Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think it's easily understood when one realizes that it is just men trying to decide what they think is best.

Maybe you are starting to get this after all 

 

[Exiled]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe you are starting to get this after all 

 

Well, I think we part ways where inspiration is concerned. I don't think these decisions come from an outside source, only from within.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Exiled

[phaedrus ut]

I was the one that asked Duncan to back up his accusations that Bill Reel was dishonest. Other than some vague instructions to "go read this" but has failed to provide any examples. I noticed that he has edited his original post removing the original accusation

22 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

 Does that mean you are withdrawing the accusation Duncan? 

Pheadrus 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I was the one that asked Duncan to back up his accusations that Bill Reel was dishonest. Other than some vague instructions to "go read this" but has failed to provide any examples. I noticed that he has edited his original post removing the original accusation

 Does that mean you are withdrawing the accusation Duncan? 

Pheadrus 

I already deleted just after I wrote it but someone I forget who quoted it and here were are, but i've lost interest in the subject!

Edited August 2, 2018 by Duncan

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Well, I think we part ways where inspiration is concerned. I don't think these decisions come from an outside source, only from within.

An interesting statement as well.  That would make you a good Buddhist.  But meditation has a way of turning you "inside out".

Epistemologically we totally agree- one can't know for sure.  But that is where Pragmatism comes in for me- in the final analysis it really doesn't matter.  It's like arguing that maybe the raw EXPERIENCE of what I call "blue" is what you call "red" and maybe that is why others prefer different colors- we actually SEE different colors but learn their names in kindergarten and so associate "orange" with the stimulus we learned, while others may be having different experiences.   It's the same word "really" applied to a different brain state- whatever "really" means in this context.

So no, maybe theoretically all religion is brain states learned to be associated with phrases like "burning in the bosom" just as the color of the following word doesn't match the name of the "color" we see:  GREEN. This is really the color other people call "green"- maybe??

There's no way to know what raw experience we learn to associate with the words "red" or "green"- just that we agree to call this color "red" when we learn our language .

And so it is with what is "within" and what is without.  You call these experiences "within" while I see them as "without"

But suppose the kingdom of heaven really IS "within"?

Luke 17 nails it
 

Quote

 

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

NOT WITH OBSERVATION- it is not an objective scientific event- it is WITHIN you!

It is a change of mental state which CAUSES you to see and act differently- but the kingdom is WITHIN!!

So back to the color analogy and pragmatism!

What difference is it if YOU see "green" where I see "red"- we are just using the same words for the same experience!!

What difference is it if you see "without" where I see "Within"- we are just using the same words for the same experience!!

TALKING about it misses the mark and cannot describe the difference "BY OBSERVATION"- just as the raw experience of "green" or "red" cannot be described objectively or "by observation"!! and then described in language!

So we agree on that one.

Maybe Luke is right and it is all "within".   Pragmatically I see no difference

We make all our important decisions WITHIN anyway and we change our lives WITHIN anyway and see the universe from WITHIN anyway.

We LIVE EXTERNALLY with beliefs in what is important to us INTERNALLY.

So how much does it really matter?

If the BELIEF leads to fulfilling the measure of your creation and having joy therein for a lifetime- and maybe more-- what does it matter??

But is it really red or green?  UNKNOWABLE therefore what??  "Really" has no meaning in that context!! 

That's pretty much my whole schtick in a nutshell.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting statement as well.  That would make you a good Buddhist.  But meditation has a way of turning you "inside out".

Epistemologically we totally agree- one can't know for sure.  But that is where Pragmatism comes in for me- in the final analysis it really doesn't matter.  It's like arguing that maybe the raw EXPERIENCE of what I call "blue" is what you call "red" and maybe that is why others prefer different colors- we actually SEE different colors but learn their names in kindergarten and so associate "orange" with the stimulus we learned, while others may be having different experiences.   It's the same word "really" applied to a different brain state- whatever "really" means in this context.

So no, maybe theoretically all religion is brain states learned to be associated with phrases like "burning in the bosom" just as the color of the following word doesn't match the name of the "color" we see:  GREEN. This is really the color other people call "green"- maybe??

There's no way to know what raw experience we learn to associate with the words "red" or "green"- just that we agree to call this color "red" when we learn our language .

And so it is with what is "within" and what is without.  You call these experiences "within" while I see them as "without"

But suppose the kingdom of heaven really IS "within"?

Luke 17 nails it
 

NOT WITH OBSERVATION- it is not an objective scientific event- it is WITHIN you!

