Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[flameburns623]

6 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So Church leadership isn't happy with his tone?  If he asked his questions publicly, in a polite manner, would he face excommunication?

If the Church is true, does it matter if Bill Reel questions the truth claims, regardless of tone?

Do you know of any specific events that caused the Church to want to excommunicate Bill besides Bill openly questions and accuses leaders? 

Review this thread.  Much of it discusses the reasons leading to Bill's excommunication. 

I have been Facebook friends with Bill Reel for nigh on two years. It has been obvious to me for many months that unless Bill left of his own accord,  he was being confrontational enough to expect to eventually be excommunicated. 

I believe that he knew this as well.

In the Radio Free Mormon podcast,  he indicated that calling Elder Jeffery Holland a "liar" would likely be the final straw.  

If Bill had continued in the vein of a serious seeker, respectfully asking questions but not blithely accepting "just any" answer, no matter how strained or impractical,  he might still have faced Church discipline,  but it might have taken longer.

Or not: Gina Colvin is now also facing a Disciplinary Council,  so the Church may feel this is a good time to tamp down on overt dissent.  

I don't like what is happening to Bill,  but I am unsurprised by it. 

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, flameburns623 said:

Review this thread.  Much of it discusses the reasons leading to Bill's excommunication. 

I have been Facebook friends with Bill Reel for nigh on two years. It has been obvious to me for many months that unless Bill left of his own accord,  he was being confrontational enough to expect to eventually be excommunicated. 

I believe that he knew this as well.

In the Radio Free Mormon podcast,  he indicated that calling Elder Jeffery Holland a "liar" would likely be the final straw.  

If Bill had continued in the vein of a serious seeker, respectfully asking questions but not blithely accepting "just any" answer, no matter how strained or impractical,  he might still have faced Church discipline,  but it might have taken longer.

Or not: Gina Colvin is now also facing a Disciplinary Council,  so the Church may feel this is a good time to tamp down on overt dissent.  

I don't like what is happening to Bill,  but I am unsurprised by it. 

I agree with your reasons for Bill's potential excommunication.  I believe the Church is fighting very hard to silent these squeaky wheels.  Gina Colvin (never heard of Gina) is up next.  The Church is definitely thinking they can tamp down on dissent, but they're wrong.  The voices are getting louder and the Church is having a hard time providing answers, so they choose to excommunicate instead.

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bill wasn’t even correct on that one. The Church History Department has two similar copies with the same page dog-eared. But as was pointed out in a subsequent clarification, Elder Holland was indeed holding up the right book.

Do you have a reference for this clarification?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

I agree with your reasons for Bill's potential excommunication.  I believe the Church is fighting very hard to silent these squeaky wheels.  Gina Colvin (never heard of Gina) is up next.  The Church is definitely thinking they can tamp down on dissent, but they're wrong.  The voices are getting louder and the Church is having a hard time providing answers, so they choose to excommunicate instead.

As mentioned before in another thread I believe, considering how excommunication has never silenced this type of dissenter, why do you assume leadership is doing this to silence them?

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Do you have a reference for this clarification?

Here is a description of the book itself:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705335296/A-chain-of-testimony-1841-copy-of-Book-of-Mormon-stays-preserved.html

Quote

In his note on the back cover, Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum's son who would later become president of the church, said his father took the book from a shelf two or three days before going to Carthage and read the marked passages on the day of his departure.

The second book was owned by Bathsheba Smith, George Smith's wife and had her named inscribed on the front.  It is lighter in color and lacks the notes at the back, I believe. There is no explanation as why this should be the accepted copy of the dog eared claim (so it might be an oral tradition or just a mixup) while the book Holland used has such a description in the book itself. Claims have been made it is the original dog eared by Hyrum, but it makes more sense it was the copy eventually in possession of his son with the note identifying it as that one as opposed to a cousin's wife which only possesses a dog ear on the same page, imo (the dog ear could have been a result of hearing Hyrum had done it in the other copy, for example.  And I believe the church historians make it clear in the above why it makes sense to believe the Bathsheba book is misidentified.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/09/news-of-the-church/church-receives-george-a-and-bathsheba-smith-artifacts?lang=eng

I get a blank page when attempting to access the church news article, so I can't comment on that.  I assume it is similar to the liahona article.

