Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions

[rockpond]

Bill Reel released a new episode of his Mormon Discussions Podcast yesterday (10/1/18) that gives six predictions for general conference. 

1. Lowering the age for sisters to serve missions (to 18) and allowing them for serve for 24 months. 

2. The two-hour block. 

3.  Removing the one year waiting period between a civil marriage and a temple sealing. 

4.  Changing the “requirement” of wearing garments to only when you are doing temple work. 

5.  Creation of a short endowment ceremony, under an hour, that cuts out the video segments. 

6.  Long term (5 year) closure of the Salt Lake Temple for major renovations.  Reel specifically put forward this one as a test of his source.  He said that the source that gave him the above items said that the SL Temple closure was discussed in the same meetings as the other items above. 

He isn’t necessarily saying that all six items will happen in this conference, just that they are all being discussed among the Brethren.  

[rongo]

I'm calling baloney on this. Especially #s 4 and 5. I think he's just swapping wild online rumors, same as we are, except he's claiming an embedded mole. 

I could see a renovation of Salt Lake, but five years? 

The whole point of the endowment is teaching and learning, and to get rid of the drama portion to have "just the basics and get 'em out of there" . . . I'm not buying it. We're not pressed for time in getting ordinances done. They're for us right now. 

The garments one is absurd. That would be a seismic shift in understanding of the purpose and nature of garments. 

#3 is the most plausible, but I doubt anyone has any insider knowledge. We're all just wishful thinking, mixed with common sense, on that one.

#2 (2 hour block) is the lowest hanging fruit of the rumors. I doubt it, and I doubt it will happen this week.

#1 I think sisters will be left at 19. I could see elders reverting back to 19, but there would be logistical problems. I hope that one is true. For the same reason many are mulling over a bump back to 19, I can't see sisters being put at 18. I think/hope both will be at 19, to encourage a year of school and work. 

I think Bill's just trying to stay relevant in a fast-changing cycle industry (podcasting), and I think this is what will accelerate things with his demise with the Church. He's circling the Sam Young black hole, and will start doing zany things to get more and more attention. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by rongo

[Hamba Tuhan]

Cultivating access to 'inside intel' seems increasingly important to securing one's status in the apostate/progressive sphere. I find that alone interesting.

By the way, why did you leave off Bill's predictions that missionaries will no longer serve outside their home nations and that temple recommend interviews are going to be watered down?

[rongo]

Reel's list also acts as though the Brethren are simply reading online Mormon message boards and listening to podcasts, and being driven by the percolating topics and issues in what changes they are discussing in their "situation room." It's ludicrous. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm calling baloney on this. Especially #s 4 and 5. I think he's just swapping wild online rumors, same as we are, except he's claiming an embedded mole. 

I could see a renovation of Salt Lake, but five years? 

The whole point of the endowment is teaching and learning, and to get rid of the drama portion to have "just the basics and get 'em out of there" . . . I'm not buying it. We're not pressed for time in getting ordinances done. They're for us right now. 

The garments one is absurd. That would be a seismic shift in understanding of the purpose and nature of garments. 

#3 is the most plausible, but I doubt anyone has any insider knowledge. We're all just wishful thinking, mixed with common sense, on that one.

#2 (2 hour block) is the lowest hanging fruit of the rumors. I doubt it, and I doubt it will happen this week.

#1 I think sisters will be left at 19. I could see elders reverting back to 19, but there would be logistical problems. I hope that one is true. For the same reason many are mulling over a bump back to 19, I can't see sisters being put at 18. I think/hope both will be at 19, to encourage a year of school and work. 

I think Bill's just trying to stay relevant in a fast-changing cycle industry (podcasting), and I think this is what will accelerate things with his demise with the Church. He's circling the Sam Young black hole, and will start doing zany things to get more and more attention. 

I could see #1 (sisters can serve at 18 and be out 24 months) happening... it helps remedy the decline in number of missionaries.  I don’t see them bumping young men back to 19 because it could further lower the number of missionaries and I don’t think they want that.  Leaving at 18 is a big help to young men in some countries.  That said, I’m with you in hoping that more of our young men will wait til 19. 

With respect to #4, Reel cites a story from Devry Anderson’s book on development of LDS temple worship that this garment idea came close to being implemented by Joseph F Smith. 

