Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[DBMormon]

2 hours 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?

it pushes for transparency and vulnerability and honesty..... so harm

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, 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. 

sure.  people believe all kinds of things in spite of overwhelming evidence.  Flat earthers, scientologists, Donald Trump is a good man,......... etc  etc....

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

please do

[USU78]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

sure.  people believe all kinds of things in spite of overwhelming evidence.  Flat earthers, scientologists, Donald Trump is a good man,......... etc  etc....

Seriously? Why so insulting?

[sunstoned]

6 hours 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, please consider this a rep point^^  

[sunstoned]

5 hours 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?

Bill questioned and called out a apostle who was lying.  If anyone is led away by this, the I would suggest it was the actions of the apostle, and not Bill.

[sunstoned]

5 hours 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 need a place to stay while you are in the Provo area, you are very welcome at my house.  Please PM me if you are in the area.

[california boy]

14 hours 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.

My excommunication, while for different reasons than what you are going through, are never the less equal in the false expectations that the church was imposing.  It wasn't just me in that excommunication court.  It was every single gay person who rejects the idea of straight men who self proclaim that just because you are gay, you don't deserve to find someone to love and share your life with.  (and no, I don't believe for one minute that God had any input into this corporate policy decision voted upon).  The message of the church is clear.  There is no room for your kind in our organization. It is too bad.  Because there is so much good in the church that I could be a part of.  

You also won't be walking into that excommunication court alone.  Your excommunication will also be the excommunication of all those Mormons who believe that apostles should tell the truth, that the Book of Mormon did not come from ancient records recorded on golden plates, that funeral scrolls were not written by the hand of Abraham. As you well know, the list goes on.  The church is saying that all those who can't embrace what now appears to be pretty obviously fiction are not welcome.  Many on this board will also be at your excommunication as well.  You are just the proxy standing in for their conscience.  The message of the church is once again clear.  There is no room for your kind in our organization.  (maybe that should be your next podcast.)

Trying to live up to expectations that you know are false can eat away at you week by week, day by day.  Your post clearly shows that you already understand that the church can take away your membership, but it can not take away your relationship with God. That will only deepen. I wish you nothing but the best kind of rich and fulfilling life that lays ahead for you and your family.  

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, DBMormon said:

sure.  people believe all kinds of things in spite of overwhelming evidence.  Flat earthers, scientologists, Donald Trump is a good man,......... etc  etc....

Many people, at least some of whom (believe it or not  ) are almost as intelligent as you are, are as well grounded in the issues, and so on have looked at that "overwhelming evidence" and have reached conclusions that are diametrically opposed to yours.  Ah, well!  Must just be the Cog-Dis!   Give 'em time!  Eventually, they, too, will be assimilated into the Great, All-Knowing Collective of the Uber-Illuminati!

As I've stated several times on this thread, your standing before God is between you and God; your standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (to the extent that even matters: If you don't believe the organization's claims, it probably doesn't matter much, if at all) is between you, your leaders, and God.  I certainly wouldn't want to be Elder Jeffrey R. Holland if he really is the Mendacious Fool you so insist that he is.  In the end, God certainly will not be mocked.  I keep hearing what a nice guy you actually are, and I want to believe it: My default position certainly isn't to assume the worst of folks.  Believe what you want to believe, and don't believe what you don't want to believe, about the Church of Jesus Christ.  Fine-and-dandy, well-and-good.

Believe it or not, though (and I suspect this will be nearly impossible for you to believe, given the air of intellectual smugness you've gradually adopted toward those Poor, Benighted Believers over the past few years!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!) it is possible for people of reasonable intelligence, of reasonable sanity, in good conscience and good faith to reach conclusions which differ from those you have reached about the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Now, here come the howls of protest: "How could you possibly say that about Bill Reel!  He's such a nice guy!"  "You don't know Bill Reel!"  "You've never even met Bill Reel!"  And on and on, ad infinitum.  Fine.  Yes, that's all true.  The thing is, all I have to go by is what Bill Reel has written on line.  Don't get me wrong: I've had my moments; I certainly wouldn't want anyone to judge me solely by the worst things I've written on line.  But apart from those moments, I'm the same guy on line that I am in real life.  

