Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Prof]

18 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

Perhaps I should say it isn't discussed with the specificity that I think it might need. Examples:

Is disfellowship mentioned?

What sins require discipline? How has that list changed over time?

Who administers discipline? In a reference in another thread, it was noted that the congregation, not the bishop, decided on excommunication in the early days of the church.

So perhaps I was hoping for more of a description of the mechanics of church discipline in the scriptures.

And I will be the first to admit I am not a scriptural scholar and am open to correction.

[ALarson]

53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

Interesting.....thanks!!!

[smac97]

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 not seen in scripture?  Not codified?  How do you account for these:

• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 20:80 - "Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Mosiah 26:36 - "And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• Alma 5:58 - "For the names of the righteous shall be written in the book of life, and unto them will I grant an inheritance at my right hand."
• Alma 6:3 - "And it also came to pass that whosoever did belong to the church that did not repent of their wickedness and humble themselves before God—I mean those who were lifted up in the pride of their hearts—the same were rejected, and their names were blotted out, that their names were not numbered among those of the righteous."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
• 3 Nephi 18:39-32 - "For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.  Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.  But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.  Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them."
• 2 Thes. 3:6 - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
• Exodus 32:33 - "Whosoever hath sinned … will I blot out of my book."

I could make this list even longer (considerably), but I think the point is made.

The scriptures are shot through with the concept of accountability, with references to individuals having their names written in the "book of life" (or their names being "blotted out"), with references to individuals being "cut off" for refusing to repent, and on and on and on.

These are all expressions of the concept of "discipline" in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Church discipline is not seen in scripture?  Not codified?  How do you account for these:

• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 20:80 - "Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Mosiah 26:36 - "And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• Alma 5:58 - "For the names of the righteous shall be written in the book of life, and unto them will I grant an inheritance at my right hand."
• Alma 6:3 - "And it also came to pass that whosoever did belong to the church that did not repent of their wickedness and humble themselves before God—I mean those who were lifted up in the pride of their hearts—the same were rejected, and their names were blotted out, that their names were not numbered among those of the righteous."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
• 3 Nephi 18:39-32 - "For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.  Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.  But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.  Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them."
• 2 Thes. 3:6 - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
• Exodus 32:33 - "Whosoever hath sinned … will I blot out of my book."

I could make this list even longer (considerably), but I think the point is made.

The scriptures are shot through with the concept of accountability, with references to individuals having their names written in the "book of life" (or their names being "blotted out"), with references to individuals being "cut off" for refusing to repent, and on and on and on.

These are all expressions of the concept of "discipline" in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would add that Mosiah 26 and at least one section on conducting a trial though the number escapes me at the moment.

the Bible also instructs leaders to prevent members from taking the sacrament unworthily

[churchistrue]

37 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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. 

The most liberal branches of Mainline Christianity which is sure to number in the millions.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/30/2018 at 3:27 PM, stemelbow said:

The Church pretends the truth matters.  THat's the point of confusion.  As it is the Church is far less about what is true and far more about control.  

Cognitive Dissonance is MO in Faith/Religion business...One has to be good at compartmentalizing the reality/facts/beliefs.

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Atheist Mormon said:

Cognitive Dissonance is MO in Faith/Religion business...One has to be good at compartmentalizing the reality/facts/beliefs.

“Compartmentalize” is probably viewed by some as a negative word.

But, it’s a good word to describe how some active LDS historians view their faith. While I can’t quote it, didn’t Steven Harper describe his faith in that way?  He separates his study of history from his religious experience.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

“Compartmentalize” is probably viewed by some as a negative word.

But, it’s a good word to describe how some active LDS historians view their faith. While I can’t quote it, didn’t Steven Harper describe his faith in that way?  He separates his study of history from his religious experience.

Scientists do it all the time -- it's discipline.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

The most liberal branches of Mainline Christianity which is sure to number in the millions.

I highly doubt that. I seriously doubt I could walk up to someone who claims they are "liberal" and they say that they believe in Christ but say Jesus never existed and don't trust anything that says anything about Christ. How else would they know about Christ if they don't trust the records? Most would say Jesus existed but aren't sure who he was or embrace his divine sonship but say he was adopting of every lifestyle and belief. One famous Canadian Minister said that Jesus was a "street smart socialist" but would agree he existed as a real figure in human history.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Cognitive Dissonance is MO in Faith/Religion business...One has to be good at compartmentalizing the reality/facts/beliefs.

That has not been my experience.  With some very few exceptions, I have never felt a need to "compartmentalize" reality/facts from "belief."

Belief that God exists?  Yes, I can do that.

Belief that God has certain attributes?  Yes.

Belief that God has a relationship with and plan for us?  Yes.

