Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Calm]

4 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

I am trying to understand your position.   Say in a hundred years a church that views Martin Luther king as a Saviour figure and martyr for a better Mankind is formed.  His teachings are canonized as well as some of his followers' writings and some uplifting stories about his life, especially his interaction with helping others and opening their eyes to a better way of living.  There is his human side and then that quaility of humanity which he came to embodied, a willingness to live his life in order to free mankind from the bonds of cultural slavery and emotional death (despair, fear, learned helplessness, anger, hate).  He was attempting to help humanity evolve to living closer to God or a more divine life.

Would this type of worship be similar to how you view your worship of Jesus and The Christ?  If not, what is the difference?

Edited July 31, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, DBMormon said:

two actual people.  but by all means ignore 

Insulting is not ignoring.

[The Nehor]

6 hours 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.

In the same way “ancient astronaut” theorists find patterns in pyramid construction.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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

I consume enough trashy entertainment without adding non-entertaining trash to my diet.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

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

And we Stage Thirteen believers just condescendingly laugh at all of you idiots arguing on the playground. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

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

If you ask people to rate themselves, I suspect most see themselves as Stage Five while outside observers just might rate them Stage three or lower.  This may be a result of their language continuing to use more traditional phrasing and therefore more a communication issue or it may be not having really left black and white thinking behind, but applying it to others while skipping the same type of analyses for one own's beliefs and therefore more a selfdeception issue.

If you notice in Stage Five, criticism and attacks on others' beliefs are absent.  The focus is more on personal growth and finding what is right for oneself  and much less on telling others what they are doing and thinking wrong.

Quote

It is rare for people to reach this stage before mid-life. This is the point when people begin to realize the limits of logic and start to accept the paradoxes in life. They begin to see life as a mystery and often return to sacred stories and symbols but this time without being stuck in a theological box.

I don't believe you are even a stage four thinker, let alone Stage five, if your go to method is to frame your criticism of others as Stage Two:

Quote

When children become school-age, they start understanding the world in more logical ways. They generally accept the stories told to them by their faith community but tend to understand them in very literal ways. [A few people remain in this stage through adulthood.]

If that is the only way you interpret others' ideas, it is most likely imo because one oneself is stuck there and lack the ability to look at these beliefs in new ways even if one has chosen to frame their own views to sound more accepting of paradoxes and less literal.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

As a bishop I presided over numerous disciplinary councils and was involved with councils on the stake level as well. I feel that the DC's where there was peace and mercy were much more effective at guiding a person toward improvement and faith, more so than those that ended in excommunication. I can only think of one excommunication that I stand by because the individual posed a threat to the ward community. The other excommunications I regret.

I understand the need for any organization to be able to manage it's membership on some level, so my beef with the DC's aren't really about that, though I can see how traumatic it is to expel someone from his own community. But IMO the church takes it too far and overstates the effect of an excommunication. I believe the church has the right to remove a member it no longer wants to be numbered as one of its own, but I don't think it has the right to claim that all blessings are voided. For example, a person is baptized to follow Jesus. The church can't take that away. A person can be in apostasy from the church but still be close to Christ. A bishop doesn't have the authority to endow or seal an individual yet they have the authority to remove an endowment or sealing? I don't think so. IOW- the church should treat excommunication as an expulsion from the church, not as a sentence of damnation. Sure, people can come back, but if they don't the church claims that the person has lost all spiritual blessings. They are overstating this and IMO it is an act of taking the name of God in vain, treating personal judgement as if it's the judgement of God.

[churchistrue]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I am trying to understand your position.   Say in a hundred years a church that views Martin Luther king as a Saviour figure and martyr for a better Mankind is formed.  His teachings are canonized as well as some of his followers' writings and some uplifting stories about his life, especially his interaction with helping others and opening their eyes to a better way of living.  There is his human side and then that quaility of humanity which he came to embodied, a willingness to live his life in order to free mankind from the bonds of cultural slavery and emotional death (despair, fear, learned helplessness, anger, hate).  He was attempting to help humanity evolve to living closer to God or a more divine life.