Fine.  I've horribly misjudged you.  But the thing is, all I have to go by is what you've written in Cyber-space.  As foreign as other paradigms might be to me, I can understand people leaving the Church of Jesus Christ.  It's a lot more of a stretch for me, because I believe that no other person or entity can make me feel [x] without my consent, but, to a certain extent, I can even understand people being bitter toward the Church of Jesus Christ or toward its leaders.  What I can't understand is the dichotomy, the seemingly-vast gulf, that exists between the Irresistibly Sneeringly-Condescending On Line Bill Reel, on the one hand, and the In-Real-Life Nice Guy Bill Reel, on the other.

And my question from much earlier in the thread remains: Since Bill Reel's standing in the Church of Jesus Christ is between him, his leaders, and God, and since Bill Reel's standing before God is between him and God, why isn't the same standard applicable to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland?  Why the seeming need for the anti-Holland crusade?  Why not follow Gamaliel's advice to the Sanhedrin regarding the ancient apostles where the modern apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, is concerned?  In Acts 5 Gamaliel is reported to have said:

Quote

 

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

 

And finally, why the sneering condescension?

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 The church is saying that all those who can't embrace what now appears to be pretty obviously fiction are not welcome.

"Pretty obviously" ... right!  Ah, well!  At some point, all of us, will be assimilated into the Vast Collective of the Uber-Illuminati!  Resistance is futile!   You're frequently on here proclaiming, in the words of Eliza R. Snow from a well-known Latter-day Saint hymn, "Now I'll take no further trouble, Jesus' love is all my theme!"  That's good, and I applaud it, but which is it?  Are Latter-day Saints "pretty obviously" deluded, or is your creed, rather, "Love, live, and let live"?  Seems to me that you need to pay more attention to the next phrase of that hymn, as well: "Little motes are but a bubble when I think upon the beam."  See Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985) no. 273, "Truth Reflects Upon Our Senses."  See also Matthew 7:1-5.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Pretty obviously" ... right!  Ah, well!  At some point, all of us, will be assimilated into the Vast Collective of the Uber-Illuminati!  Resistance is futile!   You're frequently on here proclaiming, in the words of Eliza R. Snow from a well-known Latter-day Saint hymn, "Now I'll take no further trouble, Jesus' love is all my theme!"  That's good, and I applaud it, but which is it?  Are Latter-day Saints "pretty obviously" deluded, or is your creed, rather, "Love, live, and let live"?  Seems to me that you need to pay more attention to the next phrase of that hymn, as well: "Little motes are but a bubble when I think upon the beam."  See Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985) no. 273, "Truth Reflects Upon Our Senses."  See also Matthew 7:1-5.

Yup. The dearth of compassion, charity, and forgiveness evidenced in that and db's next prior post sure give the lie to the assertion that secular humanists don't tend to jettison their babies with their bathwater, don't it?

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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?

Well of course misperceptions are always possible for anyone and anything.  There is also gas lighting where manipulative people try to tell traumatized individuals that their trauma isn't real, and I'm not saying you're doing this, but I have seen tactic used before.  

I get what you're saying about how trauma could be caused by incorrectly hearing something, communication isn't perfect and misunderstanding happens frequently enough.  I give you and Bill the benefit of the doubt with expressing your personal experience with the church.  If you say the church has uplifted and enlightened your soul, then I believe you.  I'm not going to question whether the uplift you felt was influenced by some kind of misperception or misunderstanding on your part.  If Bill says he was traumatized, I give him the same benefit of the doubt as well.  

 

[SouthernMo]

@DBMormon does not need me to come to his defense.  He's a big boy, and has clearly spent a lot of time and energy coming to his conclusion and seems to be at peace with it.  This message is not intended for him, but to those who consider themselves more firmly rooted to the LDS church, and have determined that he needs to be 'set straight' or silenced in some way.

