Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Or as Mr Reel would label it if he thought an apostle had done the same thing, he's lied. His pants are on fire, even.

So long as we’re all playing by the same rules, right?  Do you condemn both of them for their use of prose or defend our anointed ones because of their callings?

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you genuinely believe this demonstrably untrue statement, or are you just trying to push back? I honestly can't tell.

Pushing back, and wondering why you’d suggest that people who get caught up in facts end up outside the church.  It’s a pretty condemning statement against the LDS faith, I think.  From my perspective, it makes Mormons out to be “feel good” people whose approach to truth seeking Is based on a very subjective approach.

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's weird Southern Mo asked about God's existence when Bill Reel even said in his "the Testimony of Bill Reel" he has "serious doubts and disbelief regarding the Historical Jesus narrative" but he somehow believes in the "Christ of Faith" what to base his faith on I have no idea because he doesn't seem to believe the scriptures either

My belief in god has nothing to do with Bill Reel’s. Why do you compare my faith with his, and when you find inconsistency call it weird?

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That hasn't happened to me.  Or my father.  Or brother.  Or many, many other friends and acquaintances.

Agreed. My sarcasm wasn’t apparent. Wonder why @Hamba Tuhan would imply that those who embrace fact too much will leave the church?

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So long as we’re all playing by the same rules, right?  Do you condemn both of them for their use of prose or defend our anointed ones because of their callings?

Neither. I think, as Tacenda already noted, that exaggeration is a common rhetorical device. And to speak mistakenly is also human.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Pushing back, and wondering why you’d suggest that people who get caught up in facts end up outside the church.

 

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Wonder why @Hamba Tuhan would imply that those who embrace fact too much will leave the church?

Again, I fear we're not speaking the same language at all. I've never said that people who embrace facts will leave the Church, nor do I believe it. Not sure where you took this point from. 

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Again, I fear we're not speaking the same language at all. I've never said that people who embrace facts will leave the Church, nor do I believe it. Not sure where you took this point from. 

Your statement: “Thiswhole 'I can't be wrong because all I've done is repeat facts' nonsense is risible, though it has certainly become a meme in the ex- and soon-to-be ex-Latter-daySaint community.” Implies to me that those who stick to facts alone will soon be out of the church. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Your statement: “This whole 'I can't be wrong because all I've done is repeat facts' nonsense is risible, though it has certainly become a meme in the ex- and soon-to-be ex-Latter-day Saint community.” Implies to me that those who stick to facts alone will soon be out of the church. 

Sorry about that. Let me see if I can rephrase:

One of the ways people in the ex- and soon-to-be ex-Latter-day Saint community try to mask their interpretations is to claim that they can't be wrong because all they've done is repeat facts. We've seen echoes of that approach in this very thread: So-and-so can't be wrong because all he's done is repeat facts and/or back up all of his statements with facts. But the reality, of course, is that all kinds of competing interpretations/narratives can be created from the exact same pot of facts. Though in reality, it's never the same pot. People like Mr Reel pick and choose their favourites just like every single other person does.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sorry about that. Let me see if I can rephrase:

One of the ways people in the ex- and soon-to-be ex-Latter-day Saint community try to mask their interpretations is to claim that they can't be wrong because all they've done is repeat facts. We've seen echoes of that approach in this very thread: So-and-so can't be wrong because all he's done is repeat facts and/or back up all of his statements with facts. But the reality, of course, is that all kinds of competing interpretations/narratives can be created from the exact same pot of facts. Though in reality, it's never the same pot. People like Mr Reel pick and choose their favourites just like every single other person does.

You bring up a good point.  There are counter-perspectives that could be heard.

Why, then, are leaders unable to formally and adequately (if at all) respond to Bill’s, Jeremy Runnell’s (and others’?) lists of facts and conclusions?  How can our ‘inspired’ leaders responses be so uninspiring?

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m less concerned about the “facts” that seem to resonate with some groups of church critics, and more concerned with the inadequate responses from church leaders.

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Why, then, are leaders unable to formally and adequately (if at all) respond to Bill’s, Jeremy Runnell’s (and others’?) lists of facts and conclusions? 

From my perspective, it's because the only response that would satisfy such critics is, 'You're right. We're wrong. And we're sorry'.

That's not going to happen because, if our 'inspired leaders' are even remotely like me, saying that would be a bald-faced lie.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[sunstoned]

Mormon stories has just posted a podcast interview with Bill Reel.  It is labeled his pre-excommunication interview.  His excommunication "court" is scheduled for tomorrow night (November 27th) at 8:30.

 

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

My belief in god has nothing to do with Bill Reel’s. Why do you compare my faith with his, and when you find inconsistency call it weird?

I thought we were talking about Bill Reel on a thread about Bill Reel? why would we talk about your views on God, in a thread about Bill Reel?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

How so?