There is no mention of the alleged experience in Bathsheba's diary, I believe.

https://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/BWSmith.html

I think it is likely once the two books' claims were made known to the church historians, efforts would be made to find out which had better provenance, so I trust 2009 report more solely for that reason and then there is the inscription by his son relating the story, making it pretty slam dunked.

Since Holland got the book from the Church historians and they would have provided info or the other book if they believed it was the correct one, it baffles me that anyone would view this as a lie by Holland.  At most a possible mistake by the Church historians in the unlikely event the Bathsheba book is the correct one, but should he be faulted for believing the professionals?  

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Rivers]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here is a description of the book itself:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705335296/A-chain-of-testimony-1841-copy-of-Book-of-Mormon-stays-preserved.html

Interesting.  So how exactly did Bro. Reel come to believe that this is not the right book?  

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Rivers

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

I believe the Church is fighting very hard to silent [sic] these squeaky wheels.

As I posted elsewhere earlier today, this claim has become a favourite meme of critics and apostates alike, uncritically repeated because it plays right into a number of popular stereotypes, including the fantasy that the Church of Jesus Christ is (or at least aspires to be) a tyrannical mediaeval theocracy that cuts the tongues from its critics' mouths. This, of course, is useful for framing critics as courageous victims, extraordinary men and women who dare speak truth to corrupt power.

If it were based even remotely on truth, Church leaders would be even more stupid than your average Scooby Doo villain. I mean, they've been excommunicating people since the 1830s, and not once has it resulted in silence. Fools!

In reality, more often than not those who find themselves in this situation are far more like the loud and boorish uncle who repeatedly picks fights with nearly everyone at the family Christmas gathering, comments on how fat his sister-in-law has got, asks his 30-year-old unmarried nephew if he's figured out why the ladies are repulsed by him, announces loudly to everyone that he'll cook the prawns next time so that they're not so rubbery, and finally tells the host of the luncheon that it's been the worst Christmas ever. Some of the kids no doubt laugh at his antics, and some of the teens egg him on, but in the end, when someone finally has the good sense to invite him to go home and enjoy a much-needed Christmas nap, nearly everyone is relieved (and feels guilty about it), and the uncle gets to go to work the following Monday and tell the lads what complete ratbags his family are for having given him the toss on Christmas Day.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Interesting.  So how exactly did Bro. Reel come to believe that this is not the right book?  

 

As far as I can tell, when Elder Holland held it up, someone noticed the differences to the Bathsheba book in October 2009. Perhaps they remembered the 2007 Church News article, perhaps it had been on display? There were various posts and the Salamander Society was one of those who put the comparative pictures up with a link to the 2007 account on Oct 6, 2009.  Two days later, DN put up the clarification, but it is not referenced in any update of the SS article.  Reel references this article in his 2018 Liar podcast summary, but has no mention in his references of the DN article.  If he researched it himself, I find it highly unlikely he would have missed the DN article, so it seems most likely he simply relied on the SS source.

Since Reel indicates he first started to talk with Elder Holland in 2012, he likely came across the claim long after the Deseret News clarification was available, so problematic on many levels for someone who claims to be so well informed.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I get a blank page when attempting to access the church news article, so I can't comment on that.  I assume it is similar to the liahona article.

You can access the Church News article in the Deseret News here. It appears to be identical to the Liahona one. Clearly Church historians had done a better job of figuring out the provenance of both books between 2007 and 2009. Considering that both are in the possession of the Church, the idea that Elder Holland chose to lie by holding up the wrong book is risible. What would have been the benefit?

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Two days later, DN put up the clarification, but it is not referenced in any update of the SS article.  Reel references this article in his 2018 Liar podcast summary, but has no mention in his references of the DN article.  If he researched it himself, I find it highly unlikely he would have missed the DN article, so it seems most likely he simply relied on the SS source.

Which just goes to show that he does, indeed, know more about Church history than 99.9 per cent of members and definitely backs up everything he says with data ... 

[Calm]

Looks like Reel rationalizes away the historians' descriptions.  Guess it is easier for him to believe professionals would risk their reputation rather than it be admitted two books got mixed up.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70656-elder-holland-and-double-digit-stake-creation-weekly/?do=findComment&comment=1209825689

Personally, I believe those in actual possession of the books rather than those making guesses from photos.

