Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According to Bill Reel, the five "lies" told by Elder Holland are:

1. The Hyrum/Bathsheba Smith Copy of The Book of Mormon.

"Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read.  The problem is that the copy Elder Holland holds up in his hand at General conference is distinctly different from the copy in the Church History department claimed to be the same book."

So far, it appears from the evidence that Elder Holland was holding the correct copy (as opposed to another, similar-looking one).  And if he was not, it was seemingly an inconsequential error, and was not an effort to deceive (as Hamba and Calm have pointed out, there would be no point to such a deception, as the Church owns both copies).

So it appears that Elder Holland was correct on this point.

2. Elder Holland's Statement Regarding the Church Not Contributing Money to the Prop 8 Campaign.

"Elder Holland when asked about the Church’s contribution to Prop 8 says that the Church did not give “One Red Cent” to the fight against Same Sex Marriage in California.  Problem is it gave a reported amount of almost $200,000.  Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."

Even Bill Reel hedges his bets here.  He presents a source, the ever-pleasant Fred Karger, who posits that the Church made "non-monetary" contributions to the Prop 8 effort.  Reel's other citations (here, here and here) do not seem to include any evidence of monetary contributions to Prop 8 by the Church.  This last link references an article in the Wall Street Journal "claim[ing] that the LDS Church provided volunteers and financial donations to the campaign."  I can't access the article itself, as it is behind a paywall.  However, various websites that quote from it appear indicate that it was individual members of the Church, not the Church itself, that donated to Prop 8 (see, e.g., here).

The point at issue arose during a Q&A session with Elder Holland at Harvard University, where a student had the following exchange with him (starting at about 25:45) (emphases added):

As I read this, Elder Holland seemed to be taking pains to be accurate and forthcoming.  And he succeeded in both.  As far as I am aware, the institutional Church did not donate money to Prop 8, though members did.

As I said above, even Bill Reel hedges his bets on this one: " Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."

Um, no, Bill.  No loophole.  The difference between monetary and non-monetary contributions is not mere "rhetoric."  Elder Holland stated that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  AFAICS, Elder Holland was correct on this point.

3. Elder Holland's Story about a Missionary who Found his Brother.

"Elder Holland tells a faith promoting story about a missionary who out on his mission is led by the spirit to his older brother who had severed his relationship with his family years earlier.   Elder Holland had told this story for years and other General Authorities before him had shared it.    The problem is the story was a false faith promoting narrative.  Each telling contained different contradicting details and too far fetched too believe of a story-line.  Soon after the Deseret News picked up on the story, the far fetched details began to be questioned by critical thinking Mormons and Elder Holland through the Deseret News and Church PR quickly distanced himself from the story.  But even his side of how he came to learn the story was inaccurate is problematic."

As we have seen in this thread, it appears Elder Holland disavowed this story when he learned of its inaccuracy/falsity (in contrast with, say, Bill Reel, who seems to have not retracted any of his calumnies which have been proven incorrect).

4. Elder Holland's Statement about an Element of the Temple Ceremony.

"Elder Holland when asked directly whether Mitt Romney would have made penalty oaths in the temple answers NO.  Problem, such is a flat out lie."

This claim arises from an interview of Elder Holland with a British journalist.  I can't provide the link, as I think it hews close to getting into temple content, but in the video Elder Holland admits that the temple ceremony previously had a oath that is no longer part of the ceremony.  He does say that it is "not true" that Mitt Romney "would have" taken this oath, as "we do not have penalties in the temple."  The journalist then states "You used to," and Elder Holland says "We used to."  The journalist then characterizes the previous vow in a particular way, and Elder Holland clarifies/corrects that characterization.  The journalist then introduces another not-altogether-accurate characterization of the oath, and Elder Holland again corrects/clarifies the issue.

So in this one Elder Holland is not entirely forthcoming, and understandably so.  He's being asked about some very sacred things.  And yet, in my view, he is still startlingly frank.  So accusing him of purveying a "flat out lie" is, I think, overwrought and unfair.

5. Elder Holland's Statement about the Number of Stakes Being Created.

"Elder Holland in a Regional meeting claims that the Church is growing in such a rate that it is creating Double Digit NEW Stake creation “every week of our lives”.  The Problem is that the Church every year tells us the number of stakes in the Church at year end of the previous year.  Elder Holland made this claim in early 2015 And from 2015 through 2017 the church consistently averaged 1.6 new stakes per week.  This makes a fifth lie with this one being deeply demonstrable."

