Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[churchistrue]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I think you're misunderstanding me. But I'm probably misunderstanding you as well. It would be fun to talk these ideas out sometime. 

My initial contention was where you said this:

 

Quote

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.

I'm fine with allowing and respecting others for believing something one doesn't. If I say BOM historicity is impossible for me to believe. That doesn't mean I think you are dumb for believing it or another member is wrong for testifying of it. I might be misunderstanding when you say the historical reality is unknowable so you suggest to believe literally as well as metaphorically. This feels like you are suggesting to me that I do something that is impossible for me to do. But maybe I misunderstand you.

 

 

The last paragraph above is my last comment on your quote, but I'm not able to edit it to reflect that.

Edited July 31, 2018 by churchistrue

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I think you're misunderstanding me. But I'm probably misunderstanding you as well. It would be fun to talk these ideas out sometime. 

My initial contention was where you said this:

 

 

Sure I'll talk to you anytime. But I think you have misquoted me I think these last paragraphs are yours not mine.

It's always wise also to leave a link to the original quote.

Not good.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

OK. I'll accept that. Consider this the first of a hundred worthless comments which will allow you to catch up! I'll be lurking for your reps!

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I think you're misunderstanding me. But I'm probably misunderstanding you as well. It would be fun to talk these ideas out sometime. 

My initial contention was where you said this:

 

The last paragraph above is my last comment on your quote, but I'm not able to edit it to reflect that.

Okay I didn't see that last edit. Sure I will talk to you anytime.

[mfbukowski]

Just now, RevTestament said:

OK. I'll accept that. Consider this the first of a hundred worthless comments which will allow you to catch up! I'll be lurking for your reps!

...One.... 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

You're right about the name!

But there are a lot of problems, errors and inconsistencies with the story as told in conference. 

Here's a good overview of these and it's interesting read:

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/28/fact-vs-fiction-john-rowe-moyle/

It certainly made a great faith promoting story though and I get that.

ETA:

This was stated in a comment on this blog:

Quote

To be honest, the story of his excommunication over water disputes and taking on a angry second wife are even better stories! 

Does anyone know more about this regarding Moyle?  (I was kind of skipping around the comments, so I'll keep looking too).  

Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

19 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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

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

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

We don’t get to pick and choose what part of the gospel to follow. The Lord made it clear what he does with the lukewarm among us.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

 

Your mileage varies, obviously, but I have a hard time understanding his apparent crusade against Elder Holland (sorry, but I don't know what else to call it ) if he doesn't believe that Elder Holland is answerable to him and/or to the rank-and-file generally.

Quote

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.

No, it's not wrong to expect leaders to be held accountable, but then the questions become: (1) For what? and (2) To whom?  Bill Reel and Jeffrey R. Holland aren't accountable to me: I have no stewardship over them such that they should be.  And you're right: Elected officials are accountable to voters, leaders of earthly organizations are accountable to the members of the organization, CEOs are accountable to stockholders and to boards of directors, and so forth.  If Bill Reel's or Jeffrey R. Holland's earthly leaders err, respectively, in their judgment of one or both of these men, they are not accountable to me nor to you, but to God.  And as for what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland should be held accountable, if anything, if, on some sort of penal substitution theory of Atonement or some cosmic quirk, I were allowed to be judged for Elder Holland's "sins" (such as they are) while he, in turn, would be made to suffer the penalty for mine, I would take that offer every day and twice on Sunday, Thankyouverymuch!

I think how Brigham Young described his relationship with Joseph Smith on one occasion is apropos of this discussion:

Quote

 

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

“… I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called ‘Mormonism.’ …

“It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God’s servant, and not mine. … That was my faith, and it is my faith still.”

 

Brigham Young, as quoted in Eugene England (December 1977), "Brigham and Joseph," New Era, accessed on line at https://www.lds.org/new-era/1977/12/brigham-and-joseph?lang=eng on July 31, 2018.  Just as Joseph's faults were no concern of Brigham's, so Elder Holland's faults, whatever they may be, are no concern of mine, or of yours, or of Bill Reel's, or of anyone else in the rank-and-file of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

In this case, just a teensy-weensy dash.

[strappinglad]

Isn't it wondrous how the random connection of elements in the universe eventually built our ape brains which we use to try to find truth through logic?  How can the universe be understood when it should not even be understandable  ?