Why does it matter what his character is (good or bad)?  Why does it matter what he says?  Why does is matter if he is condescending or not?

If the LDS faith & truth are so strong, then who cares?  Let him go on his journey through life, and let's take the truth and good he has shared and embrace it while letting the rest wash away.  If you're worried about him breaking others' testimonies, I suggest spending more time ministering to those individuals who you feel need the support and teaching.  I think that is what the Christ I know would do.

I love that on this board we can discuss his belief position, tone, and effectiveness.  It is relevant - what he's done and said has affected some in the LDS community.  But let's do it pragmatically.  Maybe we need to adjust our own 'tone.'

Bill - of all the things I hope you're wrong about, I hope most that your DC is actually full of love.  I am not optimistic based on my personal experience and what I've read, but I choose to have hope.

Edited August 3, 2018 by SouthernMo

[Avatar4321]

18 hours 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.

Well, I’m sorry to hear that. It looks like you’ve already excommunicated yourself in deed.

But please know that the Lord and His Church will always welcome you back

[Kenngo1969]

51 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

@DBMormon does not need me to come to his defense.  He's a big boy, and has clearly spent a lot of time and energy coming to his conclusion and seems to be at peace with it.  This message is not intended for him, but to those who consider themselves more firmly rooted to the LDS church, and have determined that he needs to be 'set straight' or silenced in some way..

I've been pretty consistent that whether he needs to be "set straight" is a matter for him and his leaders.  I haven't argued that he needs to be "silenced," unless mere disagreement is the equivalent of saying, "Shut up!" he argued.

Quote

Why does it matter what his character is (good or bad)? 

You, he, or someone else may not like it, but he doesn't get a "free pass" to come on a Board dedicated to Latter-day Saint discussion and impugn Latter-day Saint leaders.

Quote

Why does it matter what he says? 

If what he says is wrong, or if he employs double-standards or other faulty logic, it's fair game for critique.

Quote

Why does is matter if he is condescending or not?

That's rich!  His tone doesn't matter; meanwhile, we should adjust our tone.  Double-standard, anyone?

Quote

If the LDS faith & truth are so strong, then who cares? 

As Austin Farrar put it: 

Quote

It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

Quote

Let him go on his journey through life ...

If that's what he were content to do, I would be more than happy to let him do it.  (Hints: (1) Sneering at faith and at those who profess it; and (2) Impugning Latter-day Saint leaders don't cut it.)

Quote

and let's take the truth and good he has shared and embrace it while letting the rest wash away.

"You're wrong" and "You're stupid" (boiled down to its essence, that's what he's saying) don't strike me as either "true" or "good," nor do they strike me as things I would want to "embrace" (others' mileage may vary; people are funny that way ).

Quote

If you're worried about him breaking others' testimonies, I suggest spending more time ministering to those individuals who you feel need the support and teaching.  I think that is what the Christ I know would do.

Ah, the "What-Would-Jesus-Do?/WWJD" card.  Someone needs to create a corollary to Godwin's Law for that.  

Quote

I love that on this board we can discuss his belief position, tone, and effectiveness.  It is relevant - what he's done and said has affected some in the LDS community.  But let's do it pragmatically.  Maybe we need to adjust our own 'tone.'

You love that we can discuss "belief," "position," "tone," et cetera, but, somehow, Mr. Reel's "beliefs," "positions," and "tone" are, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, off limits ... at least, they are for the rest of us!  That's rich!  (You need to distribute the "Approved-for-Discussion" list of topics "beliefs," "position," and "tone" so that we know what ... and who ... is off-limits.

Quote

Bill - of all the things I hope you're wrong about, I hope most that your DC is actually full of love.  I am not optimistic based on my personal experience and what I've read, but I choose to have hope

Yes, I believe anyone in Mr. Reel's position should be dealt with in a spirit of love.  That said, you seem to care more about what happens there than he seems to.  If he's right in seemingly implying that the Church of Jesus Christ has no authority over him, what does it matter?

