Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it was in one of Smac’s links that he mentioned “the Big List” as a common form of attack on the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I found this insightful commentary from Jeff Lindsay on the FairMormon site about the Big-List mode of attack. The whole thing is worth a read, but here’s an excerpt:

“As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it’s time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.”  

Here’s the URL: 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/author/jeff-lindsay

Many challenging issues about the Church can be framed (and usually are by folks like Jeremy Runnells and Bill Reel) as a series of fairly short questions that typically demand long answers.  But understanding the context of the issues, and addressing assumptions underlying each "question," and differentiating facts from fiction/rhetorical embellishment, and so on are all necessary predicates to providing substantive and informed and competent answers.  Naturally, this can take a lot of time, far longer than it took a person like Jeremy Runnells to do some Googling and then copy and paste his "questions" into a "Big List."  And not just time, but prayer and effort to meaningfully study and research relevant scriptures, scholarship, etc.

And yet this has been done for Jeremy Runnells.  And the result was that Mr. Runnells largely blew off and generally failed to meaningfully address the very answers to the "questions" he had posed. 

In our world of soundbites, Wikipedia, on-demand media content, etc., some of us want a quick 'n easy answer.  That is not always possible, or even advisable.  But then, perhaps treating these "Big List" grievances as being presented in good faith is not advisable, either.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 19, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

Article re: Bill Reel's pending disciplinary council:

Quote

Bill Reel, a father of four and former church bishop, was served Thursday with a notice of a pending church disciplinary council stating that he has been reported to have “participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the Church” and that he has “repeatedly acted in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders.” The disciplinary council is scheduled to take place at a church meeting house in Washington City Nov. 27.

Reel conducts the “Mormon Discussions” podcast, a series of audio programs in which he conducts interviews with authors, scholars and historians of Mormonism. The podcast also features monologues by Reel examining often contentious topics in the church, such as the religion’s stance on LGBTQ issues, youth interviews and church political ties with government officials throughout Utah.

With such provocative titles as “Elder Oaks puts the Con in General Conference” and “The Joseph Smith Translation – Revelation or Plagiarism,” the podcast has caught the attention of church leaders on more than one occasion.

However, Reel believes it was his October podcast titled “Elder Holland – Liar Liar Pants on Fire,” where he accused St. George native and top church official Jeffrey R. Holland of lying, that led to the church notice.

Was Bro. Reel surprised at this?

Quote

Reel says he is outspoken because he wishes to improve the church, of which he is committed to remain a member.

Frankly, I don't believe this.  I think it's posturing.  A rational person hoping to remain a member of the Church and improve the Church would not behave the way Bro. Reel has been behaving.

Back when Kate Kelly was under discipline, I made the following observations:

Quote

Kate Kelly is an attorney. I assume she has some experience in litigation, in appearing before a judge and arguing on behalf of a client. Such appearances are predominantly in writing, though personal appearances before the judge in hearings or at trial also occur. In all such attorney-judge communications, attorneys treat the judge with a lot of respect. Honorifics are the norm ("Your Honor," for example). The attorneys stand up when the judge takes the bench and again when the judge leaves it. The attorneys defer to the Court to provide instruction as to who will talk, and in what order, for how long, about what, and so forth. The attorneys stand at a specific place in the courtroom when addressing the Court, unless instructed otherwise. The attorneys moderate their voices, phrasing, vocabulary, etc. when addressing the Court. Courtesy and professionalism are not merely expected. They are required. They are required in order to maintain the decorum and dignity of the court, its proceedings, and the judicial system in general. Without such observances, respect for the institution would diminish amongst attorneys, litigants and the general population.

On occasion a judge will make a mistake in a point of procedure, a point of law or fact, or some combination thereof. These mistakes vary in severity. On occasion, a judge will go beyond making a mere "mistake" and engage in actual misconduct. Nevertheless, at no point would an attorney ever be justified in breaching the standards of professionalism and decorum by publicly criticizing the judge, or by berating the judge in the courtroom or otherwise misbehaving by breaching the behavioral standards described above. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. As a matter of principle, the decorum of the judicial system must be maintained if it is to fulfill its function in our society and government. As a matter of practicality, it would be boneheaded-nigh-unto-asinine for an attorney to antagonize and disrespect the person wearing the robe and the system that put him/her there by maligning a judge.