Belief that Jesus Christ is at the center of this plan?  Yes.

Belief that God communicates with us collectively through prophets, and individually through the Spirit?  Yes.

Belief that "authority" to speak/act on behalf of God, to have a measure of his power delegated to us?  Yes.

And on and on and on.

Granted, there are some items that I have left in the "Not Sure How This Fits Into the Grand Scheme of Things" category.  But I have had several experiences in which these items have moved out of that category (through study, prayer, etc.).  This category will never be vacant, though.  Not in this life.  But I'm okay with that.

I also have some items that are in the "I Don't We Have Sufficient Light and Knowledge About This" category.  Again, I have had several experiences with moving items out of this category.  And this category will never been vacant, either.  I'm okay with that, too.

In the main, however, I am quite comfortable in moving through life with the set of beliefs / values / ethics / responsibilities that I derive from the Restored Gospel.  In the end, it's very much a matter of faith.  But the longer I go, the more I experience, the more I study and learn, the more I am persuaded of the truthfulness of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I highly doubt that. I seriously doubt I could walk up to someone who claims they are "liberal" and they say that they believe in Christ but say Jesus never existed and don't trust anything that says anything about Christ. How else would they know about Christ if they don't trust the records? Most would say Jesus existed but aren't sure who he was or embrace his divine sonship but say he was adopting of every lifestyle and belief. One famous Canadian Minister said that Jesus was a "street smart socialist" but would agree he existed as a real figure in human history.

OK, my bad. I thought we were talking about what I think is Bill's belief and which is a somewhat common liberal Mainline Protestant view that Jesus is a historical figure and that much of the gospels are reasonably accurate, especially Mark, but that some of the supernatural stuff like the virgin birth and empty tomb were later add ons and historically spurious. I agree it's a pretty wild accusation to claim Jesus never even existed, and I wouldn't expect such a person to likely be a Christian. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I highly doubt that. I seriously doubt I could walk up to someone who claims they are "liberal" and they say that they believe in Christ but say Jesus never existed and don't trust anything that says anything about Christ. How else would they know about Christ if they don't trust the records? Most would say Jesus existed but aren't sure who he was or embrace his divine sonship but say he was adopting of every lifestyle and belief. One famous Canadian Minister said that Jesus was a "street smart socialist" but would agree he existed as a real figure in human history.

So you are saying you doubt that Bill exists?  

Kind of funny flip on things.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

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:

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.

Pointing out an error made by another is not done to point out someone's faults.  We should without concern be able to point out errors as they come and go.  The defensiveness on this stuff is perhaps the most troubling aspect, if you ask me.  

The problem tends to be the leaders can hide behind mistakes because members get all worked up and angry when and if someone points out the mistakes.   He who points out the mistake get's tossed out for trying to figure out truth.  It's just all very silly.  

[SouthernMo]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Scientists do it all the time -- it's discipline.

Sure. I’m not opposed to compartmentalizing.  It has helped me in some cases.

I’m merely pointing out that when we do compartmentalize (if we can agree on what that word connotates), we acknowledge that it’s what we’re doing. Namely, we refuse to acknowledge one set of experiences in one environment while dealing with other experiences in another environment.

But, if we believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, then perhaps we need to look for bridges between our experiences, and practice faith (withhold judgment) in those cases when those experiences aren’t at first reconcilable.

[Atheist Mormon]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That has not been my experience.  With some very few exceptions, I have never felt a need to "compartmentalize" reality/facts from "belief."

Belief that God exists?  Yes, I can do that.

Belief that God has certain attributes?  Yes.

Belief that God has a relationship with and plan for us?  Yes.

Belief that Jesus Christ is at the center of this plan?  Yes.

Belief that God communicates with us collectively through prophets, and individually through the Spirit?  Yes.

Belief that "authority" to speak/act on behalf of God, to have a measure of his power delegated to us?  Yes.

And on and on and on.

Granted, there are some items that I have left in the "Not Sure How This Fits Into the Grand Scheme of Things" category.  But I have had several experiences in which these items have moved out of that category (through study, prayer, etc.).  This category will never be vacant, though.  Not in this life.  But I'm okay with that.

I also have some items that are in the "I Don't We Have Sufficient Light and Knowledge About This" category.  Again, I have had several experiences with moving items out of this category.  And this category will never been vacant, either.  I'm okay with that, too.

