Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the little writing introducing his podcast episode is not really intended to be complete, but more of a taste. 

And Elder Holland's remarks were unprepared and off-the-cuff, and were given during a Q&A session.  

So if you can cut Bill Reel a bit of slack for his imprecision, why not spread the love and give the same consideration to Elder Holland?

Quote

I also think if one is talking about a topic, like Holland talking about the Church's involvement and donations, and yet doesn't mention the involvement and donations, there seem to be clear efforts to mislead. 

Meh.  This is nothing but special pleading.  You are carving out reservations and justifications for Bill Reel, but not for Elder Holland.  

And, unlike Elder Holland, Bill Reel's statements were prepared beforehand, and hence he had time to make sure he was considered in his statements.  And yet he wasn't.

What we have here, I think, is a pretty obvious a double standard.  A reasonable and lenient one for people you agree with ideologically, and another for . . . Elder Holland.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Totally, but unfortunately that's the case right now.  If Church leadership didn't use PR tactics concerning excommunications then they would've excommunicated Dehlin and Kelly from HQ instead of pushing this to the local leadership.

I don't think that is accurate.  My understanding from discussions with many leaders is that local leadership is SOP, taking it to SL would be "pushing" a different procedure.

[SouthernMo]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

He seemed, imo from observations, to contribute to creating an activist form of disbelief rather than one that actually allowed space for different beliefs

This idea is resonating with me.

”activist disbelief” is an interesting concept to explore. One for another thread, but very very intriguing to me...

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Elder Holland's remarks were unprepared and off-the-cuff, and were given during a Q&A session.  

So if you can cut Bill Reel a bit of slack for his imprecision, why now spread the love and give the same consideration to Elder Holland?

I do.  Did you not see my comments on this thread and in response to you?  I don't care that he was misleading, at all.  He's a human like you and I.  

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  This is nothing but special pleading.  You are carving out reservations and justifications for Bill Reel, but not for Elder Holland.

That's silly, smac.  We disagree.  You are carving out reservations and justification for Elder Holland, but not for Bill Reel.  I don't think I even tried to justify Bill's words.  I let him speak for himself and defended his words against your attacks.  You keep trying to get off on a technicality as if it matters.  Yes, as far as we know, the Church did not donate straight cash to the prop 8 initiative.  They donated, instead, at least 189,000 dollars in-kind.  They paid for employees to work on the campaign.  They paid for leaders to travel and campaign.  We already know that.  But Elder Holland didn't mention it when speaking about the Church's involvement acting as if that involvement didn't happen.  

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  

And, unlike Elder Holland, Bill Reel's statements were prepared beforehand, and hence he had time to make sure he was considered in his statements.  And yet he wasn't.

What we have here, I think, is a pretty obvious a double standard.  A reasonable and lenient one for people you agree with ideologically, and another for . . . Elder Holland.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea what you are saying here. 

Did Elder Holland explain the Church's involvement and in that attempt not mention the Church's involvement?  It seems to me he did just that.  I don't know why he did that.  It seems to be an attempt to mislead to me.  I suppose it could be he simply didn't know, but that seems unlikely.  

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If that is so serious why would Reel make up monetary donations instead of using it? 

I"m not sure what you're talking about.  What do you think I think is so serious?  And what did Reel make up?  

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have seen he can be even pettier with his accusations of dishonesty about an off the cuff comment about Stake creation.

I'm sure you can be petty too.  Can't we all?  I'm not sure I'm happy holding little indiscretions against each other.  But I will say Holland's boasting about stake creations with made up figures was at the very least ill-informed.  I don't think that's petty to point that obviousness out.  

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This idea is resonating with me.

”activist disbelief” is an interesting concept to explore. One for another thread, but very very intriguing to me...

Just to be clear, I think the Gospel pushes for an activist belief...get out there and share with others as much as possible the Gospel experience to open them up to committing to it.  And it has certainly led to family contention at times when someone converts to the Gospel while other family members reject it as false doctrine, etc.

