Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[blueglass]

I read the 2017 testimony Bill Reel has posted, and I don't see why he should be excommunicated.  When I served on the Stake High Council, there was much deliberation over whether disfellowshipment or excommunication would serve the disciplinary council's will to "save the soul of the transgressor".  HB1, section 6.1.   Under section 6.7.3, when a disciplinary council is mandatory it lists under apostasy a series of trip wires, and it is not clear that if you trip over one you are to immediately be called in for a council.  "Repeatedly act in clear, open, deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders".  Does the church consider any website, blog or podcast which calls out failings of the institution or its leaders  the same as a Nauvoo Expositor printing press which must be destroyed as soon as possible?  

Is there any evidence that Bill Reel should not be "numbered among my people"?  The scriptures cited for sec 6.7.3 are 3 Nephi 18:31, Mosiah 26:36

3 Nephi 18:31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

Mosiah 26:36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

 

 

[Analytics]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:48 PM, smac97 said:

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

I don't know much about Bill Reel, but I just finished listening to the podcast where consiglieri interviewed him on Radio Free Mormonism two days ago. What is clear is that Bill Reel is not a "big list" kind of guy. He tells the story about how about seven or eight years ago as a bishop he had a faith crisis and reached out to an apostle, which is apparently a prerogative that bishop's are granted. He ended up having several long phone calls and email exchanges with Marlin K. Jensen about his concerns, and continued serving as a bishop for about two years while this crisis of faith was going on. He gave Elder Jensen some ideas about how the Church could best deal with the issues, which Elder Jensen allegedly appreciated receiving. From the way Reel tells the story, it was a productive dialogue.

He said that on the whole he came to the realization that on these issues, the doubters probably had the stronger position.

He later started his podcasts and moved to another stake, where he immediately contacted his new bishop and stake president, introduced himself, and let him know that he was somewhat of a public figure and that the general leadership would probably be contacting them about him. He made himself available to talk about the issues. The way he talked of the concerns shifted from, "the doubters have the stronger position" to an abbreviated "there are no [good] answers." To make a point, Bill suggested they talk about only five questions. The stake president thought that was a good idea, so Reel wrote down five questions and showed them to the stake president. The stake president was stumped. He sent the five questions to a GA asking for help in answering them. The GA responded to the stake president that he wouldn't provide answers--the stake president needed to figure it out for himself. Bill then moved again to a new stake where he is now being excommunicated.

Anyway, I have two points. First, Bill Reel isn't the kind of guy who wants quick and easy answers and then moves on to an endless list of what-abouts every time an answer is given. Bill Reel wants to talk about the details. And talk. And talk.

Second, the reason Mormonism is frequently criticized with big lists is because there are in fact a lot of troubling issues. Yes, there are "answers", but the answers are generally strained--they tend to be labored or far fetched. What tends to happen is that when a sincere believer encounters an issue they study it and work it out in their own mind the best they can, and then put it on their shelf. Then they happen to come across another issue and do the same thing. And another. And another.

When there are only one or two troubling issues that don't have genuinely good answers, it's relatively easy to put them on the shelf, give the church the benefit of the doubt, and have faith. But sometimes for some people, you take a step back and look at all of the issues on the shelf and a giant collection of strained answers, and you see a pattern. It isn't one issue that breaks your shelf. It is a whole host of issues. And it doesn't come to this because you are lazy or insincere or demand quick-and-easy answers. It comes to this because you were patient, had faith, and let the issues on the shelf build up.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Analytics

[The Nehor]

I am pretty sure they all just want to sin.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't know much about Bill Reel, but I just finished listening to the podcast where consiglieri interviewed him on Radio Free Mormonism two days ago. What is clear is that Bill Reel is not a "big list" kind of guy. He tells the story about how about seven or eight years ago as a bishop he had a faith crisis and reached out to an apostle, which is apparently a prerogative that bishop's are granted. He ended up having several long phone calls and email exchanges with Marlin K. Jensen about his concerns, and continued serving as a bishop for about two years while this crisis of faith was going on. He gave Elder Jensen some ideas about how the Church could best deal with the issues, which Elder Jensen allegedly appreciated receiving. From the way Reel tells the story, it was a productive dialogue.

He said that on the whole he came to the realization that on these issues, the doubters probably had the stronger position.

He later started his podcasts and moved to another stake, where he immediately contacted his new bishop and stake president, introduced himself, and let him know that he was somewhat of a public figure and that the general leadership would probably be contacting them about him. He made himself available to talk about the issues. The way he talked of the concerns shifted from, "the doubters have the stronger position" to an abbreviated "there are no [good] answers." To make a point, Bill suggested they talk about only five questions. The stake president thought that was a good idea, so Reel wrote down five questions and showed them to the stake president. The stake president was stumped. He sent the five questions to a GA asking for help in answering them. The GA responded to the stake president that he wouldn't provide answers--the stake president needed to figure it out for himself. He then moved again to where he is being excommunicated.

Anyway, I have two points. First, Bill Reel isn't the kind of guy who wants quick and easy answers and then moves on to an endless list of what-abouts every time an answer is given. Bill Reel wants to talk about the details. And talk. And talk.

Second, the reason Mormonism is frequently criticized with big lists is because there are in fact a lot of troubling issues. Yes, there are "answers", but the answers are generally strained--they tend to be labored or far fetched. What tends to happen is that when a sincere believer encounters an issue they study it and work it out in their own mind the best they can, and then put it on their shelf. Then they happen to come across another issue and do the same thing. And another. And another.

When there are only one or two troubling issues that doesn't have genuinely good answers, it's relatively easy to put them on the shelf, give the church the benefit of the doubt, and have faith. But sometimes for some people, you take a step back and look at all of the issues on the shelf and a giant collection of strained answers, and you see a pattern. It isn't one issue that breaks your shelf. It is a whole host of issues. And it doesn't come to this because you are lazy or insincere or demand quick-and-easy answers. It comes to this because you are patient, have faith, and let the issues on the shelf build up.

Thanks so much for this. You nailed the last paragraph. 

[blueglass]

16 hours ago, smac97 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.

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

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Answering your CFR:

Lowry Nelson's letters to the first presidency, Lester Bush's 1973 dialogue article, Sterling McMurrin presentations to the NAACP and writing with Hugh Brown the civil rights statement which was read at General Conference, etc.

Read the Firmage papers on the tremendous work by Hugh B. Brown over the years, including gaining the ear of Wallace Turner of the New York Times, as well as influencing the jr apostle Spencer Kimball at a critical time after the failure of overturning efforts of 1969.  

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638644/Positive-developments-for-LDS-blacks-weighed-against-troubled-history-by-Lester-Bush-at-McMurrin.html

"University of Utah professor Paul Reeve said the article was one of the forces at work in 1978, when then-church President Spencer W. Kimball, who had read and marked up Bush's article and had been praying about the restriction for 15 years, announced he had received a revelation ending it."

Edited November 21, 2018 by blueglass

[flameburns623]

I listened to John Dehlin interview Bill Reel on Mormon Stories last night. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=508640706290036&id=73624634300

Of note to me: the last half hour or so. Bill indicated he began his podcasts as a way of overcoming the loneliness he felt as he began to develop doubts as a bishop, a few years into his calling.  

Bill DID reach out to Elder Holland,  he reports, (early in the video). Holland referred him to a Church historian, apparently the one who was responsible for overseeing the eventual development of the Church Essays.  This historian essentially told him there are no good answers to his questions,  but encouraged him to hold on and keep plodding along and the doubts would subside in importance. Initially, Bill says this was of some comfort,  but he continued to feel that at least some official effort at serious answers or resolutions SHOULD BE forthcoming. 

Bill persisted in his queries, and at some point Elder Holland engages him in ernest. Holland was very pastoral, very kind, gave Bill responses similar to what the historian had given him. When Bill pressed Elder Holland for specific answers, at some point, exchanges between Bill and Elder Holland ceased abruptly. 

This left Bill with only the podcasts he was creating, and with the work of those such as John Dehlin. These sent him ever deeper into the "rabbit hole" and carried him, step by step to the place where he is now. 

Somewhere along the way, Bill's trust in the personal integrity of Elder Jeffery Holland was shattered. It was then that he became strident in calling Elder Holland a liar.

Going public with this charge is what brought things to a head. Bill seems to indicate he expected it would. He had already been told by his Stake President that the SP was speaking regularly to the Brethren about Bill. Now a definite effort was made to bring Bill to heel. Failing this, the summons went forth. 

I said the last half hour was of particular interest for me. This was because Bill there indicated the state of his personal faith at this time. I was already somewhat aware, but for readers here: Bill believes almost nothing of the founding stories of the Restoration.

He concurs with David Bokovoy that the Old Testament is nearly so mythologized and fictional as the Book of Mormon. 

Bill is uncertain even of an historical Jesus or an actual resurrection of Christ from the dead.

He does find meaning and hope in something he has been working out as The Mythic Christ.

Since this Mythic Christ is far and far and far away from what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches, Bill in this interview has pretty much affirmed one of the key purposes of a Disciplinary Council as I understand such Councils: he has acknowledged,  publicly that his views are divergent, i.e. an APOSTASY, from what the CoJCoLDS teaches.

This is significant,  because Bill seems inclined to want to treat the Disciplinary Council as if it were a criminal court: as if the Church has accused Bill of specific crimes and must first prove every aspect of such crimes before any sentence can be passed.

Bill, or others, can correct me but: while there may be issues of fact that might need to be established in some cases, the basic role of a Disciplinary Council is to determine that someone is in some sense wholly out of concord with the teachings or moral standards of the Church.

If the LDS Church teaches a literal, historical Jesus Christ,  and a Crucifixion, death, and Resurrection of that Christ in actual historical time; while Bill openly subscribes to a Mythical Christ; then it looks to me that Bill is in fact in apostasy. 

I don't WANT Bill excommunicated,  please understand.  I think his questions are interesting: I ask some of them as well.  Bill has an absolute right to raise them. But he isn't adhering to what the Church teaches: he is embracing "another Gospel", to borrow from the anti-Mormons.

And Bill is advocating for this "other Gospel" quite publicly. He isn't working things out quietly. He shouldn't be surprised the General Authorities, and/or his local Stake leadership feel they must remove him from good standing in the Church. 

My analysis of the podcast.  Apologies for any typos. I worked all night and must sleep. 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I listened to John Dehlin interview Bill Reel on Mormon Stories last night. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=508640706290036&id=73624634300

Of note to me: the last half hour or so. Bill indicated he began his podcasts as a way of overcoming the loneliness he felt as he began to develop doubts as a bishop, a few years into his calling.  

Bill DID reach out to Elder Holland,  he reports, (early in the video). Holland referred him to a Church historian, apparently the one who was responsible for overseeing the eventual development of the Church Essays.  This historian essentially told him there are no good answers to his questions,  but encouraged him to hold on and keep plodding along and the doubts would subside in importance. Initially, Bill says this was of some comfort,  but he continued to feel that at least some official effort at serious answers or resolutions SHOULD BE forthcoming. 

Bill persisted in his queries, and at some point Elder Holland engages him in ernest. Holland was very pastoral, very kind, gave Bill responses similar to what the historian had given him. When Bill pressed Elder Holland for specific answers, at some point, exchanges between Bill and Elder Holland ceased abruptly. 

This left Bill with only the podcasts he was creating, and with the work of those such as John Dehlin. These sent him ever deeper into the "rabbit hole" and carried him, step by step to the place where he is now. 

Somewhere along the way, Bill's trust in the personal integrity of Elder Jeffery Holland was shattered. It was then that he became strident in calling Elder Holland a liar.

Going public with this charge is what brought things to a head. Bill seems to indicate he expected it would. He had already been told by his Stake President that the SP was speaking regularly to the Brethren about Bill. Now a definite effort was made to bring Bill to heel. Failing this, the summons went forth. 

I said the last half hour was of particular interest for me. This was because Bill there indicated the state of his personal faith at this time. I was already somewhat aware, but for readers here: Bill believes almost nothing of the founding stories of the Restoration.

He concurs with David Bokovoy that the Old Testament is nearly so mythologized and fictional as the Book of Mormon. 

Bill is uncertain even of an historical Jesus or an actual resurrection of Christ from the dead.

He does find meaning and hope in something he has been working out as The Mythic Christ.

Since this Mythic Christ is far and far and far away from what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches, Bill in this interview has pretty much affirmed one of the key purposes of a Disciplinary Council as I understand such Councils: he has acknowledged,  publicly that his views are divergent, i.e. an APOSTASY, from what the CoJCoLDS teaches.

This is significant,  because Bill seems inclined to want to treat the Disciplinary Council as if it were a criminal court: as if the Church has accused Bill of specific crimes and must first prove every aspect of such crimes before any sentence can be passed.

Bill, or others, can correct me but: while there may be issues of fact that might need to be established in some cases, the basic role of a Disciplinary Council is to determine that someone is in some sense wholly out of concord with the teachings or moral standards of the Church.

If the LDS Church teaches a literal, historical Jesus Christ,  and a Crucifixion, death, and Resurrection of that Christ in actual historical time; while Bill openly subscribes to a Mythical Christ; then it looks to me that Bill is in fact in apostasy. 

I don't WANT Bill excommunicated,  please understand.  I think his questions are interesting: I ask some of them as well.  Bill has an absolute right to raise them. But he isn't adhering to what the Church teaches: he is embracing "another Gospel", to borrow from the anti-Mormons.

And Bill is advocating for this "other Gospel" quite publicly. He isn't working things out quietly. He shouldn't be surprised the General Authorities, and/or his local Stake leadership feel they must remove him from good standing in the Church. 

My analysis of the podcast.  Apologies for any typos. I worked all night and must sleep. 

This is all according to Bill though and with his monumental ego, he'd say anything

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This is all according to Bill though and with his monumental ego, he'd say anything

Duncan, I really love you!!  I do understand that you have some great dislike for Mr. Reel; however, I do think you are not being quite fair.  Having been through what he has in trying to get answers...way before the CES letter and essays...it is harder than you think.  Hope you have a wonderful holiday!!

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Duncan, I really love you!!  I do understand that you have some great dislike for Mr. Reel; however, I do think you are not being quite fair.  Having been through what he has in trying to get answers...way before the CES letter and essays...it is harder than you think.  Hope you have a wonderful holiday!!

I have as well! and Canada already had thanksgiving but thank you!!!!😃

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have as well! and Canada already had thanksgiving but thank you!!!!😃

So then...if Thanksgiving is over...I can send you my Christmas List and you can go for it!!!😊  Respect to you and your feelings always...Jeanne.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

This is all according to Bill though and with his monumental ego, he'd say anything

Come on, Duncan.

While I recognize it's always easier to call someone a liar instead of addressing the issues, it seems a bit harsh and judgmental.

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on, Duncan.

While I recognize it's always easier to call someone a liar instead of addressing the issues, it seems a bit harsh and judgmental.

oh, I am addressing the issue, the issue of his massive ego, it's leading to all this stuff

 

edit to add

There's a guy who is active in the Church and operates a blog and has written several LDS books who I think is self righteous and if you disagree with him he considers you an apostate, like Bill he can't get enough of himself and his output

Edited November 21, 2018 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh, I am addressing the issue, the issue of his massive ego, it's leading to all this stuff

 

edit to add

There's a guy who is active in the Church and operates a blog and has written several LDS books who I think is self righteous and if you disagree with him he considers you an apostate, like Bill he can't get enough of himself and his output

I'm taking issue with "he'd say anything" more than your analysis of his ego.

"He'd say anything" is an attack on his character and implies he's a liar who can't be trusted. You're welcome to your opinion, but your accusation is harsh and IMO unfounded, regardless of "ego".

Bill has done a lot of good and just because you don't like him doesn't really give you the right to impugn his character. There are plenty on this board who accuse and assume the worst out of those with whom they disagree, but you don't want to be that gut, do you?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

He gave Elder Jensen some ideas about how the Church could best deal with the issues, which Elder Jensen allegedly appreciated receiving...

He later started his podcasts and moved to another stake, where he immediately contacted his new bishop and stake president, introduced himself, and let him know that he was somewhat of a public figure and that the general leadership would probably be contacting them about him. 

I don't think Duncan is calling Bill a liar, but that he sees things through a very tinted filter, indicated by things such as the above.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think Duncan is calling Bill a liar, but that he sees things through a very tinted filter, indicated by things such as the above.

Agree to disagree.

About Bill he said...

"This is all according to Bill though and with his monumental ego, he'd say anything"

That is very much an accusation of dishonesty. You can't believe a thing he says because "he'd say anything".

ETA- I find it so interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at Bill. I've got not problem with people disagreeing with him, but the level of anger and even hatred against him on this thread & others is pretty disgusting. If an outsider looked at how church members treat another church member (soon to be former church member) would they be impressed? I don't think so.

Edited November 21, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Judd]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Agree to disagree.

About Bill he said...

"This is all according to Bill though and with his monumental ego, he'd say anything"

That is very much an accusation of dishonesty. You can't believe a thing he says because "he'd say anything".

ETA- I find it so interesting to see the level of vitriol aimed at Bill. I've got not problem with people disagreeing with him, but the level of anger and even hatred against him on this thread & others is pretty disgusting. If an outsider looked at how church members treat another church member (soon to be former church member) would they be impressed? I don't think so.

If you think that’s bad, you should hear Duncan’s podcast “Liar, liar, pants on fire,” where he spends the whole time impugning Bill’s character and honesty.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

I read the 2017 testimony Bill Reel has posted, and I don't see why he should be excommunicated.  When I served on the Stake High Council, there was much deliberation over whether disfellowshipment or excommunication would serve the disciplinary council's will to "save the soul of the transgressor".  HB1, section 6.1.   Under section 6.7.3, when a disciplinary council is mandatory it lists under apostasy a series of trip wires, and it is not clear that if you trip over one you are to immediately be called in for a council.  "Repeatedly act in clear, open, deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders".  Does the church consider any website, blog or podcast which calls out failings of the institution or its leaders  the same as a Nauvoo Expositor printing press which must be destroyed as soon as possible?  

Is there any evidence that Bill Reel should not be "numbered among my people"?  The scriptures cited for sec 6.7.3 are 3 Nephi 18:31, Mosiah 26:36

3 Nephi 18:31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

Mosiah 26:36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

 

 

Well you see one of the greatest sins in the modern day LDS Church is speaking out against the leaders openly.  That gets you the boot almost every time, well, unless you are a really prominent public figure.  Bill has done this.  So he is toast. 😁

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Agree to disagree.

About Bill he said...

"This is all according to Bill though and with his monumental ego, he'd say anything"

That is very much an accusation of dishonesty. You can't believe a thing he says because "he'd say anything".

I don't think it has to be an accusation of dishonesty.  Rather he sees Reel as prone to accepting and then going on about....extensively imo....extreme perspectives and many are constructed with Reel as a primary actor.  Since Duncan gave me a rep point, I am assuming he is agreeing with my perspective of Duncan's perspective of Reel's perspective.

I had a friend who was not delusional, but was very self centered and negative.  Conspiracy theorist, etc.  And I would describe them as not being able to believe anything they said for the same reason.  It was bizarre at times the claims they would make, including of interactions I knew about.  But I have no doubt they weren't lying, they just had an unrealistic way of looking at the world.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think it has to be an accusation of dishonesty.  Rather he sees Reel as prone to accepting and then going on about....extensively imo....extreme perspectives and many are constructed with Reel as a primary actor.  Since Duncan gave me a rep point, I am assuming he is agreeing with my perspective of Duncan's perspective of Reel's perspective.

I had a friend who was not delusional, but was very self centered and negative.  Conspiracy theorist, etc.  And I would describe them as not being able to believe anything they said for the same reason.  It was bizarre at times the claims they would make, including of interactions I knew about.  But I have no doubt they weren't lying, they just had an unrealistic way of looking at the world.

IMO it sounds very much like Duncan is questioning Bill's honesty but I'd be happy to accept Duncan's explanation if he intended something different, although I don't know that saying he's "honest but delusional" is a whole lot better  

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've got not problem with people disagreeing with him, but the level of anger and even hatred against him on this thread & others is pretty disgusting.

I think you’re seeing what you want to see, mate. Or maybe you’re just trying to convince us that we can’t assess Mr Reel’s behaviour without somehow appearing hateful and angry?

Quote

If an outsider looked at how church members treat another church member (soon to be former church member) would they be impressed? I don't think so.

So maybe really just an attempt to use the faithful’s values as a tool to shame them into avoiding the topic altogether? 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you’re seeing what you want to see, mate. Or maybe you’re just trying to convince us that we can’t discuss Mr Reel’s behaviour without somehow appearing hateful and angry?

So maybe really just an attempt to use the faithful’s values as a tool to shame them into avoiding the topic altogether? 

No, I don't think so. I don't mind the discussion, but there really is an anger against Bill, and I'm not just talking about this thread. If you go back and look at just about any thread where Bill participates, and/or its about him in some way, the knives come out. It's ugly.

Duncan's comment wasn't nearly that ugly so I don't mean to say it is. I like Duncan, but he definitely has a bias against Bill and his comments reflect that. Understandable. I just think people feel too comfortable making accusations and passing judgement on Bill, and others like him, and I'm simply trying to point out that that kind of behavior is generally ugly and not reflective of Christian discipleship. We all make mistakes and fall short of the ideal, but I often see a defense of the unchristian, and it's a big turn off for me, and I suspect others as well.

We've all heard the stories where a nonmember tells a member something like "you always seem so happy" or "there's a light about you" etc which is taken as indication that the member has the light of Christ in his countenance. So what's the alternative when we see the nastiness of accusation and justice. What are we to conclude then?

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO it sounds very much like Duncan is questioning Bill's honesty but I'd be happy to accept Duncan's explanation if he intended something different, although I don't know that saying he's "honest but delusional" is a whole lot better  

I didn't say my friend was delusional, but rather not delusional.  I have no clue if Duncan thinks Reel is delusional or not.  I don't see any need to label him delusional myself.  He just has an extremely strong negative bias, imo, in regards to upper church leadership and he sees himself as a major, highly educated figure in the community, which may or may not be accurate.  I would not be surprised if where he saw leaders gratefully accepting of his ideas, they were actually just being mostly polite.  It is also possible they did find his ideas insightful in the past.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

I think he's blooming arrogant and to me, that seems to be his downfall in the Church, like it is with everyone who is like that

I like you too HappyJackwagon! if you invited me over for dinner i'd say yes! unless you served boiled raccoon in a spinach sauce, then no🤢🤢🤢

Edited November 21, 2018 by Duncan

[Avatar4321]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think he's blooming arrogant and to me, that seems to be his downfall in the Church, like it is with everyone who is like that

I like you too HappyJackwagon! if you invited me over for dinner i'd say yes! unless you served boiled raccoon in a spinach sauce, then no🤢🤢🤢

Don’t like spinach eh?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm simply trying to point out that that kind of behavior is generally ugly and not reflective of Christian discipleship ...I often see a defense of the unchristian, and it's a big turn off for me, and I suspect others as well.

This is an apt description of what I see in virtually everything I've read from Mr Reel. And yet if someone in this forum simply tries to point out that his behaviour is ugly or arrogant, unChristian or 'a big turn off', there will always be those who feel it's OK for them to label that simple assessment as angry and hateful 'vitriol'. To each his own, I reckon. 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan