Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[mnn727]

Just another Utahn that thinks he's important, "kicking against the pricks"

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

If by truth you mean an ill-defined and semi-ambiguous statement made by an Apostle some time ago might be misleading. The champion of TRUTH is a clearly unstable crazy person who should probably take this kind of rabid nitpicking into the realm of politics where it belongs.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Just another Utahn that thinks he's important, "kicking against the pricks"

I don't think you should be calling the church or its leaders "pricks" on this board.  

[The Nehor]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think you should be calling the church or its leaders "pricks" on this board.  

Oh....is that why I was asked to sit down while I was giving my talk yesterday?

[stemelbow]

1 hour 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. 

Local leaders are just following orders quite often when it comes to going after these members--even though as we know the Church denies the general leader involvement.   From what I've seen and heard local leaders don't have any ability to address the difficulties and have even less desire to.  It seems the local leaders trust that if a member has incurred the ire of the general leaders the local leader is a lost cause.  But an ultimatum is given usually anyway.  

Yes.  YOu are correct though.  Once the general leaders issue an order of coming down on an average member, there is little the local leader can do and there is little desire for the Church to understand where the member is coming from.  They just need to get the guy to shut up or get out.  The problem is, though, this tends to blow up in the Church's face.  It doesn't really matter if a member maintains his membership or not.  THe message that is unaddressed remains and has seemed to grow.  

The Church most certainly has no desire to deal with truths when it comes down to it.  

[smac97]

17 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Mods: please review and remove if inappropriate.  

From his Facebook page:

Quote

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.

 

A few thoughts:

1. I am saddened, but not surprised, at this development.

2. I wish Bill Reel well, whatever happens.

3. Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 of the CHI defines "apostasy" as follows:

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

The first definition seems to fit pretty well to Reel's modus operandi.

4. His sanctimonious (and very public) contrasting of his purported devotion to "the truth" to Elder Holland's purported inveterate dishonesty just does not come across well.  At all.  And he insults our intelligence by this sort of reductionist silliness.

5. This last Sunday our ward's bishop gave a Fifth Sunday lesson that centered on three scriptures.  First, Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

The bishop paired this scripture with a series of questions, the first of which was "How can we apply this scripture when considering statements and/or actions by past and present leaders of the Church which we personally find problematic in some way?"

The second scripture was D&C 64:10:

Quote

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

Self-explanatory, I think.  I can't recall the specific last scripture the bishop used, but it was something along the lines of D&C 1:10:

Quote

Unto the day when the Lord shall come to recompense unto every man according to his work, and measure to every man according to the measure which he has measured to his fellow man.

The bishop used a "gentler" passage, but the same concept was there.  Each individual chooses the measure of justice and recompense that will be applied to himself.

For me, then, I want to take Mormon 9:31 more to heart.  I do not want to condemn others because of their imperfections.  Instead, I hope to learn from them (and give thanks that God has shown such things to me).

I want to forgive others.

I want mercy and forgiveness at the great and last day, so I need to mete it out to others.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 31, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If by truth you mean an ill-defined and semi-ambiguous statement made by an Apostle some time ago might be misleading. The champion of TRUTH is a clearly unstable crazy person who should probably take this kind of rabid nitpicking into the realm of politics where it belongs.

I'm not sure which ill-defined and semi-ambiguous statement you have in mind.  But I"d be curious to know.  What do you have in mind?

Edited July 30, 2018 by stemelbow

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church most certainly has no desire to deal with truths when it comes down to it.  

Well according to Bill that is going to change. His latest FB post claims that a "new church narrative is being created":
"I have been made aware by two completely separate sources that the Church has put in motion a 10 or 20 year plan to completely rewrite the narrative of the Church. I am aware of multiple parts of that plan. I will share one below. The Church completely grasping that its narrative and its facts are in complete contradiction with each other, the only choice they have is to follow Richard Bushman's advice that its narrative must be completely reconstructed.
The one item I will share here is Joseph translations including the Book of Mormon. We will in 10 to 20 years no longer articulate these works as translations but as revelations. We will completely let go of seeing Joseph doing anything in the arena of translating but rather that these works were Revelations giving us collectively a lot more leeway in how we can interpret these works. In other words one can choose to not believe historicity and it would be perfectly within their purview."

