Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions

[changed]

Here is another list:
http://www.ldssmile.com/2018/10/05/a-comprehensive-list-of-all-of-the-rumors-about-the-upcoming-general-conference/

 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

1) The EQP already calls and set apart his own teachers and secretary. So, no change there necessary. I actually wouldn't have a problem with the RS president assigning sisters to be teachers, committee members, etc. --- as an assignment. She can't set them apart, though. That crosses the line, with me. That's a bishopric thing.

2) Temple recommend interviews from the EQP and the RSP? No, a million times, no! That is a common judge area, and the fact that this is delegated to counselors in the bishopric doesn't mean that it can be further delegated, in my view. That is *the* primary role of counselors; that's what they're there for. 

3) I'm not sure if you're proposing that the bishop must consult with the EQP and RSP on everything --- even if it's ultimately his decision. If that is what you're suggesting, then I am very much against that, too. That is what being a common judge in Israel means, and there are very good reasons to have that under one head (with counselors, in many cases). This "co-equal" model you speak of --- yuck!

1) Why does a women setting others apart cross the line? They routinely prepare each other for much higher blessings, culmination of which involves an office much higher than anything within a ward. As we move towards the Millennium and into it, I fully expect the roles entailed with this to not only become more explicit, but mandatory. If they routinely prepare and ordain one another to much higher offices, why not lower ones?

2) D&C says a Bishop is a common judge, but it doesn’t say others can’t be. An Elder serving as a branch president is a common judge. A mission president is the common judge of their missionaries’ temple recommends. Stake presidents serve as common judges too. Deborah judged Israel. There’s no limitation or prohibition there. I invite you to find one.

3) The co-equal model, in so far as that is consensus decision making, is how other areas of the church operate. It is how the Quorum of the Twelve operate. I’m not sure how that could be describe as “yuck.”

Asides from decision making authority, I’m further proposing the notion that one day a Bishop may be called to focus mostly on youth and welfare. The EQP would be called to focus on the elevation and worthiness of the Melchezidek Priesthood in the ward, including worthiness interviews. The RSP would function as judges and elevators of the Relief Society.

I believe there to be good justification for all of these things in scripture, and nothing to prohibit it. As I’ve said previously, I think the current local ward model is inspired. I just also think it’s not permanent, as shown by the change to High Priest Group and Elders Quorum, and could evolved further along the lines I’ve proposed.

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, changed said:

Here is another list:
http://www.ldssmile.com/2018/10/05/a-comprehensive-list-of-all-of-the-rumors-about-the-upcoming-general-conference/

 

There were a few in there that I hadn't heard yet.  This weekend is sure to be interesting.

[Scott Lloyd]

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of all these lists. Some of the items strike me as wishful thinking of things some people want to have happen but there is no really compelling reason that they should.

I'm glad the conjecture will be over after this weekend.

 

[halconero]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of all these lists. Some of the items strike me as wishful thinking of things some people want to have happen but there is no really compelling reason that they should.

I'm glad the conjecture will be over after this weekend.

 

Agreed. There’s been 1 or 2 of these that I think are credible. The rest read as wishlists.

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

There were a few in there that I hadn't heard yet.  This weekend is sure to be interesting.

I expect ones no one is thinking about. Some of the changes people want are very superficial.

Id like to see a temple in every stake or something like that. That way we have temples closer to the people

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of all these lists. Some of the items strike me as wishful thinking of things some people want to have happen but there is no really compelling reason that they should.

I'm glad the conjecture will be over after this weekend.

 

Silly Scott. They won’t be over. They will just be projected onto the next conference 

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I expect ones no one is thinking about. Some of the changes people want are very superficial.

Id like to see a temple in every stake or something like that. That way we have temples closer to the people

So my dad shared with me that he lives down the street from someone who was on the committee to select temple sites.  He told my dad to expect 8-10 temples announced each conference for awhile.  My dad tells a lot of stories, but he always has this tone when he is going to pull someone's leg.  He told me this by a family group chat so I don't know if the tone was there or not.