It just doesn't make sense for an attorney to imperil his client's rights interests by misbehaving in the proceedings intended to determine those rights and interests. This is so even when the judge has clearly made an error. The attorney facing such a circumstance (I have, on rare occasion, found myself on the receiving end of a demonstrably incorrect ruling from a judge) has remedies available to correct the error. The attorney can, in some circumstances, figure out a way to get the judge to reconsider his/her ruling. If the judge declines to do so, then the attorney files an appeal. Statements made during the appeal will necessarily be expected to adhere to the same basic measures of decorum and civility as are expected of statements made to the trial court. In fact, it is not unheard of for appellate courts to strongly correct attorneys who make intemperate statements about the trial court.

I assume Kate Kelly has at least some awareness of the foregoing considerations. She knows that the calumnies she has spewed out at her bishop and stake president would not for an instant be tolerated in a secular judicial proceeding. Frankly, I do not think she would imperil her standing before the bar and the legal community by embarrassing herself with such venomous bile as we have seen her direct at her bishop and stake president. We would not see this because, I think, she values her membership in the attorney's bar. It is a group of self-selected people who agree to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than is required of the general populace. Continued membership in that group requires adherence to this standard, so for a rational person, mouthing off to a judge is simply not worth the risk of imperiling one's reputation in that group or membership in that group.

To some extent, these same principles apply to membership in the LDS Church. It is a voluntary association of like-minded individuals who agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct. Kate Kelly is clearly a well-educated and seemingly intelligent person in many respects. Although this is conjecture on my part, I must conclude that any rational Latter-day Saint would know that the vicious, slanderous, contemptible verbiage such as that used by Kate Kelly in her communications with her bishop and her stake president would be entirely inappropriate and counterproductive in terms of seeking a reversal of disciplinary proceedings.

So this leaves me with an unhappy conundrum: I must decide for myself whether Kate Kelly is either not rational ('cuz rational people don't behave the way she has been), or else she is rational but does not value her membership in the Church ('cuz rationable people who value membership in the Church don't behave the way she has been).

What a depressing spectacle Kate Kelly has become. She is becoming the Mormon version of Lindsey Lohan, spiraling downward and screaming for attention and lashing out all the while. Unfortunately, Lindsey Lohan didn't go around trying to persuade others to emulate her misconduct. Kate Kelly, on the other hand, is actively seeking to "raise hell" in the Church and encourage others to join her in that endeavor.

I think some of these considerations may have some application to Bill Reel.  He is doing a lot of the same things Kate Kelly did.

I hope he sorts things out and finds a way to reconcile himself with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Article re: Bill Reel's pending disciplinary council:

Was Bro. Reel surprised at this?

Frankly, I don't believe this.  I think it's posturing.  A rational person hoping to remain a member of the Church and improve the Church would not behave the way Bro. Reel has been behaving.

Back when Kate Kelly was under discipline, I made the following observations:

I think some of these considerations may have some application to Bill Reel.  He is doing a lot of the same things Kate Kelly did.

I hope he sorts things out and finds a way to reconcile himself with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you read his FB post he would have you think he  is the Godfather of Mormon thought and thousands flock to him. He wants to be famous like all these other exmormon people, Runnells, etc. Like, he's too cool for the Church now

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If you read his FB post he would have you think he  is the Godfather of Mormon thought and thousands flock to him. He wants to be famous like all these other exmormon people, Runnells, etc. Like, he's too cool for the Church now

If so, that is a real disappointment.  I've never understood the mindset of a voluntary member of an organization who feels at liberty to publicly malign and disparage and insult and hold in contempt  that organization, and then turn around and claim that they are doing it for the good of the organization.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If so, that is a real disappointment.  I've never understood the mindset of a voluntary member of an organization who feels at liberty to publicly malign and disparage and insult and hold in contempt  that organization, and then turn around and claim that they are doing it for the good of the organization.

Thanks,

-Smac

I may have said before but were to be called up to a DC I would be SO embarrassed!!!!!! like, all these High Councilors and Stake Presidency knows what you did and the Bishop maybe but I wouldn't tell a soul. I don't get this mentality of broadcasting my indiscretions to people I know and don't know and making a big show out of it. It's in the St. George paper, like get a grip on reality Bill Reel. He said, "Thousands of people are watching this proceeding ramp up" like call me when your Hulk Hogan, this isn't Wrestlemania😣

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I may have said before but were to be called up to a DC I would be SO embarrassed!!!!!!

