Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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):

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

You are misinterpreting this event.  It was not that the sealing keys cannot be delegated.  It was that they cannot be assumed without approval.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are misinterpreting this event.  It was not that the sealing keys cannot be delegated.  It was that they cannot be assumed without approval.

Sounds like Ehat "misinterpreted this event". 

(I was quoting him.)

But, what Joseph stated does apply here.  No one who has not been called and set apart can perform sealings.  That (the sealing keys) cannot be delegated (as far as I know) to someone who has not been called by church leaders to work as a sealer.

Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson

[blueglass]

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

Dallin H. Oaks in his talk to Harvard law school in 2010,  "How could He break the bands of death?  How was it possible for Him to take upon himself the sins of all mankind?  How can our soiled and sinful selves be cleansed and our bodies be resurrected by His atonement?   These are mysteries I do not fully understand.  To me, the miracle of the atonement of Jesus Christ is incomprehensible."  

[Joe]

Recently, Bill has become a little too negative for my tastes.  Admittedly, I feel uncomfortable with him tearing down a belief system that has made me into a better person. 

That said, he speaks the truth. Without people like him fearlessly calling a spade a spade our church would have more untruth echoing its walls than it already has. 

One thing that hit me hard that he said recently is that the church has been the least honest of anyone at telling its history. Anyone that has studied church history would have a hard time arguing with that statement. Much of the anti-Mormon "lies" I heard on my mission, and vehemently defended against,  ended up being mostly true. Much of the stories I heard in Sunday school growing up ended up being misleading, exaggerated, and/or inaccurate. For a church that claims to be "true", we don't seem to value truth. 

I contend that attacks on the church will ultimately make it stronger and better. From that point of view, Bill is actually helping the church. 

 

 

 

[blueglass]

8 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?

for many the "moral influence" theory of atonement works.  It's not high christology, but it can be considered a view which produces awe-inspiring motivation to do good.   See Hymns: #187 ("God Loved Us So He Sent His Son") vss. 1 and 3, #193 ("I Stand All Amazed"), #194 ("There Is A Green Hill") vs. 4

[Prof]

1 hour 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.

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.

The whole idea of church discipline, and the absence of seeing it in scripture, has me bothered. It seems to have evolved over time, but again, without scripture as a basis. As important as these matters are, I would think that it would be codified in scripture.

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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.

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.

Very true to the statement that the church is taking the name of God in vain when treating personal judgement as if it's the judgement of God. It harms IMO, because that person that is ex'd might go onto no belief of God after that. The church may be breaking a commandment here, IMO.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sounds like Ehat "misinterpreted this event". 

(I was quoting him.)

But, what Joseph stated does apply here.  No one who has not been called and set apart can perform sealings.  That (the sealing keys) cannot be delegated (as far as I know) to someone who has not been called by church leaders to work as a sealer.

Are Apostles all able to perform temple sealings?  Have they all been called and set apart for that or is it just a part of that office?

Edited July 31, 2018 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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.

 

Not sure what the purpose was of this, but I certainly agree that you can't tell anyone to hold any paradigm.

That's their choice.

But don't tell me I can't hold both paradigms on faith where neither is falsifiable.

Besides historical events can be seen as harbingers of future events and be held as a symbol of something else that might happen. For example the Civil War can be seen as the beginning of Millennial events.

So on that view the historic event of the Civil War can have a religious import for someone, and therefore be both historic and metaphorical at the same time.

This is extremely common in an event such as the founding of Israel.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

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. 

I think it important to recognize that the Fowler stages are only a psychological model, not a spiritual approach, and that God can work on a spiritual level with people at any psychological stage of faith (or other) development.

And of course people at various stages of psychological development can be of great benefit one to another spiritually as they worship and work together as a community. And the divine keys transcend psychology (both individual and group), culture, etc. and in some cases go so far as to even alter these from obstacles into helps in advancing the Gospel.

People hear, and act on what they hear, according to their stage of development. Their psychological stage and spiritual stage are related but not necessarily interdependent, and there are other factors impacting both. So not to minimize the usefulness of the Fowler tool, there are so many other factors to consider that impact faith and how we interpret our culture and doctrines: our personality type; various areas and types and levels of intelligence; the effect of nature and nurture; internal and external environments; Spirit and miracles; etc.