And, I agree that five years seems way too long to need to close the SL temple.  Unless they are gonna tear it down and rebuild it, I can’t see why they would need that long. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

By the way, why did you leave off Bill's predictions that missionaries will no longer serve outside their home nations and that temple recommend interviews are going to be watered down?

Those were not mentioned in the podcast. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Reel's list also acts as though the Brethren are simply reading online Mormon message boards and listening to podcasts, and being driven by the percolating topics and issues in what changes they are discussing in their "situation room." It's ludicrous. 

I agree.  I got the feeling that’s exactly why he added number 6 as the “test” of his source.  

[rongo]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Cultivating access to 'inside intel' seems increasingly important to securing one's status in the apostate/progressive sphere. I find that alone interesting.

By the way, why did you leave off Bill's predictions that missionaries will no longer serve outside their home nations and that temple recommend interviews are going to be watered down?

Did he predict those, too? Missionary work would collapse outside of North America without North Americans abroad. My parents' missions in Poland and the Czech Republic with only Czech and Polish missionaries? Even Brazil with only Brazilians is problematic. How many of the 50,000-60,000 missionaries are American? How many are natives? How many are needed per mission? It's absurd. 

Watering down the TR interview is just wishful thinking. Reel's list is just intended to stir the pot, and if/when none of it happens, he will just say, "I didn't say they would all happen right away. Just that my mole says that they are under hot discussion among the Brethren." Which he can milk indefinitely. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those were not mentioned in the podcast. 

 

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Did he predict those, too?

Yes. As I've expressed dozens of times before, I'm fiercely anti-podcast, so I just had a look at his Facebook post regarding the podcast. That's where I took them from.

ETA: They're listed on the podcast page as well.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I could see #1 (sisters can serve at 18 and be out 24 months) happening... it helps remedy the decline in number of missionaries.  I don’t see them bumping young men back to 19 because it could further lower the number of missionaries and I don’t think they want that.  Leaving at 18 is a big help to young men in some countries.  That said, I’m with you in hoping that more of our young men will wait til 19. 

Young men in those countries have always been able to leave at 18. I think putting both men and women at 19 and having both serve 24 months would be great. Women are marrying later, anyway ---- six months isn't going to make or break their prospects. I just can't see them raising it to 19 for men again, for the reasons you cited. You would have a year with a precipitous drop in the missionaries we are accustomed to getting. 

With respect to #4, Reel cites a story from Devry Anderson’s book on development of LDS temple worship that this garment idea came close to being implemented by Joseph F Smith.

Oh, well then, if J.F. Smith considered it over 100 years ago, per Devry Anderson . . .  Seriously ---- look at specifically how the garment is explained in the temple, and how it is explained in the TR interview. Especially the items within the last 8 years or so (supplemental statement, with the update further specifying). To simply abandon that and make it "optional" except for in the temple? Absurd.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes. As I've expressed dozens of times before, I'm fiercely anti-podcast, so I just had a look at his Facebook post regarding the podcast. That's where I took them from.

What a clown. He's just trolling for short-lived clicks, listens, and attention. He's going to erode what credibility he has for some by crying wolf in an attempt to get attention. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Young men in those countries have always been able to leave at 18.

Actually, that's a pretty recent development, too. We had an Elder who served in our ward five years ago, and he said they introduced the age change for his homeland right before his mission started. To him it was a miracle since he'd been told in answer to prayer that he'd be serving a mission at 18 and therefore needed to prepare, so he did so, wondering what it all meant, and then the announcement was made in his home nation.

ETA: My guess, by the way, is that watching the success of these younger missionaries from around the world (the Elder I mentioned above is still a legend in our ward) possibly prompted the change to go global.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm calling baloney on this. Especially #s 4 and 5. I think he's just swapping wild online rumors, same as we are, except he's claiming an embedded mole. 

I could see a renovation of Salt Lake, but five years? 

The whole point of the endowment is teaching and learning, and to get rid of the drama portion to have "just the basics and get 'em out of there" . . . I'm not buying it. We're not pressed for time in getting ordinances done. They're for us right now. 

The garments one is absurd. That would be a seismic shift in understanding of the purpose and nature of garments. 

#3 is the most plausible, but I doubt anyone has any insider knowledge. We're all just wishful thinking, mixed with common sense, on that one.

#2 (2 hour block) is the lowest hanging fruit of the rumors. I doubt it, and I doubt it will happen this week.

