Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I suspect this will not shock many people, but Bill Reel (aka dbmormon) has received an invitation to his execution.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/bill-reel-disciplinary-court-is-imminent/

 

 

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly), but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Asking for a friend.

 

He's not deserving of excommunication in my opinion.  Excommunication should be reserved for the most extreme of situations only.  Perhaps if someone was going to church meetings and regularly disrupting meetings and causing significant problems intentionally would be one example.  

As I understand it, he's not even attending church anymore, so his advocacy for change and pointing out problems with the culture on social media aren't things that should qualify as they aren't really impacting anything at the local level.  People don't have to follow him.  As a culture we really need to grow up and quit this kind of practice.  Its immature and its keeping us from engaging with and understanding each other better.  What happened to love your enemy?  How can we love if we don't seek to understand and empathize.  These are core principles of Christianity, and we're failing to follow them.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

this still  represents my testimony quite well
https://mormondiscussions.org/discussion/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/The-Testimony-of-Bill-Reel.pdf

Love and support to you brother during this difficult time.  Thanks for all you do.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I suspect this will not shock many people, but Bill Reel (aka dbmormon) has received an invitation to his execution.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/bill-reel-disciplinary-court-is-imminent/

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly), but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Asking for a friend.

I think there is plenty of room for views and belief, but if it translates into apostate behavior (as defined in the handbook), discipline is warranted.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On this occasion, I  remember that LDS discipline is not execution, nor, as Nibley pointed out, the same as Catholic excommunication which historically included post-Mortem implications.  LDS excommunication is not God's judgement but a community's concern for the covenants the define and bind it.

Thanks for your comments.  Just some comments about this piece where you say that LDS excommunication is not God's judgement.  Are you saying its not the final judgement from God, but potentially only temporary, because people have the option to come back if they follow certain prescriptions?

The reason I'm asking is because the messages I've received throughout my life in Mormonism have been that when your temple covenants are revoked that you are essentially being kicked out of the Celestial Kingdom, and that you are also potentially in jeopardy of the most grievous sin of all in the scriptures and that is the denial of the Holy Ghost.  When I was an orthodox believer, my understanding is that for endowed members who are excommunicated, it is one of the worst possible things that could happen to you and potentially eternally damnable. 

The rhetoric around this event that I absorbed and believed in my orthodox days was very close to it being considered a spiritual execution of sorts.  I remember hearing the stories about early church members like the BoM witnesses who returned to the faith and how they potentially lost so much spiritually and eternally because of their straying from the gospel.  They were looked at as second class citizens from the messages I received.  

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Love and support to you brother during this difficult time.  Thanks for all you do.

My sentiments exactly.  Many years ago, Bill helped me see the other side of things and helped me with relationships that were difficult for me during the first part of my separation from the church.This has been a big long journey for him..I wish him peace and many good things that will keep his own relationships loving and tangible in light of all those that may disagree. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Jeanne

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My sentiments exactly.  Many years ago, Bill helped me see the other side of things and helped me with relationships that were difficult for me during the first part of my separation from the church.This has been a big long journey for him..I wish him peace and many good things that will keep his own relationships loving and tangible in light of all those that may disagree. 

Going on a faith journey is really tough, and Bill has helped many people on that journey to think about and feel comforted when they couldn't find that comfort through other places.  Always appreciate people all along the spectrum willing to share their personal experiences in a public way in order to help others.  I personally don't have the constitution for it as I'm too private of a person, but I'm thankful for those who are willing to share themselves with the rest of us.  

[Duncan]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for your comments.  Just some comments about this piece where you say that LDS excommunication is not God's judgement.  Are you saying its not the final judgement from God, but potentially only temporary, because people have the option to come back if they follow certain prescriptions?

The reason I'm asking is because the messages I've received throughout my life in Mormonism have been that when your temple covenants are revoked that you are essentially being kicked out of the Celestial Kingdom, and that you are also potentially in jeopardy of the most grievous sin of all in the scriptures and that is the denial of the Holy Ghost.  When I was an orthodox believer, my understanding is that for endowed members who are excommunicated, it is one of the worst possible things that could happen to you and potentially eternally damnable. 

The rhetoric around this event that I absorbed and believed in my orthodox days was very close to it being considered a spiritual execution of sorts.  I remember hearing the stories about early church members like the BoM witnesses who returned to the faith and how they potentially lost so much spiritually and eternally because of their straying from the gospel.  They were looked at as second class citizens from the messages I received.  

