Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[why me]

On 8/3/2018 at 2:53 AM, DBMormon said:

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

And of course all this is all nice but at the end of the day, transparency is a word that sounds good but almost impossible to follow and do on a constant basis. Likewise for vulnerability. It seems that you were a person on a mission. But this mission has caught up with you. It happens. One can take risks but one must also accept the outcome of that risk.

[Jeanne]

On 8/3/2018 at 3:28 PM, hope_for_things said:

I agree completely and appreciate you sharing the example, its relevant. 

I agree also, to JK, there is nothing like a perceived guilt for something you really can't remember...It is a weight like stone and hard to get rid of because of early conditioning.  I understand what you went through there..still having a hard time with that. 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, why me said:

I  don't think that this is the only reason. However, it is good copy to single it out. I am sure that if the apostle lied, he was called out by many other members who are not facing excommunication. It goes much deeper than one issue.

I will concede that Bill could have approached this situation with more tact.  However, for what ever reason, Holland did speak untruths. Multiple times.  Bill  honestly called this out.  

 But, does the church need to react with such a heavy hand?.  How many people does the Catholic church excommunicate?  Not many.  And they have their critics.   For our church to react in such a knee jerk way really does no one any good.  Bill will go on with his podcasts, just like John Dehlin does, and in the press the church will continue look like a bully.

Edited August 6, 2018 by sunstoned

[TOmNossor]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I will concede that Bill could have approached this situation with more tact.  However, for what ever reason, Holland did speak untruths. Multiple times.  Bill  honestly called this out.  

 But, does the church need to react with such a heavy hand?.  How many people does the Catholic church excommunicate?  Not many.  And they have their critics.   For our church to react in such a knee jerk way really does no one any good.  Bill will go on with his podcasts, just like John Dehlin does, and in the press the church will continue look like a bully.

I have no idea what the “right” course of action is for the church, but it is not inappropriate to ask Bill to change his message or to cease to be a member.

The wonderful family I minister too seems to have a great marriage.  That being said, I have ZERO doubt that if I had magic truth serum, I could ask either the husband or the wife for a list of dozens of faults and problems that they have with their spouse.  I could then use a magic mind control serum and have one or the other take their list and spend 95-100% of their shared communication pointing to these faults.  The one who was not under the magic mind control serum, would be amazed at what was happening.  They would probably spend weeks acknowledging the TRUTH contained in the list.  They might even change some things contained in the list (perhaps they might write essays about times in the past where one-sided history didn’t tell enough of the story, thereby presenting a more full history).  But if the list was used and added to and was the majority of their interactions, over time, the marriage would be destroyed.  Divorce might happen or perhaps just misery.

Per my observation Bill started out trying to say how it was important to maintain one’s faith even though there were tough issues.  Over time it seems that he has become more about talking about problems than he has about encouraging faith.  That is his choice (AND IT IS A CHOICE, nobody had a “magic mind control serum”), but it will damage the relationship.

I am happy folks are committed to marriage and stick it out.  I am happy folks are committed to the church and stick it out.  I am not saying that being committed to Bill is a bad thing and the church is perfect in ceasing to be committed to Bill.  But, it might be best for the church and Bill to end the relationship and it is entirely reasonable.

Charity, TOm

[sunstoned]

7 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I have no idea what the “right” course of action is for the church, but it is not inappropriate to ask Bill to change his message or to cease to be a member.

 

The wonderful family I minister too seems to have a great marriage.  That being said, I have ZERO doubt that if I had magic truth serum, I could ask either the husband or the wife for a list of dozens of faults and problems that they have with their spouse.  I could then use a magic mind control serum and have one or the other take their list and spend 95-100% of their shared communication pointing to these faults.  The one who was not under the magic mind control serum, would be amazed at what was happening.  They would probably spend weeks acknowledging the TRUTH contained in the list.  They might even change some things contained in the list (perhaps they might write essays about times in the past where one-sided history didn’t tell enough of the story, thereby presenting a more full history).  But if the list was used and added to and was the majority of their interactions, over time, the marriage would be destroyed.  Divorce might happen or perhaps just misery.

