect itself. So in that sense, the church's action, in the short term, is rational and to be expected.

When these kinds of discussions come up I'm always struck by how fragile the church organization and testimonies of so many members seem to be that they need to be protected from a guy on the internet.

Over time, I think this will change.  The church will feel less sensitive to these kinds of things.   

I think this is all influenced by how new the movement of Mormonism is.  Eventually there will be less sensitivity to criticism, and less adulation of good news.  Mormonism is essentially an immature faith and is responding to stimuli in a somewhat predicable way.  

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by hope_for_things