Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

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?

Is Bill claiming that he has no responsibility to the church? I haven't seen that.

Is it wrong to expect leaders of an organization to be held accountable for misdeeds (I'm speaking generally, not specifically about Holland)? Perhaps it's a reflection of our political system that I've come to expect that all leaders are accountable and have a responsibility to the constituency which it serves, but I think it's good for all men to know they are accountable, not only to God, but also to the people.

[blueglass]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

From what I recall as the new testament came together this narrative from 1Corinthians 15, is very old and the earliest most authentic narrative of Christianity to emerge.  

"3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. "

Then we have pagan writers, as well as Josephus saying they spoke with James the Lord's brother.  As far as mythicists and saying many Jesus histories were embellished with borrowing from Mithras, Dionysus or Adamis?  John Welch says the primary crime they used against Jesus was sorcery.    https://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/celebrating-easter/legal-cause-action-against-jesus-john-1829-30

What do you think of William Craig's defense of the accounts of the resurrection?   

Edited July 31, 2018 by blueglass

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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

 

 

 

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.

Oh come ON!

No longer possible for you maybe.

There still exist flat earthers.

This board is full of people who believe in a 6-day creation.

What are you possibly thinking?

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

 it feels like a virtual certainty.

So you are taking that secular evidence as a burning in the bosom is that correct?

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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. 

And so we are still going by how it feels.

Objectivity is a total illusion. Watch the evening news if you don't believe that

Edited July 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Exiled]

I don't think Bill should even show up to the DC. These things are about authority that isn't there anyway. So don't even go. He should just write a nice letter to those involved stating his opinions and desires to continue to be friends even though he doesn't believe the church's claims any longer. These men are simply following orders from SLC and Bill's beef isn't with them. Let's all agree to disagree and move on.

[DBMormon]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

again if we speak to each other while inhabiting different stages of perspective we will miss the mark on what the other is saying.  You judge me as believing pure folly and yet it is the ground I have come to honestly and as a seeker.  I am sorry you can not appreciate it.  But I deeply hold it none the less

[Avatar4321]

I was unaware that he was still a member of the church. Well I hope he repents before he does something that can’t easily be fixed.

[DBMormon]

10 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 not know with certainty that Jesus was a real mortal, who really suffered for our sins in the religious literal sense, and who after being crucified rose on the third day literally (I simply do not see a spiritual experience as a solid way to know historical truth).  And I deeply see the data and evidence that points to deep problems with a historical view as having more considerably more weight than the evidence that points to the gospel writers and Paul being accurate about Jesus' literal historicity.  Hence my brain can only conclude where it (i) feel the evidence leads to in as much as my brain (i) give specified weight to certain data, arguments, evidence, etc...  So intellectually I see deep problems with concluding Jesus was historical and the new testament writers portrayed his historicity accurately.  I combine that with my understanding of myth and rituals and how those are created and have played out on a thousand other occasions and I am left unable to intellectually make historicity work.   People may see my 6 part series on the historical Jesus for a deeper dive into my perspective on this.

That said I also am spiritually and emotionally pulled to not throw Jesus off to the side.  I find him complex and relatively consistent as a model for worship and emulation.   I find him worthy of deep reflection and focus.   I find him drawing me to think of him in new ways.  I think of him daily and am excited to be looking at him with new eyes.  I think in serious ways I am applying his atonement and working to be like the Christ of Faith.   I do not take Jesus or his narrative lightly.

So torn between these two sides of the coin, I have come to this.

My brain doubts highly in the historicity of Jesus.  My heart and spirit on the other hand take him as seriously as I can.  As time has gone on, I simply care less and less about historicity as a hill to die on but also can not relinquish that I highly highly doubt him historical.  Hence I am left to only concern myself with the effects he has on my heart and spirit.  And I am deeply satisfied with this where I am on this journey in taking Christ seriously but in ways that set historicity aside as not a worthy hill to die on.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

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? 

The man in the stonecutter story is John Rowe Moyle, not Henry D. Moyle. Henry D. Moyle was a counselor in the First Presidency under David O. McKay. 

Bummer when you’re caught making a fact error, isn’t it?  Don’t worry, I won’t call you a liar over it. 

[churchistrue]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh come ON!

No longer possible for you maybe.

There still exist flat earthers.

This board is full of people who believe in a 6-day creation.

What are you possibly thinking?

Correct. I am saying no longer possible for that person. Not longer possible for everyone.

 

[DBMormon]

2 hours ago, Joe said:

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. 

Thank you.  Once I saw that Mormonism was the worst venue for telling its story forthrightly and accurately I could never unsee it.

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so we are still going by how it feels.

Objectivity is a total illusion. Watch the evening news if you don't believe that

Can't feelings be illusory too?  Many have gone after nonsense over the years because their gut told them to do it.  I had a client (here in Las Vegas) once claim that she had this magical way of walking into some random bar sitting down and then hitting a royal flush.  This was in the context of a bankruptcy consultation and I thought at the time that she should just do her thing, hit a royal, and save her house that way.  So, if one cannot trust that anything is objective,  how does one trust anything?  How do you determine whether or not some financial investment is good or not if you cannot trust that something is objective?