 

Per my observation Bill started out trying to say how it was important to maintain one’s faith even though there were tough issues.  Over time it seems that he has become more about talking about problems than he has about encouraging faith.  That is his choice (AND IT IS A CHOICE, nobody had a “magic mind control serum”), but it will damage the relationship.

 

I am happy folks are committed to marriage and stick it out.  I am happy folks are committed to the church and stick it out.  I am not saying that being committed to Bill is a bad thing and the church is perfect in ceasing to be committed to Bill.  But, it might be best for the church and Bill to end the relationship and it is entirely reasonable.

 

Charity, TOm

 

 If I am understanding you correctly, then maybe it is best that Bill and the Church part ways. I can't speak for Bill, but I do feel some kinship with him. More than half of my life was spent committed to the church.   And I can tell you is is a devastating thing to find out that the organization that you gave your all to is not what it claims to be.  It's like finding out that your partner of 40 years  has been unfaithful.   It hurts, and it makes you angry.  (I am sure you and and many others on this board don't agree, but that is your path, not mine, and probably not Bill's).  In this angry phase, people lash out.  Maybe some understanding is in order.  

[Kenngo1969]

56 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

... Per my observation Bill started out trying to say how it was important to maintain one’s faith even though there were tough issues.  Over time it seems that he has become more about talking about problems than he has about encouraging faith.  That is his choice (AND IT IS A CHOICE, nobody had a “magic mind control serum”), but it will damage the relationship. ...

Ay, there's the rub, it seems.  Mr. Reel certainly may believe what he wishes to believe, and he may advocate for those positions for which he wishes to advocate, but there comes a point at which it seems reasonable for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to ask him to choose whether he considers it more important to be able to advocate for things which are at odds with the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and/or which sow discord among the Saints and/or which affect the perception of outsiders of the Church of Jesus Christ, on the one hand, or to remain a member in good standing of the Church, on the other.

And, yet again, I must ask, if Bill Reel's standing before God is between him and God, and if his standing in the Church of Jesus Christ is between Bill Reel, his Church leaders, and God, why, then, does it seem Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's standing, rather than being a matter between God and him and/or between God, his leaders, and him, instead, is a matter of concern to Bill Reel and/or to any (all?) other rank-and-file members of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Hamba Tuhan]

58 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Bill will go on with his podcasts, just like John Dehlin does, and in the press the church will continue look like a bully.

And why exactly does either of these probable outcomes worry you?

[sunstoned]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And why exactly does either of these probable outcomes worry you?

No worries on my part.  I didn't start this thread, and I am not the one attacking Bill.

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

No worries on my part.  I didn't start this thread, and I am not the one attacking Bill.

No, but you did accuse the Church of being 'heavy handed and 'react[ing] in such a knee jerk way [that] really does no one any good', with these outcomes as your implied evidence. So can we conclude that you don't really see the Church's steps as harmful in a way that genuinely worries you?

By the way, considering that what we are seeing is the culmination of a situation that has been building literally for years, I find the phrase 'knee jerk' potentially inaccurate.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[sunstoned]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, but you did accuse the Church of being 'heavy handed and 'react[ing] in such a knee jerk way [that] really does no one any good', with these outcomes as your implied evidence. So can we conclude that you don't really see the Church's steps as harmful in a way that genuinely worries you?

By the way, considering that what we are seeing is the culmination of a situation that has been building literally for years, I find the phrase 'knee jerk' potentially inaccurate.

Compared to other churches, our chruch is quick to pull the excommunication trigger. IMO it does not good to anyone.  It is pad PR and it drives people away.  So what if Bill and other bloggers are critical of the church.  Is the church that insecure that it has to squash all oposition, no matter how small.  This smacks of a bully who is very insecure.  Besides, how many believing members know about Bills website and blog?  How many know about John''s mormon stories podcasts?  What this excommunication will do (And excommunication is a forgone conclusion) is to  bring publicity to his site.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Is the church that insecure that it has to squash all oposition, no matter how small.