Would this type of worship be similar to how you view your worship of Jesus and The Christ?  If not, what is the difference?

I can't answer for Bill. And I can't say my beliefs are the same as Bill on this, but I understand the position (at least I think I do--it's taken a while to sink in). And I strongly disagree that it's logically incoherent as Duncan said, or an inferior faith as many describe it.

If such a religion were to start, and if it were similar to how the Liberal Christians view Christ, then this would be the comparison, in my opinion. The worship object would not be Martin Luther. The worship object is God. God the Father. Whose essence is manifest in Martin Luther. There would be an elevation of the historical Martin to the cosmic Martin (not necessarily in reality but in the object that is worshiped), who takes on supernatural traits and elements to further manifest the face of God. It's not sophistry. There is something tangible at the end of the symbol, which is God the Father. A God we can't know directly, only through the mediator God object, who is Christ (or Luther in your example). It's not completely unlike the avatar tradition of Hinduism, understanding an incomprehensible God through the myth and imagery of various avatars (descension or incarnation of a deity on Earth to show humans various characteristics of God). 

This is how I understand Liberal Christian worship of Christ and God, despite not believing in the historicity of the resurrected Jesus. I think it's a bit unorthodox for a Mormon setting, but I think it can be included in the tent. I hope it can be. 

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by churchistrue

[flameburns623]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

If you ask people to rate themselves, I suspect most see themselves as Stage Five while outside observers just might rate them Stage three or lower.  This may be a result of their language continuing to use more traditional phrasing and therefore more a communication issue or it may be not having really left black and white thinking behind, but applying it to others while skipping the same type of analyses for one own's beliefs and therefore more a selfdeception issue.

If you notice in Stage Five, criticism and attacks on others' beliefs are absent.  The focus is more on personal growth and finding what is right for oneself  and much less on telling others what they are doing and thinking wrong.

I don't believe you are even a stage four thinker, let alone Stage five, if your go to method is to frame your criticism of others as Stage Two:

If that is the only way you interpret others' ideas, it is most likely imo because one oneself is stuck there and lack the ability to look at these beliefs in new ways even if one has chosen to frame their own views to sound more accepting of paradoxes and less literal.

I, personally, aspire to Stage Five--but recognize that there is a bit of intellectual snobbery attached to claiming to have attained that outlook on faith.

Frankly,  I think that some traditions prefer that all or a majority of their adherents remain in Stages Two or Three. Those faiths don't know what to do with people in Stage Four--and such traditions are very uncomfortable with Stage Five believers. 

Sad to say,  and as much as I love the Church, the culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is skewed this way. (But I think there are pockets where this is less true,  and I am hopeful the Church is changing on this count). 

Progressive Christian denominations, I think, make Stage Five an aspirational model. But: I don't think they attain it, much of the time. Likewise,  liberal arts colleges: notorious, these days, for "mandatory tolerance", aka 'Political Correctness'. 

DBMormon: I listened to the first podcast in your new series.  Good stuff. Have you read much of Marcus Borg? I'm thinking he's up your spiritual alley these days. 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a bishop I presided over numerous disciplinary councils and was involved with councils on the stake level as well. I feel that the DC's where there was peace and mercy were much more effective at guiding a person toward improvement and faith, more so than those that ended in excommunication. I can only think of one excommunication that I stand by because the individual posed a threat to the ward community. The other excommunications I regret.

Every single excommunication and disfellowshipment I was involved with was of the peace and mercy variety. I've never dealt with apostates from among my flock (the doubters and apostates I worked with were in other units or other stakes). All of the DCs I was connected with were initiated by the people themselves (voluntary confession and desire to reconcile). I think this is the overwhelming norm. Critical podcasters are definitely a rarity. 