That is probably because you value your membership in the Church.  If a person didn't value his membership in the Church, then publicity about such things wouldn't be bothersome.

Quote

like, all these High Councilors and Stake Presidency knows what you did and the Bishop maybe but I wouldn't tell a soul. I don't get this mentality of broadcasting my indiscretions to people I know and don't know and making a big show out of it. It's in the St. George paper, like get a grip on reality Bill Reel. He said, "Thousands of people are watching this proceeding ramp up" like call me when your Hulk Hogan, this isn't Wrestlemania😣

So far, Kate Kelly and Sam Young have done the best jobs of creating publicity for their exits from the Church.  Then Denver Snuffer and the John Dehlin.  The Calderwoods, Rock Waterman, and Jeremy Runnells were . . . so-so.  So far, there seems to be very little attention being paid to Bro. Reel.  Either A) he's not trying very hard to publicize it (this doesn't seem likely, given his rhetoric), or B) he's not very good at it, or C) Bill Reel lacks the notoriety to garner much public interest, or D) the public is just losing interest in these narratives.

I think we are seeing a combination of (C) and (D).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Frankly, I don't believe this.  I think it's posturing.  A rational person hoping to remain a member of the Church and improve the Church would not behave the way Bro. Reel has been behaving.

I honestly can't think of any of the people that I know who aren't active attendees at church but are technically on the roles still, who haven't wanted the church to improve.  Everyone handles this in their own unique way and does what they feel is authentic for them.  I know many people, exmormons as well, who are trying to help the church improve and I think its largely because of their Mormon values that they were raised with that they continue to care and be involved.  

Edited November 20, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

If you read his FB post he would have you think he  is the Godfather of Mormon thought and thousands flock to him. He wants to be famous like all these other exmormon people, Runnells, etc. Like, he's too cool for the Church now

Very uncharitable...  Its sad to me that with every case of these excommunications that people feel the need to demean and pile on.  I don't find this kind of behavior to be very Christlike.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Frankly, I don't believe this.  I think it's posturing.  A rational person hoping to remain a member of the Church and improve the Church would not behave the way Bro. Reel has been behaving.

I honestly can't think of any of the people that I know who aren't active attendees at church but are technically on the roles still, who haven't wanted the church to improve. 

I can account for that.  But that's not Bill Reel, right?  I had thought he was an active member, and he says he wants to remain a member.  

Moreover, wanting the Church to improve is fine, but I doubt your friends go about it by publicly slamming and disparaging the Church for years on end, as Bill Reel has done.

Think of Bill Reel's behavior in other contexts.  For example, I love my wife dearly and want to remain married to her.  I also want her to improve and progress.  Would it be rational for me, in pursuing these objectives, to go out and publicly humiliate and insult and disparage my wife?  Taunt her?  Publicly belittle her?  Slander her name and character and reputation?  Encourage others to think the worst of her?  Encourage others to join me in publicly slandering her?

Surely not.  Such behavior is patently incongruous with my professed objectives.  Which would probably lead others to conclude that those professed objectives are . . . false.

Quote

Everyone handles this in their own unique way and does what they feel is authentic for them. 

Yes, I get that.  But we're still left with the irrationality of a person professing to love and want to improve X by constantly and publicly abusing and disparaging and insulting and demeaning X.

Frankly, I don't think Bill Reel's years of misconduct can be excused by "hey, it's what felt 'authentic' to him."  

Quote

I know many people, exmormons as well, who are trying to help the church improve and I think its largely because of their Mormon values that they were raised with that they continue to care and be involved.  

There are no "Mormon values" that call upon members of the Church to publicly slander and insult and denigrate and profane and ridicule, as Bill Reel has done.  For years.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Very uncharitable...  Its sad to me that with every case of these excommunications that people feel the need to demean and pile on.  I don't find this kind of behavior to be very Christlike.  

I'm curious as to your assessment of Bill Reel's behavior.  He has publicly "demeaned" Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, and many, many other members of the Church.  And he's been doing it for years.  Have you denounced that behavior as not "Christlike?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can account for that.  But that's not Bill Reel, right?  I had thought he was an active member, and he says he wants to remain a member.  