And yet you've already admitted above that excommunication doesn't actually 'squash opposition'.

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

It is pad [sic] PR and it drives people away ... What this excommunication will do (And excommunication is a forgone conclusion) is to  bring publicity to his site.  

Again, why does this worry you? If you pretend to be worried, are you hopeful that some of us will worry too?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Compared to other churches, our chruch is quick to pull the excommunication trigger. IMO it does not good to anyone.  It is pad PR and it drives people away.  So what if Bill and other bloggers are critical of the church.  Is the church that insecure that it has to squash all oposition, no matter how small.  This smacks of a bully who is very insecure.  Besides, how many believing members know about Bills website and blog?  How many know about John''s mormon stories podcasts?  What this excommunication will do (And excommunication is a forgone conclusion) is to  bring publicity to his site.  

First off I'd say the Church isn't that quick to pull the trigger. Although excommunication is now pretty rare in many churches. In our church I think it's more for boundary policing due to the pretty big difference from Protestantism. In Protestantism you frequently go from a Lutheran church, to a non-denominational Evangelical Church, to a Baptist Church and so forth. It's not even clear what being excluded means unless you live in a small town. In Mormonism I think acceptable and non-acceptable teaching gets flagged more quickly due to the history of apostate movements - particularly at the dawn of the 20th century.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Compared to other churches, our chruch is quick to pull the excommunication trigger. 

How do you know this?

[Calm]

Quote

What this excommunication will do (And excommunication is a forgone conclusion) is to  bring publicity to his site.  

 But it will also take away the credibility that claiming member status suggests to many faithful members (not say Reel is intentionally making use of this bias of trust, though I have seen comments by anti-Mormons---and I mean specifically anti-Mormons, not critics---who have created their websites with certain tone and language to appear at least neutral, if not prochurch when their intent stated elsewhere was to destroy people's faith).  The credibility bias is similar to those who used to walk into the Church themed store I used to work in and halfasked, halftold me "everything in here has been vetted by the Church, right?"  Since we were not church owned, carried nonreligious popular books, carried books and cds from nonLDS religious publishers, it always struck me as a very naive question that a few minutes of just using one's eyes could answer....and yet because they assumed it was a "safe" store, they never questioned provenance even after walking around for sometime.  Neither did the manager at times as I found a few questionable books on the shelves, they had "Mormon" in the title or something else that signaled "safe" and the book was never questioned (similar to Grant Palmer's Insider's View, which was apparently on the BYU Bookstore shelves for a bit before someone pointed out it wasn't a faithful CES teacher's book).

Edited August 6, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

What this excommunication will do (And excommunication is a forgone conclusion) is to  bring publicity to his site.  

By intention on Bill's part, apparently.  It isn't the church bringing on the PR, it's Bill.  When the church excommunicates or disfellowships someone, it is typically very low key, although there are exceptions.  

Or are you saying that the church should forego excommunication in fear of bad PR?

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you know this?

From my reading:

Catholic:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/45202/how-many-catholics-are-excommunicated-in-an-average-year

Quote

I do not think that any hard numbers are kept about excommunications, because excommunication is intended to help persons repent of their sins, not to pillory them in public.

Quote

However, the short answer is that there are very few excommunications imposed or declared each year.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Catholic-Church-still-excommunicate-people-If-so-what-are-some-recent-examples

Quote

Rarely does the Church excommunicate anyone. Usually the person excommunicated themselves through their specific behavior or teaching that is contrary to church doctrine.

Methodist:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080810140123AAyg33j

Quote

the Methodist Church does NOT "excommunicate" People in the (STRICTEST) SENSE as taught by the Bible

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110127201910AA6WZaz&guccounter=1

Quote

NOTE: church membership is man-made and there's no reason to do it, incorrect discipline and abuse of authority being the biggest reason, next to God never telling you to do it, not to do it. The church is about fulfilling its responsibility to the people, not exercising self-imposed authority over them. God tells us that once we become a believer and follower, we are automatically ushered into the membership of His Church; and since denominations are also man-made, there is no reason whatsoever to make members of the body of Christ join in man-made membership of man-made denominations...it's already an abuse of position since it's an additive to God's Word.