In the main, however, I am quite comfortable in moving through life with the set of beliefs / values / ethics / responsibilities that I derive from the Restored Gospel.  In the end, it's very much a matter of faith.  But the longer I go, the more I experience, the more I study and learn, the more I am persuaded of the truthfulness of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, just because you believe existence of these beings they do not turn into reality except with the boundaries of your skull which holds your Grey matter. I would love to second you on any point you wrote. The fact is I can't....Nobody seen or verified those entities. I encounter many good people like you they talk the power of prayers/God...... I would love to experience myself yet I never did. Sorry for being/appearing negative. Thanks for tolerating me.

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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

You know. I am really starting to laugh at all these things. Outside of the Mountain west and a few apologists, nobody in the world pays any attention to things like this. Ask your average person in Dallas or New York or anywhere else and if they even know what a Mormon is, they would think its funny that people fight about stuff like this. Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

You know. I am really starting to laugh at all these things. Outside of the Mountain west and a few apologists, nobody in the world pays any attention to things like this. Ask your average person in Dallas or New York or anywhere else and if they even know what a Mormon is, they would think its funny that people fight about stuff like this. Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

Sam Young is doing his darndest to get people in Houston to be mad at the Church. Maybe the numbers out in Dallas might start ticking upwards . . . 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Smac, just because you believe existence of these beings they do not turn into reality except with the boundaries of your skull which holds your Grey matter.

I acknowledge that.  God's existence is a reality, or not, regardless of my personal beliefs on the matter.

My point, however, is that I am a reasonably intelligent and well-educated person, and that with some few exceptions, I do need to "compartmentalize" my faith from my perception of "reality."  The two go hand in hand really well.  So I don't struggle with "cognitive dissonance" (a buzzword that gets thrown around way too often, IMO).  

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I would love to second you on any point you wrote. The fact is I can't....Nobody seen or verified those entities.

I acknowledge that.  While I have substantial evidence exists for the existence of God, His dealings with us, the divinity of His Son, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, etc., I also do not find these evidences to be definitive.  There is plenty of room for differing perspectives and interpretations and conclusions.

I am quite at ease with God not being empirically "verified."  That I "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7) makes the journey so much more meaningful to me.  It's not a blind faith.  Nor is it a faith borne of ignorance and superstition, nor is it borne of social/cultural/familial expectations and mandates.  It's simpler than that.  I choose to believe.  And from that choice flow behaviors that I seek to make congruent with the choice.  And a consequence of those congruent beliefs and behaviors, I have received what I think are blessings from God.  These blessings includes assurances.  Promptings.  Guidance.  Moral clarity.  Purpose.  Mandates.

The Restored Gospel works for me.  Very well.  No need to pound the proverbial square peg into a round hole.  It works.  Lots of effort and patience.  Lots of help from other people (my wife, my parents, my in-laws, my children, my friends, etc.).

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I encounter many good people like you they talk the power of prayers/God...... I would love to experience myself yet I never did. Sorry for being/appearing negative. Thanks for tolerating me.

I hope you give it another try.  I wish you the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 hours 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.

 

It is how one labels things that matters, imo.  One can talk about behaviours without horrific, inflammatory labeling....especially when it is debatable what the intent of the behaviour is.

For example, one can point to abuse cases and discuss how the Church can do better to prevent these.  A label of "abusive" as an institution along with a picture of a beaten face is unnecessary and inflammatory, shifting the discussion not into productive avenues of change, but defensive discussing the labeling.

Quote

the penalty from the church is the same

The Church can only go so far to penalize.  It cannot jail people, it cannot make them pay fines.  When the upper limit is removing people from the community, this will need to include any of those who act to the extent of fully breaking the covenant or rejecting it no matter how they do so.  

An analogy would be a university.  Someone who cheats on an exam will be kicked out along with rapists, embezzlers, and murderers (one hopes).  Should the university not expel the cheater because the strongest penalty they are allowed to invoke is already being used for horrific crimes?  Or should the university expel the cheater because that is what they deserve and what the university needs to protect the value of its degree.

Further greater penalties for the rapists, embezzlers, and murderers or adultery in the case of the Church is the responsibility of the greater culture or God if the culture chooses to not accept that responsibility or is unable to act because of its own limits (level of evidence required or technicalities of law intended to protect the vulnerable).

And blogging that results in spiritual doubt among the members of a faith community with the potential of spiritual self destructive behaviours is not a minor thing, imo.  Spiritual pain and suffering is still pain and can leave scars and crippling of the soul from what I have seen, whether it is the heartbreak of a loved one or the pain of the one who has lost faith.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

23 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

A number of posts have been written about this since I started on here months ago, but it’s important to me to point out:

Those members who believe and claim things of Mormonism are black and white, believing and not believing push people out.  If you believe your interpretation to be correct, and want to be an effective missionary to your faith, don’t make those of us who are ‘grey’, ‘doubting’, ‘searching’, or some other ‘in between’ adjective feel like we don’t belong in the LDS church.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Sure. I’m not opposed to compartmentalizing.  It has helped me in some cases.