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I can not know with certainty that Jesus was a real mortal, who really suffered for our sins in the religious literal sense, and who after being crucified rose on the third day literally (I simply do not see a spiritual experience as a solid way to know historical truth).  And I deeply see the data and evidence that points to deep problems with a historical view as having more considerably more weight than the evidence that points to the gospel writers and Paul being accurate about Jesus' literal historicity.  Hence my brain can only conclude where it (i) feel the evidence leads to in as much as my brain (i) give specified weight to certain data, arguments, evidence, etc...  So intellectually I see deep problems with concluding Jesus was historical and the new testament writers portrayed his historicity accurately.  I combine that with my understanding of myth and rituals and how those are created and have played out on a thousand other occasions and I am left unable to intellectually make historicity work.   People may see my 6 part series on the historical Jesus for a deeper dive into my perspective on this.

That said I also am spiritually and emotionally pulled to not throw Jesus off to the side.  I find him complex and relatively consistent as a model for worship and emulation.   I find him worthy of deep reflection and focus.   I find him drawing me to think of him in new ways.  I think of him daily and am excited to be looking at him with new eyes.  I think in serious ways I am applying his atonement and working to be like the Christ of Faith.   I do not take Jesus or his narrative lightly.

So torn between these two sides of the coin, I have come to this.

My brain doubts highly in the historicity of Jesus.  My heart and spirit on the other hand take him as seriously as I can.  As time has gone on, I simply care less and less about historicity as a hill to die on but also can not relinquish that I highly highly doubt him historical.  Hence I am left to only concern myself with the effects he has on my heart and spirit.  And I am deeply satisfied with this where I am on this journey in taking Christ seriously but in ways that set historicity aside as not a worthy hill to die on.

I think like you on occasion. But unlike you, I'm thinking, I haven't researched it as well so I can't say Jesus didn't do exactly as is mentioned in the Bible. But having gone through my faith crisis in the LDS church, it has thrown me for a big gigantic loop and now find the need for faith like I'd never had before, so that's one consolation prize. Has it made you have to dig deep for the faith as well? 

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, juliann said:

I think it is silly to demand members stop what they doing to stay in the church. It’s just not a good look for one thing. If someone is damaging the church remove them without threats, if that is going to be the ultimate result anyway.

Reel is not very skilled or well spoken. He is just loud and insistent. Truthful is not an adjective I would apply to this genre of cobbling the worst of the worst into a wobbly narrative meant to elicit only one reaction. These guys have become the very thing they disdain. 

Reel’s only advantage is his being able to call himself Mormon. I doubt he has the lasting power of a more sophisticated figure like Dehlin so I think he cares very much about the outcome. 

I think it is actually much like God to warn people to cease and desist before penalizing them. God does it all the time. I am kinda on the fence about the Bill Reel's of the Church. However, for Jeremy Runnells to continue to want to be a member just doesn't ring true. He was even attacking the Bible, and was hardly Christian. Bill is more moderate than that, but at some point the Church has to draw the line. If Bill is attacking temple ordinances and covenants, etc I think it safe to say he is attacking the Lord's work in an apostate manner. I don't see anything in Bill to suggest that he believes in the restored gospel. All his stuff is negative. If it edifies and uplifts it is of God, but his stuff seems to fall in the category of the adversary. Even the adversary uses truth and quotes scripture. But, the adversary should not be allowed to be a member of the Church because his goal is confuse and anger people to lead them away. I think it fairly obvious where Bill Reel falls on this spectrum right now. Should a tick along for the ride be considered a part of the deer? The thing about making money off of criticism is that it tends to mushroom into a money-making venture rather than being any work of the Lord. Too many blood-sucking ticks will eventually weaken the body of the deer. I think that is ultimately the line that must be drawn and determined in this kind of case. Trying to factually determine the truth of various charges of such individuals is not really the issue, but is a kind of red herring, although I am sure that is what Bill would like. Things like whether he has a testimony of the restored gospel are more important.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

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? 

First the inability to talk specifics of mistakes shows an intentional shielding of members from the mistakes of themselves and predecessors.  For instance what example do we have of an honest discussion of mistakes where there is a healthy system of accountability so members do not perpetuate false things?  there isn't.  In regard to them as prophets and the like.  I see them as deeply unhealthy in the mechanisms they use to prevent critical thought and their vulnerability to their mistakes.  Yet if God is real and if this is really his Church, then I have to leave space that God can still break through once in a great while when they are ready to repent of their individual or collective unhealthiness and history seems to indicate this happens rarely if ever in my perspective.  That said I hope so, but also highly doubt so.  in terms of the assumptions I had to make in order to make that sapce

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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?

another double standard is if apostles in their sin are protected from the standard church mechanisms of encouraging repentance yet those who raise a hand to it with a tone judged sinful are subject to them

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Thank you.  Once I saw that Mormonism was the worst venue for telling its story forthrightly and accurately I could never unsee it.

it's a good thing we have your podcast then isn't it? you're the one true historian and theologian with the real documents, knows what really happened, people with Doctorate's in LDS Church hIstory and Theology have been getting it wrong for decades now, thank you for coming onto the scene...

