Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Oh wow! He caught an apostle saying something slightly wrong? When do we dedicate the statue in his honor?

[stemelbow]

10 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.

You certainly do seem to be one who would get annoyed by people who call for Christlike conduct.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Oh wow! He caught an apostle saying something slightly wrong? When do we dedicate the statue in his honor?

I don't think he claims the observations were original to him, although I think he was one of the early ones if not the earliest to call out Elder Holland's fake story about two brother's having a chance meeting.   Dedicating statues to someone is lame though.  

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You certainly do seem to be one who would get annoyed by people who call for Christlike conduct.  

No, I just get upset when people who call for said conduct expect Christlike conduct to involve telling people that sin is okay and not being harsh about it and they always do.

You try pointing out that Christ was endlessly forgiving to the penitent but incredibly harsh to those who did not think they needed repentance and then ask them which category they are in and they whine even more.

Edited November 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

Just now, The Nehor said:

No, I just get upset when people who call for said conduct to expect Christlike conduct to involve telling people that sin is okay and not being harsh about it and they always do.

You try pointing out that Christ was endlessly forgiving to the penitent but incredibly harsh to those who did not think they needed repentance and then ask them which category they are in and they whine even more.

I'm not sure what you are looking for here, the Nehor.  You are commenting in a thread which has people talking about someone you don't know at all.  Are you skimming hoping to see someone like hope_for call for people to be more Christlike?  Did he do something mean to someone.  He seems nice enough to me.  What's wrong with him, in particular, calling on people to be more Christlike?  Did he say sin is okay somewhere?  

I suppose I can step back if there's something personal you have against him.  But, whatever, I've said what I've said at this point.  

[SouthernMo]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

Good point!  But, are we to act as Christ would (in this context) and rebuke the misbehaving leaders of the faith, or leave it alone, follow them, and allow them to mislead others?

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you are looking for here, the Nehor.  You are commenting in a thread which has people talking about someone you don't know at all.  Are you skimming hoping to see someone like hope_for call for people to be more Christlike?  Did he do something mean to someone.  He seems nice enough to me.  What's wrong with him, in particular, calling on people to be more Christlike?  Did he say sin is okay somewhere?  

I suppose I can step back if there's something personal you have against him.  But, whatever, I've said what I've said at this point.  

You are looking way too deep for my motive here. I saw the call for Christlike conduct as I was skimming the thread, smiled, and posted my response to amuse myself. I post because I am having fun.

I also think I am right but I mostly post to make myself laugh and hope I amuse and/or infuriate others.

Edited November 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

Good point!  But, are we to act as Christ would (in this context) and rebuke the misbehaving leaders of the faith, or leave it alone, follow them, and allow them to mislead others?

I trust the system and the people within it to fix itself (or the King can step in and fix things) due to promises made about our leadership exclusive to this dispensation. I also have not heard a credible charge I would characterize as “misbehaving”.

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

It seems like when someone cries foul because another said "we should be more Christlike" is as insulating for those in the Church from scrutiny and critique at least as much as those who call for others to be more Christlike is somehow insulating those in opposition to the Church from scrutiny and critique.  There might be something selective going on in that as well, I suppose.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are looking way too deep for my motive here. I saw the call for Christlike conduct as I was skimming the thread, smiled, and posted my response to amuse myself. I post because I am having fun.

I also think I am right but I mostly post to make myself laugh and hope I amuse and/or infuriate others.

Then it appears HOpe_for's call is appropriate and your response is nonsense.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Then it appears HOpe_for's call is appropriate and your response is nonsense.  

Nope.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Nope.

Damn you.  You know I'm on limited and you'll always get the last word because of that.  Of course, you might forget I don't get booted until a mod checks in after someone notifies him/her of me.  So...yep.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems like when someone cries foul because another said "we should be more Christlike" is as insulating for those in the Church from scrutiny and critique at least as much as those who call for others to be more Christlike is somehow insulating those in opposition to the Church from scrutiny and critique.  There might be something selective going on in that as well, I suppose.  

There is nothing "Christlike" about a member of Christ's Church publicly denigrating and insulting and speaking evil of Christ's servants.  Or His Church.

Nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing "Christlike" about a member of Christ's Church publicly denigrating and insulting and speaking evil of Christ's servants.  Or His Church.

Nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Tell that to Jesus, I guess.  But when considered, there is something Christlike in calling out bad behavior by religious leaders, at least if we are using the NT as a guide to determine what is Christlike.  

The big problem with talking about what is Christlike we all have our own ideas of what it is.  You with your anti-scriptural view, hope_for with his view, The Nehor with his, and me (one who questions the divinity of the character, or the historic, Jesus) with mine.  

I admit I find your view odd, although I also admit expected.  You complain that someone should never be able to call out the behavior of your religious leader, but are prone to denigrate and insult those who do call religious leaders out all while without considering what they are saying.  And yet you want to hold the position that you occupy a higher moral position then he whom you denigrate and insult.  

Edited November 20, 2018 by stemelbow

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Damn you.  You know I'm on limited and you'll always get the last word because of that.  Of course, you might forget I don't get booted until a mod checks in after someone notifies him/her of me.  So...yep.

I don’t think I have ever reported you. I have only made 3 or 4 reports since I have been on this board and most of those were for temple content.

I only said “nope” because the call for civility clothed in religious guilt was dumb and my reply was definitely not nonsense. It amused me but truth is often more amusing then nonsense.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think I have ever reported you. I have only made 3 or 4 reports since I have been on this board and most of those were for temple content.

I only said “nope” because the call for civility clothed in religious guilt was dumb and my reply was definitely not nonsense. It amused me but truth is often more amusing then nonsense.

I was just teasing.  I dont' think you've reported me.  I still maintain you are wrong though.  

Edited to add:  I noticed I can't post anymore.  But I can still edit for some reason.  So please if you would go back to my previous posts and look for my edits so we can continue discussing this stuff.  Just playing.  Have a great Thanksgiving day Parade or whatever you like to do that day, and be well.  

Edited November 20, 2018 by stemelbow

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I was just teasing.  I dont' think you've reported me.  I still maintain you are wrong though.  

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

There is nothing "Christlike" about a member of Christ's Church publicly denigrating and insulting and speaking evil of Christ's servants.  Or His Church.

Nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Tell that to Jesus, I guess. 

No need.  I think He's aware.

• "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25)
• "Trifle not with sacred things."  (D&C 6:12)
• “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1)
• “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)
• "And Moses and Aaron said unto all the children of Israel: And in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of the Lord; for that he heareth your murmurings against the Lord: and what are we, that ye murmur against us?  And Moses said, This shall be, when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full; for that the Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord."  (Exodus 16:6-8)
• “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7)
• “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)
• "[W]hen we undertake to cover our sins, or 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)

And so on.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But when considered, there is something Christlike in calling out bad behavior by religious leaders, at least if we are using the NT as a guide to determine what is Christlike.  

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."  (2 Peter 3:16)

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The big problem with talking about what is Christlike we all have our own ideas of what it is. 

But not all ideas are of equal quality and scriptural provenance.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You with your anti-scriptural view,

There is nothing "anti-scriptural" with stating that there is nothing "Christlike" about a member of Christ's Church publicly denigrating and insulting and speaking evil of Christ's servants.  Or His Church.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I admit I find your view odd, although I also admit expected.  You complain that someone

Not just "someone."  I am thinking of people who have made covenants to not do . . . what people like you and Bill Reel do.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

should never be able to call out the behavior of your religious leader,

Meh.  You aren't accurately stating my position. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Some significant differences.  Trump is president, Bill is speaking truth to power.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

This is where your analogy breaks down.  The church is not an individual and shouldn't be treated like one.  When I said public institution, I wasn't talking about tax status, but more about its position in society and its responsibility to its stakeholders in contrast to an private individual.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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):

People can do whatever they want, I don't agree with Oaks on this talk, I found it highly problematic and incompatible with Mormon and Christian theology.  Honestly, I think these days Oak's behavior lately is a good fit in the context of the pointed NT criticisms from Jesus towards lawyers. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 was too young and unaware of the Douglas Wallace story, but from what you've shared I'm proud of what he did, it sounds quite courageous and he probably should be honored as one of the best kinds of Mormons, rather than a cautionary tale, he sounds like a real hero to me.  Its funny what tribalism does to people.  Mormon and Christian heroes are often the people who boldly stood up against the evils of their day.  However, if someone boldly stands up against the evils within Mormonism, they are immediately denigrated as evil and a cautionary tale.  Just shows how tribalism is such a powerful human ideology, there really is little objectivity.  I feel its important to try to break the tribal boundaries and look for heroes both inside and outside my tribe, and to constantly be evaluating my current privilege and biases through the lens of the perspectives of others.  Its something I think requires a lot of effort, and its part of the reason I seek to offer constructive push back.  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Criticizing an institution is different than criticizing an individual.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

I can see many examples where activism has led to change in the church, often grass roots efforts by members, but also the outside pressure of society.  The two biggest examples of outside pressure were the change away from polygamy, and the revocation of the priesthood ban.  Those were huge and highly influenced by outside activism and pressure.  