[Kevin Christensen]

41 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.

All in all, bummer developments over time.  I do remember having some good exchanges will Bill over the years, including an interview that demonstrated good preparation and thoughtful questions.  Alas, I also remember the post using the "abusive father" metaphor for the church, and that I immediately expressed my own concerns about what happens when you adopt that kind of metaphor.  I quote Sarup on Derrida in "Mantic Box and Sophic Vista":

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.

Regarding the Fowler Stages of Faith, I've never been fond of that, and very much prefer the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  The Fowler Model strikes me as being concerned with ranking via the conclusions a person comes to, whereas the Perry Scheme focuses on how a person processes information.  That, I think, is more important in the long run, as it is how we process information that defines the long run over time and experience.

Regarding the historical Jesus, one of my favorite essays is  called "Jesus in Recent Research" by then Father John McDade published in 1998 in The Month, a Catholic periodical.  It can be found online if you search, or email me and ask.  I've quoted it a few times.  Reading Bill's comments in this thread put me in mind of this passage.

Quote

I point you to Telford’s summary of how Jesus emerges as a social type if he is considered in the light of ‘foreground data’ (the narrative tradition, especially the miracles, sayings and the traditions surrounding his death) and ‘background data’ (the elements of general context posited as appropriate to understanding him in his first century setting). Here, weighting is all and what should strike us about this helpful taxonomy is the selective and constructed character of the images of Jesus offered by historians, depending on their choice of emphasis, what counts as primary data, which heuristic models are used.

• If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician (Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healer and exorcist (Vermes).

“If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced.”

• If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg, Robinson, Funk).
• If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings is retained, then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth).
• If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns.
• If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, a social prophet, with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach).
• If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist victim of oppression.
• McDade then looks at the effect of the Background data: “The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him:”
• • When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee (Falk).
• • If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be seen as the ‘humane apocalyptist’ (Charlesworth) or the ‘reasonable visionary’ (Sanders).
• • If his Galilean provenance is emphasized, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes).
• • If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasized, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher (Mack, Crossan)
• • If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of these categories (Hengel)

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Jesus_and_Joseph_Smith

The point is, all of these approaches try to account for Jesus, and the way that many of them do it (notice Borg in the list and in Bill's earlier post) is that they construct a distance between the Jesus of History, and the Christ of Faith.  Looking at the broad array of scholarship makes it clear that these conclusions don't come as a matter of objective consideration of the plain meaning of indisputable facts, but rather "There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. ‘Determines’ is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus." (McDade).   

McDade goes on to favor Ben Meyer and N. T. Wright, and also Margaret Barker, citing and exploring the implications of Barker's The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith.  So one of the reasons that Bill and I have come so far in our faith journey from our genial interview several years ago, is that we have a very different set of background assumptions, processes, and sources, for evaluating faith claims.  The same seed, different soil, different nurture, different harvest.  It especially matters what one expects of church members and leaders.  Should I expect Perfection and the Ideal in all things LDS, and therefore, inevitably be drawn to seeing imperfection as the only decisive and important information, or, should I look to see what is Real, where human imperfection is simply part of the overall background, and not at all decisive?  It makes a huge difference.  Jesus seemed to put a large premium on removing the beams from our own eye first, in order to see clearly.

For what it is worth, I think "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" has some relevance.

  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Best wishes, however.  Life goes on, and in my life at least, so does faith.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[DBMormon]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

That's incoherent.

for you.  For others it makes perfect sense.  Depending on how binary one is in their mind on any given issue, some will have space for such and others will not.
I take Christ and his atonement seriously but surely mileage will vary on how any given person agrees or relates.

Edited July 31, 2018 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

58 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 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.

Agree with you Rev, I think Bill would do better without all that. He's turning it into a black and white or a hill to die on, sorry to Bill for describing it that way if false, but in the beginning he was taking the middle way, but now he is full on in a battle with the leaders, at least on FB.

The church is doing everything possible to keep members from straying and to them a white lie is worth it because they believe in the church wholeheartedly and think it's best for the members, IMO. Not condoning this though.

I guess to Bill this is harmful if the church is false and is detrimental to the members. I think that he's seen the other side with members that have gone through heck with different scenarios of going through faith crisis or losing family members for it to whatever, it runs the gamut. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Tacenda

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

We don’t get to pick and choose what part of the gospel to follow. The Lord made it clear what he does with the lukewarm among us.