The above post is in June 2018, haven't read it all to see if Reel explains how he became aware of the DN article, but as far as I can tell he becomes aware of it in that thread.

What I find very problematic is that there is no reference to this article on his summary page, just the Salamnder Society page attacking the veracity, pictures from the conference talk, and the conference talk itself.

How is this not "hiding" (in the sense critics use against the Church when info is left out) information he is aware of that challenges his claims?

Quote

1.) Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read.  The problem is that the copy Elder Holland holds up in his hand at General conference is distinctly different from the copy in the Church History department claimed to be the same book.
RESOURCES:
– https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickleus/sets/72157623567278714/
– Safety for the Soul conference Talk
– http://www.salamandersociety.com/foyer/prophets/jeffreyrholland/

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/10/mormon-discussion-premium-elder-holland-liar-liar-pants-on-fire/

The first comment on the page is June 11 and there was no date at the beginning of the podcast, so I can't tell if Reel posted the thread after posting the podcast or before he put it up.

It was apparently made public in October, that would have been a good time to add additional crucial references to the discussion like the DN article.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You can access the Church News article in the Deseret News here. It appears to be identical to the Liahona one. Clearly Church historians had done a better job of figuring out the provenance of both books between 2007 and 2009. Considering that both are in the possession of the Church, the idea that Elder Holland chose to lie by holding up the wrong book is risible. What would have been the benefit?

Iirc, the 2007 article gives no indication of how the story was attached to the book or verified.  Otoh, the DN article goes into great detail and it can only be dismissed by claiming the historians and whoever collected the photographs are lying.

Reel for some unstated reason gives preference to the Bathsheba claim, but appears to be misrepresenting what the historians are claiming....which is the turning down of the Bathsheba edge occurred when they heard the story of Hyrum, not that Hyrum did it in multiple books (he may be referencing others' speculation, but makes most sense to me tostick with the professionals familiar with both books....plus the post was in direct response to the DN article, so the challenge he makes is inappropriate anyway).

Quote

I await it more information that actually gives someone enough info to be able to discern that there is actually more than one copy that seems to be involved in the same chain of events (read by hyrum on the day he and Joseph are taken to Carthage along with having the same corner of the page turned down)

Quote

In the front cover are the names of those who have owned the book since it was printed in Liverpool, England, in 1841. On one side of the back cover, there are signatures of LDS Church leaders, including Heber J. Grant, James E. Talmage and Orson F. Whitney. On the other is an account written by Hyrum's son, Joseph F. Smith, of his father's last days.

Inside the book, page 610 remains as marked by Hyrum Smith the day he and Joseph Smith left for Carthage Jail, where they would later be shot and killed by a mob. In his note on the back cover, Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum's son who would later become president of the church, said his father took the book from a shelf two or three days before going to Carthage and read the marked passages on the day of his departure....

Church historians assume the book was brought back by one of the apostles and given to Hyrum Smith. It eventually ended up in the possession of Mercy Thompson, the sister of Hyrum Smith's wife, Mary Fielding Smith. Members of Thompson's family kept the book until 1944, adding to its value by making it an "autograph volume of church dignitaries," Turley said.

"Unless these volumes are placed in institutions, they start deteriorating and can be lost," he said. "The family decided this artifact was too important to keep in their personal collection."

While its historical significance adds to its value, Turley said there is a second volume the church owns that is "almost identical." The book's original owners even bent the same page after hearing the Hyrum Smith story.

Compared to

Quote

Bathsheba's copy of the Book of Mormon was the one that Hyrum Smith read shortly before the martyrdom, with the corner of the page still turned down, as mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 135:4. By then an apostle, Elder Smith bought the book in England where it was printed. It is embossed in her maiden name. He had met Bathsheba and stayed at her home on an earlier mission in 1837. He was there when she was baptized at age 15, and the 20-year-old "made provisional arrangements ... the Almighty preserving us, in three years from that time, we would be married." At that location, he also preached a two-and-a-half-hour sermon just to outlast hecklers. (From Biography of George A. Smith by Preston Nibley.)

Is the story of Bathsheba's book from the reference or is that only dealing with George's life?  Anyone have the book accessible?

Which provenance discussion would a professional find more credible?  I doubt the fact a claim was published just two years early without any detail explaining the how and whys would impress them.