Moreover, wanting the Church to improve is fine, but I doubt your friends go about it by publicly slamming and disparaging the Church for years on end, as Bill Reel has done.

Think of Bill Reel's behavior in other contexts.  For example, I love my wife dearly and want to remain married to her.  I also want her to improve and progress.  Would it be rational for me, in pursuing these objectives, to go out and publicly humiliate and insult and disparage my wife?  Taunt her?  Publicly belittle her?  Slander her name and character and reputation?  Encourage others to think the worst of her?  Encourage others to join me in publicly slandering her?

Surely not.  Such behavior is patently incongruous with my professed objectives.  Which would probably lead others to conclude that those professed objectives are . . . false.

As I understand it, he hasn't been actively attending for quite a few months now. 

While Bill's approach may be different than yours or mine, I can appreciate that he feels it important to point out certain inconsistencies and problematic issues that he thinks need to be highlighted.  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I get that.  But we're still left with the irrationality of a person professing to love and want to improve X by constantly and publicly abusing and disparaging and insulting and demeaning X.

Frankly, I don't think Bill Reel's years of misconduct can be excused by "hey, it's what felt 'authentic' to him."  

I don't think he's being abusive and disparaging to the whole, just to the parts that he finds are problematic.  To continue the wife analogy, if your wife were being dishonest and unfaithful on her finances with you, would you address those issues or just pretend they don't exist?  And I know Bill is doing this in a public way, but its a public institution without any effective mechanism for lay members to communicate to HQ.  I've never heard him say that the church is all evil and wish to destroy it.  He just wants it to change, and honestly, so do I.  

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are no "Mormon values" that call upon members of the Church to publicly slander and insult and denigrate and profane and ridicule, as Bill Reel has done.  For years.

Let me explain.  The Mormon values that I'm talking to are the values of honesty and integrity and doing whats right and letting the consequence follow.  Someone pointing out problems that they believe are inherently dishonest and unhealthy takes courage and conviction.  I see that as very in line with Mormon values.  

Actually, some of the exmormons that I've encountered over the years are surprisingly similar to very conservative orthodox members in the binary approach they take to Mormonism.  Orthodox binary is that everything is true and the church is all good.  Exmormon binary can be that everything is bad and false.  Its the other side of the coin, and unfortunately that is part of the legacy of the correlation movement and its attempt to simplify and sanitize and promote fealty to the patriarchy.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to your assessment of Bill Reel's behavior.  He has publicly "demeaned" Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, and many, many other members of the Church.  And he's been doing it for years.  Have you denounced that behavior as not "Christlike?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Its not the tone I personally would have approached things, and I'm not a public person so I can't imagine being a catalyst for churning out this kind of content.  Honestly, I think Bill is still processing some of the pain he's felt from his experience in Mormonism.  I see others do this who are struggling through their faith journey.  I have no negative judgment of it, I think its their right to do, and I think in some ways it contributes to important conversations.  Its just not my personal way of approaching life as I don't have the kind of personality makeup for this kind of approach.

But I do think about the kind of activism that historically has been needed to get change to happen, both in the broader society and in the church.  And it does seem like the more vocal critics play a very important role in getting change to actually happen.  The less vocal ones have success in different ways too.  I think it might take both approaches to produce change.  

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As I understand it, he hasn't been actively attending for quite a few months now. 

While Bill's approach may be different than yours or mine, I can appreciate that he feels it important to point out certain inconsistencies and problematic issues that he thinks need to be highlighted.  

I can appreciate that, too.  But I don't really find it reasonable or appropriate or respectable.

I can also "appreciate" that Donald Trump "feels it important" to . . . behave the way he does.  But that doesn't really excuse or justify his inappropriate behavior, does it?

Quote

I don't think he's being abusive and disparaging to the whole, just to the parts that he finds are problematic. 

A husband who publicly slanders and disparages and insults his wife, and who encourages others to join him in his conduct toward his wife, could claim that he's not "being abusive and disparaging to the whole [of his wife], just to the parts that he finds are problematic."

Would that excuse the husband's conduct toward his wife?

Quote

To continue the wife analogy, if your wife were being dishonest and unfaithful on her finances with you, would you address those issues or just pretend they don't exist? 