Several of his “gotchas” are puerile but I think the most obvious evidence that he is not serious is he insists that he has a list of 24 questions his stake president could not “reconcile” from his “data driven” list proving the weakness of the Church’s position.

Here are some that make me think he does not even know what the word reconcile means:

16.) Will you work to rid us within our ward and stake all the false stories in our manuals especially false stories about those who leave (Thomas Marsh, Symonds Ryder, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith)?

17.) Will you provide a safe space for those who have read more and who understand the history to in their effort to correct the historically demonstrable false beliefs in our history and culture?

18.) Will you make a safe space for a member who holds a non-historical view of our sacred myth stories who is careful to share his views as only his views?

19.) Will you work to provide a safe space to rid our local culture of homophobia and inappropriate comments and teachings on LGBT folks that are hurtful and potentially lead to self loathing and abuse?

20.) Will you work to diminish my perspective or will it be fully welcome in your ward/stake? Will I be considered for all callings including leadership and teaching positions so long as I promise to be truthful about our history and to respect differences of opinion while also being clear when false non-doctrinal things are taught that they are pointed out as inaccurate?

Those are not reconciliable. They are quasi-demands pretending to be questions. I especially like how he wants permission to preach his apostasy in teaching and leadership callings.

And here is a whirlwind word salad that makes little sense:

21.) Can you explain what the plan of salvation and equal opportunity to receive exaltation is for Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Intersex, Asexual or Queer people is with the partially acknowledged understanding that having this sexual orientation and or gender identity is not generally a choice but is a natural component of the person’s fundamental being as eye color or handedness, or skin tone is and the gospel teaching that God allowed them to be born with or to have these innate characteristics?

Partially acknowledged? What? And that grammar.......where is the Oxford comma?

And I think this is my favorite:

6.) 2000 stripling warriors battle against a larger more experienced army and not one soldier is killed. Many faint from blood loss but in an age of infection, not one gets gangrene and each of them without blood transfusions reports back to duty and a short while. In light of modern understanding and what is even in the realm of plausible, such a story is absurd. Other than imposing irrational thinking that “with God anything is possible” how do you reconcile such?

My translation of what was said:

This book was reportedly delivered by an angel, translated miraculously, testifies of miracles lasting throughout time as long as there is faith, and claims to be the word of God. Accepting all that there is an episode in the book that is improbable and probably even miraculous. Clearly the miraculous nature of this story does not fit into the book and saying God was involved is just irrational. Can you please provide a rational explanation devoid of miracles so I can rationally accept this angel-delivered and God-translated book without bringing in the divine or anything that could be considered supernatural? Thanks in advance, love ya, buh-bye.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So how can you disagree with his conclusions when you haven’t listened to or read his words?

He has posted a lot on this board so Rod has had many opportunities to read his comments.

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Mormon stories has just posted a podcast interview with Bill Reel.  It is labeled his pre-excommunication interview.  His excommunication "court" is scheduled for tomorrow night (November 27th) at 8:30.

It's called a disciplinary council.  

Thanks,

Smac

[Calm]

Nvm

Edited November 27, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's called a disciplinary council.  

Thanks,

Smac

A misnomer.  very little counseling.  SLC wants him exed.  So he will be exed.  

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

A misnomer.  very little counseling.  SLC wants him exed.  So he will be exed.  

Someone in SLC decided that? who? I know Bill Reel's ego is astronomical but if it is the case that they want him exed why is mounting this defense and putting all this stuff online? if it's a losing situation then why fight?

Edited November 27, 2018 by Duncan

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

A misnomer.  very little counseling.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary (emphasis added):

Quote

council (n.)

"assembly of persons for consultation, deliberation or advice," early 12c., originally in the Church sense, "assembly of prelates and theologians to regulate doctrine and discipline," from Anglo-French cuncile, from Old North French concilie (Old French concile, 12c.) "assembly; council meeting; body of counsellors," from Latin concilium "a meeting, a gathering of people," from PIE *kal-yo-, suffixed form of root *kele- (2) "to shout." The notion is of a calling together. The tendency to confuse it in form and meaning with counsel has been consistent since 16c.

 

Quote

SLC wants him exed.  So he will be exed. 

Another favourite article of faith for critics ...

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

A misnomer.  very little counseling.  SLC wants him exed.  So he will be exed.  

Council, not counsel.

[flameburns623]

It is a bit less than 24 hours, as I compose this, until Bill Reel's disciplinary hearing.  Some thoughts, for whatever it is worth. 

First: please imagine a jigsaw puzzle,  constructed of four-sided blocks. Let's assume that the blocks depict a scene in four seasons. Obviously,  the puzzle could be assembled so as to depict any of those four seasons. BUT: the puzzle could also be assembled so as to show a mixture of seasons--as if, in late Autumn or early Spring,  there were evidences of Winter as well as of milder weather.  