There.  Now I have started a rumor that may or may not come true.  

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

So my dad shared with me that he lives down the street from someone who was on the committee to select temple sites.  He told my dad to expect 8-10 temples announced each conference for awhile.  My dad tells a lot of stories, but he always has this tone when he is going to pull someone's leg.  He told me this by a family group chat so I don't know if the tone was there or not.

There.  Now I have started a rumor that may or may not come true.  

I would love to see a Temple in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. We have a sister missionary here from there and she is a loud person, if nothing else I would love to hear her screaming with excitement in the Chapel!!!!!!!!

[rongo]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

1) Why does a women setting others apart cross the line? They routinely prepare each other for much higher blessings, culmination of which involves an office much higher than anything within a ward. As we move towards the Millennium and into it, I fully expect the roles entailed with this to not only become more explicit, but mandatory. If they routinely prepare and ordain one another to much higher offices, why not lower ones?

2) D&C says a Bishop is a common judge, but it doesn’t say others can’t be. An Elder serving as a branch president is a common judge. A mission president is the common judge of their missionaries’ temple recommends. Stake presidents serve as common judges too. Deborah judged Israel. There’s no limitation or prohibition there. I invite you to find one.

3) The co-equal model, in so far as that is consensus decision making, is how other areas of the church operate. It is how the Quorum of the Twelve operate. I’m not sure how that could be describe as “yuck.”

Asides from decision making authority, I’m further proposing the notion that one day a Bishop may be called to focus mostly on youth and welfare. The EQP would be called to focus on the elevation and worthiness of the Melchezidek Priesthood in the ward, including worthiness interviews. The RSP would function as judges and elevators of the Relief Society.

I believe there to be good justification for all of these things in scripture, and nothing to prohibit it. As I’ve said previously, I think the current local ward model is inspired. I just also think it’s not permanent, as shown by the change to High Priest Group and Elders Quorum, and could evolved further along the lines I’ve proposed.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is beyond the realm of possibility. I don't like it, but there has been movement in this direction. Your thoughts aren't completely out of left field.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I expect ones no one is thinking about. Some of the changes people want are very superficial.

Id like to see a temple in every stake or something like that. That way we have temples closer to the people

In Utah, that would be a temple every few blocks.

I think temples should be more based on distance rather than density, your suggestion being more like within an hour's drive of every center of a stake.

To go that route (have that many)would require probably even smaller temples than the mini temples and have them simplified to not much more expensive than the cost of 4 or 5 chapels at most, imo.  Not inherently a bad thing.  Get away from having decorations, but have nice looking walls and floors with decent soundproofing and comfortable seating.  Some symbolism might have to be edited (simple baptism fonts especially).

[Judd]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

In Utah, that would be a temple every few blocks.

I think temples should be more based on distance rather than density, your suggestion being more like within an hour's drive of every center of a stake.

To go that route (have that many)would require probably even smaller temples than the mini temples and have them simplified to not much more expensive than the cost of 4 or 5 chapels at most, imo.  Not inherently a bad thing.  Get away from having decorations, but have nice looking walls and floors with decent soundproofing and comfortable seating.  Some symbolism might have to be edited (simple baptism fonts especially).

The temple could be moved to a software-based format so there would be no overhead or expansion costs.

[halconero]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

For what it's worth, I don't think this is beyond the realm of possibility. I don't like it, but there has been movement in this direction. Your thoughts aren't completely out of left field.

For sure. Also FWIW I’m not coming at these from a “progressive” mindset. I’m an odd mix of fundamentalism, conservatism, and what’s probably best called “futurism.” I would see these reforms through the lens of returning to previously discarded practices, but also with an eye to the future Church.

[bluebell]

This last session is going to have to be one heck of a wild ride if we are going to get the rest of these changes in before GC is over.   

[Tacenda]

On 10/2/2018 at 5:57 PM, rockpond said:

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.  

Well, I guess 2 out of 6 ain't bad!

I've got to admit, I'm a little disappointed that more changes weren't made. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I guess 2 out of 6 ain't bad!

I've got to admit, I'm a little disappointed that more changes weren't made. 

I’d say 1.5. He said the SLC temple would be renovated but he didn’t say it would be closed for 5 years.  

[bluebell]

I’m wondering how all those missionaries are handling still not knowing where they are going to serve. 

[smac97]

On 10/5/2018 at 1:08 PM, changed said:

Here is another list:
http://www.ldssmile.com/2018/10/05/a-comprehensive-list-of-all-of-the-rumors-about-the-upcoming-general-conference/

This list didn't include the rumor about a 2-hour block, which happened.

As for the others...

1. Mission lengths will become optional for younger missionaries as they are for senior couples. Anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

2. Change to endowment to make it shorter. 

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

3. Word of Wisdom revisions and/or clarification (medical marijuana, caffeine, etc)

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

4. Missionary methods changed (whatever that means)

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

5. Service mission opportunities will be expanded.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

6. Missionary age and length of service will be made the same for both men and women.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

7. Introduction of the new family study curriculum, the new Primary and Gospel Doctrine, “Come Follow Me”.

HAPPENED

8. New missionaries have received letters that they have been called but that the location will not be shared with them until after conference.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

9. Mutual will be convened every other week.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

10. Changes to the third hour to focus more on counseling together. 

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

11. Increased opportunities for youth participation in the temple.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

12. Missionaries will start using their first names so they seem more approachable.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

13. The Proclamation on the Family being canonized. 

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

14. Separating civil marriage from temple sealing.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

15. A lot of new temples that will be announced at conference.

HAPPENED

16. Sacrament meeting talks, including fast and testimony meeting, will be eliminated.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

17. The simplification of sacrament meetings

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

18. The Living Christ being canonized.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

19. Casual clothes for missionaries.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

20. All stake auxiliary callings will be eliminated.

DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

So basically wrong on almost everything

[Judd]

10 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So basically wrong on almost everything

Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them, both of the chapel Mormons and also of the internet Mormons, and began to depend upon their own strength and upon their own wisdom, saying:

Some things Bill may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.

And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying:

That it is not reasonable that such a being as Bill shall know the truth; if so, and he have a source, the mole in the CoB, as it has been spoken, why will he not name him unto us as well as unto them who shall be paying for his podcast?

Edited October 7, 2018 by Judd

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Judd said:

That it is not reasonable that such a being as Bill shall know the truth; if so, and he have a source, the mole in the CoB, as it has been spoken, why will he not name him unto us as well as unto them who shall be paying for his podcast?

It is interesting that he had the prediction of a renovations for the SL temple (even though the 5-yr length wasn’t specifics) since that was not a prediction I heard/read from anyone else.  While it could have been a good guess it does make me think that he might know someone on the inside with some limited access.  Perhaps everything on his list was discussed at some point (doesn’t mean they’ll all happen). 

In any case, if Reel does have a mole in the COB, it’s obvious why he wouldn’t identify him. 

And Reel’s podcast is available for free.  (There are some “premium” episodes available early to paid subscribers, but after a few weeks those become free to download as well.)  The “predictions” episode being discussed on this thread was a free episode available to all. 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/5/2018 at 9:54 AM, halconero said:

Scripture is scripture, and the definition of common judge in there is not so wide sweeping as you’ve made it here. I’m fine with a Bishop remaining the sole head of disciplinary measures. The structure of wards, wherein a Bishop heads them, is a good model, one I believe to be inspired, but nowhere can I find something that says it can’t be changed.

By co-equal I mean that a Bishop, Relief Society President, and Elders Quorum President share the repsonsibilities, knowledge, and make decisions by consensus. This is similar to how the Quorum of the Twelve functions. Yes, there is one presiding, but decisions made there are done by unanimity.