For the ends justify the means, I don't think that any ends justify the means, but I think some ends can justify the means.  It requires an evaluation of principles and ethics to try and determine what the best course of action is.  The whole Nephi murdering Laban in the BoM is exemplary of Joseph's wrestle with this idea of ends justifying the means, and in that case, I find that the arguments he used really aren't satisfactory to my morals to justify that action.

Neither was the deception Joseph later perpetuated in cheating on Emma and his justifications of that behavior.  Its interesting though that he was wrestling with this idea at such an early age, perhaps because he had done something in his early life that he found morally problematic and he was trying to reconcile that behavior with the guilt he experienced?  I don't know, and can only imagine.  

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Some significant differences.  Trump is president, Bill is speaking truth to power.  

I question that.

I also question the tone and tenor and content of what Bill is speaking.

I also question the motives of so speaking.  (Hint: "Improving the Church" ain't it.)

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.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

This is where your analogy breaks down.  The church is not an individual and shouldn't be treated like one.  When I said public institution, I wasn't talking about tax status, but more about its position in society and its responsibility to its stakeholders in contrast to an private individual.  

Actually, I think the analogy holds up.  The Church is a private institution.  That's not just a matter of "tax status."  It's a private organization.  Its members are voluntarily associated with it.  

I also must reject the notion that we are akin to "stakeholders" in the Church.  It's the Lord's Church, not ours.  We don't "own" it.  Apart from a sustaining vote, we do not have the privilege of publicly slandering / denigrating / insulting the Church and its leaders, as Bill Reel does.  To the contrary, there are some specific constraints against this sort of behavior.

A few years back a member of the Church, Julienna Viegas Haws, went through the increasingly tiresome Hey-I'm-Going-to-Leave-the-Church-and-Make-a-Big-Public-Spectacle-about-it theatrics that we have seen in self-appointed people (such as Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Sam Young, etc.).  I said:

Quote

A few thoughts:

1. She seems to view the Church as a political construct, one that is answerable to its constituency.  This is evidenced by her demand for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership."  "Diversifying" here probably refers to calling more black, hispanic, and/or Native American general authorities, but probably not more Asian general authorities, or "diversifying" in terms of traits other than race.  The sort of "diversity" I think she has in mind probably conforms with notions arising from the American political left.  That's all.  I don't say this to criticize the American political left, but rather to point to it as the lens through which Mrs. Viegas-Haws views the Church.  This is in contrast to how the Church presents itself: as an organization guided by revelation, not by modern political orthodoxies.

2. This is not a surprising development.  Mrs. Viegas-Haws has been publicly railing against the Church for a while now.  

3. Mrs. Viegas-Haws kinda sorta contradicts herself.  She states: "To properly develop mentally and spiritually, I must follow my own conscience whether it is in opposition to the leaders or not."  But then she also states: "Using my feelings (feeling the "spirit") to determine what is true or not is a very subjective and incomplete measurement of truth."  These appear to be at odds with each other.  A person following her "conscience" could be easily be said to be following her "feelings."  This is why having external yardsticks (scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, local priesthood leaders, study, prayer, temple attendance, personal revelation, etc.) is such a blessing.  We have the means to gauge whether our "feelings" (which can also be styled our "conscience") are in accordance with the mind and will of God.  I fear Mrs. Viegas-Haws has lost track of these things, and instead resorts to some sort of "If I like it then it must be right, regardless of what the Lord's servants or the Spirit have to say" kind of analysis.  Ironically, she condemns the subjectivity of her "feelings" while simultaneously using her subjective "feelings/conscience" as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

...

I wish Mrs. Viegas-Haws well.  I hope she rediscovers faith ("if there is an afterlife...").  I hope she has a change of heart and returns to the Church and to the gifts of the Spirit that are housed within it.

I'm seeing similar stuff from Bill Reel and his supporters.

Nothing new under the sun, I guess.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I was too young and unaware of the Douglas Wallace story, but from what you've shared I'm proud of what he did, it sounds quite courageous and he probably should be honored as one of the best kinds of Mormons, rather than a cautionary tale, he sounds like a real hero to me. 

Funny how we can have differing perspectives on such things.  His writings were, AFAICS, full of bile and venom right up to the end.  And he died outside of the Church.

I also don't think he had any appreciable impact on the Church.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Its funny what tribalism does to people. 

Indeed.  

And making covenants, too.

And breaking covenants.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Mormon and Christian heroes are often the people who boldly stood up against the evils of their day.  However, if someone boldly stands up against the evils within Mormonism, they are immediately denigrated as evil and a cautionary tale.  Just shows how tribalism is such a powerful human ideology, there really is little objectivity. 

You've known about Douglas Wallace for five minutes.  You've read two paragraphs about him.  And you are pronouncing him a "hero."

This is you standing outside of "tribalism?"

This is you showing us how to do "objectivity?"

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I feel its important to try to break the tribal boundaries and look for heroes both inside and outside my tribe, and to constantly be evaluating my current privilege and biases through the lens of the perspectives of others. 

So do I.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Its something I think requires a lot of effort, and its part of the reason I seek to offer constructive push back.  

And yet, the covenants...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Criticizing an institution is different than criticizing an individual.  

I can see many examples where activism has led to change in the church, often grass roots efforts by members, but also the outside pressure of society.  The two biggest examples of outside pressure were the change away from polygamy, and the revocation of the priesthood ban.  Those were huge and highly influenced by outside activism and pressure.  

The government literally imprisoned people over polygamy.  And you are . . . praising this as a good thing?  Are you sure you want to stick with this example?  Really sure?

As for the rescission of the Priesthood Ban, it appears to have been in the works for years (going back to the 1920s).  And yes, there were elements of "outside pressure."  But what "grass roots efforts by members" are you talking about here?  I think I'll submit a formal CFR on that point.

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For the ends justify the means, I don't think that any ends justify the means, but I think some ends can justify the means.  It requires an evaluation of principles and ethics to try and determine what the best course of action is. 

That is a fairly sensible approach.  I like it.

But then, there are the covenants...

And there is common sense, too.  Again, 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.

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The whole Nephi murdering Laban in the BoM is exemplary of Joseph's wrestle with this idea of ends justifying the means, and in that case, I find that the arguments he used really aren't satisfactory to my morals to justify that action.

God telling him to do it was not satisfactory to you? 

So Nephi obeying God was bad, but members of the Church breaking their covenants and slandering and disparaging and insulting their own faith and its leaders is . . . good?

I too struggle with Nephi's story, but it's an extraordinary one.  And a remote one.  

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Neither was the deception Joseph later perpetuated in cheating on Emma and his justifications of that behavior. 

Loaded terminology aside ("cheating on Emma"?), I agree that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in relation to polygamy.

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its interesting though that he was wrestling with this idea at such an early age, perhaps because he had done something in his early life that he found morally problematic and he was trying to reconcile that behavior with the guilt he experienced?  I don't know, and can only imagine.  

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Tell that to Jesus, I guess.  But when considered, there is something Christlike in calling out bad behavior by religious leaders, at least if we are using the NT as a guide to determine what is Christlike.  

I always find it telling when people confuse Jesus's criticism of the apostate, faithless Pharisees with attacking His chosen prophets and apostles. If we are genuinely using the NT as a guide, we will note that Jesus repeatedly equated the latter with formally rejecting Him and His Father.

But of course, Smac and The Nehor are right: the accusation of 'unChristlike bevaviour' is nearly always a cynical attempt to use the sincerely held values of the faithful as a tool to shame them into being silent about genuinely bad behaviour. I've been on this board long enough now to have seen too many sincere and decent defences of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ labelled as 'unChristlike' by critics who have elsewhere made it clear that they don't even believe in Christ.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also question the motives of so speaking.  (Hint: "Improving the Church" ain't it.)

This is a question thats hard to objectively evaluate, what have been the results of the efforts of any one individuals.  I don't know.  

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think the analogy holds up.  The Church is a private institution.  That's not just a matter of "tax status."  It's a private organization.  Its members are voluntarily associated with it.  

I also must reject the notion that we are akin to "stakeholders" in the Church.  It's the Lord's Church, not ours.  We don't "own" it.  Apart from a sustaining vote, we do not have the privilege of publicly slandering / denigrating / insulting the Church and its leaders, as Bill Reel does.  To the contrary, there are some specific constraints against this sort of behavior.

A few years back a member of the Church, Julienna Viegas Haws, went through the increasingly tiresome Hey-I'm-Going-to-Leave-the-Church-and-Make-a-Big-Public-Spectacle-about-it theatrics that we have seen in self-appointed people (such as Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Sam Young, etc.).  I said:

I totally disagree with you on this and since its come up in other threads I would prefer not to rehash.  Suffice it to say I think there are clear reasons why it doesn't work.  

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  

And making covenants, too.

And breaking covenants.

My description of tribalism applies equally to both sides, however your description of covenant breaking is tribal by definition and only applies to one side. Hopefully you can recognize the irony in that statement.  

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You've known about Douglas Wallace for five minutes.  You've read two paragraphs about him.  And you are pronouncing him a "hero."

This is you standing outside of "tribalism?"

This is you showing us how to do "objectivity?"

I was speaking generally about the heroes that Mormonism puts up on a pedestal.  I already acknowledged that I was unfamiliar with the specifics about Mr. Wallace and I'm just looking at the very limited information you posted.  I'm not in charge of a hero appointment committee or anything.  You're taking this a little too far.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The government literally imprisoned people over polygamy.  And you are . . . praising this as a good thing?  Are you sure you want to stick with this example?  Really sure?

That the church was forced to abandon the inherently unfair practice of polygamy is probably regarded as a very good thing by both orthodox and unorthodox members.  People were imprisoned for breaking the laws of the land, I put that fault on the Mormon heirarchy more than the individuals who were just following marching orders.  

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for the rescission of the Priesthood Ban, it appears to have been in the works for years (going back to the 1920s).  And yes, there were elements of "outside pressure."  But what "grass roots efforts by members" are you talking about here?  I think I'll submit a formal CFR on that point.

It wasn't in the works, that is total misreading of history.  You can start to see the cracks in the doctrine and the tension begin to build in the early 20th century based on the changes society was making and Mormonism was rather digging in its heals.  Under McKay you started to see some movement away from the doctrine idea, as he referred to it as a policy instead, but didn't feel like he could change it without revelation on the matter.  

As for the CFR, we could start with the famous story of Emma and the WoW, or you could look at more modern examples with the Primary program or the Young Adult programs, or church welfare.  So many programs throughout the church had their genesis in grass roots movements that were later adopted by HQ and implemented throughout the church.  I think grass roots has also influenced other movements that were simultaneously being influenced by more activist types.  Like for some of the small changes with respect to women in recent years, I think Kate Kelly's more public activism coupled with more grass roots work by women influenced the church on changing some policies, like letting women speak at conference or changing the missionary age, etc.  How much of an influence these things individually had on the overall changes is very difficult to tell.  

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And there is common sense, too.  Again, 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.

"In your opinion" is probably worth adding to the end of a declaration like this.  

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

God telling him to do it was not satisfactory to you? 

So Nephi obeying God was bad, but members of the Church breaking their covenants and slandering and disparaging and insulting their own faith and its leaders is . . . good?

I too struggle with Nephi's story, but it's an extraordinary one.  And a remote one.  

If God tells you to murder someone or cheat on your wife, I implore you not to do it.  I promise you I won't do either of those things no matter how many voices or visions I have.  I'd probably seek some good psychological help though.  

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Loaded terminology aside ("cheating on Emma"?), I agree that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in relation to polygamy.

Its really not loaded, its just a plain description of the facts.  How would you characterize it if your wife had intimate relationships with 15-20 other men, behind your back before you discovered these relationships.  Its cheating, whether or not you think it was justified is another matter.  

 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing "Christlike" about a member of Christ's Church publicly denigrating and insulting and speaking evil of Christ's servants.  Or His Church.

Nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with your assessment.

 

It seems we need to be studying Christ more.

may I recommend everyone take the new come follow me manual and learn about Christ better?