[Ryan Dahle]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I give you and Bill the benefit of the doubt with expressing your personal experience with the church.  If you say the church has uplifted and enlightened your soul, then I believe you.  I'm not going to question whether the uplift you felt was influenced by some kind of misperception or misunderstanding on your part. 

You seem to be implying that questioning the cause of someone's trauma or uplift doesn't appropriately give them the benefit of the doubt about whether or not they are actually experiencing trauma or uplift. I disagree.

For instance, whether or not you directly state it, I think you definitely question whether or not my feelings of being spiritually uplifted are caused by the same things I think they are caused by. You have demonstrated this over and over again by your comments that disagree with my fundamental beliefs about what makes the Church and its teachings so satisfying. For example, I'm sure you know that I and others on the board have strong positive feelings about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and that this is a big reason that we cherish the book and find spiritual value in it. The account of Jesus Christ coming to the Americas and visiting a group of people, for instance, is a lot more spiritually satisfying to me if the story is historically true and accurate. 

Yet, by your logic, every time that you express your lack of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (which is fairly often) you are refusing to give me the benefit of the doubt by not justifying my own interpretation of what has caused my good feelings. I think that my good feelings are caused by the Holy Ghost affirming both the historical and spiritual reality of Christ's visitation, and your comments threaten this view.

So, is it morally wrong for you to openly state views that threaten my own interpretation of what causes my good feelings? If you think that, then you should probably stop commenting on this board or sharing your opinions with anyone, because it is a sure bet that your opinions are going to threaten someone's interpretation of their feelings.

In contrast, I think there is nothing wrong with openly and politely disagreeing with others about their interpretation of what has caused their feelings. Doing so does not somehow deny them the benefit of the doubt about whether or not their feelings are real. It only questions whether or not their feelings are justified. While such discourse may be uncomfortable, it is definitely needed. Merely feeling offended or hurt doesn't mean someone has done something morally wrong to you. Likewise, having a good feeling about the Book of Mormon, after praying about it, doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

We all have to interpret our feelings, and choosing to feel threatened or offended when others disagree with our interpretations is not emotionally healthy. Moreover, believing that we have a moral obligation to not question others' interpretations of their feelings, as you seem to believe, only seems to justify this type of unhealthy hypersensitivity. It is better when all beliefs, perhaps especially beliefs about our own feelings and what causes them, are on the table for discussion and reevaluation. 

 

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ah, the "What-Would-Jesus-Do?/WWJD" card.  Someone needs to create a corollary to Godwin's Law for that.  

It sounds like you're condescending this position (am I wrong?).  What is wrong with wanting to be Christlike on this board?

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, DBMormon said:

sure.  people believe all kinds of things in spite of overwhelming evidence.  Flat earthers, scientologists, Donald Trump is a good man,......... etc  etc....

Notice again importance of the metaphor here that Mormon believers are akin to flat earthers, scientologists, and Trumpers.  I don't have to just accept the metaphor, and therefore, the whole implicit argument, without testing it.  I can actually ask if, for example, the recent LiDar surveys of Mesoamerica are as overwhelmingly devastating to the Book of Mormon as a satellite or space station view of the earth ought to be to a hypothetical flat earther.  (Watch the recent National Geographic TV Special on the Mayan Snake Kings for yourself.)  I can ask if L. Ron Hubbard's claims are as testable as the Book of Mormon and could compare personalities and character.  I can ask if Joseph Smith's plural wives made any first-hand, eye witness complaints about his behavior comparable to what first-hand, eye witnesses have said about Trump's behavior.  That is different than assuming the worst from Joseph, based on prejudicial comparisons rather than first hand complaints.  For that matter,  I can even compare what I have witnessed in Trump's words and actions to what I have personally explored in Joseph Smith's life and work.  It happens that when I do this kind of thing to test the viability of the metaphor offered here I do not seem to justify a claim of "overwhelming" .  Rather, the metaphor purports do the heavy lifting but really only provides misdirection.

