Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

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. 

I'd say it has less to do with his attacks, for surely tons more people remain members and offer more strident and vicious attacks than he.  It has to do with the relative influence he has had.  SUrely that must be the case since his local leaders are just following the demands of their superiors in the Church.  and we know the Church feels the need to make corporate level notice of members who have different views and are  I think it's obvious, contradicting the Church's claims, that most of the exing we hear about is as per pressure or demand from the general leaders.  

[juliann]

And that list is why I can’t take him seriously. Many find week apologetic responses? He is using blogs and the most poorly sourced website on polygamy for references while thinking he has uncovered unanswerable scandals.

Meanwhile, the church is putting out original sources by the boatload. I think the most meaningful investigation would be how this new openness is forcing critics into unetenable positions. Thus, Dehlin has to start demonizing what he pejoratively calls neo-apologists. 

One doesn’t have to think the church is moving fast enough or coming down hard enough on bad information to notice how agitators are being pushed into self defeating acts. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say it has less to do with his attacks, for surely tons more people remain members and offer more strident and vicious attacks than he.  It has to do with the relative influence he has had. 

Absolutely. Influence/reach/scope go hand-in-hand with the stridency of the attacks. 

It is only recently that hard-nosed critics of the Church (who used to be pretty critical and mocking of Bill Reel) have started to welcome him as a brother in arms and defending him as one of their own. This is another "canary in the mineshaft" showing that he has reached the Tipping Point. Many of us wondered when he was going to tip, and it became obvious in the last few months that he had tipped. 

I'm still predicting that he resigns rather than give the Church the satisfaction of excommunicating him. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

One doesn’t have to think the church is moving fast enough or coming down hard enough on bad information to notice how agitators are being pushed into self defeating acts. 

It really does seem like several are being smoked out faster than they thought they would be, doesn't it? "Pushed into self-defeating acts" was phrased really well. That's a good way to put it. 

[Duncan]

35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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

if it's who I am thinking of it was pre WW1, I am not THAT old though😆

[SouthernMo]

To those who call for/support excommunication, I offer my perspective.

I was excommunicated, so I speak with experience.  We are taught that excommunication has more implications than the revocation of church membership.  LDS doctrine teaches that in excommunication, one's  covenants & blessings are removed.  Thus, when someone is excommunicated, he or she is cut off from the Gift of the Holy Ghost and from his or her family for eternity.  While they may be deserved in some cases, those are serious consequences!

So, if you call for or support someone's excommunication, imagine yourself standing before God and telling Him that you think that this person (whoever it is) does not deserve an eternal family because they (FILL IN THEIR MISDEED HERE).

If you still believe excommunication is the right course of action, you are very much entitled to your viewpoint.  But, you must accept that if you are a baptized a member of the LDS church, by covenant at baptism, you have agreed to take Christ's name upon you, and act as he would act.  Your testimony of Christ should align with your words; you must imagine and believe Christ would say: "(Whoever it is), you do not deserve an eternal family because you (FILL IN THEIR MISDEED HERE)."

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

To those who call for/support excommunication, I offer my perspective.

I was excommunicated, so I speak with experience.  We are taught that excommunication has more implications than the revocation of church membership.  LDS doctrine teaches that in excommunication, one's  covenants & blessings are removed.  Thus, when someone is excommunicated, he or she is cut off from the Gift of the Holy Ghost and from his or her family for eternity.  While they may be deserved in some cases, those are serious consequences!

So, if you call for or support someone's excommunication, imagine yourself standing before God and telling Him that you think that this person (whoever it is) does not deserve an eternal family because they (FILL IN THEIR MISDEED HERE).

If you still believe excommunication is the right course of action, you are very much entitled to your viewpoint.  But, you must accept that if you are a baptized a member of the LDS church, by covenant at baptism, you have agreed to take Christ's name upon you, and act as he would act.  Your testimony of Christ should align with your words; you must imagine and believe Christ would say: "(Whoever it is), you do not deserve an eternal family because you (FILL IN THEIR MISDEED HERE)."

It is a very serious thing that should never be undertaken lightly, but it also shouldn't be shied away from when appropriate and necessary. 

I've been a bishop twice. I wouldn't hesitate to convene a council in his case (or Sam Young's), given their words and deeds (and the multiple forbearing opportunities that have been given to repent and pull back from the brink). 

The other side of the coin you brought up is our responsibility and accountability when we refuse to act because we are scared to take that upon ourselves. People can also be harmed when the leaders/the Church are too timid and slow to respond. 