This blog article has some interesting points to make regarding Elder Holland's statement (from an April 2016 devotional):

The specific statement from Elder Holland deserves some fleshed-out context:

From the tone and content of Elder Holland's remarks (particularly with him prefacing his statement about growth with "we are reeling under the implications of the growth we have in this Church"), I took his remark about "double digit stakes" to be partly, perhaps even mostly, prospective.  That is, I took his remarks as saying that the Church is growing constantly ("We're in the midst of incredible growth, staggering growth ... it's the biggest problem we have..."), sometimes - though certainly not always - to the point of us having double digit stake creation in a single week ("a week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes ... the week before it was 12 ... sometimes it's 8, or whatever, and it'll be a little uneven"), but that the leaders of the Church are anticipating ("talking about") future growth ("the implications of the growth we have in this Church") that could end up with consistent double digit creation of stakes on a weekly basis ("double digit stakes every week, every week of our lives").

I get that Bill Reel has latched on to a decontextualized portion of Elder Holland's remarks ("A week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes, and we're doing that mas o manos [Spanish for 'more or less'] every week, more or less"), but Elder Holland is plainly talking about creating stakes in a broad sense, that is, on a regular/weekly basis.  Elder Holland was obviously not claiming that we have consistent double digit stake creation now ("sometimes it's 8, or whatever, and it'll be a little uneven").

So it appears that Elder Holland was substantially correct on this point.

Bill Reel's claims do not seem to be holding up well under scrutiny.

FWIW, it appears that Elder Holland has some grounds for optimism.  Conversion rates have slowed considerably, but I'm not sure this is an entirely bad thing.  We've had tremendous growth for the past several decades.  Perhaps we need time to stop and catch our breath, and also strengthen those who are already in the Church.  Is that happening?  Apparently so:

We clearly have a lot of work to do.  And we have a lot of room to improve, too.  But increasing activity rates, particularly abroad, is a wonderful thing.  The Church in America has long been the strength of the Church (in terms of activity, inter-generational membership, missionary numbers, financial contributions, etc.).  I think it's wonderful to see the Church strengthening in other countries.

Diversifying the missionary force is a wonderful thing.  As a missionary in Taiwan, I was occasionally discouraged at the ineffeciencies inherent to missionary work performed mostly by young Americans who were struggling to learn Mandarin Chinese, figure out the culture and customs and traditions of Taiwan, and so on.  Native Taiwanese Elders and Sisters had an obvious advantage on this points, but there were simply not enough of them.  It is thrilling, then, to contemplate missionary work being performed more and more by native missionaries to their own peoples (such as is apparently happening with increasing frequency in Central America).

The Church is growing in Africa.  I've never been a fan of group guilt, but at the same time I appreciate and understand (as best as I can) the resentments and hard feelings that have long festered against us as pertaining to the Priesthood Ban, as well as various racially-disparaging justifications for it.  So we struggle with making inroads with African Americans.  However, the Church in Africa is growing well.  My parents are currently serving a mission in Zimbabwe.  The economy there is in shambles.  They had a coup d'état just last year.  The people there are enduring very difficult times.  And yet my parents are sending us stories about the wonderful people there, and the positive effects and blessings that the Restored Gospel has on the lives of these people.  The growth of the membership with our black brothers and sisters is a wonderful thing.  Perhaps in time we can find ways to replicate it with our black brothers and sisters who live outside of Africa.

Anyhoo, getting back to Bill Reel.  I think his accusations against Elder Holland are either outright false or else substantially exaggerated/overwrought.  I do not feel that Bill Reel's characterizations of Elder Holland's statements have been honest or fair or accurate.  The irony of that is . . . significant.

Thanks,

-Smac

and Hyrum Smith never married a "bethsheba", which Bill spelled wrong anyways or a "Bathsheba" either, his cousin George A. Smith did!

[HappyJackWagon]

The DC was held last night, right?

Has Bill shared the result?

[changed]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The DC was held last night, right?

Has Bill shared the result?

 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Methinks we may have an unreliable narrator problem here.

[lostindc]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

As mentioned before in another thread I believe, considering how excommunication has never silenced this type of dissenter, why do you assume leadership is doing this to silence them?