Baptist:

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/mostbaptistdonotdiscipline.html

Quote

Most Baptist Churches Do Not Exercise Discipline

 

[sunstoned]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

By intention on Bill's part, apparently.  It isn't the church bringing on the PR, it's Bill.  When the church excommunicates or disfellowships someone, it is typically very low key, although there are exceptions.  

Or are you saying that the church should forego excommunication in fear of bad PR?

I agree that the publicity is not brought on by the church. I am sure their intention is to keep things private and low key.  But in these types of cases, that seldom happens.  The fact that we are discussing a persons pending court on a public forum is evidence of that.  The end result is still bad publicity.

I don't pretend to tell the church what to do. Excommunication might have its place in situations where there is grievous sin or extreme apostasy. But why the heavy hand in this case?  What has Bill done?  He has expressed his opinion, made a claim and backed it up with hard evidence.  Some folks are taking issue with his tone and attitude,  but in my opinion, tone, attitude and exposing the truth should not be excommunicable offenses.

[TOmNossor]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 If I am understanding you correctly, then maybe it is best that Bill and the Church part ways. I can't speak for Bill, but I do feel some kinship with him. More than half of my life was spent committed to the church.   And I can tell you is is a devastating thing to find out that the organization that you gave your all to is not what it claims to be.  It's like finding out that your partner of 40 years  has been unfaithful.   It hurts, and it makes you angry.  (I am sure you and and many others on this board don't agree, but that is your path, not mine, and probably not Bill's).  In this angry phase, people lash out.  Maybe some understanding is in order.  

I can understand disillusionment when one discovers things they thought to be true were not in fact true.  I still say what Wendy Ulrich taught me long ago, “may we all be disillusioned, because who would want to be ‘illusioned.’”

I struggle to understand the former member who touts the strength of their previous testimony and now has taken intellectual reasons to some conclusion that seems warranted to them and no longer believes.  I try to understand, but it is tough. 

I joined the Church (in my 20's) without anything like the testimony that is unfurled on occasion by former members to establish their bonifides.  I knew about polygamy, but I remember pulling Todd Compton’s (who is still a member in good standing as far as I know) book off the shelf at the local “church” bookstore.  I read almost a third of it in the store and found it interesting.  I remember thinking that the book seemed to suggest LDS polygamy was a bad thing, so I guess this is at least one of the views held by folks who write books FOR the church? OK.  I do not remember when I decided that the BOM was translated with a stone in a hat, but I do remember being shocked to see Daniel Petersen question the certainty of this truth (I guess I was ahead of him on this).  Oh well, perhaps it was the stone, perhaps it was somewhat different? 

I believed and still believe the intellectual case for the CoJCoLDS was stronger than the intellectual case against the CoJCoLDS and I had very little spiritual testimony to support this belief.  The “Why Not Engage the Evidence of Historicity” thread includes some of the things I find compelling together with things that I find less powerful, but my judgement is that Joseph Smith, an unnamed cabal of 19^th century conspirators, Oliver Cowdry, Brigham Young, and … could not have done this on their own.

It was folks who knew the anti-Mormon arguments much less well than I did (one Catholic who became a Sedavacantist and one Protestant who became a Catholic – in part due to our conversations – and now is mostly atheist/agnostic) who brought me to a place where I had to sincerely pray to KNOW and receive a testimony.  It had nothing to do with the absence of intellectual evidence supporting the CoJCoLDS, the presence of intellectual problems undermining the CoJCoLDS, or the adequacy or non-existence of arguments both pro and con responding to these evidences and difficulties.  Instead, perhaps God wanted me to follow Him despite the evidence.  Perhaps I have placed my intellect on an alter and God wants to be the subject of my worship.  Perhaps the council against “Private Judgement” (a Catholic thing) means that I must pray to know (I do not think it does within Catholic circles, but perhaps it should). 