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bill, what is the date of your DC?

@DBMormon

not set yet.  The initial meeting consisted of him telling me had zero good answers for my questions

he said my questions were valid but that he operates on faith in spite of the history contradicting so much

he seemed to think that my approach is only one way to resolve concerns so we are going to try a separate mode.  (I told him he should be prepared that such a mode doesn't work either and that if it doesn't that how can one be punished for operating within the only outlet they feel they have to seek recourse?) He agreed in part but also said if there is no effective path of recourse then he would accept that from God as well.  

I was given three options and made it clear that at present I feel no good occurs if I take 2 of them and the third is out of my hands.  So we are at an impasse and the ball is in their court.  That said my stake president has not had met with me otherwise.  No meeting to counsel.  No him asking me how we can softly step back from this edge.  It is as Calm stated, little effort being made on anyone's part to ask how I can be better understood or how I think my angst and concerns can be resolved in a healthy way.  That is sad unto itself.

 

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

another double standard is if apostles in their sin are protected from the standard church mechanisms of encouraging repentance yet those who raise a hand to it with a tone judged sinful are subject to them

give us a break, I don't know if you are aware but General Authorities have been excommunicated in the past. No one is above scrutiny

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Correct. I am saying no longer possible for that person. Not longer possible for everyone.

 

So I have to believe that it is absolutely impossible for God the creator of the universe to have done it 6 days, even though science which I accept says otherwise?

Pure bunk. I am seeing it both ways right now at this moment.

I am not about to tell God what is impossible and what is not.

What you say smacks of fundamentalism. It can be black or it can be white but not even possibly be Grey.

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Thank you.  Once I saw that Mormonism was the worst venue for telling its story forthrightly and accurately I could never unsee it.

 

21 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's a good thing we have your podcast then isn't it? you're the one true historian and theologian with the real documents, knows what really happened, people with Doctorate's in LDS Church hIstory and Theology have been getting it wrong for decades now, thank you for coming onto the scene...

In fairness to Bill I see Mormonism kind of as another "ism.' It has a kind of self-perpetuating steamroller effect of accepting every comment made by every general authority as true. If this is what Bill is speaking to, I do see somewhat similarly to him. Although I call myself LDS, I don't really believe in Mormonism in this respect, and discourage people from calling me Mormon. I am not a follower of Mormon, but of Christ. I do not know Mormon. I do not really know what Mormonism is - it seems to be somewhat different to different people.  So to the extent that Mormonism is a kind of non-questioning politically correct movement of conformism, I reject it. Perhaps that is what Bill is saying too. I'm sure Bill views himself as almost another of these scholars out there questioning and presenting opinions. To some extent I view myself this way, but I do not spend all my time trying to "expose" this or that, but rather spend my time investigating the gospel, archaeology, etc, and find myself wondering with awe at the beauty of the gospel. I would invite Bill to investigate similarly rather than spending his time in newspaper-reporter mode looking for the next big, sensational story.

Edited July 31, 2018 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Thank you.  Once I saw that Mormonism was the worst venue for telling its story forthrightly and accurately I could never unsee it.

And that is the problem. You see yourself as the sole Arbiter of Truth.

You need some philosophy in your life.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

I think the world is a little more complicated than you think it is.

We should have had that debate long ago after all.

That's okay. You are on the road to relativism. Someday you will see it that way. I mean it's part of the Perry Scheme and you are moving along it. Good luck to you.

Edited July 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

57 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

again if we speak to each other while inhabiting different stages of perspective we will miss the mark on what the other is saying.  You judge me as believing pure folly and yet it is the ground I have come to honestly and as a seeker.  I am sorry you can not appreciate it.  But I deeply hold it none the less

You don’t need to justify yourself to anyone. Take care of yourself and your family, and don’t worry about the rest. 

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

In fairness to Bill I see Mormonism kind of as another "ism.' It has a kind of self-perpetuating steamroller effect of accepting every comment made by every general authority as true. If this is what Bill is speaking to, I do see somewhat similarly to him. Although I call myself LDS, I don't really believe in Mormonism in this respect, and discourage people from calling me Mormon. I am not a follower of Mormon, but of Christ. I do no know Mormon. I do not really know what Mormonism is - it seems to be somewhat different to different people.  So to the extent that Mormonism is a kind of non-questioning politically correct movement, I reject it. Perhaps that is what Bill is saying too. I'm sure Bill views himself as almost another of these scholars out there questioning and presenting opinions. To some extent I view myself this way, but I do not spend all my time trying "expose" this or that, but rather spend my time investigating the gospel, archaeology, etc, and find myself wondering with awe at the beauty of the gospel. I would invite Bill to investigate similarly rather than spending his time in newspaper-reporter mode looking for the next big, sensational story.

Oh my gosh. I owe you about a hundred rep points for this.!!