And why not just ignore the attacks rather than put historians and reporters reputations online by lying by falsifying pictures and claims?

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Also Reel claims the book Elder Holland holds is in near mint condition and doesn't match the DN article pictures if I understand his comment correctly, but the pictures in the conference talk he links to himself show a book with worn edges, not near mint as claimed. The spine of the book which is the part seen in the pulpit picture is in impressively good condition, but the front corners of the same book are well worn.  It is not two different books as he seems to be implying or outright saying, have to go check and will lose post if I don't save now.

from link above:

Quote

1.) Show pictures of the outside of the book so one can compare with the one Holland is holding.  The one he is holding appears to be in near mint condition.  The one opened in the photos seems to have a worn and tattered edge from the little that can be seen.  In otherwords the images seem to indicate still this copy being different from the one Holland held and I see no evidence other than all of us making assumptions that two copies exist and that either copy is the copy Holland is holding. 

If you look at the front edges of the opened books from the DN article and the conference pictures, the wear pattern is the same.  The conference pictures/video also show the book being closed and the spine matches the look of the book in Holland's hands, imo.

If you don't want to use the stills Reel links to himself, then view the conference video with the video that starts showing the spine of the book at 6:45.  It has the same parentheses around Moroni that the book in the DN pictures has aswell.  At about 7:15 you can see the worn front corners opposite the spine.

It is bizarre to claim it is a different copy.  The book Holland holds is consistent with the one in the conference video, nice spine but other edges worn...which book is identical to the DN pictures (Moroni pen markings).  

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Looks like the Nibley biography was named "Sharing the Gospel with Others".  Anyone have that?  Not in google books.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Looks like the Nibley biography was named "Sharing the Gospel with Others".  Anyone have that?  Not in google books.

I have it! what are you looking for? it has no mention of Bathsheba Smith

Edited November 28, 2018 by Duncan

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have it! what are you looking for? it has no mention of Bathsheba Smith

That is what I was looking for.  The Church News therefore repeats the claim but provides no reference for it to check its provenance.  Why this claim should be given preference is beyond me.

Thanks, all loose ends possible to be tidied up are tidied up, imo.

Well, lost the restless legs an hour or two back, so back to sleep.  Research is the best medicine.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is bizarre to claim it is a different copy.

The whole episode is beyond bizarre. Even if there were any truth to Mr Reel's claims, what would be the point? There is simply no logical reason for Elder Holland to have intentionally held up the wrong book. We're looking at a man who has some deep psychological need to catch an apostle in a lie. When contrary evidence is provided to him, he finds it 'inconclusive'. And behind all of this is the question why anyone would choose to perpetrate such a lie when the Church has both books in its possession. It's a walk in Bizarroland.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

As far as I can tell, when Elder Holland held it up, someone noticed the differences to the Bathsheba book in October 2009. Perhaps they remembered the 2007 Church News article, perhaps it had been on display? There were various posts and the Salamander Society was one of those who put the comparative pictures up with a link to the 2007 account on Oct 6, 2009.  Two days later, DN put up the clarification, but it is not referenced in any update of the SS article.  Reel references this article in his 2018 Liar podcast summary, but has no mention in his references of the DN article.  If he researched it himself, I find it highly unlikely he would have missed the DN article, so it seems most likely he simply relied on the SS source.

Since Reel indicates he first started to talk with Elder Holland in 2012, he likely came across the claim long after the Deseret News clarification was available, so problematic on many levels for someone who claims to be so well informed.

So there is a wife of Hyrum named Bathsheba?  I’m confused. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, lostindc said:

What are the reasons for excommunicating Bill?  

I would say based on his 28 weird statements that he will be exed for wanting to preach his apostasy in Church.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So there is a wife of Hyrum named Bathsheba?  I’m confused. 

He didn't, he married Jerusha, Mercy and Mary Fielding and a lady named Catherine Phillips

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He didn't, he married Jerusha, Mercy and Mary Fielding and a lady named Catherine Phillips

@Calm referred to a Bathsheba (and Calm usually* has her facts right) so I'm wondering who that is.

*Possibly "always".

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He didn't, he married Jerusha, Mercy and Mary Fielding and a lady named Catherine Phillips

Also, Lydia Dibble Granger.  I believe he was sealed to her on the same day he was sealed to Catherine (if not, at least the same month).