Today, I can put my spiritual bonifides next to my intellectual bonifides and if I offer them to you with $2.85 you can buy hot chocolate (in other words they cannot get you much).

All that means I struggle to understand the intellectual journey sufficient to overturn the claimed powerful testimony purportedly embraced by many former critics.  It is totally at odds with how I have engaged the evidence.  In the absence of some spiritual testimony or with the intention to suppress it for the purposes of finding “truth” (a fool’s plan IMO) TOGETHER with a profound refusal to consider the “pseudo-rational mumbo jumbo” coming out of places like FAIR or FARMs (while ironically just moving to better arguments rather than rejecting all anti-arguments ie a diet of Dan Vogel not polluted by Bill McKeaver), I can make sense of such a journey out of the church.  I suspect that is offensive and I do not mean for it to be.  I could list a long list of perhaps they thought this or felt this or … but I know that is offensive too.  I must recognize that as you said, that is your path (experience), not mine.

My view of the CoJCoLDS suggest to me that it would be phenomenally better if you do not loose faith in God completely.  I will do one of those LDS things for you and I hope your journey results in “joy” to replace hurt and anger (which you may have moved past already).

Charity, TOm

Edited August 6, 2018 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

38 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

From my reading:

Catholic:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/45202/how-many-catholics-are-excommunicated-in-an-average-year

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Catholic-Church-still-excommunicate-people-If-so-what-are-some-recent-examples

 

I don’t know as much about various Protestant churches as I think I do about Catholicism.

Catholicism is very much about “right belief.”   Every Catholic who does not believe the Eucharist is Transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ OR that the Pope is not infallible under certain conditions is excommunicated. 

If Bill Reel was Catholic and did not believe that the Pope possessed the Chrism of Infallibility, he would be excommunicated per Canon Law.  If Bill Reel was a priest (especially a priest with a congregation, Parish Priest), he MIGHT receive a formal excommunication.  But if he was only a lay person, he would have “excommunicated himself” (and ONLY his FAITH is important, he doesn’t have to post his rejection of Catholic dogma on the Internet or invite others to reject Catholic Dogma to be “latae sententiae excommunication” (a sentence already passed, not requiring a formal declaration).

If he was a she and had an abortion, the excommunication would just be. 

The CoJCoLDS is far more orthopraxic, about right  practice.  There is no such thing as “latae sententiae excommunication.”

Charity, TOm

[flameburns623]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you know this?

That's not difficult to observe. It used to be a point of honor in the LDS Church that we enforced a measure of discipline. 

The Roman Catholic Church is riddled with criticisms and critics, and with theological disputants. Relatively few have experienced formal Church disciplinary action. Hans Kung, for example, cannot ('could not') teach "Catholic" theology but is still a Roman Catholic priest in good standing. 

There are long established Catholic organizations militating for various changes on RCC teaching or polity: there is some chiding by leaders, but little action against such dissidents. Even a renewed sex scandal is currently under way, with harsh words directed at Church leaders from both inside and out, has provoked contrition from the Church hierarchy,  not punitive action. 

The Episcopal Church likewise tolerates considerable dissent. Most other denominations lack a structure, SFAIK, permitting a denomination-wide discipline: one could be disciplined so far as I know by the First United Methodist Church of Anytown, yet be fully accepted in the Main Street United Methodist Church a dozen blocks away.

In many denominations,  there are even different resources available for different schools of thinking within a denomination: i.e., more theologically progressive Sunday School "Quarterlies" and more conservative/orthodox ones, depending on the publishing source. 

The Sevent-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are pretty strict. Maybe the United Pentecostal Church. It's not that there are NO other churches with strict views and a robust enforcement of norms: but it hasn't been common to resort to disciplinary action in most Protestant churches for many generations.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

...  I do not remember when I decided that the BOM was translated with a stone in a hat, but I do remember being shocked to see Daniel Petersen question the certainty of this truth (I guess I was ahead of him on this).  Oh well, perhaps it was the stone, perhaps it was somewhat different?  ...