A couple of things:

First, the church and the gospel are not the same thing.

Second, even if they were the same thing, we ALL decide what which commandments we are going to follow, and which we do not, because we are all sinful in some way.

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

for you.  For others it makes perfect sense.  Depending on how binary one is in their mind on any given issue, some will have space for such and others will not.
I take Christ and his atonement 

I said nothing about the atonement. If Jesus never existed but somehow at some time a role or whatever named Christ did but we can't trust the records explaining what Christ is then good luck to you

Edited July 31, 2018 by Duncan

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Agree with you Rev, I think Bill would do better without all that. He's turning it into a black and white or a hill to die on, sorry to Bill for describing it that way if false, but in the beginning he was taking the middle way, but now he is full on in a battle with the leaders, at least on FB. The church is doing everything possible to keep members from straying and to them a white lie is worth it because they believe in the church wholeheartedly and think it's best for the members, IMO. 

I think herein is the rub. He has started attacking Church leaders - especially Holland. I am not saying his points have no merit, but I think this is what has brought on this disciplinary hearing.

I don't know that Church leaders are purposefully telling white lies. I think Church members have embellished things throughout the history of the Church, and Church leaders have picked up some of those stories and run with them, when closer investigation may urge greater caution with this approach. We have to realize that Church leaders are really much like us, and depend upon others to tell their stories truthfully. That just is not always the case. Alarson posted this link with some points about the Moyle peg leg story which seems to just poke it full of holes. https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/28/fact-vs-fiction-john-rowe-moyle/ But even here I am depending on this author for the facts as presented without investigating them all for myself. That can be very time consuming. I know. I spend a lot of time chasing down facts. Church leaders don't always have this time. However, in my studies I have often come to the conclusion that I should take stories handed down by Church members with a grain of salt - not just because I think they are embellishing the facts, but because they don't always remember things just like they were said. It's just the nature of our human condition.

I think the Church has been facing a new era of questioning. I view Bill as part of that era. I think the Church has grown a little more tolerant of such, but when it comes to challenging apostles and the first presidency, I don't think the Church has learned much new tolerance, so Bill should not be surprised to find himself in this current state.

These things were foreseen and the day was seen when the ark would need steadying. The Church will survive and grow - just not the way it thought it would.

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding the Fowler Stages of Faith, I've never been fond of that, and very much prefer the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  The Fowler Model strikes me as being concerned with ranking via the conclusions a person comes to, whereas the Perry Scheme focuses on how a person processes information.  That, I think, is more important in the long run, as it is how we process information that defines the long run over time and experience.

I must admit that when I hear Fowler raised, I immediately get suspicious. First off because while Piaget's development theory is at least empirically based, Fowler just adopts it in a fairly acontextual manner and does no empirical testing. That is this is not really psychology and one should at minimum be extremely skeptical of it as a kind of pseudo-science. It's not even clear how one could go about testing Fowler's "theory." Secondly it always seems that those who raise Fowler raise it to justify an allegorical treatment of religion combined with seeing a certain ethical framework as correct (usually held uncritically). That is, despite Fowler not wanting to say the higher stages are "better" those using Fowler tend to think it is and they are more enlightened. Further even just from an internal framework, the very sense of "faith" discussed in the various stages seems to involve lots of equivocation and intentional vagueness.

To see the problem, just shift the topic to something like gravity. We'd think it silly to allegorize gravity while ignoring it's actuality. The question about religion is really just whether it is actual or not. To even raise Fowler presupposes a view of religion as false in any but an allegorical way. There's ways, of course, to make that work. (Mark will undoubtedly raise James and Rorty here) However Mark is sophisticated in this and realizes you can't just have these stages but rather the various discourses have to be hammered out. It's not just a psychological progression through development. This is why the so-called postmodern critiques of Fowler are perhaps the most devastating to his theory. Fowler explicitly decries what he sees as relativism where religious meaning is just in the communities that hold to the religion. i.e. a kind of language game. While he'll embrace some elements of postmodernism effectively he's posed a structure he thinks innate to humans through which all religious conceptions have to be conceived. This in turn presupposes answers to a more 'objective' or 'scientific' question of religious realities. So there's a certain circularity to the conception that presupposes his highest "stage" describes the answers to such questions. The problem is that even at this stage the role of ethics which can't be grounded empirically undermines this very claim.