So I am not saying it is inherently a bad thing (though I think there is a big difference between promoting disbelief and belief), but I do believe it requires an active response from the organization getting challenged/attacked.  I would anticipate a convert Saint preaching to the members of their former community to disavowed by that community.  They don't have some inherent right to maintain their membership in that community if they are favoring another.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I"m not sure what you're talking about.  What do you think I think is so serious?  And what did Reel make up?  

I'm sure you can be petty too.  Can't we all?  I'm not sure I'm happy holding little indiscretions against each other.  But I will say Holland's boasting about stake creations with made up figures was at the very least ill-informed.  I don't think that's petty to point that obviousness out.  

I am saying if the non monetary donations being left out was so serious why not fixate on that instead of the non-existent monetary ones.

And yes, I am. I try to do six petty things before breakfast every day. I have one thread I am being pretty petty in right now (not this one, at least not intentionally) but my pettiness there has a certain karmic balance to it I like.

And if he just pointed it out I doubt there would be excommunication. Jumping to the accusation of deliberate lying and trying to establish the apostle has a track record of it...........that might have helped push him over. Really though, with the road he was on it was only a matter of when and not if he found something to kick himself out of the church with.

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear, I think the Gospel pushes for an activist belief...get out there and share with others as much as possible the Gospel experience to open them up to committing to it.  And it has certainly led to family contention at times when someone converts to the Gospel while other family members reject it as false doctrine, etc.

So I am not saying it is inherently a bad thing (though I think there is a big difference between promoting disbelief and belief), but I do believe it requires an active response from the organization getting challenged/attacked.  I would anticipate a convert Saint preaching to the members of their former community to disavowed by that community.  They don't have some inherent right to maintain their membership in that community if they are favoring another.

Exactly - which is why it’s an intriguing topic to me. I’m thinking about it more before I express an opinion I may or may not regret.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am saying if the non monetary donations being left out was so serious why not fixate on that instead of the non-existent monetary ones.

It doesn't appear you've captured Bill's point.  I don't think that ever happened.  

Quote

And yes, I am. I try to do six petty things before breakfast every day. I have one thread I am being pretty petty in right now (not this one, at least not intentionally) but my pettiness there has a certain karmic balance to it I like.

And if he just pointed it out I doubt there would be excommunication. Jumping to the accusation of deliberate lying and trying to establish the apostle has a track record of it...........that might have helped push him over. Really though, with the road he was on it was only a matter of when and not if he found something to kick himself out of the church with.

of course.  I agree.  

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This idea is resonating with me.

”activist disbelief” is an interesting concept to explore. One for another thread, but very very intriguing to me...

It would seem that behavior falling within this description ("activist disbelief") would be incompatible with continued membership in and fellowship with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

Excommunicating Dehlin, Kate, Sam, and others is a warning to all members to be silent, don't voice dissent or you will get excommunicated.  These personalities can speak up when they want but they will get kicked out of the Church, therefore, if you want to be a member, don't speak up.

I'm starting a podcast and will prove you can speak up and not get excommunicated. TIA for taking back this statement when I do that.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Bill is at an angry place in his pilgrimage.  He decided,  somewhere,  that he was not confronting well-meaning errors or differences due to paradigm perceptions: but various deliberate and willful levels of deception.

He likely sees nearly everyone,  from General Authorities down to Mo'pologists as caught up in a web of bad faith,  partly believing what they are saying but mostly just saying ANYTHING to preserve their relationship with the Church,  with family members,  or their status within the Church.

That's driving him, now, I think. If eo, the natural course of things is that he will eventually acquire some perspective.  

But I am mind-reading and speculating.  

A reasonable deduction, though.  A rational person who values his membership in the Church would not act as abrasively and recklessly unreasonably as Bill Reel has.  Moreover, his posts are shot through with anger and resentments and animosity against the Church and its leaders.

I'm not a blood-is-thicker-than-water member of the Church.  I will defend the Church in circumstances where defending it is warranted and feasible.  Happily, I find that to be the case most of the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'm starting a podcast and will prove you can speak up and not get excommunicated. TIA for taking back this statement when I do that.