I gave you a rep point for your post, Tom, because, largely, I agree with it and/or because I think it adds substance and value to the discussion.  (Besides, my brother's name is Tom, and a counselor to the former bishop with whom I served also is named Tom, and their both great guys. )   However, can I issue a friendly CFR for the above?  A quick Google search using the search terms "rock," "hat," "Dan Peterson," and "LDS" did not immediately point me to any worthwhile sources for your claim ... Salamander Society, the CES Letter site, Mormon Stories (although I didn't realize that Dr. Dehlin had done an interview with Dr. Peterson ... that might even persuade me to break my general "no podcast" rule ).

Thanks in advance.  

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I gave you a rep point for your post, Tom, because, largely, I agree with it and/or because I think it adds substance and value to the discussion.  (Besides, my brother's name is Tom, and a counselor to the former bishop with whom I served also is named Tom, and their both great guys. )   However, can I issue a friendly CFR for the above?  A quick Google search using the search terms "rock," "hat," "Dan Peterson," and "LDS" did not immediately point me to any worthwhile sources for your claim ... Salamander Society, the CES Letter site, Mormon Stories (although I didn't realize that Dr. Dehlin had done an interview with Dr. Peterson ... that might even persuade me to break my general "no podcast" rule ).

Thanks in advance.  

it was Dan Wotherspoon who did the interview with Dr. Peterson! I don't know the back story of how he did it for Mormon Stories

Edited August 6, 2018 by Duncan

[smac97]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Compared to other churches, our chruch is quick to pull the excommunication trigger.

This comparative frame of reference pretty much makes this statement moot.  

And FWIW, excommunications in the LDS Church are, in the end, very rare.  I have participated in many dozens of disciplinary councils, not one of which resulted in excommunication.  

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

IMO it does not good to anyone.  It is pad PR and it drives people away.  

Which, if true, rather belies the oft-repeated assertion that the LDS Church is fixated on its public image.  The Church is concerned about its reputation, of course.  That's eminently sensible.  And yet the Church does all sorts of things that could be characterized as "bad PR."  Emphasis on the Book of Mormon.  Proxy baptisms.  Opposition to same-sex marriage (including disciplining members who enter into it).  And . . . according to you, excommunication.

To me, this suggests that the Church has its priorities straight.  We want to get along with others.  We want to make the Restored Gospel attractive to those outside of the Church.  But in the end, the Church is doing what it believes is right, even when such things are not popular.

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

So what if Bill and other bloggers are critical of the church. 

Don Bradley addressed this issue a few years ago:

Quote

In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case.

Smac:

Quote

Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

...

When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 

Discipline is a difficult issue for everyone.  The LDS Church reserves excommunication for only the most serious forms of misconduct.  I'm glad of that.

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Is the church that insecure that it has to squash all oposition, no matter how small. 

Ah!  I love the smell of loaded questions in the morning!

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet?  😉

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This smacks of a bully who is very insecure. 

Funny.  I think the "bullies" are the my-way-or-the-highway types we see opposing the Church.  

We presently have Sam Young attempting to coerce the Church to capitulate to his demands by starving himself.

A while back we watched Kate Kelly mount protest demonstrations on sacred ground and during a sacred convocation.

We have Ryan McKnight openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

"To bully" means "[to] use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants."

Sam Young, Kate Kelly, Ryan McKnight and others are people who have sought to use their notoriety and influence to coerce the Church, to force it to do what they want.

Meanwhile, the LDS Church is constrained by both the laws of the land and its own laws as to the sphere of its influence in the lives of its members.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Food for thought.

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Besides, how many believing members know about Bills website and blog? 

Probably not many.  But so what?  Apostasy is not something that is limited to those who are really good at spreading it.

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

How many know about John''s mormon stories podcasts?  What this excommunication will do (And excommunication is a forgone conclusion) is to  bring publicity to his site.  