"There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant."  ( E. A. Payne, cited in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 4 (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 194, note 2.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice again importance of the metaphor here that Mormon believers are akin to flat earthers, scientologists, and Trumpers.  I don't have to just accept the metaphor, and therefore, the whole implicit argument, without testing it.  I can actually ask if, for example, the recent LiDar surveys of Mesoamerica are as overwhelmingly devastating to the Book of Mormon as a satellite or space station view of the earth ought to be to a hypothetical flat earther.  (Watch the recent National Geographic TV Special on the Mayan Snake Kings for yourself.)  I can ask if L. Ron Hubbard's claims are as testable as the Book of Mormon and could compare personalities and character.  I can ask if Joseph Smith's plural wives made any first-hand, eye witness complaints about his behavior comparable to what first-hand, eye witnesses have said about Trump's behavior.  That is different than assuming the worst from Joseph, based on prejudicial comparisons rather than first hand complaints.  For that matter,  I can even compare what I have witnessed in Trump's words and actions to what I have personally explored in Joseph Smith's life and work.  It happens that when I do this kind of thing to test the viability of the metaphor offered here I do not seem to justify a claim of "overwhelming" .  Rather, the metaphor purports do the heavy lifting but really only provides misdirection.

"There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant."  ( E. A. Payne, cited in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 4 (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 194, note 2.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I think you're reading too much into this. I see Bill's derisive analogies as an understandable response to a thread wherein he's been pretty badly attacked. I can't speak for Bill, but most apostates I know don't think Mormons are irrational and akin to conspiracy theorists. 

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

It sounds like you're condescending this position (am I wrong?).  What is wrong with wanting to be Christlike on this board?

Nothing, provided it's not used sanctimoniously or as a passive aggressive, Holier-Than-Thou weapon, perhaps by someone seeking to shut down debate on an ... Ahem ... Discussion board by deeming certain posters' antagonistic posts above critique or criticism. 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You seem to be implying that questioning the cause of someone's trauma or uplift doesn't appropriately give them the benefit of the doubt about whether or not they are actually experiencing trauma or uplift. I disagree.

For instance, whether or not you directly state it, I think you definitely question whether or not my feelings of being spiritually uplifted are caused by the same things I think they are caused by. You have demonstrated this over and over again by your comments that disagree with my fundamental beliefs about what makes the Church and its teachings so satisfying. For example, I'm sure you know that I and others on the board have strong positive feelings about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and that this is a big reason that we cherish the book and find spiritual value in it. The account of Jesus Christ coming to the Americas and visiting a group of people, for instance, is a lot more spiritually satisfying to me if the story is historically true and accurate. 

Yet, by your logic, every time that you express your lack of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (which is fairly often) you are refusing to give me the benefit of the doubt by not justifying my own interpretation of what has caused my good feelings. I think that my good feelings are caused by the Holy Ghost affirming both the historical and spiritual reality of Christ's visitation, and your comments threaten this view.

So, is it morally wrong for you to openly state views that threaten my own interpretation of what causes my good feelings? If you think that, then you should probably stop commenting on this board or sharing your opinions with anyone, because it is a sure bet that your opinions are going to threaten someone's interpretation of their feelings.

In contrast, I think there is nothing wrong with openly and politely disagreeing with others about their interpretation of what has caused their feelings. Doing so does not somehow deny them the benefit of the doubt about whether or not their feelings are real. It only questions whether or not their feelings are justified. While such discourse may be uncomfortable, it is definitely needed. Merely feeling offended or hurt doesn't mean someone has done something morally wrong to you. Likewise, having a good feeling about the Book of Mormon, after praying about it, doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

We all have to interpret our feelings, and choosing to feel threatened or offended when others disagree with our interpretations is not emotionally healthy. Moreover, believing that we have a moral obligation to not question others' interpretations of their feelings, as you seem to believe, only seems to justify this type of unhealthy hypersensitivity. It is better when all beliefs, perhaps especially beliefs about our own feelings and what causes them, are on the table for discussion and reevaluation. 

I agree that these kinds of discussions can get complicated and I'm trying to be self critical as well, because I'm sure that I've contradicted myself often enough over time.  So my participation on the board is not only to share with others, but it is to explore my own self in the process.  

It is true that I don't currently believe the BoM is historical based on the strength of evidence as I interpret it.  Is my stating this point akin to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt when they express how they were traumatized by the church?  I see these as different, but I can understand why you're saying they are similar.  I try to be very supportive of people interpreting evidence and having a personal subjective perspective that I honor, even if I disagree with it, including those who believe in BoM historicity. 

I think when someone talks about trauma, then it goes to an even more personal level and takes the discussion even further away from dispassionate evaluations of evidence.  I recognize that religious topics are almost always laced with some level of the personal, so admittedly this is a challenge.  

 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

It sounds like you're condescending this position (am I wrong?).  What is wrong with wanting to be Christlike on this board?

It ain't so much the desire to discipleship as it is the desire to virtue signal.

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nothing, provided it's not used sanctimoniously or as a passive aggressive, Holier-Than-Thou weapon, perhaps by someone seeking to shut down debate on an ... Ahem ... Discussion board by dee.ing certain posters' antagonistic posts above critique or criticism. 

You're so much better at this than me.

[USU78]

59 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice again importance of the metaphor here that Mormon believers are akin to flat earthers, scientologists, and Trumpers.  I don't have to just accept the metaphor, and therefore, the whole implicit argument, without testing it.  I can actually ask if, for example, the recent LiDar surveys of Mesoamerica are as overwhelmingly devastating to the Book of Mormon as a satellite or space station view of the earth ought to be to a hypothetical flat earther.  (Watch the recent National Geographic TV Special on the Mayan Snake Kings for yourself.)  I can ask if L. Ron Hubbard's claims are as testable as the Book of Mormon and could compare personalities and character.  I can ask if Joseph Smith's plural wives made any first-hand, eye witness complaints about his behavior comparable to what first-hand, eye witnesses have said about Trump's behavior.  That is different than assuming the worst from Joseph, based on prejudicial comparisons rather than first hand complaints.  For that matter,  I can even compare what I have witnessed in Trump's words and actions to what I have personally explored in Joseph Smith's life and work.  It happens that when I do this kind of thing to test the viability of the metaphor offered here I do not seem to justify a claim of "overwhelming" .  Rather, the metaphor purports do the heavy lifting but really only provides misdirection.

"There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant."  ( E. A. Payne, cited in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 4 (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 194, note 2.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Not worthy!

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think you're reading too much into this. I see Bill's derisive analogies as an understandable response to a thread wherein he's been pretty badly attacked. I can't speak for Bill, but most apostates I know don't think Mormons are irrational and akin to conspiracy theorists. 

Understandable, yes.  Apt, no. 

I have had interaction with Bill here over many years, ranging from mutually positive, an interview on his podcast, sympathetic exchanges, and to a parting of the ways which I noticed was most clearly signaled by his choice of metaphor for the church as "abusive parent".  It's not only an interpretation, but also a guide for mapping, for deciding what to look for and what to mark as important.

I have been paying close attention to the importance of metaphor over many years.  That is where Kuhn on paradigm and community and Derrida on metaphor as controlling logic and argument, and Jesus on seed and soil and Payne on metaphor as master or servant, and Joseph Campbell on a function of myth as "sustaining a social order" and Barker on a meaning of "masal", parable as "rule over" and on the notion in politics of "controlling the narrative."  I bring it up here not to pile on Bill, but to point out a key element in how and why these tensions in individuals and communities play out.  I'm encouraging a bit of self-awareness, a bit of focus on the beams in our eyes, so that we can consider their impact, and subsequently see clearly.  We can't get away from metaphor, but we can consider their impact, and the impact of their selection on how we subsequently order and interpret our experiences.  His use is particularly telling, and therefore, potentially instructing and eye-opening.  It's a matter of discernment and what can follow.

FWIW.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 3, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
corrected definition of masal