 

With respect, didn't Bill say something similar?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

I'm starting a podcast and will prove you can speak up and not get excommunicated.

With respect, didn't Bill say something similar?

I suppose that depends on what "speak up" means.

I think there is considerable amounts of room for people in the Church to "speak up" that does not stray into "apostasy."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose that depends on what "speak up" means.

I think there is considerable amounts of room for people in the Church to "speak up" that does not stray into "apostasy."

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with that comment.

I was simply pointing out to Randall that Bill had the same intentions and expectations when he started his podcast. In some ways, so did Dehlin and Colvin. But perhaps he's better than they and won't follow their same path. Time will tell.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with that comment.

I was simply pointing out to Randall that Bill had the same intentions and expectations when he started his podcast. In some ways, so did Dehlin and Colvin. But perhaps he's better than they and won't follow their same path. Time will tell.

I know of many people who have spent many years studying and discussing complex and difficult and controversial issues pertaining to the Church, but remain in full fellowship.

The difference, I think, can be explained by this statement by Joseph Smith:

Quote

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

"Condemn others?"  Yes, that sounds a lot like Dehlin and Colvin and Reel, and Kelly and Snuffer and Young.

"Finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous?"  Check (double check for Sam Young).

This is an audacious formula, as it presupposes that the Church will never be "out of the way."  But I think that's the way it is supposed to work.  I disagree with the various positions taken by those above (explicitly by Snuffer, but rather obviously by the others as well) that the Church's leaders are in apostasy, or that they are employing deceit to hide this from the general membership, or that "inerrancy" is equivalent to the believe that "the church leadership cannot be led astray," or that such a thing is taught in the Church.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."

The Church is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I know of many people who have spent many years studying and discussing complex and difficult and controversial issues pertaining to the Church, but remain in full fellowship.

The difference, I think, can be explained by this statement by Joseph Smith:

"Condemn others?"  Yes, that sounds a lot like Dehlin and Colvin and Reel, and Kelly and Snuffer and Young.

"Finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous?"  Check (double check for Sam Young).

This is an audacious formula, as it presupposes that the Church will never be "out of the way."  But I think that's the way it is supposed to work.  I disagree with the various positions taken by those above (explicitly by Snuffer, but rather obviously by the others as well) that the Church's leaders are in apostasy, or that they are employing deceit to hide this from the general membership, or that "inerrancy" is equivalent to the believe that "the church leadership cannot be led astray," or that such a thing is taught in the Church.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."

The Church is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm happy for you.

For many of us, the relationship is much more fraught.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm happy for you.

For many of us, the relationship is much more fraught.

I like how Bokovoy put it:  for those who fit the mold, the Church is wonderful. 

(Sorry for crossing threads.)

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm happy for you.

For many of us, the relationship is much more fraught.

I just don't see the Church as the depraved, conniving malefactor so many make it out to be.  I see an organization of voluntarily-associated people who are working hard to make the world a better place.  And in most ways, they are succeeding.

I have been in many, many ward- and stake-level leadership meetings, and a number of regional leadership meetings as well.  I have never seen or sensed a false note in the people who are there.  I personally have very little experience with the upper echelons of the Church, but I have ample second-hand information about that from people whom I trust a lot.  Daniel Peterson (who has often written about his experiences with General Authorities).  My father (who personally knows a number of General Authorities, and who was previously on a committee with, and worked closely with, one for a number of years).  My brother (who has worked for the Church for years, who reports directly to the PBO, and who is very candid about the shortcomings of the Church in his experience).  My stake president (who was just called to be a mission president).  And so on.  These are all good and decent people, and they really like the Church.  None of them are gullible.  None of them are wearing rose-colored glasses.  The things they have shared are occasionally challenging.  But in the end, they are all very much devoted to the Church, and are working hard to make it a better place.