I thought it was understood all along that revelation was involved in the process. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well according to Bill that is going to change. His latest FB post claims that a "new church narrative is being created":
"I have been made aware by two completely separate sources that the Church has put in motion a 10 or 20 year plan to completely rewrite the narrative of the Church. I am aware of multiple parts of that plan. I will share one below. The Church completely grasping that its narrative and its facts are in complete contradiction with each other, the only choice they have is to follow Richard Bushman's advice that its narrative must be completely reconstructed.
The one item I will share here is Joseph translations including the Book of Mormon. We will in 10 to 20 years no longer articulate these works as translations but as revelations. We will completely let go of seeing Joseph doing anything in the arena of translating but rather that these works were Revelations giving us collectively a lot more leeway in how we can interpret these works. In other words one can choose to not believe historicity and it would be perfectly within their purview."

I thought it was understood all along that revelation was involved in the process. 

I think it might be a matter of survival. As Bushman says the dominant narrative simply can't be sustained.  If so, then it stands to reason the Church must change if it will survive.  Such a consideration shows its far less about what is true and far more about survival at this point.  If it was about truth the narrative would have been changed decades ago.  

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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?

26 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Just another Utahn that thinks he's important, "kicking against the pricks"

Yep. Let's attack the messenger and ignore the message.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well according to Bill that is going to change. His latest FB post claims that a "new church narrative is being created":
"I have been made aware by two completely separate sources that the Church has put in motion a 10 or 20 year plan to completely rewrite the narrative of the Church. I am aware of multiple parts of that plan. I will share one below. The Church completely grasping that its narrative and its facts are in complete contradiction with each other, the only choice they have is to follow Richard Bushman's advice that its narrative must be completely reconstructed.
The one item I will share here is Joseph translations including the Book of Mormon. We will in 10 to 20 years no longer articulate these works as translations but as revelations. We will completely let go of seeing Joseph doing anything in the arena of translating but rather that these works were Revelations giving us collectively a lot more leeway in how we can interpret these works. In other words one can choose to not believe historicity and it would be perfectly within their purview."

I thought it was understood all along that revelation was involved in the process. 

The two voices in his head do not count as “two completely separate sources”.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Thinking said:

Yep. Let's attack the messenger and ignore the message.

No, I am attacking both.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure which ill-defined and semi-ambiguous statement you have in mind.  But I"d be curious to know.  What do you have in mind?

The stuff in the OP.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The stuff in the OP.

so you're calling the unambiguous and well defined claim of double digit stake creations every week as ill-defined and semi-ambiguous?  

That's interesting in a sense.  I always wonder how some get all defensive over things that seem pretty apparent.  Of course, even Bill knows this fib by Holland is but the tip of the iceberg.  If we can't point out error by the leaders what are we to do?  

[juliann]

I think it is silly to demand members stop what they doing to stay in the church. It’s just not a good look for one thing. If someone is damaging the church remove them without threats, if that is going to be the ultimate result anyway.

Reel is not very skilled or well spoken. He is just loud and insistent. Truthful is not an adjective I would apply to this genre of cobbling the worst of the worst into a wobbly narrative meant to elicit only one reaction. These guys have become the very thing they disdain. 

Reel’s only advantage is his being able to call himself Mormon. I doubt he has the lasting power of a more sophisticated figure like Dehlin so I think he cares very much about the outcome. 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

so you're calling the unambiguous and well defined claim of double digit stake creations every week as ill-defined and semi-ambiguous?  

That's interesting in a sense.  I always wonder how some get all defensive over things that seem pretty apparent.  Of course, even Bill knows this fib by Holland is but the tip of the iceberg.  If we can't point out error by the leaders what are we to do?  

Yes, I am. I suspect he misspoke and was talking about reorganizing stakes because that is where General Authorities have to be involved.

Yes, definitely the tip of the iceberg. After that comment it is all but certain that the Apostle weekly meetings involve torturing puppies and drinking caffeinated soda. That Titanic is going down.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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 

i am not sure of the years...because I am an old lady...but all those professors that were disfellowshipped earlier worked for BYU. 