The Church does silence these types of dissenters.  Consider this, John Dehlin and Kate Kelley arguably had more active members following these two when they were both members of the Church.  Active members appear more likely to listen to a Dehlin or Kelley if these personalities remain members.  Once these two were excommunicated they became not trustworthy to many members.  Dehlin did more damage in the middle way than outside.  Excommunicating Dehlin helped in the short term and removed his voice from the lives of many.  He was now excommunicated and just another exMormon.  He was no longer one of us with questions/concerns.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

The Church does silence these types of dissenters.  Consider this, John Dehlin and Kate Kelley arguably had more active members following these two when they were both members of the Church.  Active members appear more likely to listen to a Dehlin or Kelley if these personalities remain members.  Once these two were excommunicated they became not trustworthy to many members.  Dehlin did more damage in the middle way than outside.  Excommunicating Dehlin helped in the short term and removed his voice from the lives of many.  He was now excommunicated and just another exMormon.  He was no longer one of us with questions/concerns.

If your rhetoric only works when you have a tribal membership backing it up perhaps it is just poor rhetoric.

Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor

[lostindc]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I posted elsewhere earlier today, this claim has become a favourite meme of critics and apostates alike, uncritically repeated because it plays right into a number of popular stereotypes, including the fantasy that the Church of Jesus Christ is (or at least aspires to be) a tyrannical mediaeval theocracy that cuts the tongues from its critics' mouths. This, of course, is useful for framing critics as courageous victims, extraordinary men and women who dare speak truth to corrupt power.

If it were based even remotely on truth, Church leaders would be even more stupid than your average Scooby Doo villain. I mean, they've been excommunicating people since the 1830s, and not once has it resulted in silence. Fools!

In reality, more often than not those who find themselves in this situation are far more like the loud and boorish uncle who repeatedly picks fights with nearly everyone at the family Christmas gathering, comments on how fat his sister-in-law has got, asks his 30-year-old unmarried nephew if he's figured out why the ladies are repulsed by him, announces loudly to everyone that he'll cook the prawns next time so that they're not so rubbery, and finally tells the host of the luncheon that it's been the worst Christmas ever. Some of the kids no doubt laugh at his antics, and some of the teens egg him on, but in the end, when someone finally has the good sense to invite him to go home and enjoy a much-needed Christmas nap, nearly everyone is relieved (and feels guilty about it), and the uncle gets to go to work the following Monday and tell the lads what complete ratbags his family are for having given him the toss on Christmas Day.

Look, I am not saying Church leaders are out destroying a printing press or something like that, I am saying that the Church is making it clear that a member can question but to not question publicly.  If a member questions publicly then the tone must be friendly.  Not all truths are faith promoting...so discussing some of the hard stuff requires a very friendly, gloves on approach.  

In regards to silencing, see my initial reply to Calm.

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

If your rhetoric only works when you have a tribal membership backing it up perhaps it is just poor rhetoric.

Fair point

Or maybe the tribe has a problem and the rhetoric is good?

[lostindc]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would say based on his 28 weird statements that he will be exed for wanting to preach his apostasy in Church.

I've never heard of these 28 weird statements.  Really though, this is cynical of me, but pretty much any of these Martin Luther lists that pertain to Mormonism are all the same.  This doesn't invalidate any of the lists, but they all have the common theme of containing historical issues and concerns regarding the way the Church handles social and political issues.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Fair point

Or maybe the tribe has a problem and the rhetoric is good?

Possibly, in which case you find a better tribe. You will probably need a new topic though. Discrediting the LDS faith is a niche industry.

[lostindc]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Possibly, in which case you find a better tribe. You will probably need a new topic though. Discrediting the LDS faith is a niche industry.

True

Do you think it's possible to discredit the truth claims of the LDS church?  For many of us, it's been so many years of debate in various forums and no matter the evidence produced, many members still believe the Church is true.  For me, I entered the online Mormon world as a believer.  I now no longer believe due to the phenomena I encountered.  