Some ways of assembling this puzzle might not make much sense, meaning that it would be difficultto conceive of a weather pattern which encompassesboth blistering Summer alongside several inches of snow, bare branches with dangling icicles,  etcetera. 

But a creative person might find several ways to assemble it in ways that COULD make sense. In fact,  there might be dozens of ways to assemble the puzzle which would reflect possible real-world weather circumstances.

People form preferences around certain ways of assembling the puzzle. The majority of folks spend time discussing their preferences, mostly with people whose preferences are similar to or nearly identical to their own. Only a relative few spend time interacting with people whose preferences are to assemble the puzzle in radically different ways.

Most of us who are to some extent faithful Latter-Day Saints have assembled our LDS worldview in particular ways which are compatible with one another and which allow us to maintain a community of faith. We have certain "curators" which evaluate what approximates our preferences, and the curators alert people if those persons are assembling their personal puzzles in ways beyond the range of what conforms to an LDS  preference.  

Bill's "puzzle"--his way of seeing the LDS faith--came apart,  somehow. He has elected to reassemble his puzzle in ways that (it appears) are beyond how the curators of the LDS preferences are likely to find acceptable.  Bill would like those curators to modify the boundaries of what is acceptable: that's not likely to happen,  at least not to any degree which will keep Bill within the bounds of how LDS believers prefer to assemble the puzzle. 

Moreover: Bill is charging those curators with being "bad people" because they do not enlarge the parameters of what is acceptably LDS in this dynamic of puzzle-building. 

I am describing the religious quest as something which more closely resembles aesthetic tastes than rigorous philosophical truth-seeking. I,  personally,  have come to see religion in exactly that way.  I don't really know how one can really determine,  through logic, evidence, scientific evidence, or otherwise,  how Buddhism is more true than Methodism. Nor why Judaism is more believable than Zoroastrianism.  Nor how Islam trumps LDS Christianity.  There really do seem to be too many competing elements involved in how people make choices about their spirituality to believe that a quest for truth is going to be resolved by some such testable means. 

And even the One True Faith, whatever that is, will in the end turn out to have been available only to some tiny, narrow slice of humanity,  for a fraction of the existence of the human race.  

Is Bill Reel a "bad person" because his puzzle came apart or because he has chosen to reassemble it differently than how he was taught was acceptable? Even after some have given what seem to them good reasons to remain within the bounds? Are the curators "bad" for maintaining established boundaries and definitions for what an LDS interpretation of how the puzzle is assembled?

Some here clearly feel that Bill IS "bad". I don't.  I also don't know that the curators are "bad" for maintaining the current standards,  although I realize that a case can be made that we could enlarge our standards and be enabled to include persons who also currently don't assemble the puzzle to current LDS standards.  

The thing is: there are places for Bill to go where he would have greater latitude to assemble his faith-puzzle as he prefers: the Community of Christ and other Restorationist bodies, the Unitarian Universalists,  the Ethical Society,  even Reform Judaism.  Bill could even remain unassociated with any group and construct, deconstruct,  and reconstruct his puzzle in some personal ecclectic and whimsical manner, if that suits him. 

So: IMHO,  being mad at Bill for making what (to me) are aesthetic choices is not worthwhile.  If Bill Reel is sent away following his Disciplinary Hearing tomorrow evening, it will be a sad thing: but Bill will remain free to do as he will with his own faith puzzle.  

Are the curators "bad" for excluding not only Bill but also others, some of them particularly sensitive to the pain of such an exclusion? Again: it is not clear that changes in LDS standards regarding how to assemble the puzzle could help.  Suicides seem to happen even where wider latitude is granted.

Making such changes as Bill and others propose MIGHT help, but it might simply eviscerate what the unique LDS puzzle has come to mean for most Latter-Day Saints, without helping those who potentially are being hurt. 

I wish Bill the best of all possible outcomes, tomorrow night.  And that's pretty much all I know to say,  for now. 

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I thought we were talking about Bill Reel on a thread about Bill Reel? why would we talk about your views on God, in a thread about Bill Reel?

If you read the thread between me and Hamba, you’ll see clearly that we’re setting agreements about what “facts” mean.

You seem to jump in on our discussion and weigh in without understanding that.

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

He has posted a lot on this board so Rod has had many opportunities to read his comments.

Would be great to let Rod answer this question for himself.

His comment about his curiosity about Bill Reel’s supposed lack of writings and unwillingness to listen to his podcasts indicates to me that he hasn’t taken the time to understand Bill Reel.

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

A misnomer.  very little counseling.  SLC wants him exed.  So he will be exed.  

I wonder if anyone would have objected you to calling it a “court of love” despite that not being what it is officially called.

[provoman]

Anyone know about Bill alleged statement made in a podcast that he woukd takedown some of his material if if ment he would not be excommunicated?