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Yep. Let's attack the messenger and ignore the message.

So  ...  messenger publicly attacks Church  ...  messenger announces publicly he's facing Church discipline ...  public discussion of messenger's message and its possible relevance to messenger's publicly announced discipline is perforce an attack on messenger while at the same time ignoring messenger's message?

Did I get that right?

[readstoomuch]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Just another Utahn that thinks he's important, "kicking against the pricks"

Convert from Ohio originally.  Quite a story actually.  So not your typical Utahan.   

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think it is silly to demand members stop what they doing to stay in the church. It’s just not a good look for one thing. If someone is damaging the church remove them without threats, if that is going to be the ultimate result anyway.

Reel is not very skilled or well spoken. He is just loud and insistent. Truthful is not an adjective I would apply to this genre of cobbling the worst of the worst into a wobbly narrative meant to elicit only one reaction. These guys have become the very thing they disdain. 

Reel’s only advantage is his being able to call himself Mormon. I doubt he has the lasting power of a more sophisticated figure like Dehlin so I think he cares very much about the outcome. 

Don't think I agree.  If the only issue in giving people, behind closed doors, the option of changing troubling behavior is the optics when/if said people go public with the confidential discussion, then so be it.  Optics are less important that the people involved.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Mods: please review and remove if inappropriate.  

From his Facebook page:

 

 

The two main reasons why he's being disciplined in my opinion.  

1. Scope of influence - he has enough followers to merit the church paying attention institutionally.

2. Tone - Bill has been offering critiques of Mormonism for a long time, but I think his tone has definitely shifted over time, where he's being more confrontational about his criticisms.  

Throughout my career I have found opportunities at work in meetings and on teams that I work with to point out problems with some of the ideas presented as constructive criticism.  I have had times where I disagreed with recommendations/processes being discussed.  Sometimes I've done this in very diplomatic ways that have lead to the overall benefit of the group.  I've also had times where I've done this in ways that caused offense and I believe had a net negative impact on the group.  

The church operates much like a corporation.  If you conduct yourself in a way that is positively seeking change within the group, and if you handle the constructive criticism in a respectful tone, I think you will continue to be part of the church.  When they perceive that your influence is a net negative, then that is when your membership is in jeopardy.  This can change of course based on the leadership in the church and their sensitivity.  I'm not saying Bill should be Excommunicated by any means, I would be much more tolerant if I were in charge, but I am saying that I can understand some of the discomfort that they are experiencing.  

I also think there is a place for activism and for people to push for change outside the church as well.  

 

 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I am. I suspect he misspoke and was talking about reorganizing stakes because that is where General Authorities have to be involved.

The Nehor, your biggest problem here is you can actually read and comprehend what you're reading.  I've seen it.  

Quote

"We’re in the midst of incredible growth. Staggering Growth in the Church. It’s the single biggest problem we have. Its the best problem we could have, but the biggest. We are reeling under the implications of the growth we have in this church… A week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes. And we are doing that, mas o menos, every week… more or less. It might not be 15… the week before it was 12. Sometimes its 8 (said with a tone that indicates this is on the low side of things) or whatever and it will be a little uneven. But the point is, we’re talking double digits stakes every week, every week of our lives"

That doesn't make sense if he meant reorganizing double digit stakes each week.  

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, definitely the tip of the iceberg. After that comment it is all but certain that the Apostle weekly meetings involve torturing puppies and drinking caffeinated soda. That Titanic is going down.

I'm not sure why everyone gets all worked up when a member points out a mistake.  It's a mistake.  We should be able to talk about it, I figure. Pretending they meant something other than they say is just silly.  Seems better to admit the reality rather than pretend.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Well according to Bill that is going to change. His latest FB post claims that a "new church narrative is being created":
"I have been made aware by two completely separate sources that the Church has put in motion a 10 or 20 year plan to completely rewrite the narrative of the Church. I am aware of multiple parts of that plan. I will share one below. The Church completely grasping that its narrative and its facts are in complete contradiction with each other, the only choice they have is to follow Richard Bushman's advice that its narrative must be completely reconstructed.
The one item I will share here is Joseph translations including the Book of Mormon. We will in 10 to 20 years no longer articulate these works as translations but as revelations. We will completely let go of seeing Joseph doing anything in the arena of translating but rather that these works were Revelations giving us collectively a lot more leeway in how we can interpret these works. In other words one can choose to not believe historicity and it would be perfectly within their purview."

