Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

For those who fit the mold, the Church is wonderful. 

Except that absolutely no one fits the mould. That's Christianity 101. We are estranged from God in our very natures. It is God's purpose, through the supreme gift of His Son, to change our natures so that 'when he shall appear, we shall be like him'. We need to be 'born again', made 'new creatures', and so forth. This means that by its very nature, the Church is an assembly of misfits who don't fit the mould ... but who desperately want to. Lack of this desire to be remade by the Lord, to be corrected by Him, to have our minds and desires and behaviours all changed by Him -- this, to me, seems to be where all of us can seriously get into trouble.

Do we all bring with us some overlap as we enter this process? Absolutely! Are some facets of the gospel a more comfortable fit for some than for others? Yes! But I am confident, based on scriptural and prophetic teachings as well as personal experience, that absolutely no one is 100 per cent comfortable in the Lord's Restored Church. And those who think they are have reason to worry based on what Jesus (and Elder Bednar in his recent visit to us!) said about those who think that repentance is primarily for others.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bill Reel?  Gina Colvin?  Sam Young?

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

Thanks,

-Smac

None of whom are participants in this conversation.  But you already responded to SouthernMo on this so I'll drop it.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Except that absolutely no one fits the mould. That's Christianity 101. We are estranged from God in our very natures. It is God's purpose, through the supreme gift of His Son, to change our natures so that 'when he shall appear, we shall be like him'. We need to be 'born again', made 'new creatures', and so forth. This means that by its very nature, the Church is an assembly of misfits who don't fit the mould ... but who desperately want to. Lack of this desire to be remade by the Lord, to be corrected by Him, to have our minds and desires and behaviours all changed by Him -- this, to me, seems to be where all of us can seriously get into trouble.

Do we all bring with us some overlap as we enter this process? Absolutely! Are some facets of the gospel a more comfortable fit for some than for others? Yes! But I am confident, based on scriptural and prophetic teachings as well as personal experience, that absolutely no one is 100 per cent comfortable in the Lord's Restored Church. And those who think they are have reason to worry based on what Jesus (and Elder Bednar in his recent visit to us!) said about those who think that repentance is primarily for others.

No the mold we're talking about.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

None of whom are participants in this conversation.  But you already responded to SouthernMo on this so I'll drop it.

They are all topics in this conversation, though.  

Honestly, I thought my reference was obvious given the rhetoric we have been discussing (from Bill Reel, Gina Colvin, etc.).  A mistake on my part.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They are all topics in this conversation, though.  

Honestly, I thought my reference was obvious given the rhetoric we have been discussing (from Bill Reel, Gina Colvin, etc.).  A mistake on my part.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was obvious to me. 

This reminds me of a proverb: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was obvious to me. 

This reminds me of a proverb: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”

Smac responded to HJW with “you/yours”.  To say that he was obviously referring to three people who haven’t been participating here is laughable. 

He changed the wording but it is still a strawman until someone can identify “the many” who have claimed the Church is a “depraved conniving malefactor”.

I find it sad that such a divisive post quickly accumulated a bunch of “likes”.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I find it sad that such a divisive post quickly accumulated a bunch of “likes”.

If that line was removed, how would you feel about the rest of the post?

For me, I read that line in the context of the entire thread and assumed he was talking about those he had previously mentioned, activists who had been excommunicated or had announced they were going to be, not anyone speaking in the thread  It didn't occur to me that it could be read as labeling the person he was quoting at that time.  But after SoMo brought it up, I can see why some would read it that way because I have myself read others' similar comments (where they quote another poster and then make a correction/condemnation/something else negative) as applying to the one they were quoting or those speaking in the thread where the poster then responded to my protest by stating he was speaking of another group.  It can be difficult to keep who is being talked about if specifics are not used.  It can get repetitive doing so, but it is important to try and remember to do that, imo.

Smac not only clarified when called on it, but told SoMo he would try to avoid it in the future rather than try and defend it as the reader's responsibility to figure out as some others have done, so I am not really seeing the problem here.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If that line was removed, how would you feel about the rest of the post?

For me, I read that line in the context of the entire thread and assumed he was talking about those he had previously mentioned, activists who had been excommunicated or had announced they were going to be, not anyone speaking in the thread  It didn't occur to me that it could be read as labeling the person he was quoting at that time.  But after SoMo brought it up, I can see why some would read it that way because I have myself read others' similar comments (where they quote another poster and then make a correction/condemnation/something else negative) as applying to the one they were quoting or those speaking in the thread where the poster then responded to my protest by stating he was speaking of another group.  It can be difficult to keep who is being talked about if specifics are not used.  It can get repetitive doing so, but it is important to try and remember to do that, imo.

Smac not only clarified when called on it, but told SoMo he would try to avoid it in the future rather than try and defend it as the reader's responsibility to figure out as some others have done, so I am not really seeing the problem here.

So the claim is that Bill Reel and “so many” others make the Church out to be a “depraved, conniving malefactor” and I am supposed to see that exaggeration as something other than divisive?

While the rest of that post isn’t bad, it’s hard to see the good in it when it starts in a way that demonizes others. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the claim is that Bill Reel and “so many” others make the Church out to be a “depraved, conniving malefactor” and I am supposed to see that exaggeration as something other than divisive?

While the rest of that post isn’t bad, it’s hard to see the good in it when it starts in a way that demonizes others. 

I don't think it is an exaggeration when it comes to Reel given his liberal use of "liar", analogy of the Church as an abusive father, etc.

I have seen .Dehlin write comparable things though he often deletes them later.  Colvin accusing the Church of sex trafficking, Young accusing the Church of protecting abusers and promoting child abuse...just not seeing that as much of a stretch, but perhap s you define depravity and conniving differently than I do.

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

So there is a wife of Hyrum named Bathsheba?

Nope.

Quote

I’m confused. 

So is Mr Reel. Again.

Or is he? Maybe he's just lying? I'm feeling a podcast coming on ...

Edited November 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is an exaggeration when it comes to Reel given his liberal use of "liar", analogy of the Church as an abusive father, etc.

I have seen .Dehlin write comparable things though he often deletes them later.  Colvin accusing the Church of sex trafficking, Young accusing the Church of protecting abusers and promoting child abuse...just not seeing that as much of a stretch, but perhap s you define depravity and conniving differently than I do.

If Smac wants to narrow it down to those three, he ought to do it.

His initial post aimed it at Happy Jack Wagon and others here ("you and yours").

His "clarification" puts it at "so many".

This is not productive language being used to advance dialogue, it's divisive.  It fails to give credibility to valid concerns that are actually expressed here on this site.  And that kind of language doesn't point these boards in a direction that we ought to be headed.  It just puts us at the level of Dehlin, Reel, Colvin, and Young type rhetoric.

@smac97 authors some incredibly well researched and thoughtful posts.  He is knowledgeable and insightful.  He ought to rack up lots of "likes" and support for those types of posts.  

Edited November 29, 2018 by rockpond

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If Smac wants to narrow it down to those three, he ought to do it.

His initial post aimed it at Happy Jack Wagon and others here ("you and yours").

His "clarification" puts it at "so many".

This is not productive language being used to advance dialogue, it's divisive.  It fails to give credibility to valid concerns that are actually expressed here on this site.  And that kind of language doesn't point these boards in a direction that we ought to be headed.  It just puts us at the level of Dehlin, Reel, Colvin, and Young type rhetoric.

@smac97 authors some incredibly well researched and thoughtful posts.  He is knowledgeable and insightful.  He ought to rack up lots of "likes" and support for those types of posts.  

Smac has never been shy at calling out posters on the board.  I have no doubt if he intended to aim that sentence at posters on the board, he would say so.  I believe him when he says he did not.

You have Reel, Colvin, Dehlin, Young, I think he's mentioned Kelly, .Runnells, and Snuffer as well (who have both been highly critical of the Church but I didn't remember specific examples, so I didn't put them up).  I would add Norton and can think of a couple of other possibilities of less well known, but would need to check if I am confusing them with others.  You may not see that as "so many", but to someone who respects the church it feels excessive I suspect.  I know it feels like "many" to me.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Calm