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would say based on his 28 weird statements that he will be exed for wanting to preach his apostasy in Church.

He hasn't been attending church, so I don't think that's it.

Personally, I think it is his very public criticisms of church leadership that is the primary driver of this excommunication. 

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Personally, I think it is his very public criticisms of church leadership that is the primary driver of this excommunication. 

I think thats is it as well, which I think anyone woukd expect to happen. For it has been sad watching Bill's evolution as it were over the years, and David Bokovy.

Edited November 28, 2018 by provoman

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

@Calm referred to a Bathsheba (and Calm usually* has her facts right) so I'm wondering who that is.

*Possibly "always".

I think it has to do with the book provenance, not who he married but I bow in the presence of Calm for correction!

[smac97]

According to Bill Reel, the five "lies" told by Elder Holland are:

1. The Hyrum/Bathsheba Smith Copy of The Book of Mormon.

"Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read.  The problem is that the copy Elder Holland holds up in his hand at General conference is distinctly different from the copy in the Church History department claimed to be the same book."

So far, it appears from the evidence that Elder Holland was holding the correct copy (as opposed to another, similar-looking one).  And if he was not, it was seemingly an inconsequential error, and was not an effort to deceive (as Hamba and Calm have pointed out, there would be no point to such a deception, as the Church owns both copies).

So it appears that Elder Holland was correct on this point.

EDIT TO ADD: And Bill Reel doesn't even get the name right.  Hyrum Smith was never married to Bathsheba.  Hat tip to Duncan for noting this one.

2. Elder Holland's Statement Regarding the Church Not Contributing Money to the Prop 8 Campaign.

"Elder Holland when asked about the Church’s contribution to Prop 8 says that the Church did not give “One Red Cent” to the fight against Same Sex Marriage in California.  Problem is it gave a reported amount of almost $200,000.  Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."

Even Bill Reel hedges his bets here.  He presents a source, the ever-pleasant Fred Karger, who posits that the Church made "non-monetary" contributions to the Prop 8 effort.  Reel's other citations (here, here and here) do not seem to include any evidence of monetary contributions to Prop 8 by the Church.  This last link references an article in the Wall Street Journal "claim[ing] that the LDS Church provided volunteers and financial donations to the campaign."  I can't access the article itself, as it is behind a paywall.  However, various websites that quote from it appear indicate that it was individual members of the Church, not the Church itself, that donated to Prop 8 (see, e.g., here).

The point at issue arose during a Q&A session with Elder Holland at Harvard University, where a student had the following exchange with him (starting at about 25:45) (emphases added):

Quote

Student: So my question is a bit of a follow up to the prior question about gender.

Elder Holland: Okay.

Student: And also, in your response to that, you mentioned that the Church is an apolitical organization...

Elder Holland: Well, institutionally, yeah.

Student: The caveat that it's apolitical with regards to...

Elder Holland: We'll take a stand on moral issues, but we try to stay out of anything that's just traditionally political.  

Student: Okay.  So that actually sort of leads to my question, which is could you elaborate on the instances in which the Church will take a political stand...

Elder Holland: Yeah.

Student: ...and what immediately comes to mind is the often-cited, sort of, material impact the Church had on the passage of Proposition 8...

Elder Holland: Prop 8.  Let's use that example.

Student: And then also, sort of, how whatever that political and would be, would be squared with the notion that, for instance, Americans' ability to have people exercise their beliefs...

Elder Holland: Sure.  Yeah.

Student: ...really actually led to the ability of the Church to bloom in the way...

Elder Holland: Sure.  Good point.  First of all, let me work backwards.  All we asked in Proposition 8 was the right to exercise our vote.  We just asked for religious privilege to cast a vote.  We did not want to be disenfranchised.  Institutionally, not a single dollar, not one red cent of money from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went into Proposition 8, or any other comparable proposition that I know of.  Now, a lot of Latter-day Saints got involved.  And a lot of Latter-day Saints, particularly in California, donated their own time and money to do it.  So I'm not being coy, I'm not dodging the fact that there was a terrific involvement, and a fairly heavy price to pay.  People being fired from their jobs, and people being blackballed in services that they had rendered and were no longer asked to render, and so forth.  But that's okay, that's the price you pay for lively democracy.  So we choose very carefully what we choose those moral issues to be, and we saw that as a moral issue.  We saw that not as a political issue, and never ever did we say that somebody could not express his or her vote in a contrary way.  Nobody was blocking the ballot box, nobody was slashing tires, you know, as you approach the precinct.  I'd really be disappointed if something thought there was some kind of effort to deny somebody their free exercise.  But again, all we were asking for is the chance to have our free exercise, and some seem to think that was not right.  That we ought to sit down and shut up.  And we sit down and shut up quite a bit, but on some things, on that one, we chose to be a little more vocal, a little more visible.  And by "we," I just emphasize totally that this is a voluntary lay participation, with no money and with no formalization institutionally.  But something we all cared about.  I'm not minimizing that we cared about it.  And we've taken issue on gambling, we've been quite visible when legislation comes along to put casinos in places, and various kinds of gambling.  That flops over from political to moral for us, so we've been kind of visible on that.  We have this quirky, quirky to you, this health code where we see some of the damage that comes from alcohol and drugs and whatever, and so we're pretty visible about that.  That doesn't tend to get down to legislation as much as we're just kind of vocal about it.  We talk about the damage that it does to homes and families, and parents and kids.  So yeah, there aren't a lof of them, but where we have them, we haven't been shy, and we hope it's always appropriate.  We hope it's always allowing everybody else exactly what we're asking for, and that's the freedom to express an opinion, and cast a vote, and we'll all go wherever democracy takes us.  But we do feel pretty obligated to stand up for what we believe, then you kind of let the chips fall where they may.  

As I read this, Elder Holland seemed to be taking pains to be accurate and forthcoming.  And he succeeded in both.  As far as I am aware, the institutional Church did not donate money to Prop 8, though members did.

As I said above, even Bill Reel hedges his bets on this one: "Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."

Um, no, Bill.  No loophole.  The difference between monetary and non-monetary contributions is not mere "rhetoric."  Elder Holland stated that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  AFAICS, Elder Holland was correct on this point.

3. Elder Holland's Story about a Missionary who Found his Brother.

"Elder Holland tells a faith promoting story about a missionary who out on his mission is led by the spirit to his older brother who had severed his relationship with his family years earlier.   Elder Holland had told this story for years and other General Authorities before him had shared it.    The problem is the story was a false faith promoting narrative.  Each telling contained different contradicting details and too far fetched too believe of a story-line.  Soon after the Deseret News picked up on the story, the far fetched details began to be questioned by critical thinking Mormons and Elder Holland through the Deseret News and Church PR quickly distanced himself from the story.  But even his side of how he came to learn the story was inaccurate is problematic."

As we have seen in this thread, it appears Elder Holland disavowed this story when he learned of its inaccuracy/falsity (in contrast with, say, Bill Reel, who seems to have not retracted any of his calumnies which have been proven incorrect).

4. Elder Holland's Statement about an Element of the Temple Ceremony.

"Elder Holland when asked directly whether Mitt Romney would have made penalty oaths in the temple answers NO.  Problem, such is a flat out lie."

This claim arises from an interview of Elder Holland with a British journalist.  I can't provide the link, as I think it hews close to getting into temple content, but in the video Elder Holland admits that the temple ceremony previously had a oath that is no longer part of the ceremony.  He does say that it is "not true" that Mitt Romney "would have" taken this oath, as "we do not have penalties in the temple."  The journalist then states "You used to," and Elder Holland says "We used to."  The journalist then characterizes the previous vow in a particular way, and Elder Holland clarifies/corrects that characterization.  The journalist then introduces another not-altogether-accurate characterization of the oath, and Elder Holland again corrects/clarifies the issue.

So in this one Elder Holland is not entirely forthcoming, and understandably so.  He's being asked about some very sacred things.  And yet, in my view, he is still startlingly frank.  So accusing him of purveying a "flat out lie" is, I think, overwrought and unfair.

5. Elder Holland's Statement about the Number of Stakes Being Created.

"Elder Holland in a Regional meeting claims that the Church is growing in such a rate that it is creating Double Digit NEW Stake creation “every week of our lives”.  The Problem is that the Church every year tells us the number of stakes in the Church at year end of the previous year.  Elder Holland made this claim in early 2015 And from 2015 through 2017 the church consistently averaged 1.6 new stakes per week.  This makes a fifth lie with this one being deeply demonstrable."

This blog article has some interesting points to make regarding Elder Holland's statement (from an April 2016 devotional):

Quote

LDS apostle Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was recently quoted in a meeting with young single adults in the Dallas area in regards to unprecedented growth in the number of new stake creations. This meeting occurred last Sunday, April 24th. A video of the conference can be found here. Elder Holland begins to discuss stake growth around 54 minutes into the video. Here are some quotes that I found particularly interesting:

• "[Growth] is the single greatest problem we have."
•  "We are reeling under the implications of the growth that we have in this Church."
•  "A week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes...the week before it was 12." [in reference to temple meetings at Church Headquarters]
• "We are talking about double-digit stakes every week of our lives."
• "It is like a bucking bronco."
• "In the middle of all that occasionally, rarely...we dissolve a stake. That is so unusual..it doesn't happen very often."

When I first watched this video, I first thought that Elder Holland was reporting that 12 new stakes were created on April 10th and 15 new stakes were created on April 17th. However, after reviewing the video it appears that he is referring to meetings to approve new stakes in the coming months.

...

I have made previous posts on this blog regarding accelerating stake growth in 2016. So far I have confirmed 27 new stakes that have been created in 2016 with an additional seven stakes that will be created or that may have already been created. To put this into perspective, the Church has reported an average net increase of 47 stakes within the past 10 years. If the Church were to organize at least 10 new stakes every weekend for the rest of 2016 (excluding the weekend of the October 2016 General Conference, the month of July when few, if any, new stakes are organized, and the last two weekends of the year), the Church would organize an additional 280 stakes during 2016 for a grand total of over 300 new stakes for the entire year. If this were to occur, it would be twice the Church's previous record for the most new stakes organized in a single year set back in 1996 when 148 new stakes were organized. I can verify from my own research that the process of discontinuing stakes is unusual for the Church as a whole (aside from the early 2000s when dozens of stakes were discontinued in Latin America). The Church has discontinued an average of 4.5 stakes a year since 2008.

The creation of new wards and branches has slightly accelerated thus far in 2016, with an average of nearly 14 new wards or branches organized a week. However, the rate of wards and branches being discontinued appears to have slightly increased as approximately seven wards or branches have been discontinued a week. New wards and branch creations have occurred all over the world, but mostly in the United States, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Nearly all wards and branches discontinued thus far in 2016 have been in the United States and Latin America.

I am not sure if Elder Holland's comments on "double-digit stakes every week of our lives" means that this will literally happen or be consistent (even though he uses the word "every" in the comment). He acknowledges in the video that the rate of stake creations frequently fluctuates. 

With that context, let's take a look at the specific statement from Elder Holland, which I think deserves some fleshing out:

Quote

We're in the midst of incredible growth, staggering growth in the Church.  It's the single biggest problem we have.  It's the best problem we could have, but it's the biggest.  We are reeling under the implications of the growth we have in this Church.  ... A week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes, and we're doing that mas o manos [Spanish for "more or less"] every week, more or less.  It might not be 15, the week before it was 12.  Sometimes it's 8, or whatever, and it'll be a little uneven.  But the point is, I mean we're talking about double digit stakes every week, every week of our lives.  So be it.  We're creating new missions...

From the tone and content of Elder Holland's remarks (particularly with him prefacing his statement about growth with "we are reeling under the implications of the growth we have in this Church"), I took his remark about "double digit stakes" to be partly, perhaps even mostly, prospective.  That is, I took his remarks as saying that the Church is growing constantly ("We're in the midst of incredible growth, staggering growth ... it's the biggest problem we have..."), sometimes - though certainly not always - to the point of us having double digit stake creation in a single week ("a week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes ... the week before it was 12 ... sometimes it's 8, or whatever, and it'll be a little uneven"), but that the leaders of the Church are anticipating ("talking about") future growth ("the implications of the growth we have in this Church") that could end up with consistent double digit creation of stakes on a weekly basis ("double digit stakes every week, every week of our lives").

I get that Bill Reel has latched on to a decontextualized portion of Elder Holland's remarks ("A week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes, and we're doing that mas o manos [Spanish for 'more or less'] every week, more or less"), but Elder Holland is plainly talking about creating stakes in a broad sense, that is, on a regular/weekly basis.  Elder Holland was plainly not claiming that we have consistent double digit stake creation now ("sometimes it's 8, or whatever, and it'll be a little uneven").

So it appears that Elder Holland was substantially correct on this point.

Bill Reel's claims do not seem to be holding up well under scrutiny.

FWIW, it appears that Elder Holland has some grounds for optimism.  Conversion rates have slowed considerably, but I'm not sure this is an entirely bad thing.  We've had tremendous growth for the past several decades.  Perhaps we need time to stop and catch our breath, and also strengthen those who are already in the Church.  Is that happening?  Apparently so:

Quote

There are several bright spots in the report, despite the big picture of reduced growth. Martinich highlighted four major positive developments:

1) More stakes were created. “Stake growth continues to be a lot higher than in the last decade or so,” says Martinich. “And that’s encouraging.” How is that possible, if new wards and branches aren’t being created? Martinich says the answer lies in a more robust activity rate among people who are already members. “For example, in the last 10 years, sacrament meeting attendance in the Philippines has increased by about 50%, from about 100,000 to about 150,000,” he said. “Granted, activity rates there are still only around 25%, but still, that explains why we are seeing new temples and missions in the Philippines.” Another possible reason for the creation of new stakes is that some stakes are now smaller than they used to be, with fewer local units.

2) Missionaries are coming from all over the world, not just the United States and Canada. In Central America, according to Martinich’s research, the number of local members serving full-time missions in the last 10 years has nearly doubled. So too the number of Central American couples that are sealed to each other in the temple. “Remember, these are areas that supposedly have the lowest activity rates in the world, and they are also areas where raw number growth and congregational growth has been very slow,” Martinich said. But missionary service and temple marriages are not captured in the raw numbers of the Church’s annual statistical report.

3) Wards are getting stronger abroad. It used to be that “there was a huge disparity between how large the congregations were in the U.S. compared to around the world,” said Martinich. In the last 5 to 10 years, however, “in most countries with the largest church memberships, the congregations there now are about as large as congregations in the U.S.” This is another sign of vitality that’s not reflected in the statistical report.

4) West Africa is a source of robust growth. Nations such as Liberia and Nigeria are “driving a lot of” the growth the Church is experiencing.

We clearly have a lot of work to do.  And we have a lot of room to improve, too.  But increasing activity rates, particularly abroad, is a wonderful thing.  The Church in America has long been the strength of the Church (in terms of activity, inter-generational membership, missionary numbers, financial contributions, etc.).  I think it's wonderful to see the Church strengthening in other countries.

Diversifying the missionary force is a wonderful thing.  As a missionary in Taiwan, I was occasionally discouraged at the ineffeciencies inherent to missionary work performed mostly by young Americans who were struggling to learn Mandarin Chinese, figure out the culture and customs and traditions of Taiwan, and so on.  Native Taiwanese Elders and Sisters had an obvious advantage on this points, but there were simply not enough of them.  It is thrilling, then, to contemplate missionary work being performed more and more by native missionaries to their own peoples (such as is apparently happening with increasing frequency in Central America).

The Church is growing in Africa.  I've never been a fan of group guilt, but at the same time I appreciate and understand (as best as I can) the resentments and hard feelings that have long festered against us as pertaining to the Priesthood Ban, as well as various racially-disparaging justifications for it.  So we struggle with making inroads with African Americans.  However, the Church in Africa is growing well.  My parents are currently serving a mission in Zimbabwe.  The economy there is in shambles.  They had a coup d'état just last year.  The people there are enduring very difficult times.  And yet my parents are sending us stories about the wonderful people there, and the positive effects and blessings that the Restored Gospel has on the lives of these people.  The growth of the membership with our black brothers and sisters is a wonderful thing.  Perhaps in time we can find ways to replicate it with our black brothers and sisters who live outside of Africa.

Anyhoo, getting back to Bill Reel.  I think his accusations against Elder Holland are either outright false or else substantially exaggerated/overwrought.  I do not feel that Bill Reel's characterizations of Elder Holland's statements have been honest or fair or accurate.  The irony of that is . . . significant.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2018 by smac97