I do believe the Church is heavily leaking membership, but I don't know if the Church can ever be completely dismantled no matter the evidence.  There will always be some sort of remnant.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, lostindc said:

The Church does silence these types of dissenters.  Consider this, John Dehlin and Kate Kelley arguably had more active members following these two when they were both members of the Church.  Active members appear more likely to listen to a Dehlin or Kelley if these personalities remain members.  Once these two were excommunicated they became not trustworthy to many members.  Dehlin did more damage in the middle way than outside.  Excommunicating Dehlin helped in the short term and removed his voice from the lives of many.  He was now excommunicated and just another exMormon.  He was no longer one of us with questions/concerns.

Do you have any kind of data to back this up?

Kate Kelley seems to have dropped out of LDS activism after her excommunication.  So, perhaps it did silence her.

But Dehlin is still going strong.  Financially, his foundation has grown substantially in the three years since his excommunication.  In a recent podcast he claimed that Mormon Stories is at 6 million downloads per year (if I caught that correctly - it was audio and I was driving).  I know quite a few people who listen to OSF podcasts and none of them stopped listening because Dehlin was excommunicated.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

True

Do you think it's possible to discredit the truth claims of the LDS church?  For many of us, it's been so many years of debate in various forums and no matter the evidence produced, many members still believe the Church is true.  For me, I entered the online Mormon world as a believer.  I now no longer believe due to the phenomena I encountered.  

I do believe the Church is heavily leaking membership, but I don't know if the Church can ever be completely dismantled no matter the evidence.  There will always be some sort of remnant.

I believe it is technically possible but very difficult.

Then again for all my eccentricities and extra-orthodox beliefs I am basically orthodox and believe it and my belief is based on revelation from heaven which makes it hard to shake unless I kill it myself so I am probably biased.

I have seen a spiritual growth in the membership over the past few years. Not sure about numerical growth.

[Exiled]

E. Holland says in his conversation with the student regarding prop 8 that " on that one, we chose to be a little more vocal, a little more visible.  And by "we," I just emphasize totally that this is a voluntary lay participation, with no money and with no formalization institutionally.  But something we all cared about."  See what Smac posted on the prior page for the entire quote with the student.  However, the church paid a fine regarding its formalized participation institutionally. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700038678/Mormon-Church-agrees-to-pay-small-fine-for-mistake-that-led-to-late-report-of-contributions-in-Prop.html

Edited November 28, 2018 by Exiled

[Jeanne]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Methinks we may have an unreliable narrator problem here.

Me thinks that we might have some HC with some bigger questions.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Me thinks that we might have some HC with some bigger questions.

I doubt it. I think it is more likely he read sympathy and politeness for him as agreement with or sympathy for what he said.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

E. Holland says in his conversation with the student regarding prop 8 that " on that one, we chose to be a little more vocal, a little more visible.  And by "we," I just emphasize totally that this is a voluntary lay participation, with no money and with no formalization institutionally.  But something we all cared about."  See what Smac posted on the prior page for the entire quote with the student.  However, the church paid a fine regarding its formalized participation institutionally. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700038678/Mormon-Church-agrees-to-pay-small-fine-for-mistake-that-led-to-late-report-of-contributions-in-Prop.html

The fine was for failing to comply with a "daily reporting" requirement for in-kind contributions.  All contributions were non-monetary.

The Church paid a fine, as it should for its inadvertent failure to fully adhere to it legal obligations.

So it seems misleading to say the find was "regarding [the Church's] formalized participation institutionally."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you have any kind of data to back this up?

Kate Kelley seems to have dropped out of LDS activism after her excommunication.  So, perhaps it did silence her.

But Dehlin is still going strong.  Financially, his foundation has grown substantially in the three years since his excommunication.  In a recent podcast he claimed that Mormon Stories is at 6 million downloads per year (if I caught that correctly - it was audio and I was driving).  I know quite a few people who listen to OSF podcasts and none of them stopped listening because Dehlin was excommunicated.

No of course I don't have data, who is going to survey that?

I do have an idea of his podcast numbers previous to excommunication, but I can't release.  Dehlin is wildly popular and his downloads were always really high, even at the beginning.  Dehlin is uber successful and his podcast numbers make him one of the top podcasters, probably top 3% in the world.  