It is a change of mental state which CAUSES you to see and act differently- but the kingdom is WITHIN!!

So back to the color analogy and pragmatism!

What difference is it if YOU see "green" where I see "red"- we are just using the same words for the same experience!!

What difference is it if you see "without" where I see "Within"- we are just using the same words for the same experience!!

TALKING about it misses the mark and cannot describe the difference "BY OBSERVATION"- just as the raw experience of "green" or "red" cannot be described objectively or "by observation"!! and then described in language!

So we agree on that one.

Maybe Luke is right and it is all "within".   Pragmatically I see no difference

We make all our important decisions WITHIN anyway and we change our lives WITHIN anyway and see the universe from WITHIN anyway.

We LIVE EXTERNALLY with beliefs in what is important to us INTERNALLY.

So how much does it really matter?

If the BELIEF leads to fulfilling the measure of your creation and having joy therein for a lifetime- and maybe more-- what does it matter??

But is it really red or green?  UNKNOWABLE therefore what??  "Really" has no meaning in that context!! 

That's pretty much my whole schtick in a nutshell.

Quoting myself as a way of extending the post-

And so Bill Reel - what an appropriate name-- knows what is "REELY" true about the church

Sigh.

He's got the without part but not the within part because he is concentrating on what is "REEL" to him, but without an idea that the kingdom is WITHIN.

Edited August 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quoting myself as a way of extending the post-

And so Bill Reel - what an appropriate name-- knows what is "REELY" true about the church

Sigh.

He's got the without part but not the within part because he is concentrating on what is "REEL" to him, but without an idea that the kingdom is WITHIN.

How different are you from Bill though? You aren't orthodox either, unless I have you peg'd wrong.

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting statement as well.  That would make you a good Buddhist.  But meditation has a way of turning you "inside out".

Epistemologically we totally agree- one can't know for sure.  But that is where Pragmatism comes in for me- in the final analysis it really doesn't matter.  It's like arguing that maybe the raw EXPERIENCE of what I call "blue" is what you call "red" and maybe that is why others prefer different colors- we actually SEE different colors but learn their names in kindergarten and so associate "orange" with the stimulus we learned, while others may be having different experiences.   It's the same word "really" applied to a different brain state- whatever "really" means in this context.

So no, maybe theoretically all religion is brain states learned to be associated with phrases like "burning in the bosom" just as the color of the following word doesn't match the name of the "color" we see:  GREEN. This is really the color other people call "green"- maybe??

There's no way to know what raw experience we learn to associate with the words "red" or "green"- just that we agree to call this color "red" when we learn our language .

And so it is with what is "within" and what is without.  You call these experiences "within" while I see them as "without"

But suppose the kingdom of heaven really IS "within"?

Luke 17 nails it
 

NOT WITH OBSERVATION- it is not an objective scientific event- it is WITHIN you!

It is a change of mental state which CAUSES you to see and act differently- but the kingdom is WITHIN!!

So back to the color analogy and pragmatism!

What difference is it if YOU see "green" where I see "red"- we are just using the same words for the same experience!!

What difference is it if you see "without" where I see "Within"- we are just using the same words for the same experience!!

TALKING about it misses the mark and cannot describe the difference "BY OBSERVATION"- just as the raw experience of "green" or "red" cannot be described objectively or "by observation"!! and then described in language!

So we agree on that one.

Maybe Luke is right and it is all "within".   Pragmatically I see no difference

We make all our important decisions WITHIN anyway and we change our lives WITHIN anyway and see the universe from WITHIN anyway.

We LIVE EXTERNALLY with beliefs in what is important to us INTERNALLY.

So how much does it really matter?

If the BELIEF leads to fulfilling the measure of your creation and having joy therein for a lifetime- and maybe more-- what does it matter??

But is it really red or green?  UNKNOWABLE therefore what??  "Really" has no meaning in that context!! 

That's pretty much my whole schtick in a nutshell.