Here’s the thing regarding the interviews and functions you’ve mentioned: many are alreay shared, and known by more than just the Bishop. Councillors to the Bishop routinely conduct temple recommend interviews, extend callings, and set people apart. 

Nor am I suggesting that one person be given “signing authority” along with three others. Many of the problems you mention arise when each of the three people I mentioned act independently. That’s not what I’m proposing, and many of the problems you’ve mentioned are eliminated by governing via consensus.

In many Bishoprics and High Councils, assignments are delegated out. Essentially what I’m proposing is giving the EQ and RS president a greater role than they have now by enabling them to conduct calling interviews (which they already do for callings within their own Quorums and auxiliaries), do temple recommend interviews (already a duty shared with councillors), and perhaps more roles in governing tne Melchezidek Priesthood and Women of the ward. It’s not about downgrading the Bishop. It’s about elevating the others, something for which I believe there to be a case in scripture and discourses pertaining to their structre and purpose in both scripture and discourses of the early church.

I don’t think the current model is wrong. I think it is inspired. I’m fine if it stays that way. I also think it could be reformed and adapted to the capacities and needs of the Saints, and for which there is much justification. 

I was a bishop for 5 years and on the High Council for 4 years before I was a bishop and now for 7 years since I was a bishop

It operates as I said.  It will not change.

The others are not set apart for these functions- it would require major church doctrinal changes.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/5/2018 at 10:08 AM, rongo said:

1) The EQP already calls and set apart his own teachers and secretary. So, no change there necessary. I actually wouldn't have a problem with the RS president assigning sisters to be teachers, committee members, etc. --- as an assignment. She can't set them apart, though. That crosses the line, with me. That's a bishopric thing.

2) Temple recommend interviews from the EQP and the RSP? No, a million times, no! That is a common judge area, and the fact that this is delegated to counselors in the bishopric doesn't mean that it can be further delegated, in my view. That is *the* primary role of counselors; that's what they're there for. 

3) I'm not sure if you're proposing that the bishop must consult with the EQP and RSP on everything --- even if it's ultimately his decision. If that is what you're suggesting, then I am very much against that, too. That is what being a common judge in Israel means, and there are very good reasons to have that under one head (with counselors, in many cases). This "co-equal" model you speak of --- yuck!

Yep.  THIS.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/5/2018 at 5:23 PM, Rain said:

So my dad shared with me that he lives down the street from someone who was on the committee to select temple sites.  He told my dad to expect 8-10 temples announced each conference for awhile.  My dad tells a lot of stories, but he always has this tone when he is going to pull someone's leg.  He told me this by a family group chat so I don't know if the tone was there or not.

There.  Now I have started a rumor that may or may not come true.  

12

Not a bad guess

[halconero]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was a bishop for 5 years and on the High Council for 4 years before I was a bishop and now for 7 years since I was a bishop

It operates as I said.  It will not change.

The others are not set apart for these functions- it would require major church doctrinal changes.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make listing your experience.

Wards aren’t the products of doctrine. They’re based off Nauvoo voting districts. There’s nothing doctrinal that would have to change to change how a ward functions.

As I previously pointed out, Elders serve as common judges in areas where they’re called as branch presidents. Mission presidents are set apart as common judges for their missionaries. Stake presidents are called as common judges for their endowed adult members. None of this you’ll find spelled out in scripture. All of it I sustain, but also recognize it may be changes at the discretion of the First Presidency and the Twelve. I strongly disagree that it would require the major “doctrinal” changes you assert.

Your argument mostly boils down to “I don’t like this, and I was a bishop, so my experience backs me up.” That’s fine if you don’t like it. That still doesn’t make it doctrinally impossible, and all of the precedents for female judges, non-bishop common judges, and governance by consent is already there in other callings and councils in the church.

Edited October 8, 2018 by halconero