There are definitely concerns with either extreme. 

[Duncan]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

To those who call for/support excommunication, I offer my perspective.

I was excommunicated, so I speak with experience.  We are taught that excommunication has more implications than the revocation of church membership.  LDS doctrine teaches that in excommunication, one's  covenants & blessings are removed.  Thus, when someone is excommunicated, he or she is cut off from the Gift of the Holy Ghost and from his or her family for eternity.  While they may be deserved in some cases, those are serious consequences!

So, if you call for or support someone's excommunication, imagine yourself standing before God and telling Him that you think that this person (whoever it is) does not deserve an eternal family because they (FILL IN THEIR MISDEED HERE).

If you still believe excommunication is the right course of action, you are very much entitled to your viewpoint.  But, you must accept that if you are a baptized a member of the LDS church, by covenant at baptism, you have agreed to take Christ's name upon you, and act as he would act.  Your testimony of Christ should align with your words; you must imagine and believe Christ would say: "(Whoever it is), you do not deserve an eternal family because you (FILL IN THEIR MISDEED HERE)."

oh, the misdeed's were his and not anyone else's. Blaming others for your actions doesn't fly with God or anyone else. Nobody forced Bill to do anything, he chose to do this all on his own. Maybe'll come back, if he does get exed or disciplined

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It's confusing because even leadership acknowledges they are fallible, but evidently one is not allowed to publicly point it out when they are.

If it comes to that, Bill won't be tried for attacking the church, he will be tried for refusing to shut up.

Nope, ya don't get it. The tone of the way we speak - and you know it as well as I do - can aid in others easily to accept your statement or to be outrageously offended by it. Bill is rather tiresome in his constant onslaught of criticism. Why is this action surprising to anyone - bounce his butt out the door until he grows up.

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

Absolutely. Influence/reach/scope go hand-in-hand with the stridency of the attacks. 

It is only recently that hard-nosed critics of the Church (who used to be pretty critical and mocking of Bill Reel) have started to welcome him as a brother in arms and defending him as one of their own. This is another "canary in the mineshaft" showing that he has reached the Tipping Point. Many of us wondered when he was going to tip, and it became obvious in the last few months that he had tipped. 

I'm still predicting that he resigns rather than give the Church the satisfaction of excommunicating him. 

I think you are right the Church and many of its members do see things in enemy vs friend and us vs them terms.  No doubt this is a big factor in all of this.  The Church simply can't allow a vocal influential member remain untouched--remain as something other than the lesser label of apostate/infidel/or a them.  The problem of course is this tends to have an opposite effect for the Church.  They want him out so he has less influence.  But what seems to happen is more people get more curious and his voice remains.  It's not more effective if he's a member.  I do think that was partly Dehlin's fear, but it was never realized.  He didn't lose quite like he feared.

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by stemelbow

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh, the misdeed's were his and not anyone else's. Blaming others for your actions doesn't fly with God or anyone else. Nobody forced Bill to do anything, he chose to do this all on his own. Maybe'll come back, if he does get exed or disciplined

Of course - I'm not taking any blame off Bill for any of his decisions.  He seems to have been given (plenty?) warning, and now has as full of an understanding of the consequences of his decision as he can as it relates to church discipline.  While I may or may not agree with the actions of the local leadership here, he's making his bed, and he'll sleep in it.

I'm only pointing out that excommunication is serious, and we finger-pointers need to be fully cognizant of what we are calling for.

[SouthernMo]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is a very serious thing that should never be undertaken lightly, but it also shouldn't be shied away from when appropriate and necessary. 

I've been a bishop twice. I wouldn't hesitate to convene a council in his case (or Sam Young's), given their words and deeds (and the multiple forbearing opportunities that have been given to repent and pull back from the brink). 

The other side of the coin you brought up is our responsibility and accountability when we refuse to act because we are scared to take that upon ourselves. People can also be harmed when the leaders/the Church are too timid and slow to respond. 

There are definitely concerns with either extreme. 

For this and many other reason, I will never be a bishop. I’m far too forgiving and loving and lenient. I have not developed the virtue of enforcement.

[Danzo]

From my point of view, he has already pretty much excommunicated himself.

His leaders are just catching up with the paperwork.

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

From my point of view, he has already pretty much excommunicated himself.

His leaders are just catching up with the paperwork.

I’m not sure about this. Some people (including myself) don’t see Mormonism as an all or nothing faith.

