Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Calm]

5 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.

There is a big difference, imo, between talking about fallibility and labeling the Church as effectively the same as a physically abusive father (with a picture of a man with a black eye to go with the accusation) or to accuse leaders, including Apostles of outright telling lies as opposed to making mistakes or having misunderstandings.

[strappinglad]

I'm sure the lawyers here will correct me , but there is the law surrounding " contempt of court ". The tone of a defendant or his lawyer has a lot to do with how a judge applies that law. A person who stands before a court and uses profanity or shouts or continues to disrupt proceedings after being instructed to stop, will face charges in addition to whatever the original offence was.

  My spouse has informed me on several/numerous occasions that the WAY I speak/argue is more of an obstacle to resolving an issue than WHAT I say. Mea Culpa.

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

two actual people.  but by all means ignore 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

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

One can phrase it as an intervention rather than a confrontation and present it as "do you intend to continue to attack the Church or is there something we both could work on to change that?" rather than it being presented as you stop or you are out.

I have a feeling most would phrase the first when sharing any such conversation publicly as "they told me I had to stop or else" anyway, but I do think it might help with those who haven't burnt their bridges completely.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Calm

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

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

reorganizing stakes is not growth especially in light of fewer members being needed for stakes today vs the past.  Second Holland tells you in full what he is talking about - "growth".  Holland leaves little room to misunderstand what he is saying as well as the factual-ness of what he says.  

Adding it with his story of a missionary he told for more than three years and then retracted when it begin being looked at as a fib and his lie to the BBC about Romney make penalty oaths, a pattern begin to develop.

[DBMormon]

34 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. 

no he wouldnt.  The church has pushed his hand.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

One can phrase it as an intervention rather than a confrontation and present it as "do you intend to continue to attack the Church or is there something we both could work on to change that?" rather than it being presented as you stop or you are out.

I have a feeling most would phrase the first when sharing any such conversation publicly as "they told me I had to stop or else", but I do think it might help with those who haven't burnt their bridges completely.

I agree with your assessment, here.  I think the hardline tactics used by some in leadership positions just drives many even further away.  

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

reorganizing stakes is not growth especially in light of fewer members being needed for stakes today vs the past.  Second Holland tells you in full what he is talking about - "growth".  Holland leaves little room to misunderstand what he is saying as well as the factual-ness of what he says.  

Adding it with his story of a missionary he told for more than three years and then retracted when it begin being looked at as a fib and his lie to the BBC about Romney make penalty oaths, a pattern begin to develop.

you really have it out for the guy, don't you.

 

[Calm]

2 hours 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)."

While I agree with it being serious, very serious, I also believe if excommunication is in error or the person eventually repents in this life or the next the Lord will not withhold blessings.  I also believe if leaders withhold excommunication out of concern of depriving a person of blessings, if the person is really in apostasy, he has excommunicated himself and already lost his eternal family etc. because the Holy Spirit will not be able to confirm blessings on someone who has rejected the covenant they are founded on.

I suspect my attitude leads me to see the Church action of excommunication has more of an effect on mortality than eternity in the sense if they get it wrong, it won't affect eternal blessings imo either way (either given them when not deserved or withhold them when deserved).  However, if the wrong action is taken people may be hurt who didn't need to be hurt (because those who should have been protected weren't, whether because of an excommunication or because there wasn't one when there should have been).  In some cases, it will be lose-lose.

I think when there is evidence that a person is attempting to lead others away from their covenantal relationships and using membership to do so, then it is very, very important to think of those others at risk of losing their eternal families if they allow themselves to be persuaded by apostate behaviour.  In feeling compassionate towards the one, we run the risk of being calloused towards the many.  Valuing every soul requires more.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Calm

[flameburns623]

9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

no he wouldnt.  The church has pushed his hand.

Welcome to the conversation,  Bill. 

[USU78]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

One can phrase it as an intervention rather than a confrontation and present it as "do you intend to continue to attack the Church or is there something we both could work on to change that?" rather than it being presented as you stop or you are out.

I have a feeling most would phrase the first when sharing any such conversation publicly as "they told me I had to stop or else" anyway, but I do think it might help with those who haven't burnt their bridges completely.

People, not issues, exactly.

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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 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. 

Why why why Bill? (If you're reading) I remember his podcasts and posts about Jesus and Grace and ... Why can't he hold out for God? 

[DBMormon]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why why why Bill? (If you're reading) I remember his podcasts and posts about Jesus and Grace and ... Why can't he hold out for God? 

I very much believe in Christ.  But it is not literal belief in historicity.  For instance check out my new podcast series at Christoffaith.org

i deeply believe in jesus but it is a faith that resembles more closely that of Richard rohr, jack spong, or Robb bell.  Less literalism and more metaphor and mystery but certainly a deep worship of the Christ

Edited July 31, 2018 by DBMormon

[flameburns623]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I very much believe in Christ.  But it is not literal belief in historicity.  For instance check out my new podcast series at Christoffaith.org

i deeply believe in jesus but it is a faith that resembles more closely that of Richard rohr, jack spong, or Robb bell.  Less literalism and more metaphor and mystery but certainly a deep worship of the Christ

No "Like" button for you.