When I was interviewed by the Stake Presidency member for the MP, I was told that you could be excommunicated but still hold the priesthood, you just can't use. It's like having a license to do something but not being able to use it, you don't lose (if your memory remains intact!) your training but just being able to do that which your license allows you to do. I've shared this before but I know a retired lawyer who is in his 90's. He probably hasn't had a license to practice law in 25 plus years, he has the training but he isn't practicing anymore, because he doesn't have the license.I suppose theoretically he could give legal advice but knowing him he would suggest you see a practicing lawyer. So, with excommunication you have the training per se but you are not allowed to exercise the priesthood. Are you banished from the Celestial Kingdom that is for God to say

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

When I was interviewed by the Stake Presidency member for the MP, I was told that you could be excommunicated but still hold the priesthood, you just can't use. It's like having a license to do something but not being able to use it, you don't lose (if your memory remains intact!) your training but just being able to do that which your license allows you to do. I've shared this before but I know a retired lawyer who is in his 90's. He probably hasn't had a license to practice law in 25 plus years, he has the training but he isn't practicing anymore, because he doesn't have the license.I suppose theoretically he could give legal advice but knowing him he would suggest you see a practicing lawyer. So, with excommunication you have the training per se but you are not allowed to exercise the priesthood. Are you banished from the Celestial Kingdom that is for God to say

Interesting, I've never heard that before about the Priesthood.  Its probably due to the lack of official statements or even scriptural passages extrapolating on theological concepts around this process, that would explain why there are so many different perspectives and such creative speculation happening.  The message that your temple blessings are revoked is pretty explicit, strong and condemning in tone.  

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My sentiments exactly.  Many years ago, Bill helped me see the other side of things and helped me with relationships that were difficult for me during the first part of my separation from the church.This has been a big long journey for him..I wish him peace and many good things that will keep his own relationships loving and tangible in light of all those that may disagree. 

Ironically, Bill’s podcasts and Dehlin’s podcasts helped me find a way to stay in the church.  I will forever appreciate them for that and the good work that they have done in giving voice to what so many struggle with in silence and loneliness. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Steve J said:

The LDS Church likes its "faithful" scholars. What makes a LDS Scholar "Faithful"? Simple! A LDS Scholar is "faithful" when in spite of knowing the data and the facts and such being their expertise, they prefer to make emotional appeals for the Church being true rather than make any appeal to the data that they are experts in?In other words it is their ability to set their scholar hat aside that makes an LDS scholar "faithful." A Faithful scholar instead is not a scholar at all in such conversations but rather an expert of emotional appeal with an educational degree around scholarship but knows full well that the scholarship he is an expert in, is not on his side of the argument. Arguments only based on the facts essentially never work out in favor of the Church's truth claims and hence a faithful scholar wants to do everything except appeal to scholarship.

I notice the "Mormon Scholars Testify" database is now up to 356 testifiers, from 168 different schools/organizations.  I wonder if anyone has told them they're "not scholars at all", "but rather experts of emotional appeal" who "know full well" that their scholarly credentials are "not on their side of the argument". 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

He's not deserving of excommunication in my opinion.  Excommunication should be reserved for the most extreme of situations only.  Perhaps if someone was going to church meetings and regularly disrupting meetings and causing significant problems intentionally would be one example.  

As I understand it, he's not even attending church anymore, so his advocacy for change and pointing out problems with the culture on social media aren't things that should qualify as they aren't really impacting anything at the local level.  People don't have to follow him.  As a culture we really need to grow up and quit this kind of practice.  Its immature and its keeping us from engaging with and understanding each other better.  What happened to love your enemy?  How can we love if we don't seek to understand and empathize.  These are core principles of Christianity, and we're failing to follow them.  

He is not just pointing out problems with the culture.  He is publicly challenging the the very foundation of our doctrines - read his "testimony".  

The first vision was a personal spiritual experience rather than the beginnings of a restoration. 

The priesthood narrative is made up.  No great apostasy.  No visitations.  No restoration. The priesthood is "not peculiar to Mormonism". 

The Book of Mormon is no more scripture to him then the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita.

The temple ordinances are no more salvific then the rituals of any other faith.  

The atonement of Jesus Christ is fiction. 

This is all found in his "testimony". 

https://mormondiscussions.org/discussion/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/The-Testimony-of-Bill-Reel.pdf

This is what he preaches to his congregation. These are all contrary to the foundational doctrines of the Church.  Is it any wonder that his leaders would ask him to stop?  Is it any wonder that he would he would have a disciplinary council when he refuses to stop?  

Having questions and doubts is one thing, intentionally sowing seeds of doubt for profit is another.

The other question is this, what will excommunication really change for him in terms of what he gets out of church?  He doesn't believe that this is the true and living church of the restoration.  There is nothing spiritually special about the church, he doesn't even go to church, so...what is he gaining from his membership other than using it as a platform for his podcast? 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by pogi

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I notice the "Mormon Scholars Testify" database is now up to 356 testifiers, from 168 different schools/organizations.  I wonder if anyone has told them they're "not scholars at all", "but rather experts of emotional appeal" who "know full well" that their scholarly credentials are "not on their side of the argument". 

 

They are scholars.  Many of them have degrees in things that don’t have to do with religion, anthropology, archeology, etc.  But they are all scholars. 

I hadn’t heard of those page within FAIR before so I decided to check it out. I chose John E Clark because his speciality is listed as Mesoamerican Archeology.  His written testimony there is more despite his scholarly work rather than because of it. 