I thought it was understood all along that revelation was involved in the process. 

I think the church has and always will be responding to the broader culture.  It is a part of the culture after all, and it can't operate in a bubble.  This has been true from the beginning.  Joseph was responding to early Mormon criticism from the start, and this will continue into the future.  The doctrines are constantly evolving, in spite of those who claim some kind of doctrinal purity to the contrary, they are just oblivious to reality.  

I agree that a broader acceptance of what are considered progressive religious positions today, will continue into the future, likely with fits and starts as some more conservative types take the reigns.  But the long term and broad trajectory is directly in alignment with the broader western culture that Mormonism is situated in.  Taken from a high altitude view of trends I see the church aligning fairly closely with the culture even if it is a few years behind on many of the shifts.  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Again, it is because of his attacks, not because of the relative truth or untruth of his claims, or even because it makes the church look bad. He has crossed the clear line into strident attack territory, whereas at the beginning he was the troubled doubting ex-bishop trying to help people and the Church navigate thorny issues. He has made a big thing out of calling Elder Holland a liar, emphasizing this, when it has nothing to do with red-handed gotchas, but rather, interpretation and bias. He has also started openly "caucusing" with other podcasters and critics who are even more openly critical than he is, and his momentum towards angry and bitter accusations is accelerating. 

Again, I don't think he's actually right about his hot-button issues. That is a separate issue from taking formal Church action to deal with his public, strident, attacks on the Church. The Church can reasonably act on that without even getting into his hot button issues, because it would be looking merely at his apostate behavior. 

You find it interesting that someone who values his membership in the church wouldn't merely resign when threatened?

No, I find it interesting that he said (with profanity) that he would not resign if it came to an actual disciplinary council. Interesting, in light of recent trends in high profile cases. If he actually did that, I would find that interesting. I would actually admire it more than the fashionable resignation at the last second "so they can't say they excommunicated me/I excommunicated them" trend. 

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.

Suppose, maybe, and perhaps. I would actually be very interested to hear him himself talk about how much or how little he values his membership now. He has no respect for the Brethren at all (increasingly less, with each passing day), so I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say that he doesn't think they have any inspiration, authority, or sanction now. Does he think Joseph Smith ever did, now? It wouldn't surprise me if he now does not. 

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.

Waterman was ex'd. I was thinking about Snuffer, who went out with a whimper when his unreasonable demands to let his children and wife read statements were denied, he simply pulled a Slobadan Milosevich and promptly resigned, not recognizing the authority of the council. That's actually what I think Reel will do because of the egging on from his new compatriots. There are a lot of face-saving and group psychological dynamics that encourage "resigning so they can't have the satisfaction of kicking you out," and I can't see Reel being his own man against that. Not given how much he's lapped up the recent accolades from that quarter. 

[flameburns623]

This is the post Bill made last week, announcing that his Bishop and Stake President were coming to discuss Bill's inactivity,  and that of his family, to see what if anything coulf be done. Bill made it clear he intended to make the private meeting into a discussion about a top-twenty list of issues which he finds disturbing.  (He has edited several times. It looks as if he added four additional questions). 

Please note that the very last paragraph is mine. I cannot cut it from the quotation now that I have published. 