Whether Dehlin's foundation has grown more after excommunication or not, matters not for the claim I am making.  Since Dehlin's excommunication the middle way, the NOMs, have essentially died out.  This used to be a thriving community.  Now Dehlin's audience tends to be exMos, not practicing Mos, Mormons transitioning out of the faith, and their loved ones.  The middle way is gone.  He has taken the place of Steve Benson and others in the exMormon world, and Dehlin is no longer within the believing, part-believing, cafeteria Mormonism world.  That's a big difference.  Losing the middle way, essentially lost Dehlin the audience of members that wanted to remain Mormon even with doubts.  Excommunicating him worked in some ways and failed miserably in other ways.  Dehlin, like him or not, has kicked the Church in the nuts over and over.  He is significantly responsible for providing information that leads others out of Mormonism.  He is significantly responsible with helping members feel comfortable with transitioning out of the faith.  

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The fine was for failing to comply with a "daily reporting" requirement for in-kind contributions.  All contributions were non-monetary.

The Church paid a fine, as it should for its inadvertent failure to fully adhere to it legal obligations.

So it seems misleading to say the find was "regarding [the Church's] formalized participation institutionally."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Read the article, the DN says "[l]ast year, the LDS Church said its total contributions to "Yes on 8" tallied $189,903.58 — all nonmonetary, in-kind contributions such as video production from its studios, church employee time and airfare and lodging costs for church leaders traveling to California for campaign efforts."  That sure sounds like institutional participation to me, which E. Holland says didn't happen.  Perhaps E. Holland mis-remembered?  As you know, it isn't a lie as long as you believe it .... George Costanza.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Since Dehlin's excommunication the middle way, the NOMs, have essentially died out.  This used to be a thriving community.  Now Dehlin's audience tends to be exMos, not practicing Mos, Mormons transitioning out of the faith, and their loved ones.  The middle way is gone.  He has taken the place of Steve Benson and others in the exMormon world, and Dehlin is no longer within the believing, part-believing, cafeteria Mormonism world.  That's a big difference.  Losing the middle way, essentially lost Dehlin the audience of members that wanted to remain Mormon even with doubts.  Excommunicating him worked in some ways and failed miserably in other ways.  Dehlin, like him or not, has kicked the Church in the nuts over and over.  He is significantly responsible for providing information that leads others out of Mormonism.  He is significantly responsible with helping members feel comfortable with transitioning out of the faith.  

I'm an active practicing member and I still listen.  I have friends and family members who do as well.

On what do you base your conclusions because I don't see them as being accurate.  The A Thoughtful Faith community (which is a "middleway" group) is thriving.  I think the NOM boards have ended but I don't see how that can be tied to Dehlin's excommunication.

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt it. I think it is more likely he read sympathy and politeness for him as agreement with or sympathy for what he said.

I don't think they just sympathize but there is a realization that he has some truths for which there is NO answer...and that is why he is there.  No one could answer his questions nor could they deny what he has said. 

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I'm an active practicing member and I still listen.  I have friends and family members who do as well.

On what do you base your conclusions because I don't see them as being accurate.  The A Thoughtful Faith community (which is a "middleway" group) is thriving.  I think the NOM boards have ended but I don't see how that can be tied to Dehlin's excommunication.

It's a really long story, but yes Dehlin's exit from the Mormon membership roles played a big part in the death of the middle way and there's a lot of pissed off people behind the scenes.  The middle way was thriving compared to what you now find in A Thoughtful Faith community.  The rise of the middle way wasn't exclusive to Dehlin's embrace, but it did quickly die when Dehlin pushed it away and then upon exit, cut off the idea of a middle way.  

Dehlin is very much responsible for the middle way success and he's very much responsible for it's decline.  He built up the idea of the possibility of a middle way.  He brought in academics, personalities, members and shared their stories and methods.  Many bought in, and then...he prepared for excommunication and eventually he destroyed the idea of a middle way.  

Dehlin is more popular now because the exMormon and non-believing community is much larger than the middle way community.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't think they just sympathize but there is a realization that he has some truths for which there is NO answer...and that is why he is there.  No one could answer his questions nor could they deny what he has said. 

His questions are not new or original. I would contend there are answers but he did not find the answers convincing.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It's a really long story, but yes Dehlin's exit from the Mormon membership roles played a big part in the death of the middle way and there's a lot of pissed off people behind the scenes.  The middle way was thriving compared to what you now find in A Thoughtful Faith community.  The rise of the middle way wasn't exclusive to Dehlin's embrace, but it did quickly die when Dehlin pushed it away and then upon exit, cut off the idea of a middle way.  