#1 I think sisters will be left at 19. I could see elders reverting back to 19, but there would be logistical problems. I hope that one is true. For the same reason many are mulling over a bump back to 19, I can't see sisters being put at 18. I think/hope both will be at 19, to encourage a year of school and work. 

I think Bill's just trying to stay relevant in a fast-changing cycle industry (podcasting), and I think this is what will accelerate things with his demise with the Church. He's circling the Sam Young black hole, and will start doing zany things to get more and more attention. 

And we should hold his feet to the fire on these, just to show how wacko he has become.

It was a foolish move on his part and a perfect test of his waning credibility.

The fact is that the church is full of very conservative people, and too many changes even if they're for the better will become a major test of leadership for those folks.

Even if all the changes are perfectly God's will, making them all at once could really lead to losing people.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  I got the feeling that’s exactly why he added number 6 as the “test” of his source.  

In my experience discussion in a meeting is one thing and anything actually happening from the discussion is another VERY different thing.

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

Young men in those countries have always been able to leave at 18. I think putting both men and women at 19 and having both serve 24 months would be great. Women are marrying later, anyway ---- six months isn't going to make or break their prospects. I just can't see them raising it to 19 for men again, for the reasons you cited. You would have a year with a precipitous drop in the missionaries we are accustomed to getting. 

 

 

Oh, well then, if J.F. Smith considered it over 100 years ago, per Devry Anderson . . .  Seriously ---- look at specifically how the garment is explained in the temple, and how it is explained in the TR interview. Especially the items within the last 8 years or so (supplemental statement, with the update further specifying). To simply abandon that and make it "optional" except for in the temple? Absurd.

Better yet listen to the words of the initiatory ceremony when one first has a garment authorized.  Something about "throughout your life" and finishing your work on earth, as I recall.

But I'm sure he will show up here eventually and start fudging immediately.

Edited October 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Rivers]

Is Bill Reel still a member of the church?

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Is Bill Reel still a member of the church?

I think we'd all know if he weren't.

[JAHS]

1. Lowering the age for sisters to serve missions (to 18) and allowing them for serve for 24 months. 
Lowering age doubtful. Better to keep them older than the elders.   Increasing to 24 months maybe.

2. The two-hour block.
Possible 

3.  Removing the one year waiting period between a civil marriage and a temple sealing. 
Possible, but that would make a lot of people upset who did wait. Why is it OK now but not OK a year ago?

4.  Changing the “requirement” of wearing garments to only when you are doing temple work. 
Never.

5.  Creation of a short endowment ceremony, under an hour, that cuts out the video segments. 
Possible on shortening it, not so sure on what would be cut out.

6.  Long term (5 year) closure of the Salt Lake Temple for major renovations.  
It might need it eventually.

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm calling baloney on this. Especially #s 4 and 5. I think he's just swapping wild online rumors, same as we are, except he's claiming an embedded mole. 

I could see a renovation of Salt Lake, but five years? 

The whole point of the endowment is teaching and learning, and to get rid of the drama portion to have "just the basics and get 'em out of there" . . . I'm not buying it. We're not pressed for time in getting ordinances done. They're for us right now. 

The garments one is absurd. That would be a seismic shift in understanding of the purpose and nature of garments. 

#3 is the most plausible, but I doubt anyone has any insider knowledge. We're all just wishful thinking, mixed with common sense, on that one.

#2 (2 hour block) is the lowest hanging fruit of the rumors. I doubt it, and I doubt it will happen this week.

#1 I think sisters will be left at 19. I could see elders reverting back to 19, but there would be logistical problems. I hope that one is true. For the same reason many are mulling over a bump back to 19, I can't see sisters being put at 18. I think/hope both will be at 19, to encourage a year of school and work. 

I think Bill's just trying to stay relevant in a fast-changing cycle industry (podcasting), and I think this is what will accelerate things with his demise with the Church. He's circling the Sam Young black hole, and will start doing zany things to get more and more attention. 

My question to many on this board, is what would you do if these things happen, could you still stay fully believing? Actually, let me add one more, that is going around the rumour mill. The fact that the church is softening towards believing the BoM isn't historical. Now, if anyone dare, what would this do to your belief in the LDS church?

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My question to many on this board, is what would you do if these things happen, could you still stay fully believing? Actually, let me add one more, that is going around the rumour mill. The fact that the church is softening towards believing the BoM isn't historical. Now, if anyone dare, what would this do to your belief in the LDS church?