Quote

My Bishop and Stake President (I have never met either face to face) are coming for a visit Wednesday evening "to get to know me".  I believe their reasons are sincere at this point.  I assume they want to both meet our family as well as see if there is anything that can be done to help us return.  I want to give this a sincere effort.  Below are my list of questions that would need resolved.  Can you think of any important questions that I am forgetting?  I want these questions to be data driven and to require a reconciliation.  Thoughts???  List is below

1.) Lucy Walker Conundrum – If Joseph Smith lied to Lucy about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife than I absolutely can not trust Joseph Smith. If God in fact did command Joseph then I absolutely can not place trust or love in a God who imposes that a daughter father relationship be made into a husband wife relationship. - http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm

2.) We now know that the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, JST, and Kinder hook plates (all 5 of Joseph Smith translation productions) include plagiarism from contemporary sources from Joseph Smith's environment or sources long after when these productions were written (Ex: Book of Moses borrows heavily from Mathew Ch. 4). In light of such what space is there to abandon a historical approach to Joseph Smith''s translations and the Church as having literal authority and keys if we agree that to some extent these all are modern productions to at least some degree?  
http://www.withoutend.org/source-criticism-books-moses-abraham/
http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/Research_Archives/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final-2.pdf
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/files/BookofMormon07.PDF
http://www.mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm

3.) Why do we neglect to tell people and avoid conversation at all costs of John Taylor's 1886 revelation Where Jesus tells him directly that polygamy must never be ended?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation

4.) How do we reconcile Joseph Smith breaking all the rules of section 133 and polygamy?
- He does not get permission from Emma on most if not all of his plural marriages
- he does not only marry only virgins
he does not only marry women who are unmarried
https://www.mormonstories.org/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/

5.) When history was not collectively observable and recordable and reportable, God flooded the whole earth, parted seas, restored limbs, sent balls of fire down at the pleading of his prophet, peoplw turned to pillars of salt, talking donkeys, and healings instantaneously of severe diseases that no scientific explanation to date exists (leprosy, blindness, etc..) Once history became collectively observable, recordable, and shareable, these miracles have essentially ceased. What is more likely that God has withdrawn such things in the modern age or that such tales were fictional or incredibly embellished myth stories to begin with.
http://theweek.com/articles/441450/age-miracles-over--even-religious

6.) 2000 stripling warriors battle against a larger more experienced army and not one soldier is killed. Many faint from blood loss but in an age of infection, not one gets gangrene and each of them without blood transfusions reports back to duty and a short while. In light of modern understanding and what is even in the realm of plausible, such a story is absurd. Other than imposing irrational thinking that “with God anything is possible” how do you reconcile such?
7.) Why does Elder Holland lie about Church growth?
https://www.facebook.com/bill.reel.7/posts/10215803321538462

8.) Why is the Church always 30 to 50 years behind the corrupt and fallen world on essentially every social issue? (birth control, women working outside the home, women's rights such as voting, race, cremation, and now LGBT issues) In light of having men who talk directly to God, should we not be leading in the progress of social issues and treatment of human beings?

9.) If past leaders knew certain doctrines by the divine influence to be true (adam God, blood atonement, doctrines around the why of the Race Ban) only to have future leaders declare by the same divine influence that past said teachings were false, how can trust modern leaders who claim to get their info from the same source?
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

10.) Why do modern Prophets and apostles never perform a miracle, never prophesy, never perform as a seer, never get a unique revelation that shares new insights from God?

11.) Are you aware of how Brigham Young took control of the Church? The 12 clearly based on the D&C and Joseph Smith's own words did not have sole authority upon the death of Joseph but Brigham clearly imposed his will and worked to diminish and distance any person or group who were equal or had more authority and took control of the Church in ways that were abusive and threatening to others. Are you aware of this? How do I reconcile that?
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/brigham-youngs-hostile-takeover.html

12.) Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery believed that Joseph Smith's intimate relationship with Smith housemaid Fanny Alger was an affair and inappropriate. Knowing this and knowing that Joseph had intimate relationships with other young girls who worked in his home (The partridge sisters and Lucy Walker), how do I reconcile the data that Joseph seems to pressure young girls into intimate relationships with him and imposes that they keep such secret. In any other walk of our life we would be appalled. Here – we make justifications. How do I reconcile such?
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm

13.) Are you aware of the enormous extent at which Joseph Smith was a scrying treasure digger? Do you grasp what that term means? Joseph told others who could know where made up fictional treasure was buried in the ground via his seer stone, and he knew the spells that could be used to wrest the buried treasure away from guardian spirits who watched over the treasure. He did this over and over again taking people money and then never producing any treasure. Now fast forward, The gold plates are also a treasure buried in a hill, protected by Guardian Spirits and a seer stone is still the tool utilized. How am I to reconcile and take seriously the man's story when his gold plates are the same basic story as the umpteen times he knowingly scammed people out of their money?
http://undergroundnotes.com/graphics7/Dialogue_V27N03_211.pdf
http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/joseph-smith-money-digger.html
http://20truths.info/mormon/treasure.html

14.) We utilize the 1838 account of the First Vision and completely ignore the 1832 account which has him already knowing all the churches are false, he goes at the age of 15, more concerned with his own forgiveness, and says he saw the LORD and not two heavenly beings. Then knowing that past leaders were so uncomfortable with the 1832 account that Joseph Fielding Smith or someone he authorized cut the 1832 account out of Joseph Smith's own journal and stored it away for 30 to 40 years with JFS referring to it as a “peculiar account”. We now have since taped it back in, but spend little time speaking about it and act as if it compliments the official account which if the two are read side by side the contradictions are glaring.
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1

15.) In the, end after the 2000 problems that exist if we make special pleading that none of such matters as we have had spiritual experiences that confirm such. But this pleading ignores all the other believers of different religions who also have had deep and profound experiences testifying that they too received a witness that their faith was true. How can I know that the experiences Mormons have are true and all other people with a religious experience are deceived?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJMSU8Qj6Go&t=27s

16.) Will you work to rid us within our ward and stake all the false stories in our manuals especially false stories about those who leave (Thomas Marsh, Symonds Ryder, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith)?

17.) Will you provide a safe space for those who have read more and who understand the history to in their effort to correct the historically demonstrable false beliefs in our history and culture?

18.) Will you make a safe space for a member who holds a non-historical view of our sacred myth stories who is careful to share his views as only his views?

19.) Will you work to provide a safe space to rid our local culture of homophobia and inappropriate comments and teachings on LGBT folks that are hurtful and potentially lead to self loathing and abuse?

20.) Will you work to diminish my perspective or will it be fully welcome in your ward/stake? Will I be considered for all callings including leadership and teaching positions so long as I promise to be truthful about our history and to respect differences of opinion while also being clear when false non-doctrinal things are taught that they are pointed out as inaccurate?

21.)  Can you explain what the plan of salvation and equal opportunity to receive exaltation is for Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Intersex, Asexual or Queer people is with the partially acknowledged understanding that having this sexual orientation and or gender identity is not generally a choice but is a natural component of the person's fundamental being as eye color or handedness, or skin tone is and the gospel teaching that God allowed them to be born with or to have these innate characteristics?

22.) Furthermore will you show in LDS scripture any clear revelation directly applicable to the issue of committed same gender relationships or gender identity and justify how the Church distinguishes direction that comes from the divine versus social cultural prejudices that have been the source of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people thru history?
http://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/06/LDSHomosexualityQuotes.pdf
23.)   Can you justify how children who have the permission of their gay parents to participate in the church and it's ordinances can be justified to be prohibited against the will of their parents to be denied the "saving ordinances" and gift of the Holy Ghost in direct opposition to the articles of faith and scriptural injunctions on the duty of parents?
https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/11/post-duty-bound-to-reject-it/

24.)   Further, how these children have to pass a test for membership and that no other potential member must pass namely to live apart from parents and to denounce their parents relationship before being allowed to be baptized as and adult?
https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/11/post-duty-bound-to-reject-it/

Very few Latter-day saints are truly willing to explore these issues.  Many find weak apologetic answers and go wheeeew and move one, not really wanting to know if those apologetic answers are solid and if they hold up.  I always wanted the truth no matter the cost.  Perhaps you do not.  But in the case that you do, I would suggest you start here.  If it isn't true, would you really want to know?

RESOURCES:
http://MormonPrimer.com
http://www.letterformywife.com/letter/
https://cesletter.org/CES-Letter.pdf

I had mentioned to Bill, a couple of times,  my concerns that some of his airing of doubts publicly was occurring in a way likely to lead to church action. I'm sure I wasn't the only person. 

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by flameburns623