Dehlin is very much responsible for the middle way success and he's very much responsible for it's decline.  He built up the idea of the possibility of a middle way.  He brought in academics, personalities, members and shared their stories and methods.  Many bought in, and then...he prepared for excommunication and eventually he destroyed the idea of a middle way.  

Dehlin is more popular now because the exMormon and non-believing community is much larger than the middle way community.

Just saying "it's a really long story" does nothing to support your theories.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Read the article,

I did.

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

the DN says "[l]ast year, the LDS Church said its total contributions to "Yes on 8" tallied $189,903.58 — all nonmonetary, in-kind contributions such as video production from its studios, church employee time and airfare and lodging costs for church leaders traveling to California for campaign efforts." 

"All nonmonetary" being the operative words here.

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

That sure sounds like institutional participation to me, which E. Holland says didn't happen. 

No, that's not what Elder Holland said.  More to the point, that is not the accusation Bill Reel has made.  See here:

Quote

According to Bill Reel, the five "lies" told by Elder Holland are:

...

2. Elder Holland's Statement Regarding the Church Not Contributing Money to the Prop 8 Campaign.

"Elder Holland when asked about the Church’s contribution to Prop 8 says that the Church did not give “One Red Cent” to the fight against Same Sex Marriage in California.  Problem is it gave a reported amount of almost $200,000.  Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."

Even Bill Reel hedges his bets here.  He presents a source, the ever-pleasant Fred Karger, who posits that the Church made "non-monetary" contributions to the Prop 8 effort.  Reel's other citations (here, here and here) do not seem to include any evidence of monetary contributions to Prop 8 by the Church.  This last link references an article in the Wall Street Journal "claim[ing] that the LDS Church provided volunteers and financial donations to the campaign."  I can't access the article itself, as it is behind a paywall.  However, various websites that quote from it appear indicate that it was individual members of the Church, not the Church itself, that donated to Prop 8 (see, e.g., here).

The point at issue arose during a Q&A session with Elder Holland at Harvard University, where a student had the following exchange with him (starting at about 25:45) (emphases added):

Quote

...

Elder Holland: Sure.  Good point.  First of all, let me work backwards.  All we asked in Proposition 8 was the right to exercise our vote.  We just asked for religious privilege to cast a vote.  We did not want to be disenfranchised.  Institutionally, not a single dollar, not one red cent of money from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went into Proposition 8, or any other comparable proposition that I know of.  Now, a lot of Latter-day Saints got involved.  And a lot of Latter-day Saints, particularly in California, donated their own time and money to do it.  So I'm not being coy, I'm not dodging the fact that there was a terrific involvement, and a fairly heavy price to pay.  People being fired from their jobs, and people being blackballed in services that they had rendered and were no longer asked to render, and so forth.  But that's okay, that's the price you pay for lively democracy.  So we choose very carefully what we choose those moral issues to be, and we saw that as a moral issue.  We saw that not as a political issue, and never ever did we say that somebody could not express his or her vote in a contrary way.  Nobody was blocking the ballot box, nobody was slashing tires, you know, as you approach the precinct.  I'd really be disappointed if something thought there was some kind of effort to deny somebody their free exercise.  But again, all we were asking for is the chance to have our free exercise, and some seem to think that was not right.  That we ought to sit down and shut up.  And we sit down and shut up quite a bit, but on some things, on that one, we chose to be a little more vocal, a little more visible.  And by "we," I just emphasize totally that this is a voluntary lay participation, with no money and with no formalization institutionally.  But something we all cared about.  I'm not minimizing that we cared about it.

As I read this, Elder Holland seemed to be taking pains to be accurate and forthcoming.  And he succeeded in both.  As far as I am aware, the institutional Church did not donate money to Prop 8, though members did.

As I said above, even Bill Reel hedges his bets on this one: "Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."

Um, no, Bill.  No loophole.  The difference between monetary and non-monetary contributions is not mere "rhetoric."  Elder Holland stated that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  AFAICS, Elder Holland was correct on this point.

Bill Reel's accusation on this point is not accurate or fair.

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Perhaps E. Holland mis-remembered? 

Perhaps you should give this matter some study and research before baselessly and snidely slandering a good man.

Bill Reel did it first, much to his discredit.  I am disappointed you are following his poor example.

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

As you know, it isn't a lie as long as you believe it .... George Costanza.

And since Bill Reel believes it...

🤨

-Smac