Possibly.  And yet we still must address the reality that the scriptures frequently speak of "apostasy."  This is why the Church has an extensive mandate to guard against apostasy.  This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated.  While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).  A more recent example would be Denver Snuffer.  An ancient example would be Korihor. 

 

People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith.  On this we have a clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

This is tough medicine.  There is a lot of pain when these things happen.  But the presence of rebellion/apostasy and the absence of repentance makes such things a necessary component of maintaining our community.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, smac97 said:

This comparative frame of reference pretty much makes this statement moot.  

And FWIW, excommunications in the LDS Church are, in the end, very rare.  I have participated in many dozens of disciplinary councils, not one of which resulted in excommunication.  

 

 

We have Ryan McKnight openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

"To bully" means "[to] use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants."

Sam Young, Kate Kelly, Ryan McKnight and others are people who have sought to use their notoriety and influence to coerce the Church, to force it to do what they want.

Meanwhile, the LDS Church is constrained by both the laws of the land and its own laws as to the sphere of its influence in the lives of its members.  See D&C 134:10:

 An ancient example would be Korihor. 

 

 

This is tough medicine.  There is a lot of pain when these things happen.  But the presence of rebellion/apostasy and the absence of repentance makes such things a necessary component of maintaining our community.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is REALLY strange, in my experience, that you have participated in "dozens" of DC and have never been part of a decision to excommunicate. I think that's great, just strange.

CFR- I think if you're going to accuse someone of "openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him" you need to back that up. While McKnight may use leaked information from church employees I've never seen or heard him encourage anyone to steal anything. In fact I've heard him say the exact opposite. Please be careful with your accusations unless you can back it up.

A bully tries to force people to do what they want under threat of consequence. I'm not sure what kind of consequence Sam Young can inflict upon the church. People may pay attention to his cause or how he is being treated, but attention is the only negative result the church could claim. We could argue about whether or not that is a consequence Young is inflicting or just a natural consequence of behavior. On the other hand, the church requires certain actions be taken under threat of excommunication. The church has the power in that relationship, thus making the claim of "bully" a little more apropos for the church.

Yeah, I think everyone who has ever gone through a faith crisis or faith transition is well aware of Korihor as most of us have probably been told we are a Korihor. I know I have.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It is REALLY strange, in my experience, that you have participated in "dozens" of DC and have never been part of a decision to excommunicate. I think that's great, just strange.

Not really.  Excommunications are, numerically speaking, very rare.

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR- I think if you're going to accuse someone of "openly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him" you need to back that up.

This isn't even a point of controversy, IMO.  But here you go (one of the money quotes being: "We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

And here (a comment from Cinepro directed to Mr. McKnight):

Quote

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/57ma2c/a_message_for_eric_hawkins_et_al_plus_an_update/

Normally I don't post links to exmormon, no vulgarity that I saw in a skim, but it is exmormon Reddit so be prepared for criticism of all types if you choose to go there.  Since Fearless is posting, it seemed fair to allow the original content to be easily accessible.

Quote

If I have learned one thing over the last year (and more so over the last couple of weeks), it is that there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize.... It is not just what has been leaked, but what many want to share but haven't yet found the courage. One day they will find that courage and the damn will break.

As for the current status of leaks....We are still working on one that could be big....it will take time....

On a bigger note, I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously. I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about.

You are expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to your site.  How is this not solicitation?

And then there's this exchange between Mr. McKnight and some fellow on another exmo reddit:

Quote

[–]FearlessFixxerEvil Apostate/Regular Dude...depends on who you ask 30 points 1 year ago 

I don't have an update on that since that post.

I can tell you that I have been given the name of the person who is supposedly running the effort to find out who these leakers are that i am working with. I don't really have anyway to confirm it other than I trust the person who gave me the name

...

[–]LightOnTheThirdDay[S] 19 points 1 year ago 

Sounds like you're super busy these days, but when you get a moment, maybe you could write up a "best practices for leakers" document and post it on /r/exmormon . Others might be more willing to leak if they felt comfortable that their risks were minimal. Conversely, having one of the leakers get caught and crucified by the church will discourage future leaks, which will of course be their intent.

[–]FearlessFixxerEvil Apostate/Regular Dude...depends on who you ask 16 points 1 year ago 

Not bad.

I will try to do it this weekend

And this AMA by Mr. McKnight:

Quote

Re: I am the founder of MormonLeaks - AMA

• Quote

2018 May 25, 5:40 pm

captainfearnot wrote: ↑

2018 May 25, 1:15 pm

FF, I'm interested in what you have found to be enlightening or surprising since taking on this project. What you have learned, what turned out to be different than you expected when you started?

Did you expect to uncover more or less evidence of malfeasance? Have ordinary members and church employees been more or less forthcoming than you imagined?

We have sources that are both former and current employees of the church. Nothing has really surprised me per se, but I am fascinated by many of the leaks. 

I don't ever expect to uncover institutionally supported illegal activity.

And this statement by Mr. McKnight:

Quote

Ryan,

Serious question here. Do you ever wonder if the Church is playing you? 

...

[Mr. McKnight]:

It is something that we are looking for in the documents we receive. Our process is not perfect, but I think I am pretty good at vetting information and so far I don't think we have released anything that the church wanted to send us. In the case of the paystubs, I can tell you 100% that the church had nothing to do with it.

That Mr. McKnight has set up his website is not in dispute.

That Mr. McKnight advertises his website as "provid[ing] sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents" is not in dispute.

Mr. McKnight's website is an open solicitation for employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

Mr. McKnight admits that his "sources" "might be" breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purpose, but then proceeds to brag about how he has purportedly insulated himself from any such fallout.

Mr. McKnight is inducing people who are employed by the LDS Church to steal documents and information from the Church and send them to him.  He has publicly acknowledged that their behavior "might" be illegal. 

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While McKnight may use leaked information from church employees I've never seen or heard him encourage anyone to steal anything.

I echo Cinepro's question above: "[Ryan McKnight is] expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to [his] site. How is this not solicitation?"

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In fact I've heard him say the exact opposite. Please be careful with your accusations unless you can back it up.

Quoth Mr. McKnight: "I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously. I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about."

Are you saying that this is not indicative of an intent to induce "COB [Church Office Building] employees" to steal materials from the Church and send them to him?

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A bully tries to force people to do what they want under threat of consequence.

Right.  Like Sam "I'm going to starve myself until the LDS Church capitulates to my personal preferences" Young.

Or Kate "We want the priesthood and nothing less will suffice" Kelly.

Or Ryan "I'm publicly encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send such materials to me" McKnight.  

And on and on and on.

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure what kind of consequence Sam Young can inflict upon the church.

Same here.  That's not keeping him from trying, though.

If a child refuses to eat dinner unless he gets dessert first, he is engaged in a power struggle with his parents.  He is using what "power" he has (disobedience).  Whether the parents capitulate doesn't detract from the child attempting to "bully" his parents "to force [them] to do what one wants."

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People may pay attention to his cause or how he is being treated, but attention is the only negative result the church could claim. We could argue about whether or not that is a consequence Young is inflicting or just a natural consequence of behavior.

There's not "natural consequence."  Sam Young is making a choice.  A public choice.  A do-what-I-say-or-else-I-am-going-to-starve-myself-in-order-to-coerce-you-into-capitulating-to-my-personal-opinion choice.

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On the other hand, the church requires certain actions be taken under threat of excommunication.

No so.  Excommunication is the result of misconduct (murder, incest, etc.).  The Church has never "required" anyone to perform an excommunicable act.

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church has the power in that relationship, thus making the claim of "bully" a little more apropos for the church.

The Church's teaching that "murder will get you excommunicated" is a form of "bullying?"  

The Church "bullies" its members into not committing murder, incest, etc.?

Are you sure you want to stick with this line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac