Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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.  

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. 

 

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.  

 

 

I’d gladly stand up to the evils of the Church of Jesus Christ if I could find anyway.

course I’m not looking for anything to complain about

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, that is what I was referencing.  Pres. McKay spent a lot of time evaluating the issue, and Pres. Kimball was far from the first person to address it.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

The CFR pertains to your specific claim that "grass roots efforts by members" had an influence with the end of the Priesthood Ban.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So many programs throughout the church had their genesis in grass roots movements that were later adopted by HQ and implemented throughout the church. 

Sure.  I'm all about "grass roots movements" that are uplifting and edifying and advance the work of God.  I also think it is great that the Church has adopted ideas from such movements and implemented throughout the Church (the Church's welfare program and FHE being excellent examples).

But you have made claims about a "grass roots movement" that had an influence with the end of the Priesthood Ban.  Hence the CFR.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Very difficult, indeed.  I seem to recall Neylan McBaine (?) suggesting that Kate Kelly was an impediment to progress that was already underway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

I seem to recall Neylan McBaine (?) suggesting that Kate Kelly was an impediment to progress that was already underway.

I remember being told that they were about to change the dress standard for female missionaries (can't remember the source, just that I trusted it as likely).  Then the Pants to Church day happen and no change appeared for a couple of more  years if I remember the timing right.

There had also been a steady flow of imo incremental positive changes for several years that has been occurring prior to Kelly's appearance that imo slowed down once she became in your face active (I know a lot of people who assume she was part of the movement prior to Ordain Women, but it seems not from her own words; she couldn't even be bothered to wear pants to church to show solidarity because she liked her dresses too much).  There was the putting of Priesthood Session online during her tenure at OW, can't really remember anything else.

She was really only in the public awareness for about a year and a half.  Ordain Women was formed in May 2013 and she was excommunicated in June or July the following year according to wiki.  She got a lot of press during that time.  After the 'I deserve a new laptop' fundraiser, I don't remember anything newsworthy from her except a post trashing John Dehlin for his treatment of women who worked with him.  And she didn't contribute much to the movement that I can tell since she even refused to contribute a chapter to the Ordain Women book they were putting together as a fundraiser, reportedly because they refused to grant her more control over the content.

There was a significant, imo, grass root movement among female Saints against Ordain Women (the incremental pushing for pants being acceptable that was purely symbolic since there was nothing in the handbook requiring dresses and the push for women offering prayers in conference got some press, but not much backlash among active women from what I saw, very unlike what happened when it got ramped up overnight to Priesthood Ordinance or Else).  The All Alike group's methodology was much more intelligent, imo.  Kelly's in your face style gave feminists in the church a bad rep.  I have rarely seen such a poor spokesperson.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

While it’s not a perfect exercise, imagine yourself in the room of the Sanhedrin council the night before Christ was crucified. You’d see men supported and sustained for years as church leaders condemn a man called Jesus whose only ‘crime’ was telling the leaders of the church that what they were doing and teaching was wrong. To give their argument grounds, they charged him with blasphemy, and wanted him gone.

These Pharisee leaders had been put in place by a process that had been established for years.  They claimed authority from the God of Abraham!  They studied and believed the words of Isaiah that a Messiah would come. These were not men who rejected God and Christ generally. They were not apostate or faithless - as you say. I believe their motives were well-intentioned (despite how seminary videos depict them). They simply missed the mark.  They didn’t recognize the truth because it interfered with their tradition and expectations.

Today, because of a statement made during a VERY difficult time for the church (Official Declaration 1), the LDS faith now teaches that it’s leaders are immune from apostasy (or that god will kill them if they do go astray - or something?).

Jesus stood up for what he believed in. He rejected norms and customs of the time. He eschewed hypocrisy, and called on the leaders of his church/community to repent!

Let’s be careful about condemning how much or how little one honors “the brethren” of the LDS church as some proxy for Christlike behavior.  I see no correlation.

Christ does not appear to have been concerned with maintaining his standing with men.  He did what he thought was right, and invited others to follow him.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Jesus ... eschewed hypocrisy, and called on the leaders of his church/community to repent!

The Pharisees were neither Jesus's church nor his community. He set up His Church in the midst of what he deemed a wicked and adulterous people. He didn't try to reform apostate and faithless Judaism; he established an authorised Church, bestowed upon it and its leaders priesthood power, and then invited people to come out from amongst the wicked and join Him therein. He was not a reformer.

Quote

Let’s be careful about condemning how much or how little one honors “the brethren” of the LDS church as some proxy for Christlike behavior.  I see no correlation.

Jesus, however, did. From Matthew 10:

Quote

¹And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

...

¹⁴ And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

¹⁵ Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

...

¹⁹ But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

²⁰ For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

...

⁴⁰ He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

 

[Tacenda]

This didn't feel real when I first read it on the other board. And then I looked up St. George News online and there it was. I don't believe the church is going to like this kind of publicity, yet they continue ex'g these people. I don't think it helps the church at all. Only puts a bad light on them and brings up things in history that a lot of members are still in the dark about. Oh well, is all I got to say. 

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2018/11/20/jcw-southern-utah-man-who-served-as-mormon-bishop-faces-excommunication/#.W_SqcYFKjnE

[Duncan]

Is there nothing else going on in S. Utah that this made the news? no, babies born, marriages, robberies, movies to see , anything?!

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe the church is going to like this kind of publicity, yet they continue ex'g these people. I don't think it helps the church at all.

As SouthernMo correctly noted in his post above, 'Christ does not appear to have been concerned with maintaining his standing with men'. I'm not sure why you would worry that His Church would be any different. 

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

While it’s not a perfect exercise, imagine yourself in the room of the Sanhedrin council the night before Christ was crucified. You’d see men supported and sustained for years as church leaders condemn a man called Jesus whose only ‘crime’ was telling the leaders of the church that what they were doing and teaching was wrong. To give their argument grounds, they charged him with blasphemy, and wanted him gone.

These Pharisee leaders had been put in place by a process that had been established for years.  They claimed authority from the God of Abraham!  They studied and believed the words of Isaiah that a Messiah would come. These were not men who rejected God and Christ generally. They were not apostate or faithless - as you say. I believe their motives were well-intentioned (despite how seminary videos depict them). They simply missed the mark.  They didn’t recognize the truth because it interfered with their tradition and expectations.

Today, because of a statement made during a VERY difficult time for the church (Official Declaration 1), the LDS faith now teaches that it’s leaders are immune from apostasy (or that god will kill them if they do go astray - or something?).

Jesus stood up for what he believed in. He rejected norms and customs of the time. He eschewed hypocrisy, and called on the leaders of his church/community to repent!

Let’s be careful about condemning how much or how little one honors “the brethren” of the LDS church as some proxy for Christlike behavior.  I see no correlation.

Christ does not appear to have been concerned with maintaining his standing with men.  He did what he thought was right, and invited others to follow him.

They claimed authority but had no revelation or at least next to none.

That is a key distinction.

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Pharisees were neither Jesus's church nor his community. He set up His Church in the midst of what he deemed a wicked and adulterous people.

I don’t think this is historically accurate. My understanding is that Christ was of the tribe of Judah/Hebrew/Jew. He went to temple/synagogue with those same men.  They shared the same scriptures. He loved among them, and was subject to the Sanhedrin - or council of leaders who were largely Pharisees.

But - I agree with you on one thing.  I don’t read anything about Christ’s life or teachings that indicate that he was a reformer.  “Come follow me,” he said.  He was bringing something very different.

I interpret Matthew 10 differently than you do. But, I understand why you would see it that way. For the past 150 years, the LDS church has used countless scripture passages to legitimize its heirarchical authority. It’s what we have traditionally been taught.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They claimed authority but had no revelation or at least next to none.

That is a key distinction.

How do you know this?

 Either way revelation does not equate to authority, nor does authority equate to Revelation.

Edited November 21, 2018 by SouthernMo

[Tacenda]

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/bill-reels-pre-excommunication-interview/ This just out apparently. There was a comment on the St. George News that I read and kind of agree with. Why Bill do you want to stay LDS? Is it really because Mormonism is your tribe? I hope you really have the right reasons for wanting to stay in the church. But sometimes it doesn't feel like it when day after day it's something against the church listed on FB. But maybe you want to change the church by having it's policies reversed perhaps such as on the LGBTQ issues? I guess one day things will change, but I still believe there are good things to the church, but it's gotten off the rails too. So who knows. I guess I better walk in Bill's shoes before I say what he feels. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

For the past 150 years, the LDS church has used countless scripture passages to legitimize its heirarchical authority. It’s what we have traditionally been taught.

For me, I don't tend to believe what I have been taught until I have experienced it for myself. The Lord has let me know very clearly how He expects me to treat His prophets, apostles and other authorised servants. I have yet to see a single Saint get this one wrong and survive the experience spiritually.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[strappinglad]

It should be noted that Christ often called his people,  ' sheep '. He referred to Himself as a shepherd. There may be a lot to that analogy. Sheep need a shepherd, if not they go wandering off after whichever animal runs out front and will follow into strange paths . Most folks today have no idea what it is like to deal with sheep . I am only lightly familiar as I have acquaintances who raised large herds. It takes a very knowledgeable sheep herder and a good dog or two to move and guide sheep. Would a shepherd put up with a wolf in sheep's clothing? Not if he wanted to maintain a healthy herd.

   I understand that herding cats is more difficult.

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

How do you know this?

 Either way revelation does not equate to authority, nor does authority equate to Revelation.

They are not equivalent though Authority is tied to the ability to get revelation for the macro level (i.e. for others).

I am not sure if you are asking how I know the current church leaders have revelation or how I know the Jewish leaders did not.

For the former I get revelation and I recognize it in others.

For the latter I recognize the lack in the way they fought the Savior verbally. They did not have revelation so their authority was all but useless and on some level they knew it and feared it. Why else would you kill someone for raising someone from the dead?

[SouthernMo]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For me, I don't tend to believe what I have been taught until I have experienced it for myself. The Lord has let me know very clearly how He expects me to treat His prophets, apostles and other authorised servants. I have yet to see a single Saint get this one wrong and survive the experience spiritually.

When you say “get this one wrong” do you mean not show deference to those in the heirarchy above oneself?

What do you mean “survive the experience spiritually?”

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For the latter I recognize the lack in the way they fought the Savior verbally. They did not have revelation so their authority was all but useless and on some level they knew it and feared it. Why else would you kill someone for raising someone from the dead?

It seems your judgement is based on your belief that anyone who fights Christ cannot receive revelation. (?)

Not that I necessarily disagree, but i want to see your perspective that you would not accept anyone who claims to receive revelation while they fight [against] Christ.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It seems your judgement is based on your belief that anyone who fights Christ cannot receive revelation. (?)

Not that I necessarily disagree, but i want to see your perspective that you would not accept anyone who claims to receive revelation while they fight [against] Christ.

Most people who fight against Christ are not doing it fully cognizant of what they are doing. The Light of Christ is still around and so, most likely, is the possibility of limited revelation. If someone is so far gone that they are child of Perdition then yeah, I think revelation is dead for them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

44 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

When you say “get this one wrong” do you mean not show deference to those in the heirarchy above oneself?

That's an odd way of phrasing it. It's not about deference, I don't think; it's about receiving prophets for who they are: prophets. Heaps of people like to fool themselves into thinking that there is some distinction between rejecting prophets and rejecting the Saviour. But both ancient and modern scripture remove any such possibility. I've concluded it's because the ability to recognise the prophet inside a man is the same ability required to recognise the Messiah. One automatically leads to the other.

Quote

What do you mean “survive the experience spiritually?”

With the Gift of the Holy Ghost still operating in the person's life. With the ability to receive and recognise revelation still intact. With priesthood power still present. With the ability to recognise truth still functioning. Still knowing that Jesus Christ is the Almighty Son of God. Etc.

Rejecting the prophets of God seems to be one of the shortest routes to closing oneself off from the the power of God in so many different facets. Prayers feel like they're unheard, unheeded. The heavens, in fact, go silent. In so many cases, the end result is a complete loss of faith in deity.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[flameburns623]

10 hours 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

One minor difference of opinion in this. 

Bill and Kelly are not so much "spiraling downward" as "spiraling AWAY". 

I think they have formed differences with the LDS Church over time which they sincerely and wholeheartedly believe, and I think Heavenly Father will take into account to a greater extent than we humans are wonted to believe possible the limitations of mortality. 

Look, in the late 1970's I wrote something crudely akin to the CFR Letter, drawn from whatever anti-Mormon sources I had been exposed to at that time. (The materials remained in my file throughout a decade outside the Church, until I  returned in the late eighties. It stayed there after I resigned in 2008. It was there in 2015, when my current Bishop showed me what I had written some thirty years earlier).

The thing is: I believed what I had written those three decades ago. 

Then, ten years later, I had found ways to see those things in a different way.  Then, mainly because I just didn't want to belong to something I never participated in, I walked away, half-believing again what I had once believed, then disbelieved.  

"Paradigm shift" has become an overworked expression,  but it really does describe something real. I have experienced several over a lifetime.  Sometimes,  what once looked like mountains now look like plains, or even valleys. 

Hard to explain.  

But: I think, I hope, that God understands,  and makes allowances in His mercy. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

God understands, and makes allowances in His mercy. 

God is all-merciful ... and, in my experience, knows well how to play the 'long game' with His children. If there's a way to get one back, He won't rest until it's done, whether in this world or in the next. This is the central reason, I think, why we are commanded not to condemn -- noting that word's purest meaning.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I’d gladly stand up to the evils of the Church of Jesus Christ if I could find anyway.

course I’m not looking for anything to complain about

Plenty of opportunities to stand up to evil in our day, inside and outside the church.  If you can't find any I'd be happy to point them out to you.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

The CFR pertains to your specific claim that "grass roots efforts by members" had an influence with the end of the Priesthood Ban.

I never made that specific claim that grass roots efforts influenced the end of the priesthood ban, although I imagine they did have some level of influence as no decisions are made in a vacuum.  I know President Kimball was concerned about many things including the temple in Brazil and I imagine his concerns were amplified by the members on the ground bubbling these issues up the chain of command.   Its a collective enterprise.  But even earlier communications from people like Lowry Nelson to the first presidency may have had some influence on getting leaders to think about things differently by planting seeds.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Very difficult, indeed.  I seem to recall Neylan McBaine (?) suggesting that Kate Kelly was an impediment to progress that was already underway.

Yes, I've heard some people say that as well.  I tend to have a different opinion based on my observations.  

[ksfisher]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Is there nothing else going on in S. Utah that this made the news? no, babies born, marriages, robberies, movies to see , anything?!

There was that guy who got a flat tire just outside of Hurricane. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There was that guy who got a flat tire just outside of Hurricane. 

Three Nephites sleeping on the job again?