I would address them.  But I wouldn't do it in the Court of Public Opinion, as Bill Reel has done.

I wouldn't publicly slander and demean and insult my wife, as Bill Reel has done to the Church.

I would engage in such behavior for years on end, has Bill Reel has done

And so on.

Quote

And I know Bill is doing this in a public way, but its a public institution without any effective mechanism for lay members to communicate to HQ. 

It's actually a private institution.  And its members are entirely voluntarily associated with it.

And there is a mechanism for lay members to communicate their concerns.  Even assuming the Brethren are collectively and categorically wrong (or, more charitably, "misguided") in their recent actions, as a general rule it is not within the province of the Latter-day Saints to publicly speak against them.  As to this point, let us consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Quote

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of {our} own hearts … and do whatsoever {our} heart desires,” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.) Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.)

In these two instances, the Bible teaches that rejection of or murmuring against the counsel of the Lord’s servants amounts to actions against the Lord himself. How could it be otherwise? The Lord acts through his servants. That is the pattern he has established to safeguard our agency in mortality. His servants are not perfect, which is another consequence of mortality. But if we murmur against the Lord’s servants, we are working against the Lord and his cause and will soon find ourselves without the companionship of his Spirit.

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

...

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.”(Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

President John Taylor described these last two remedies when he taught how we should sustain a leader:

“But supposing he should … be found lying or cheating, or defrauding somebody; or stealing or anything else, or even become impure in his habits, would you still sustain him? It would be my duty then to talk with him as I would with anybody else, and tell him that I had understood that things were thus and so, and that under these circumstances I could not sustain him; and if I found that I had been misinformed I would withdraw the charge; but if not it would then be my duty to see that justice was administered to him, that he was brought before the proper tribunal to answer for the things he had done; and in the absence of that I would have no business to talk about him.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:207–8.)

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

By following these procedures, Church members can work for correction of a leader or for change of a policy. Members who do so in the correct spirit will not grieve the Spirit of the Lord. They will not alienate themselves from their leaders or their brothers and sisters in the Church.

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them?

Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings. As the prophet Nephi observed, those who succumb to pride and “works of darkness” are on the way to spiritual destruction, “for the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man.” (2 Ne. 26:10–11.)

Another consequence of the divine warning against criticizing Church leaders is addressed to those leaders themselves. It stresses their special responsibility in the exercise of their authority. In contrast to government and corporate officers, who can often be high-handed and authoritarian in the use of their powers, Church leaders have strict limits on the way they can exercise their authority. The Lord has directed that the powers of heaven can be exercised only “upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36)—that is, “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” (D&C 121:41). And this command is enforced:

“When we undertake to … gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (D&C 121:37.)

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.).

As I write these things I can't help but think of Douglas Wallace.  Mr. Wallace was excommunicated in 1976 when he baptized a black man in a motel swimming pool, confirmed him a member of the Church, and ordained him to the priesthood, and did all of these things without authority (and, in the case of the last item, in contravention of the Church's priesthood ban, which was still in effect at the time).  He also tried to "confront" President Kimball during General Conference.  Let's assume that Mr. Wallace had the best of motives.  And let's assume that he viewed the priesthood ban as being non-revelatory in origin (or, more specifically, the unfounded conjecture proffered by some leaders and members of the Church to explain its origins, which conjecture has since been repudiated by the Church).  I think we should not publicly speculate about what Mr. Wallace will face at the Judgment Bar.  That is not within our province.  We should leave such things to God.  

However, what we can do is look at what his acts of rebellion against the Brethren and the Church - even acts in the service of what we recognize today as a good thing - have wrought in his life.  You would have thought that subsequent to the 1978 Official Declaration 2 which ended the priesthood ban, Mr. Wallace would have felt gratified that the issue he felt so passionate about in 1976 (the withholding of the priesthood from men of black African descent), and perhaps he would have sought to re-join the Church.  And perhaps you would also think that the Church's 2014 publication of the "Race and the Priesthood" essay would have left Mr. Wallace feeling vindicated, and perhaps he would have sought to re-join the Church.  Neither of these things happened.  Instead, Mr. Wallace has been a public (albeit apparently not very well known or particularly effective) opponent of the Church for decades.  

Mr. Wallace has, I understand, passed away.  And he apparently passed on outside the fellowship of the Church, with much of his life having been spent working against the Church.  I sadly cannot think of a more clear-cut cautionary tale of going against the counsel outlined by Elder Oaks when he said: "The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault."

I am reminded of Romans 10:1-3: 

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I think this applies to Bill Reel.  A lot.

Quote

I've never heard him say that the church is all evil and wish to destroy it.  He just wants it to change, and honestly, so do I.  

And a husband may say "Hey, I'm not saying that my stupid, immoral, idiot of a wife is all evil and I want to destroy her.  I just want to change her.  And I'll do so by publicly insulting her, bullying her, denigrating her character and decency before the entire world.  And I'll do this for years on end."

Would you buy that line?

Quote

Let me explain.  The Mormon values that I'm talking to are the values of honesty and integrity and doing whats right and letting the consequence follow.  Someone pointing out problems that they believe are inherently dishonest and unhealthy takes courage and conviction.  I see that as very in line with Mormon values.  

There is nothing about "valu[ing] honesty and integrity and doing what's right" that requires a husband to publicly demean and insult and disparage his wife, and to do so for years on end.

Nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

I'm curious as to your assessment of Bill Reel's behavior.  He has publicly "demeaned" Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, and many, many other members of the Church.  And he's been doing it for years.  Have you denounced that behavior as not "Christlike?"

Its not the tone I personally would have approached things, and I'm not a public person so I can't imagine being a catalyst for churning out this kind of content. 

Huh.  I find it interesting that you disregard the years of abusive and insulting behavior from Bro. Reel, but have no problem with labeling Duncan't passing remark as unChristlike.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, I think Bill is still processing some of the pain he's felt from his experience in Mormonism. 

And that "processing" includes license to publicly slander and insult and demean the Church for years on end?

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I see others do this who are struggling through their faith journey. 

So do I

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no negative judgment of it, I think its their right to do, and I think in some ways it contributes to important conversations. 

And yet you were free with your "negative judgment" of Duncan's passing remark.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its just not my personal way of approaching life as I don't have the kind of personality makeup for this kind of approach.

I can appreciate that.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But I do think about the kind of activism that historically has been needed to get change to happen, both in the broader society and in the church. 

First, what "kind of activism" do you think has resulted in "change" in the Church?

Second, you appear to be advocating "the ends justify the means."  Is that a fair statement?

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And it does seem like the more vocal critics play a very important role in getting change to actually happen. 

Could you provide some examples (re: changes in the Church)?

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The less vocal ones have success in different ways too.  I think it might take both approaches to produce change.  

But one approach is more in line with God's will.  A lot more in line, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

It just goes to show that sometimes when it comes down to it, those who have the strongest opinions about another, and have the most to say, have the least familiarity with that person and his/her positions.  This thread is a bit comical when you read it in light of that.  It's sad otherwise.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Very uncharitable...  Its sad to me that with every case of these excommunications that people feel the need to demean and pile on.  I don't find this kind of behavior to be very Christlike.  

The Savior would have spoken of these excommunicants in a more Christlike manner with words such as the following:

 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

 

I think we can learn from this. I know I will make a concerted effort to speak of apostates in a similar manner in the future.

Edited November 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Savior would have spoken of these excommunicants in a more Christlike manner with words such as the following:

 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

 

I think we can learn from this. I know I will make a concerted effort to speak of apostates in a similar manner in the future.

Fewf! those sound like words for church leaders more than a Bill or a Sam Young or whoever.  Odd illustration, the  Nehor.  The biggest issue with this point you're making though is Matthew didn't write this, and it wasn't recorded until long after matthew lived, long after Jesus lived and likely a creation passed through oral story telling in the 1st century.  In other words, we don't know Jesus said this at all.  We're just hoping that Jesus was as upset at the scribes and Pharisees as he who anonymously authored the words we call the Gospel according to St Matthew was.  

SInce so many of you are so interested in Bill, enough to say whatever condemning thing you feel appropriate, perhaps you'd be interested to know there is a podcast out wherein bill gets interviewed:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/11/radio-free-mormon-after-dark-045-bill-reels-disciplinary-council/

I listened a bit during my early afternoon exercise routine.  Pretty interesting.  

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It just goes to show that sometimes when it comes down to it, those who have the strongest opinions about another, and have the most to say, have the least familiarity with that person and his/her positions. 