So: "Like". 

[Duncan]

16 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I very much believe in Christ.  But it is not literal belief in historicity.  For instance check out my new podcast series at Christoffaith.org

i deeply believe in jesus but it is a faith that resembles more closely that of Richard rohr, jack spong, or Robb bell.  Less literalism and more metaphor and mystery but certainly a deep worship of the Christ

That's incoherent. You're saying I believe in Christ but he or I should say the role he played didn't actually exist but I also believe in Jesus, "deeply" meaning he actually existed 2000 years ago but he wasn't Christ according to you.So, Jesus was just some guy, basically. Why would you worship a man? Was Jesus the Christ or wasn't he? Reminds me of what then Elder Gordon B. Hinckley of the Twelve said in April 1966 General Conference

"These modern theologians strip him of his divinity and then wonder why men do not worship him.

These clever scholars have taken from Jesus the mantle of godhood and have left only a man. They have tried to accommodate him to their own narrow thinking. They have robbed him of his divine sonship and taken from the world its rightful King.

While reading of this very effective and growing "de-literalization" process and of its evident effect on the faith of those who are its victims, particularly the youth who are caught up in this sophistry"

Edited July 31, 2018 by Duncan

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 

I think when there is evidence that a person is attempting to lead others away from their covenantal relationships and using membership to do so, then it is very, very important to think of those others at risk of losing their eternal families if they allow themselves to be persuaded by apostate behaviour.  In feeling compassionate towards the one, we run the risk of being calloused towards the many.  Valuing every soul requires more.

Wish I could ten times "like" this one.

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

To me, he's the latest Exmo soup of the day superstar and in 2 weeks or less the social media limelight will move onto someone else

Yes, but the facts that he exposed remain unchallenged.

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, but the facts that he exposed remain unchallenged.

exposed? there's nothing new, it's the same old stuff. He is hardly Woodward and Bernstein

Edited July 31, 2018 by Duncan

[sunstoned]

7 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.

Its pretty clear you didn't listen to Bill's podcast on Holland.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I very much believe in Christ.  But it is not literal belief in historicity.  For instance check out my new podcast series at Christoffaith.org

i deeply believe in jesus but it is a faith that resembles more closely that of Richard rohr, jack spong, or Robb bell.  Less literalism and more metaphor and mystery but certainly a deep worship of the Christ

Good to know, take care and best wishes during this difficult time. 

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, Duncan said:

exposed? there's nothing new, it's the same old stuff. He is hardly Woodward and Bernstein

To you it may be old; to many, many people it is very new and very disturbing.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

To you it may be old; to many, many people it is very new and very disturbing.

Every fact and idea is new to someone who hasn't heard it before. Being able to learn new things is part of life.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

That's incoherent. You're saying I believe in Christ but he or I should say the role he played didn't actually exist but I also believe in Jesus, "deeply" meaning he actually existed 2000 years ago but he wasn't Christ according to you.So, Jesus was just some guy, basically. Why would you worship a a man? Was Jesus the Christ or wasn't he? Reminds me of what then Elder Gordon B. Hinckley of the Twelve said in April 1966 General Conference

"These modern theologians strip him of his divinity and then wonder why men do not worship him.

These clever scholars have taken from Jesus the mantle of godhood and have left only a man. They have tried to accommodate him to their own narrow thinking. They have robbed him of his divine sonship and taken from the world its rightful King.

While reading of this very effective and growing "de-literalization" process and of its evident effect on the faith of those who are its victims, particularly the youth who are caught up in this sophistry"

Stage Three believers struggle and usually fail to understand Stage Five believers. 

http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis: A Simple Developmental Map https://www.amazon.com/dp/0996852603/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_rb.xBbBCE1314

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I very much believe in Christ.  But it is not literal belief in historicity.  For instance check out my new podcast series at Christoffaith.org

i deeply believe in jesus but it is a faith that resembles more closely that of Richard rohr, jack spong, or Robb bell.  Less literalism and more metaphor and mystery but certainly a deep worship of the Christ

You like the philosophical idea he represents  but reject the man, as if they can be separated.

It's pure folly.  Remove the mortal Christ as the evangelicals do or the divine Christ as the humanists do and the whole gospel is meaningless.  Why bother with any of it?

Joseph Smith had such false ideas completely pegged right from the beginning.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No idea who this is but after reading the grammatical and rhetorical mess of a post quoted in the OP I also want him to stop using social media to communicate. Maybe he should try YouTube commenting?

I am so glad you said this. It's a horrible mess.