I understand the need for any organization to be able to manage it's membership on some level, so my beef with the DC's aren't really about that, though I can see how traumatic it is to expel someone from his own community. But IMO the church takes it too far and overstates the effect of an excommunication. I believe the church has the right to remove a member it no longer wants to be numbered as one of its own, but I don't think it has the right to claim that all blessings are voided. For example, a person is baptized to follow Jesus. The church can't take that away. A person can be in apostasy from the church but still be close to Christ. A bishop doesn't have the authority to endow or seal an individual yet they have the authority to remove an endowment or sealing? I don't think so.

I think that this is an extension of the sealing power in Matthew (what you seal on earth is sealed in heaven, what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven), and especially one of the keys of the Aaronic priesthood (bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office). It is part and parcel of being a judge in Israel. The keys of the gospel of repentance (including sacrament and the repentance process, which includes binding and loosing when needed) in D&C 13. 

I know that others see it differently, and the progressives in the Church don't really want bishops to have any role as judges, really. But, this isn't the position of the vast majority of active, participating, believing Mormons. 

[CA Steve]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

So it is okay to point out errors, just not the serious ones?  

And if you want to talk about big differences, there is a huge difference between committing adultery or murder and refusing to stop blogging about church issues, but the penalty from the church is the same.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Every single excommunication and disfellowshipment I was involved with was of the peace and mercy variety. I've never dealt with apostates from among my flock (the doubters and apostates I worked with were in other units or other stakes). All of the DCs I was connected with were initiated by the people themselves (voluntary confession and desire to reconcile). I think this is the overwhelming norm. Critical podcasters are definitely a rarity. 

 

 

I think that this is an extension of the sealing power in Matthew (what you seal on earth is sealed in heaven, what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven), and especially one of the keys of the Aaronic priesthood (bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office). It is part and parcel of being a judge in Israel. The keys of the gospel of repentance (including sacrament and the repentance process, which includes binding and loosing when needed) in D&C 13. 

I know that others see it differently, and the progressives in the Church don't really want bishops to have any role as judges, really. But, this isn't the position of the vast majority of active, participating, believing Mormons. 

But if a bishop doesn't have the authority to seal in heaven, why does he have the authority to loose what's already been sealed? Wouldn't the same level of authority be needed to seal and to loose?

I don't have much issue with a bishop acting as a judge for the church recognizing that they won't always judge correctly. But stating that his judgements are essentially like the judgement of God and can remove a person from the path of exaltation is going too far.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if a bishop doesn't have the authority to seal in heaven, why does he have the authority to loose what's already been sealed? Wouldn't the same level of authority be needed to seal and to loose?

I don't have much issue with a bishop acting as a judge for the church recognizing that they won't always judge correctly. But stating that his judgements are essentially like the judgement of God and can remove a person from the path of exaltation is going too far.

Well, technically, that authority is held by the President of the Church. All disciplinary council outcomes have to be approved, and some are overturned sometimes. So, the initial judgment has to be authorized and ratified by the one holding the keys of Matthew 16. In practice, though, usually the bishop/stake president's decision is upheld. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if a bishop doesn't have the authority to seal in heaven, why does he have the authority to loose what's already been sealed? Wouldn't the same level of authority be needed to seal and to loose?

It seems as though that would be the case.  When a sealing clearance or cancellation is requested, it can't take place on a local level.

Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It seems as though that would be the case.  When a sealing clearance or cancellation is requested, it can't take place on a local level.

While they have to be authorized by the First Presidency, it isn't any stretch at all in the Church to see the principle of delegated authority and keys in these instances. Seventies hold no keys, but are able to set apart stake presidents. Why can't bishops, acting as agents of the apostles and First Presidency, do their delegated binding and loosing work at the local level? Everything has to be approved at the top, anyway. 

[ALarson]

Just now, rongo said:

While they have to be authorized by the First Presidency, it isn't any stretch at all in the Church to see the principle of delegated authority and keys in these instances. Seventies hold no keys, but are able to set apart stake presidents. Why can't bishops, acting as agents of the apostles and First Presidency, do their delegated binding and loosing work at the local level? Everything has to be approved at the top, anyway. 