Do you apply this to Bill Reel and his various disparaging remarks about Elder Holland, Elder (President) Oaks, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Savior would have spoken of these excommunicants in a more Christlike manner with words such as the following:

 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

 

I think we can learn from this. I know I will make a concerted effort to speak of apostates in a similar manner in the future.

The context you quote here is Christ speaking to the leaders of the people of Israel (his religious leaders).

What can we learn about how Christ would handle a situation when the leaders of his faith show hypocrisy and need to repent?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fewf! those sound like words for church leaders more than a Bill or a Sam Young or whoever.  Odd illustration, the  Nehor.  The biggest issue with this point you're making though is Matthew didn't write this, and it wasn't recorded until long after matthew lived, long after Jesus lived and likely a creation passed through oral story telling in the 1st century.  In other words, we don't know Jesus said this at all.  We're just hoping that Jesus was as upset at the scribes and Pharisees as he who anonymously authored the words we call the Gospel according to St Matthew was.  

SInce so many of you are so interested in Bill, enough to say whatever condemning thing you feel appropriate, perhaps you'd be interested to know there is a podcast out wherein bill gets interviewed:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/11/radio-free-mormon-after-dark-045-bill-reels-disciplinary-council/

I listened a bit during my early afternoon exercise routine.  Pretty interesting.  

Do you likewise take exception to Bill Reel "condeming" Elder Holland, Elder (President) Oaks, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fewf! those sound like words for church leaders more than a Bill or a Sam Young or whoever.  Odd illustration, the  Nehor.  The biggest issue with this point you're making though is Matthew didn't write this, and it wasn't recorded until long after matthew lived, long after Jesus lived and likely a creation passed through oral story telling in the 1st century.  In other words, we don't know Jesus said this at all.  We're just hoping that Jesus was as upset at the scribes and Pharisees as he who anonymously authored the words we call the Gospel according to St Matthew was.  

SInce so many of you are so interested in Bill, enough to say whatever condemning thing you feel appropriate, perhaps you'd be interested to know there is a podcast out wherein bill gets interviewed:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/11/radio-free-mormon-after-dark-045-bill-reels-disciplinary-council/

I listened a bit during my early afternoon exercise routine.  Pretty interesting.  

So Jesus did not say this but if he did it only references church leaders?

Nah.

In any case I was not ascribing this to Bill. I have no idea who Bill is or what he is like. I don’t really care either. I do get annoyed at weepy hand-wringing calling for Christlike conduct as if it is some kind of magic trump card and then getting upset when the person so admonished breaks out a whip and starts going to town.

[The Nehor]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

The context you quote here is Christ speaking to the leaders of the people of Israel (his religious leaders).

What can we learn about how Christ would handle a situation when the leaders of his faith show hypocrisy and need to repent?

That Christ will correct them or damn them to hell and punish them himself when He is ready. Was that ever in question?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you apply this to Bill Reel and his various disparaging remarks about Elder Holland, Elder (President) Oaks, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure I apply it quite broadly.  Of course I said "Sometimes" in that.  It seems quite obvious, for example, that Bill's podcast about Elder Holland is largely true.  I don't know that anyone can or has substantially defended Elder Holland against what appears to the obvious.  So, as it is on that front, Bill didn't speak in ignorance as some have here, but spoke after much consideration.  

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So Jesus did not say this but if he did it only references church leaders?

Nah.

In any case I was not ascribing this to Bill. I have no idea who Bill is or what he is like. I don’t really care either. I do get annoyed at weepy hand-wringing calling for Christlike conduct as if it is some kind of magic trump card and then getting upset when the person so admonished breaks out a whip and starts going to town.

I also have some reservations about glaringly selective "weepy hand-wringing calling for Christlike conduct."

I think we should all aspire to such conduct.  I don't think we should selectively invoke the name of Christ to insulate opposition to the Church from scrutiny and critique.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you likewise take exception to Bill Reel "condeming" Elder Holland, Elder (President) Oaks, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

What specifically are you speaking of smac?  You've mentioned, I see, a couple of episode titles above, but did you investigate what the episode said?  If he has a cogent and considered approach to his accusations then perhaps it'd be good to give it consideration.  On this, though, it appears, and as you've said, you are happily condemning without giving much consideration at all.