But the easiest critique is just that as a psychological claim about religious development it is not empirical.

Edited July 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think the Church has been facing a new era of questioning. I view Bill as part of that era. I think the Church has grown a little more tolerant of such, but when it comes to challenging apostles and the first presidency, I don't think the Church has learned much new tolerance, so Bill should not be surprised to find himself in this current state.

Tolerance is accepting other peoples view. When people start trying to tear you down, I'm not sure just setting back is the wisest strategy.

I also don't think there's a "new era of questioning" - maybe in Utah where people could just lay back and not worry. But having grown up in the mission field, all these questions were always raised. You'd always have new members asking tough questions and then deciding whether to stay. When you're a religious minority to convenience of just being Mormon because everyone else is just isn't there. You end up having to find out. When I came to Utah I was frankly pretty shocked that so many people saw all this stuff as  new. None of these questions are new. They were all raised constantly when I was growing up in Nova Scotia.

[Stargazer]

5 hours 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.

My late wife's first husband was excommunicated, but this did not directly cancel their sealing.  That had to be separately done by the president of the church. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the kind of mystery that must always remain.

Perhaps so, but I think we must ultimately understand it fully, if we are granted the privileges of the highest level of the celestial kingdom.

While reading what was written, it suddenly occurred to me that it was probably the achievement of the Atonement itself that gave Him the power to resurrect Himself, and anyone else He chose to resurrect (meaning all of us).  

 

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, Prof said:

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.

Church discipline is mentioned in several places in the scriptures. I’m not sure why you think it isnt

[churchistrue]

59 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I said nothing about the atonement. If Jesus never existed but somehow at some time a role or whatever named Christ did but we can't trust the records explaining what Christ is then good luck to you

That's really dismissive of a perspective of faith that many (millions?) hold and take very sacred.

 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Church discipline is mentioned in several places in the scriptures. I’m not sure why you think it isnt

Blotting out of names from records, for one. This is mentioned several times. 

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Tolerance is accepting other peoples view. When people start trying to tear you down, I'm not sure just setting back is the wisest strategy.

I also don't think there's a "new era of questioning" - maybe in Utah where people could just lay back and not worry. But having grown up in the mission field, all these questions were always raised. You'd always have new members asking tough questions and then deciding whether to stay. When you're a religious minority to convenience of just being Mormon because everyone else is just isn't there. You end up having to find out. When I came to Utah I was frankly pretty shocked that so many people saw all this stuff as  new. None of these questions are new. They were all raised constantly when I was growing up in Nova Scotia.

Are you just trying to make some semantic point? Come on Clark. You don't see a shift in the degree of questioning or even the type? When we were growing up, yes, there were questions bantered about, but there was no internet. I myself didn't learn about Joseph Smith's polygamy for some years after I joined. Now it is essentially common knowledge. Why? Because we have entered a new era. The traditional narrative used to attract visitors has changed. Why? Because we are in a new information era. You even admit as much when you say Utahns saw this stuff as new. Why? Because it is new to them. That is the earmark of this new era of which I speak.

I think US presidents have to have a certain degree of tolerance for criticism. Yet, you say that is not tolerance. Part of the American way is tolerating opinions with which you disagree. Church leaders have traditionally been rather thin skinned imho. I don't go around criticizing them like Bill. I really don't see the point. I think they largely are doing their best. Nor am I saying they need to tolerate Bill Reel. I am just saying probably what happened is with Bill's 2nd attack on Holland, at one of the meetings Holland probably said, let's not put up with this guy anymore. I believe that is the impetus behind all this - right or wrong. If Bill's points about Holland's "facts" and stories have merit, I personally don't see grounds for his excommunication. Do you? I just don't buy the line about not questioning leaders. Nor has the Lord ever taught not to question or challenge leaders. In fact He gave ways to ascertain false prophets.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

That's really dismissive of a perspective of faith that many (millions?) hold and take very sacred.

 

ummmmmmmmmmmmm, tell me of a movement that has possibly millions of followers that has Jesus not existing but they believe in a Christ figure, who or how we know of him/her is dubious as we can't trust records. Tell me that movement. Judaism and Atheists don't fall into those parameters.