True.  It does take place, so the leaders must believe they can delegate the authority.  I agree.

[Danzo]

27 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So it is okay to point out errors, just not the serious ones?  

And if you want to talk about big differences, there is a huge difference between committing adultery or murder and refusing to stop blogging about church issues, but the penalty from the church is the same.

 

If bill were pointing out serious errors you might have a point.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

While they have to be authorized by the First Presidency, it isn't any stretch at all in the Church to see the principle of delegated authority and keys in these instances. Seventies hold no keys, but are able to set apart stake presidents. Why can't bishops, acting as agents of the apostles and First Presidency, do their delegated binding and loosing work at the local level? Everything has to be approved at the top, anyway. 

Yeah, delegated authority or not, I don't understand how someone can bestow keys to someone else that they do not possess themselves.

If another church did this kind of thing I think our church would use it as evidence that they don't have keys.

A church that relies so heavily on authority and priesthood keys having non-keyholders giving priesthood keys to others is a head scratcher for me. It makes it hard for me to view that authority as credible.

[churchistrue]

My $0.02 on the point specifically about calling Elder Holland a liar and the argument that Bill is not wrong only his tone is wrong...

Calling someone a liar is pretty harsh. Calling someone a liar over and over and over is even more harsh. Doing it in an angry tone is even more harsh. 

I think if you're a church member and you value your membership, then you don't do that. Even if you can prove he technically lied. In our society and culture, we understand that public people that speak a lot occasionally "lie". It's almost universal that a public person who is speaking a lot and doing so persuasively is going to speak a lie. Either on purpose or on accident or whatever. He was speaking extemporaneously, and he said something that sounded an awful lot like a lie, but it was on a relatively trivial issue and we know these things happen. If we're on the same team, maybe we point it out, but we let it go. I love Bill, but I think he's being way over-the-top on this issue.

My $0.02. 

 

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, delegated authority or not, I don't understand how someone can bestow keys to someone else that they do not possess themselves.

Yes, it doesn't make much sense.  Can someone delegate the sealing keys to someone who doesn't have them so they can perform sealings? 

Remember how angry Joseph got over that (telling Hyrum he'd go to hell if he ever did it again because only ONE on earth at a time can perform sealings):

Quote

On one occasion Assistant Church President Hyrum Smith proceeded to seal a couple without his brother’s consent, Joseph being absent from Nauvoo at the time.  Brigham Young later referred to this occasion saying that no one could “act on the sealing principle only as he was dictated by Joseph.  This was proven, for Hyrum did undertake to seal without counsel.”  When the Prophet returned and discovered what had occurred, he strongly cautioned Hyrum saying that if he ever did it again, “he would go to hell and all those he sealed with him.”  Joseph annulled Hyrum’s actions and later resealed the couple.  LDS scholar, Andrew Ehat observed: “This early experience with regard to the authority to perform marriage sealings... illustrates the exclusive authority that Joseph Smith held: That certain of the presiding keys of the priesthood were not to be delegated.”

What I was agreeing with is that apparently  this has changed and the church leaders now believe they can delegate these keys..

[mfbukowski]

12 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

Since since the historical reality is technically unknowable I suggest it might be better to have the view that the historical Paradigm is certainly a possibility as well as the metaphorical paradigm.

Rather than taking the position it is either one or the other I have found that it is possible to hold both paradigm's at once.

In other words it could be either one but ultimately it doesn't matter. The historic position is taken on faith anyway, especially with the Book of Mormon.

But I think the problem frankly you are having is your stridency, and your you're apparent certainty about things about which we cannot be certain.

Pardon the personal comment but actually I am trying to help.

But we go back a while don't we.

Edited July 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My $0.02 on the point specifically about calling Elder Holland a liar and the argument that Bill is not wrong only his tone is wrong...

Calling someone a liar is pretty harsh. Calling someone a liar over and over and over is even more harsh. Doing it in an angry tone is even more harsh. 