I’m merely pointing out that when we do compartmentalize (if we can agree on what that word connotates), we acknowledge that it’s what we’re doing. Namely, we refuse to acknowledge one set of experiences in one environment while dealing with other experiences in another environment.

But, if we believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, then perhaps we need to look for bridges between our experiences, and practice faith (withhold judgment) in those cases when those experiences aren’t at first reconcilable.

I thought I was agreeing with you  ...

As a psychological term, compartmentalizing is subconscious, but I’m talking about an intentional focus on two conflicting things between oneself. But as a subconscious defense mechanism, I can hardly acknowledge it is happening except in an academic sense, which comes close to having faith that I compartmentalize because I sense no personal, internal conflict between a scientific and a scriptural truth. Does that make faith the bridge between the two, or does it establish that in fact I am compartmentalizing?

Setting aside the subconscious aspect, I don’t think it is necessary (internally at least) to refuse to acknowledge one set of experiences in one environment while dealing with other experiences in another environment. In working with others, yes of course we have to cooperate for the greater good, but after a while people get to know each other and what is going on with them internally. Often the Spirit provides insight for secular pursuits while secular discovery has significant metaphorical applications.

I’m all for withholding judgment in any case!

[Jeanne]

What would be fascinating and somewhat meaningful...would be to say "either you're a believing member or you're not and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life"..as a beginning or ending of a sacrament meeting or testimony meeting...how many ward members would take this as an invitation to walk away?  There is no real black and white in the mormon church...they are so confused.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Jeanne

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So you are saying you doubt that Bill exists?  

Kind of funny flip on things.

Who can be sure of anything, check out his podcasts!

[Calm]

6 hours 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? 

Discussing the inaccuracies of Elder Holland or anyone else's comments can be done in this type of intelligent, nonaccusatory style.  This is a great example of a productive and effective discussion, imo.  No inflammatory pictures or labels appealed to.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

You don't need the internet to get these raised. When I was on my mission at the end of the 80's people would mysteriously show up with pamphlets that'd go through most of these elements and give them to my investigators. If they'd made it to the third discussion and had had a spiritual experience the anti-Mormon stuff would strengthen, not weaken them. If it came before the third discussion they'd usually not want us to keep teaching. 

I'm surprised you think this is new. Out in the mission field it wasn't hard to find anti-Mormon stuff that went through all this with mined quotes and the like. What's new since the 80's is the larger number of naturalistic/atheistic critiques using higher criticism or the like. But most Evangelical, Baptist or other conservative Protestant had the Tanner's writings and other anti-Mormon stuff based upon it. Heck, the most controversial stuff - polyandry or young marriages - was brought up by Fawn Brodie in the 40's and her book is typically one of the few books on Mormonism at any library.

So what is it that you think is so new? As I said, out in the mission field, everyone I knew regularly encountered this stuff.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

Again if you went outside of the Utah corridor this was common knowledge. Seriously, it just was. I can't speak to what you encountered, but all my friends from the east had encountered this. I don't know how one could go on an American/Canadian mission without encountering it. Did you never encounter any anti-Mormon materials? Heck, where I grew up you couldn't even ride the bus regularly without encountering some Chick comic book versions of anti-Mormon stuff.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think US presidents have to have a certain degree of tolerance for criticism. Yet, you say that is not tolerance.

That's a bad example since Presidents hit back on such criticisms via surrogates. I'm not sure you can watch cable news without encountering that. It was just as true of Bush, Obama and Clinton as it is Trump. (Well Bush was pretty bad at it, but it still happened)

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Church leaders have traditionally been rather thin skinned imho.

Honestly I'm constantly shocked at the amount of stuff they put up with. There are places where I think things became counterproductive as perhaps the so called September Six. But even there I think there was a point to it all.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

Do you see no distinction between questioning leaders and attacking them?

I'm fine with questioning and challenging. I do that myself quite regularly. I can't speak for Bill Reel since I've just not listened to him, but I can definitely think of other figures where that line has been crossed. At a certain point of teaching false doctrine or attempting to disrupt the organization you excommunicate to indicate to people that they are really far out of line. The people usually still criticize. (Look at John Dehlin or others) Yet it's a sign of what is or isn't acceptable.

Now clearly you think it should be acceptable. That's fine. I don't think any organization can handle that level of disruption from within. Ignoring religion for a second, this is just a normal aspect of group dynamics and policing of boundaries. It's hard to keep group cohesion without addressing these issues. Otherwise you end up with factionalism and the group collapses.

Edited July 31, 2018 by clarkgoble