He seems quite upset with certain parts of the church, but clearly sees enough value in it to want to stick around.

I know this is hard to picture for some who see Mormonism through the lens of “in vs. out.”

[CA Steve]

29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Nope, ya don't get it. The tone of the way we speak - and you know it as well as I do - can aid in others easily to accept your statement or to be outrageously offended by it. Bill is rather tiresome in his constant onslaught of criticism. Why is this action surprising to anyone - bounce his butt out the door until he grows up.

I agree tone is important and your post illustrates that quite well.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

From my point of view, he has already pretty much excommunicated himself.

His leaders are just catching up with the paperwork.

Bill stopped attending Church in December.  He indicates he is "at peace" with how ever things shake out.  He has at times indicated on FB that he could "easily be an atheist". I don't think this is a surprise. 

Were he to attempt to meet the Church halfway, maintaining a podcast presence but closing down his current social media sites and recreating them as family-only venues, he might show enough goodwill to slow the process down. 

I don't think he cares enough to do even this much.  He is going into this clear-eyed. He almost seems to be welcoming it. IMHO. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by flameburns623

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

For this and many other reason, I will never be a bishop. I’m far too forgiving and loving and lenient. I have not developed the virtue of enforcement.

Excommunication is too good for him. We can't just let people like him run loose in the church, it would be a circus. We have reputations to uphold, dignity to preserve, and righteous indignation to express.

Stone him, I say.

 

We will all feel better after that first toss.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not sure about this. Some people (including myself) don’t see Mormonism as an all or nothing faith.

He seems quite upset with certain parts of the church, but clearly sees enough value in it to want to stick around.

I know this is hard to picture for some who see Mormonism through the lens of “in vs. out.”

Well, the church is kinda structured to be "in, or Out' 

You know, church records, baptisms Ministering Visits, Excommunications, covenants, Temples,  taking roll in Sunday school, Ministering visits and those sorts of things. 

There plenty of other churches out there who are cool with the whole "believe whatever" if you are in to that kind of thing. 

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Excommunication is too good for him. We can't just let people like him run loose in the church, it would be a circus. We have reputations to uphold, dignity to preserve, and righteous indignation to express.

Stone him, I say.

 

We will all feel better after that first toss.

Or stones with nails glued to them!

😅

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Bill stopped attending Church in December.  He indicates he is "at peace" with how ever things shake out.  He has at times indicated on FB that he could "easily be an atheist". I don't think this is a surprise. 

Were he to attempt to meet the Church halfway, maintaining a podcast presencw but closing down his current social media sites and recreating them as family-only venues, he might show enough goodwill to slow the process down. 

I don't think he cares enough to do even this much.  He is going into this clear-eyed. He almost seems to be welcoming it. IMHO. 

Might be for the best.

He kind of reminds me of the poem zode in the road

[DBMormon]

3 hours 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.

dissect the quote and help me see how it is semi ambiguous?

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Well, the church is kinda structured to be "in, or Out' 

You know, church records, baptisms Ministering Visits, Excommunications, covenants, Temples,  taking roll in Sunday school, Ministering visits and those sorts of things. 

There plenty of other churches out there who are cool with the whole "believe whatever" if you are in to that kind of thing. 

I see plenty of wiggle room for personal beliefs - so long as I’m not overly vocal about them.

I can tell my bishop (whoever he is) that I think Joseph Smith was an idiot, a pedophile, and a traitor. But, if I can keep that to myself, and sustain him as the imperfect prophet he was, my bishop should sign my temple recommend.

To be clear, I am NOT advocating that he was any of those things. I’m only making a point.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It really does seem like several are being smoked out faster than they thought they would be, doesn't it? "Pushed into self-defeating acts" was phrased really well. That's a good way to put it. 

The members are able use the Church's self-defeating act for more news and publicity.  I don't think the Church's self-defeating act is hurting the members and it certainly does nothing good for the Church.  Bill's voice is heard the issues remain whether he's a member or not.  

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

From my point of view, he has already pretty much excommunicated himself.

His leaders are just catching up with the paperwork.

Apparently his leaders wouldn't have done a thing if they weren't instructed from above.  That's how these things work.  The members are usually pretty unnoticed by their local leaders it seems. 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Apparently his leaders wouldn't have done a thing if they weren't instructed from above.  That's how these things work.  The members are usually pretty unnoticed by their local leaders it seems. 

Do you have much experience with being a local leader involved with these sorts of things?