I agree with this. My default then is to stay away from organized religion as what do they know other than what is best for them? How can one justify pushing one's views on someone else when we aren't sure if we are talking about green or red? Authority says red but maybe its green, then the group pressures one to conform to red but still it may be green we are talking about. The kingdom may be within and so how can one have any authority over the individual in that circumstance other than perhaps as one that only gives suggestions to the individual? Also, if the kingdom is within, how are the external practices of performing ordinances justified in an authority based system? I know Alma 32 says try it and see if you like it, then perhaps it'll grow on you, but that can really be used to justify anything. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I agree with this. My default then is to stay away from organized religion as what do they know other than what is best for them? How can one justify pushing one's views on someone else when we aren't sure if we are talking about green or red? Authority says red but maybe its green, then the group pressures one to conform to red but still it may be green we are talking about. The kingdom may be within and so how can one have any authority over the individual in that circumstance other than perhaps as one that only gives suggestions to the individual? Also, if the kingdom is within, how are the external practices of performing ordinances justified in an authority based system? I know Alma 32 says try it and see if you like it, then perhaps it'll grow on you, but that can really be used to justify anything. 

The difference is the choice of paradigm.

My view that you seem to like to some degree is only possible within Mormonism.

The view that we are here to fill the measure of our creation and have a joy there in is pure Mormonism.

The View that Christ was like us and we have within us a spark of divinity as well is pure Mormonism.

And no Alma only justifies those beliefs that grow on you, and come to you subjectively, as "true", and that has total philosophical justification and William James and others, and no other church can say that.

Those beliefs make Mormonism totally coherent with contemporary philosophy which is something no other belief system can match.

Mormonism is humanism while adding spiritual guidance. And that spiritual guidance is like Buddhism it comes from within.

I honestly think that's why we are getting so many Asian converts. Anyone who believes in inner spiritual direction will be attracted to Mormonism if they have any notion of sin and the Christian idea that one must be freed from sin. And our desire to perfect Humanity fits well with humanism.

This worry about" justifying anything "is simply a relic of your belief that religion needs to be justified objectively I think.

As Luke tells us it does not.

The spiritual is not justified by external observation. It is Justified Within by bringing us happiness.

After that it is a question of picking the best Paradigm which justifies the most happiness to the most people, imo.

Authoritarian Mormonism doesn't fit that mold. But I was never raised that way. 

I see Mormonism as a religion of total love.

Even our notion of the godhead is based on familial love.

And what Authority says must always be justified by your own testimony.

That has to be the prime directive you follow your own testimony.

If that were not true you would never know Mormonism is right.

That is essentially the position you are holding at this moment imo

Anything could be true. Yes that's true as long as you have not decided what is true and what is false.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[DBMormon]

20 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Because he is on limited status.

 

IOW he has run afoul of moderation and been placed on a status that limits the number of posts he can makes and does not allow others to grant him rep points and, I think, he cannot give rep points either, nor can he start threads.

 

 

Its strange because no one has ever informed me I did something wrong in terms of rules (as far as I remember) and find it strange that I am a limited participant here.  I would welcome clarification but know not where to find it.  Strange

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The difference is the choice of paradigm.

My view that you seem to like to some degree is only possible within Mormonism.

The view that we are here to fill the measure of our creation and have a joy there in is pure Mormonism.

The View that Christ was like us and we have within us a spark of divinity as well is pure Mormonism.

And no Alma only justifies those beliefs that grow on you, and come to you subjectively, as "true", and that has total philosophical justification and William James and others, and no other church can say that.

Those beliefs make Mormonism totally coherent with contemporary philosophy which is something no other belief system can match.

Mormonism is humanism while adding spiritual guidance. And that spiritual guidance is like Buddhism it comes from within.

I honestly think that's why we are getting so many Asian converts. Anyone who believes in inner spiritual direction will be attracted to Mormonism if they have any notion of sin and the Christian idea that one must be freed from sin. And our desire to perfect Humanity fits well with humanism.

This worry about" justifying anything "is simply a relic of your belief that religion needs to be justified objectively I think.

As Luke tells us it does not.

The spiritual is not justified by external observation. It is Justified Within by bringing us happiness.

After that it is a question of picking the best Paradigm which justifies the most happiness to the most people, imo.

Authoritarian Mormonism doesn't fit that mold. But I was never raised that way. 

I see Mormonism as a religion of total love.

Even our notion of the godhead is based on familial love.

And what Authority says must always be justified by your own testimony.

That has to be the prime directive you follow your own testimony.

If that were not true you would never know Mormonism is right.

That is essentially the position you are holding at this moment imo

Anything could be true. Yes that's true as long as you have not decided what is true and what is false.

 

I like the idea of community and that was the mormonism that I grew up in. In SLC it was everywhere and everything. There were tons of kids around and we all did the same activities. It was like the ward was a small town. However, for me, the authority isn't there due to the lack of the historical basis that was sold to me over the years.  I just can't say that God was behind something that appears invented, any more than He is behind anything else. Even so, I'd think about coming back but it would be just for the community aspects of it. I want that for my son but I don't want him subjected to the follow the brethren, follow the brethren stuff that infects the church today and probably always did.  I grew up around some of the brethren and my father is friends with one of the 12 today. For me, they are good people but not any more inspired than anyone else.

[DBMormon]

20 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Brother Reel,

i know you’ve been reading this thread and I know you have no reason to take anything I say to heart. But I feel like I should say something to you. Don’t throw away your membership in the Church if you can avoid it. The blessings, especially the gift of the Holy Ghost and the priesthood, are too precious. I encouraging you to fast and pray before this council. Listen to the promptings of the Spirit. Study the scriptures.

please think  about it

you argue from a perspective I don't hold.  You make only answers which support that paradigm as worthy and from God.  Such is Ethnocentric and I no longer inhabit a space where God is limited with working with me in the most efficient way inside Mormonism.  In other words I hold ground that God has just as much ability to work with me outside Mormonism and perhaps even do greater things.  I am happy to stay on the rolls but I will not reduce my standing for what I believe in in order to do so.  Hence it is at this point up to them.  They are also welcome to sit with me and see if my concerns can be addressed in other ways but it appears that is not an approach they want to take.   There is nothing inside institutional Mormonism that is affecting my life for Good that outweighs the trauma and harm I was experiencing weekly.  There are still things inside the tribe that if I can be inactive and be on the rolls I welcome.  But even if they excommunicate me, I still am seen as by those who matter to me and see myself as Mormon.  So in all honesty I am in a position where it can no longer take from me.  I am at peace.  The court of love will be traumatic and I will feel more trauma inflicted on me through it (And so will my stake president by the way).  But because I will not choose to step away from standing up for what I believe, They now have to do what they think is right and it is now up to them.  They can reach out to build bridges.  I have tried numerous times both behind the scenes with Elder Holland and others as well as local leaders.  At the end of the day, no one offers to make space to be vulnerable to tough questions and no one wants to admit any Church caused trauma or wrongdoing above the local level.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Its strange because no one has ever informed me I did something wrong in terms of rules (as far as I remember) and find it strange that I am a limited participant here.  I would welcome clarification but know not where to find it.  Strange

It is, IMO, fairly capricious and arbitrary.  I wouldn't sweat it at this point.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

you argue from a perspective I don't hold.  You make only answers which support that paradigm as worthy and from God.  Such is Ethnocentric and I no longer inhabit a space where God is limited with working with me in the most efficient way inside Mormonism.  In other words I hold ground that God has just as much ability to work with me outside Mormonism and perhaps even do greater things.  I am happy to stay on the rolls but I will not reduce my standing for what I believe in in order to do so.  Hence it is at this point up to them.  They are also welcome to sit with me and see if my concerns can be addressed in other ways but it appears that is not an approach they want to take.   There is nothing inside institutional Mormonism that is affecting my life for Good that outweighs the trauma and harm I was experiencing weekly.  There are still things inside the tribe that if I can be inactive and be on the rolls I welcome.  But even if they excommunicate me, I still am seen as by those who matter to me and see myself as Mormon.  So in all honesty I am in a position where it can no longer take from me.  I am at peace.  The court of love will be traumatic and I will feel more trauma inflicted on me through it (And so will my stake president by the way).  But because I will not choose to step away from standing up for what I believe, They now have to do what they think is right and it is now up to them.  They can reach out to build bridges.  I have tried numerous times both behind the scenes with Elder Holland and others as well as local leaders.  At the end of the day, no one offers to make space to be vulnerable to tough questions and no one wants to admit any Church caused trauma or wrongdoing above the local level.

Bill,  

Thanks for sharing yourself with everyone over all these years.  I admire that you've been willing to share your personal journey with the public.  It definitely takes a special kind of individual to do this, and since I'm a more private person thats a trait I can admire.  I think you've done good work, helping others and getting people to think.  I don't always agree with you of course, but I honor your journey and I consider you a fellow Mormon and I'm grateful for everything you've brought to the community.  

My only advice would be to follow your heart and to keep studying and learning and growing, don't stop doing those things.  I also think the sooner you can move on from worrying about Mormonism's "truth" the more happy and healthy you'll be.   Things like Elder Holland exaggerating growth numbers seem really insignificant in a big picture view.  I wish you luck and just wanted to say thanks for what you've done and I hope things go well on the church discipline front.  

[DBMormon]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Bill,  

Thanks for sharing yourself with everyone over all these years.  I admire that you've been willing to share your personal journey with the public.  It definitely takes a special kind of individual to do this, and since I'm a more private person thats a trait I can admire.  I think you've done good work, helping others and getting people to think.  I don't always agree with you of course, but I honor your journey and I consider you a fellow Mormon and I'm grateful for everything you've brought to the community.  

My only advice would be to follow your heart and to keep studying and learning and growing, don't stop doing those things.  I also think the sooner you can move on from worrying about Mormonism's "truth" the more happy and healthy you'll be.   Things like Elder Holland exaggerating growth numbers seem really insignificant in a big picture view.  I wish you luck and just wanted to say thanks for what you've done and I hope things go well on the church discipline front.  

you should get to know me personally.  I have a good solid group of 6 friends plus my wife and we are together every weekend pretty much.  They would describe me as funny, soft, at peace, full of happiness and enjoying life.  I have another couple dozen who see me close enough and regular enough to second those observations. People should not take the one facet of my speaking out against the unhealthiness of Mormonism as an indicator of how at peace I am in my daily life.  That would be a grievous error.  Come spend a few a days in southern Utah    As to pursuing study , learning, and growing......  I think I am very much doing those things.  99% of them are outside Mormonism. 

[why me]

If a member is on the internet, doing podcasts, and if these podcasts could lead people away, eventually the lds church will catch  up with them. It is always a done deal. We have seen this before. This is not something new. The question is: does the person making the podcasts have a testimony of the church. Do they do what they do to help members and the lds church. These are the standards that the church will go by. So, the question is: does Bill do the church harm or well with his podcasts?

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

There is nothing inside institutional Mormonism that is affecting my life for Good that outweighs the trauma and harm I was experiencing weekly.

 

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

At the end of the day, no one offers to make space to be vulnerable to tough questions and no one wants to admit any Church caused trauma or wrongdoing above the local level.

Not to discount your personal interpretations of your experiences, but I would just like to add that there are many people who are just as familiar (or more familiar) with many of the concerns you seek to bring to the public's attention, but who don't feel the least bit harmed or traumatized by "institutional Mormonism." In other words, the very real harm and trauma you are experiencing seems to be directly dependent upon your interpretation of the the issues as well as  your public insistence that your interpretations are correct, rather than being an inevitable result of your  mere awareness of the issues/concerns themselves.  

Also, I don't think it is so much a matter of "admitting" that wrongdoing has been done above the local level (as if those opposed to your view believe you are right but just won't admit it), but rather interpreting whether wrongdoing has happened, how serious it is, and what should be done about it. I think the leaders of the Church, as well as many informed Latter-day Saints, simply disagree with your conclusions, even when they are privy to the same information. Naturally, different interpretations about core issues result in competing moral paradigms. So whether or not you are being "harmed" by institutional Mormonism or are merely harming yourself by publicly critiquing it, really depends on who is right about the core issues. 

 I wish you the best, whatever the outcome. 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

you should get to know me personally.  I have a good solid group of 6 friends plus my wife and we are together every weekend pretty much.  They would describe me as funny, soft, at peace, full of happiness and enjoying life.  I have another couple dozen who see me close enough and regular enough to second those observations. People should not take the one facet of my speaking out against the unhealthiness of Mormonism as an indicator of how at peace I am in my daily life.  That would be a grievous error.  Come spend a few a days in southern Utah    As to pursuing study , learning, and growing......  I think I am very much doing those things.  99% of them are outside Mormonism. 

Thats great, I wasn't trying to suggest you're stuck in a bad place at all, sorry if you got that impression with my advice.  I saw you at Sunstone (attended your class on faith development), but I didn't get the opportunity to say hi or introduce myself.  Maybe next time.  I wish you and your family the best, and maybe I'll stop by the Pawn shop sometime and say hi.  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Ryan Dahle said:

 

Not to discount your personal interpretations of your experiences, but I would just like to add that there are many people who are just as familiar (or more familiar) with many of the concerns you seek to bring to the public's attention, but who don't feel the least bit harmed or traumatized by "institutional Mormonism." In other words, the very real harm and trauma you are experiencing seems to be directly dependent upon your interpretation of the the issues as well as  your public insistence that your interpretations are correct, rather than being an inevitable result of your  mere awareness of the issues/concerns themselves.  