I also work hard to keep up-to-date about recent developments in the Church, both good and bad.  The bad are, of course, troubling.  Excommunications and their attendant acrimonies and ripple effects are sad.  Misconduct by members is discouraging (the McKenna Denson matter, the recent story about the fellow from Utah County who pilfered or faked Church documents and other items and used them to rip off other people for hundreds of thousands of dollars, neverending online debates in which members of the Church can be the most opposed to it, etc.).

Nevertheless, I remain convinced of the widespread and deeply-entrenched basic goodness of the Church and its members.  I also remain convinced in the foundational truth claims of the Church, and am very happy to consume scholarly materials that dig into The Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, the history of the Church, etc.  I am also very grateful for the blessings I receive as a member of the Church.  Most nights I gather with my wife and children, and together we read the scriptures and then say a family prayer to end the day.  My family is, in the main, happy and healthy.  Much of that is attributable to the teachings and programs and structure of the Church, and to the Spirit.

It is, nevertheless, a challenging time to be a member of the Church.  I have had several good friends and loved ones leave the Church over the past few years.  That has been painful, but we remain on good terms.  Most of them, although estranged from the Church for various reasons and to varying degrees, nevertheless can see the positive elements of it, and so generally refrain from denigrating and profaning against it (at least in their interactions with me, which I very much appreciate).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 29, 2018 by smac97

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I just don't see the Church as the depraved, conniving malefactor so many make it out to be. 

Please - don't paint with such a broad brush.  Some of us do not see the church the way you frame our perspectives, yet still do not 'fall in line' as much as some of you more orthodox members wish we would.  We struggle, and want to stay, yet don't start podcasts, and keep our pains generally to ourselves.

Statements like this/yours drive us away.  They do not invite us towards your more 'faithful' position.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Please - don't paint with such a broad brush. 

I'm not.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  Otherwise, don't.

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Some of us do not see the church the way you frame our perspectives, yet still do not 'fall in line' as much as some of you more orthodox members wish we would. 

I acknowledge that.

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

We struggle, and want to stay, yet don't start podcasts, and keep our pains generally to ourselves.

I acknowledge that, too.

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Statements like this/yours drive us away.  They do not invite us towards your more 'faithful' position.

I didn't name you.  I didn't have you in mind.  

This thread is about Bill Reel.  Do I really need to present a list of all the horrible things he has said about the Church and its leaders?  Sam Young?  Kate Kelly?  

In referencing people who "see the Church as the depraved, conniving malefactor," I had in mind the sorts of people who, well, "see the Church as the depraved, conniving malefactor."  Surely you acknowledge the presence and influence of such persons?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This thread is about Bill Reel.

Yet your acerbic response was to @HappyJackWagon's statement that "For many of us, the relationship is much more fraught."  You were responding to him, not Bill Reel.

If you want to make a statement about one individual (Bill Reel as you say in this case), don't do it in response to another person's comment, and include the term "the way so many make it out to be."  It will make it more clear that you are talking about one person, not about people like @HappyJackWagon or people like him and me or 'so many' who do not believe as you wish we did.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I just don't see the Church as the depraved, conniving malefactor so many make it out to be. 

Great strawman.  I am not seeing ANYONE here on these threads that views the Church this way.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Yet your acerbic response was to @HappyJackWagon's statement that "For many of us, the relationship is much more fraught."  You were responding to him, not Bill Reel.

I didn't refer to HJW, either.

Nevertheless, your point is well-taken.  I did not mean to offend, but I did.  I apologize.

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If you want to make a statement about one individual (Bill Reel as you say in this case), don't do it in response to another person's comment, and include the term "the way so many make it out to be." 

I'll work on that.

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It will make it more clear that you are talking about one person, not about people like @HappyJackWagon or people like him and me or 'so many' who do not believe as you wish we did.

Understood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Great strawman.  I am not seeing ANYONE here on these threads that views the Church this way.

Bill Reel?  Gina Colvin?  Sam Young?

These are flesh and blood people.  Not strawpersons (how's that for political correctness?).

Thanks,

-Smac