For this reason, I think a purely psychological approach is insufficient. When Christ tells us to become as little children (3 Nephi 11), He is not encouraging us to remain in stages 1-3 or to regress to stage 0 to 2 from stages 3 through 6. The attributes He (according to King Benjamin, Mosiah 3:19) associates with becoming as children are those characteristics we can psychologically associate with stage 6: “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father,” which describe Christ.

A model that better reflects faith development in my opinion is the parable of the sower. The pressures of life (temptation, doubt, insecurity and instability, cares of the world, materialism, and pride) can impact whether and how far one advances. But once it dawns on him that he can choose to amend the soil, he can advance both psychologically and spiritually.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I think it important to recognize that the Fowler stages are only a psychological model, not a spiritual approach, and that God can work on a spiritual level with people at any psychological stage of faith (or other) development.

And of course people at various stages of psychological development can be of great benefit one to another spiritually as they worship and work together as a community. And the divine keys transcend psychology (both individual and group), culture, etc. and in some cases go so far as to even alter these from obstacles into helps in advancing the Gospel.

People hear, and act on what they hear, according to their stage of development. Their psychological stage and spiritual stage are related but not necessarily interdependent, and there are other factors impacting both. So not to minimize the usefulness of the Fowler tool, there are so many other factors to consider that impact faith and how we interpret our culture and doctrines: our personality type; various areas and types and levels of intelligence; the effect of nature and nurture; internal and external environments; Spirit and miracles; etc.

For this reason, I think a purely psychological approach is insufficient. When Christ tells us to become as little children (3 Nephi 11), He is not encouraging us to remain in stages 1-3 or to regress to stage 0 to 2 from stages 3 through 6. The attributes He (according to King Benjamin, Mosiah 3:19) associates with becoming as children are those characteristics we can psychologically associate with stage 6: “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father,” which describe Christ.

A model that better reflects faith development in my opinion is the parable of the sower. The pressures of life (temptation, doubt, insecurity and instability, cares of the world, materialism, and pride) can impact whether and how far one advances. But once it dawns on him that he can choose to amend the soil, he can advance both psychologically and spiritually.

I love the philosophies of men with a little dash of scripture.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Are Apostles all able to perform temple dealings?  Have they all been called and set apart for that or is it just a part of that office?

Yes. They possess all keys. They aren't authorized to exercise the key of presiding over the church but can then bestow it on the next president. They can bestow it because they possess it. They can perform sealings. I don't think it's unusual for Q12 to perform sealings for friends and family.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes. They possess all keys. 

So it’s changed since Joseph stated only one man on earth at a time would possess the sealing keys?

From his 1843 revelation:

”For there is never but one man on earth at a time on whom this power [sealing] and the keys of the priesthood are conferred”

Edited July 31, 2018 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So it’s changed since Joseph stated only one man on earth at a time would possess the sealing keys?

Several hold them. Only one man can fully use them.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So it’s changed since Joseph stated only one man on earth at a time would possess the sealing keys?

Yes. Every sealer in every temple holds sealing keys. They are all overseen by the president the temples who are overseen by the president of the church. (there may be a few more levels of oversight in there)

[Danzo]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

For most people, including the law,  a 'lie' is a intentional attempt to deceive.  

by that definition you cannot lie on accident.  if it is accidental or unintentional, it is usually known as an error.

In law, intent is essential when trying to prove fraud,  without intent, there is no fraud.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by Danzo

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Dallin H. Oaks in his talk to Harvard law school in 2010,  "How could He break the bands of death?  How was it possible for Him to take upon himself the sins of all mankind?  How can our soiled and sinful selves be cleansed and our bodies be resurrected by His atonement?   These are mysteries I do not fully understand.  To me, the miracle of the atonement of Jesus Christ is incomprehensible."  

This is the kind of mystery that must always remain.

All the apostles died testifying of this truth, in far-flung places many years later.

It is inconceivable that they would have done this if they had not experienced it.

There are many historic records that prove the existence of the Apostles as well as their travels.

Edited July 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So it’s changed since Joseph stated only one man on earth at a time would possess the sealing keys?

From his 1843 revelation:

”For there is never but one man on earth at a time on whom this power [sealing] and the keys of the priesthood are conferred”

It is confusing, I agree.  Brigham Young also stated:

Quote

“Joseph said that the sealing power is always vested in one man, and that there never was, nor never would be but one man on the earth at a time to hold the keys of the sealing power in the Church.  That all sealings must be performed by the man holding the keys or by his dictation, and that man is the President of the Church.”