I think if you're a church member and you value your membership, then you don't do that. Even if you can prove he technically lied. In our society and culture, we understand that public people that speak a lot occasionally "lie". It's almost universal that a public person who is speaking a lot and doing so persuasively is going to speak a lie. Either on purpose or on accident or whatever. He was speaking extemporaneously, and he said something that sounded an awful lot like a lie, but it was on a relatively trivial issue and we know these things happen. If we're on the same team, maybe we point it out, but we let it go. I love Bill, but I think he's being way over-the-top on this issue.

My $0.02. 

 

 

Calling someone a liar is so emotionally charged.  Everyone lies.  Everyone lies for their various reasons.  I suppose someone on the outside witnessing lies from another, feels prone to think that person will always lie.  I don't recall ever saying to anyone, "you're a liar" nor "he/she is a liar".  Using the name is just silly it feels to me.  But that certainly doesn't suggest Holland has not lied.  Everyone has.  And some of his lies have been seen by so many, if they were paying attention.  Calling someone out on a falsehood is a good thing.  To spout off that so and so is a liar because of their lies feels childish.  

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, DBMormon said:

no he wouldnt.  The church has pushed his hand.

In fact, I don't see why he would unless he feels compelled to do so by another.  I suppose some SPs out there feel the need to go after members in their stakes, but I don't see it as a normal thing overall.  most of the exing that has been done to those who have been outspoken, seem to have been spurred on by more general leaders rather than by local ones.  

[churchistrue]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since since the historical reality is technically unknowable I suggest it might be better to have the view that the historical Paradigm is certainly a possibility as well as the metaphorical paradigm.

Rather than taking the position it is either one or the other I have found that it is possible to hold both paradigm's at once.

In other words it could be either one but ultimately it doesn't matter. The historic position is taken on faith anyway, especially with the Book of Mormon.

But I think the problem frankly you are having is your stridency, and your you're apparent certainty about things about which we cannot be certain.

Pardon the personal comment but actually I am trying to help.

But we go back a while don't we.

I think the stridency is a problem in the Mormon Church where the believing paradigm is the most common position.

But I disagree with you that one must or should hold to both metaphorical and historical paradigm. The historical paradigm is made up of all kinds of propositions that can be evaluated through a scholarly and secular process. Belief in that moves from a faith proposition to forcing one to accept a set of propositions that are secular/material/scientific claims. Those are beliefs that are determined subconsciously (that's a matter of contention but most scholars that study this agree). So telling someone to accept a historical paradigm is telling someone to do something they have no ability to do. You can try to make compelling arguments for historical paradigm, but you can't tell them to believe it.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by churchistrue

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My $0.02 on the point specifically about calling Elder Holland a liar and the argument that Bill is not wrong only his tone is wrong...

Calling someone a liar is pretty harsh. Calling someone a liar over and over and over is even more harsh. Doing it in an angry tone is even more harsh. 

I think if you're a church member and you value your membership, then you don't do that. Even if you can prove he technically lied. In our society and culture, we understand that public people that speak a lot occasionally "lie". It's almost universal that a public person who is speaking a lot and doing so persuasively is going to speak a lie. Either on purpose or on accident or whatever. He was speaking extemporaneously, and he said something that sounded an awful lot like a lie, but it was on a relatively trivial issue and we know these things happen. If we're on the same team, maybe we point it out, but we let it go. I love Bill, but I think he's being way over-the-top on this issue.

My $0.02. 

 

 

Maybe when the statement is clearly pointed out to be wrong and the person continues to stand by it and not retract or clarify what he meant then it starts to cross over into purposefully not telling the truth?

Honestly, for the life of me I can't understand why Elder Holland could not address this issue.  So many people seem to have a very bad taste in their mouth about such a simple false statement.  Does being an apostle somehow place you above mere mortals and correcting a wrong is no longer required or expected?  This seems like the easiest thing to take off his check list of issues Bill Reed has with the church.  And it is hard for me to see how faithful members can rally around defending something that is obviously spoken in error.  These issues no longer make church growth the biggest issue the church faces.

My $0.02.