Sure, I would remain a full believer, even if all of these happened. With respect to getting rid of belief in the Book of Mormon, I and my family would continue to believe it is historical, and think that the Brethren had just caved to the shifting sands of social change (and that God had allowed them to do this without micromanaging them). I do think such a thing would be approaching the "God will never allow them to lead the church astray" red line, but it wouldn't affect me. I would keep the fire of faith burning on the altar of my heart and my belief.

I'm amazed that some on the fringes seriously think the Brethren are heading towards getting rid of historicity. What in the world are they seeing that hints at that? The Brethren we have are more conservative and "fundamentalist" in this regard than ever, starting at the top. This is also lunacy, that is nothing more than people on the fringe or already gone projecting their views onto the Church. It will never happen. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by rongo

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Young men in those countries have always been able to leave at 18. I think putting both men and women at 19 and having both serve 24 months would be great. Women are marrying later, anyway ---- six months isn't going to make or break their prospects. I just can't see them raising it to 19 for men again, for the reasons you cited. You would have a year with a precipitous drop in the missionaries we are accustomed to getting. 

 

 

Oh, well then, if J.F. Smith considered it over 100 years ago, per Devry Anderson . . .  Seriously ---- look at specifically how the garment is explained in the temple, and how it is explained in the TR interview. Especially the items within the last 8 years or so (supplemental statement, with the update further specifying). To simply abandon that and make it "optional" except for in the temple? Absurd.

I agree. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My question to many on this board, is what would you do if these things happen, could you still stay fully believing? Actually, let me add one more, that is going around the rumour mill. The fact that the church is softening towards believing the BoM isn't historical. Now, if anyone dare, what would this do to your belief in the LDS church?

I would always stay fully believing. I trust the revelation our prophets receive for what we need in our time. Things like calling the Book of Mormon non-historical simply isn't going to happen. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

In my experience discussion in a meeting is one thing and anything actually happening from the discussion is another VERY different thing.

Agreed.  I made the point in another thread here regarding all the reports that the 2-hour block was being tested out in certain areas... a test can return a positive result OR a negative one.  Performing the test doesn’t mean the change is imminent. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

1. Lowering the age for sisters to serve missions (to 18) and allowing them for serve for 24 months. 
Lowering age doubtful. Better to keep them older than the elders.   Increasing to 24 months maybe.

2. The two-hour block.
Possible 

3.  Removing the one year waiting period between a civil marriage and a temple sealing. 
Possible, but that would make a lot of people upset who did wait. Why is it OK now but not OK a year ago?

4.  Changing the “requirement” of wearing garments to only when you are doing temple work. 
Never.

5.  Creation of a short endowment ceremony, under an hour, that cuts out the video segments. 
Possible on shortening it, not so sure on what would be cut out.

6.  Long term (5 year) closure of the Salt Lake Temple for major renovations.  
It might need it eventually.

 

I agree with your estimations above. And I'll add something to #3. I thought in the podcast Bill said that they would do away with temple marriage at all in the temple, just have it be sealings. And I thought that a little farfetched. But maybe not, since then they don't have to worry about being sued or having their tax exemption taken away for not allowing gay marriage in the temple, since it's only a sealing. Maybe they're thinking way ahead into the future. Also, since many countries outside the US only allow public marriages, then I believe it's very plausible to take away the one year waiting period for all.

 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure, I would remain a full believer, even if all of these happened. With respect to getting rid of belief in the Book of Mormon, I and my family would continue to believe it is historical, and think that the Brethren had just caved to the shifting sands of social change (and that God had allowed them to do this without micromanaging them). I do think such a thing would be approaching the "God will never allow them to lead the church astray" red line, but it wouldn't affect me. I would keep the fire of faith burning on the altar of my hear and my belief.

I'm amazed that some on the fringes seriously think the Brethren are heading towards getting rid of historicity. What in the world are they seeing that hints at that? The Brethren we have are more conservative and "fundamentalist" in this regard than ever, starting at the top. This is also lunacy, that is nothing more than people on the fringe or already gone projecting their views onto the Church. It will never happen. 

I thought there were a few LDS scholars heading that way, but maybe I'm wrong about that. But thanks for your honesty Rongo, I like how plain spoken and honest you are, even pointing out the flaws of the church when you see them.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Tacenda