(But notice the words "or by his dictation".)

Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

For most people, including the law,  a 'lie' is a intentional attempt to deceive.  

by that definition you cannot lie on accident.  if it is accidental or unintentional, it is usually know as an error.

In law, intent is essential when trying to prove fraud,  without intent, there is no fraud.  

This is a perfect example of the kind of thing the church is objecting to.

Calling these lies is just so over the top it is ridiculous.

It is essentially at attempt to show  malicious intent where there is none.

[blueglass]

15 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 April 2000 Elder Holland gave a talk in General Conference in which he relates the story about Henry D. Moyle "only a stonecutter"  in which he depends on a source by Gene Sessions with a whole lot of historical problems which change the story to the point where it is much more difficult to recognize over the classic movie clip.  If Holland had presented the story with the best historical scholarship the end result is the same that Henry D. Moyle sacrificed a great deal and did work on the salt lake temple.  It's possible that apostles themselves don't know much about the theology or the history of the church to discern when they are telling the truth or a nice embellishment by accident.  For example, when Elder Ballard speaks about the different versions of the first vision story, he says that although he has all of the books from the Joseph Smith papers he has not read them all.  He probably doesn't know that the 1832 account was cut out of the history and hidden in a vault for 100 years.  Can they still be witnesses for Christ if they stumble around with their understanding of history like the rest of us?  If so, what does it mean to be qualified to be one "sent forth" to preach the gospel?  Final question.  In what aspects do you still sustain the leaders of the church as prophets, seers, and revelators? 

Edited July 31, 2018 by blueglass

[churchistrue]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not sure what the purpose was of this, but I certainly agree that you can't tell anyone to hold any paradigm.

That's their choice.

But don't tell me I can't hold both paradigms on faith where neither is falsifiable.

Besides historical events can be seen as harbingers of future events and be held as a symbol of something else that might happen. For example the Civil War can be seen as the beginning of Millennial events.

So on that view the historic event of the Civil War can have a religious import for someone, and therefore be both historic and metaphorical at the same time.

This is extremely common in an event such as the founding of Israel.

 

I agree with everything you say here. I was having a point of disagreement stemming from when you said:

 

"the historical reality is technically unknowable"

 

It may be unknowable with certainty, but it is a secular proposition and can be analyzed through secular means. And there are very many that have studied this in depth that believe that though it may not be certain knowledge, the evidence is so overwhelming that it feels like a virtual certainty. To the point where literal belief is no longer possible.

 

 

[blueglass]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So it’s changed since Joseph stated only one man on earth at a time would possess the sealing keys?

From his 1843 revelation:

”For there is never but one man on earth at a time on whom this power [sealing] and the keys of the priesthood are conferred”

It's been a long time that I read Michael Quinn's paper on the succession crisis.  Did he name someone as the "one man" before going to Carthage?  Did this person confer the keys on Brigham?  As I recall from the recent book "Foundational texts of the restoration" only a few people heard about the keys restored in the April 3, 1836 vision as it was not published until the 1850's.  Is it possible that William W. Phelps told Brigham Young?  Is their an unpublished revelation from Brigham Young on how the keys go from the "one man" to the being held by the quorum of twelve?   Ronald Esplin seems frustrated with his report of the lack of good evidence in the council of fifty minutes.  

[Kenngo1969]

Bill Reel's standing before God is between Bill Reel and God.  Bill Reel's standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is between Bill Reel, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ charged with disposing of his case, and God.  I guess the only question I have is why, conversely, Bill Reel seems to believe that Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's standing is between Jeffrey R. Holland and Bill Reel, or between Jeffrey R. Holland and the rest of the rank-and-file members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Why the apparent double-standard?

[HappyJackWagon]

Bill, what is the date of your DC?

@DBMormon

[Kenngo1969]

31 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

It [i.e., the literal truthfulness of the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] may be unknowable with certainty, but it is a secular proposition and can be analyzed through secular means. And there are very many that have studied this in depth that believe that though it may not be certain knowledge, the evidence is so overwhelming that it feels like a virtual certainty. To the point where literal belief is no longer possible.

Oh.

How "enlightened."

Or something.  

Cf. Joseph Smith—History 1:24-25.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Kenngo1969