Also, I don't think it is so much a matter of "admitting" that wrongdoing has been done above the local level (as if those opposed to your view believe you are right but just won't admit it), but rather interpreting whether wrongdoing has happened, how serious it is, and what should be done about it. I think the leaders of the Church, as well as many informed Latter-day Saints, simply disagree with your conclusions, even when they are privy to the same information. Naturally, different interpretations about core issues result in competing moral paradigms. So whether or not you are being "harmed" by institutional Mormonism or are merely harming yourself by publicly critiquing it, really depends on who is right about the core issues. 

 I wish you the best, whatever the outcome. 

Individuals can be affected differently.  If Bill feels harmed by Mormonism, then that is true for him, and if you don't feel harmed, that is true for you.  Both truths can exists at the same time.  Mormonism, isn't all good and or all bad.  

[Ryan Dahle]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Individuals can be affected differently.  If Bill feels harmed by Mormonism, then that is true for him, and if you don't feel harmed, that is true for you. 

My comment acknowledged that the feeling of being harmed can be real, even if it comes from being mistaken. That was the whole point.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

My comment acknowledged that the feeling of being harmed can be real, even if it comes from being mistaken. That was the whole point.

Thats not at all what I said.  Its not "mistaken".  You're placing judgment on his trauma and assuming you can call it mistaken.  Thats wrong.  

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Come spend a few a days in southern Utah

Ugh. Not just Utah, but southern Utah? You are definitely a lost cause.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats not at all what I said.  Its not "mistaken".  You're placing judgment on his trauma and assuming you can call it mistaken.  Thats wrong. 

I'm saying that our perception of being harmed or traumatized is often directly related to our interpretation of evidence.

Here is an example. Let's say that I overhear a private conversation at Church, and I infer, from the details of the conversation, that the individuals involved are saying unkind and untrue things about me. This, in turn, results in a very traumatic emotional response that I blame on the people who seemed to be gossiping about me.

However, what if I find out later on that even though my inferences were fairly logical, I was in fact mistaken. The conversation wasn't about me at all, and was about someone else who lived far away. And those in the conversation were actually privately discussing that individual's challenges in an effort to help him or her, rather than to gossip. All of a sudden, I would no longer feel justified in blaming those who previously seemed to have "caused" me emotional pain. Instead, the trauma came from my own unfortunate misinterpretation of evidence.

I fully trust that Bill is feeling and has felt emotional trauma. However, I strongly suspect he is incorrect about the cause of his trauma. I'm not sure how that is "wrong," as you put it.

For instance, returning to my hypothetical situation, what if prior to learning that the conversation I heard wasn't about me, I confided to another ward member how hurt I was feeling because I was being gossiped about behind my back. And, yet, what if this other ward member, who knew more about the situation, told me that I was probably wrong about how I interpreted the conversation I overheard. Would it be immoral for him or her to tell me so and to encourage me to not reach my negative conclusions about the cause of my trauma?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

you should get to know me personally.  I have a good solid group of 6 friends plus my wife and we are together every weekend pretty much.  They would describe me as funny, soft, at peace, full of happiness and enjoying life.  I have another couple dozen who see me close enough and regular enough to second those observations. People should not take the one facet of my speaking out against the unhealthiness of Mormonism as an indicator of how at peace I am in my daily life.  That would be a grievous error.  Come spend a few a days in southern Utah    As to pursuing study , learning, and growing......  I think I am very much doing those things.  99% of them are outside Mormonism. 

If you ever get up north with your wife and friends, please..please let me know and we will have a huge barbecue and get to know one another.  I have followed you for many years.  You have tried cautious and faith...and when times have change your voice was louder because it was needed.  No matter what, I wish you the very best. 

All you have done is try to bring light and change to the religion you loved.  Be true to yourself always.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Jeanne

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, why me said:

If a member is on the internet, doing podcasts, and if these podcasts could lead people away, eventually the lds church will catch  up with them. It is always a done deal. We have seen this before. This is not something new. The question is: does the person making the podcasts have a testimony of the church. Do they do what they do to help members and the lds church. These are the standards that the church will go by. So, the question is: does Bill do the church harm or well with his podcasts?

What would you say about Tyler Glen then? Thousands more than Bill Reel, probably listened to the song or have seen the video where he definitely crosses a line. It's the video "Trash", here's an article about it. http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Mom-of-Neon-Tree-s-Singer-Responds-to-Her-Son-s-New-Controversial-Music-Video/s/82112