Here’s a relevant quote:  “My archaeology does not concern the Book of Mormon and never has. I would never attempt to prove the book’s message by science, and I think such efforts are a foolish waste of time—not because there is no evidence, but because the evidence cannot make a difference in the ways imagined.”

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

He is not just pointing out problems with the culture.  He is publicly challenging the the very foundation of our doctrines - read his "testimony".  

But that’s just it, this is one mans perspective, just like all the perspectives of the past are a potpourri of perspectives.   

I think these perspectives should be tolerated and engaged with, not judged on a scale of coherence with the correlation committee.  That’s the kind of creed and litmus test enforcement that is the antithesis of what Mormonism was founded on.  

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

The other question is this, what will excommunication really change for him spiritually speaking?  He doesn't believe that this is the true and living church of the restoration, he doesn't even go to church, so...what is he gaining from his membership other than using it as a platform for his podcast? 

We can only speculate as to how it impacts someone, that is a very personal thing and I don’t think should be discounted because someone’s perspectives may have shifted away from orthodoxy.  I trust those others who’ve experienced excommunication some of whom described it as a very traumatic and harmful experience.  Discounting the harm smacks of a very unempathetic and possibly callous dismissal.  

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ironically, Bill’s podcasts and Dehlin’s podcasts helped me find a way to stay in the church.  I will forever appreciate them for that and the good work that they have done in giving voice to what so many struggle with in silence and loneliness. 

I’m essentially in still as well, thanks to much of the work of these folks, and lately I’ve been doing even better at church and I’m agnostic about God and I completely reject the supernatural and exclusive truth claims.  Yet I’m able to see value in metaphor and tradition and emotional connection(the spirit) and I’m increasingly more comfortable clothing my perspectives in religious terminology without feeling like I’m betraying my own authenticity.  It’s really quite surprising to me, but it’s happening and in unexpected ways. 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

 "... but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Individual members can have their own views.  It is when they start advertising their views and seeking approval or advancing them that it becomes a problem.   However I think about say the city of Enoch or how the celestial kingdom is, are there individuals there with divergent views on the Book of Mormon, God and his involvement with the world, ect.  I think everyone is on the same page in pretty much all things.  Ultimately it comes down to pride.  Having a different view an issue is fine but does one dig their trenches so much that they are not willing to budge with correction.  I have issues I may differ with many LDS on but I also keep open to the fact that I may be wrong on them and so I always keep the door open to correction.  Does Bill do that?  I don't know.

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

do you know he wasn't called in for a DC? and is he an active member?

One received the "cough Cough" special ordinance and the other didn't.... I think that does play a part like it or not

Edited November 16, 2018 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

One received the "cough Cough" special ordinance and the other didnt too.... I think that does play a part like it or not

??? we're talking about one person here. I think if he's inactive then the second anointing is null and void and he will get judged in the next life like everyone else, the bigger they are the harder they fall

Edited November 16, 2018 by Duncan

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Individual members can have their own views.  It is when they start advertising their views and seeking approval or advancing them that it becomes a problem.   However I think about say the city of Enoch or how the celestial kingdom is, are there individuals there with divergent views on the Book of Mormon, God and his involvement with the world, ect.  I think everyone is on the same page in pretty much all things.  Ultimately it comes down to pride.  Having a different view an issue is fine but does one dig their trenches so much that they are not willing to budge with correction.  I have issues I may differ with many LDS on but I also keep open to the fact that I may be wrong on them and so I always keep the door open to correction.  Does Bill do that?  I don't know.

I think Bill is absolutely open to correction and new information that would change his understanding on many things.  My experience in Mormonism has been encountering a multitude of differing opinions on multiple different subjects throughout my lifetime.  

Are you willing to expound on your points about what constitutes “advertising” or “advancing” views?  Also, elaborate on what does “ seeking approval” mean.  For the most part I just see Bill sharing his opinions similar to how other members share their opinions.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

??? we're talking about one person here. I think if he's inactive then the second anointing is null and void and he will get judged in the next life like everyone else, the bigger they are the harder they fall

Except your opinion directly contradicts the clearly explicit wording of the second anointing which essentially guarantees exaltation with only the exception of shedding innocent blood, and even that exception has been narrowed by early church leaders when it came to what constituted “innocent blood”. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Except your opinion directly contradicts the clearly explicit wording of the second anointing which essentially guarantees exaltation with only the exception of shedding innocent blood, and even that exception has been narrowed by early church leaders when it came to what constituted “innocent blood”. 

umm, are you sure about that? and the correct answer is no

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think there are reasons that they cannot excommunicate him... given his status there may not be anything he can do to be ex'd.

Seems unlikely given they have exed apostles before. More likely there are factors not shared with the public. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

..............................................

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly), but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?..................

According to Elder Jeff Holland there is no problem with LDS members having such divergent views, and their membership should not be threatened by their having such views.  The membership problem for them arises when they make it their mission in life to preach their viewpoint as the only correct view, along with declaring Church leaders to be liars or worse.  Bill smugly portrays himself as honest, Church leaders as dishonest.  It was only a matter to time before he would be called on the carpet for that absolutist position.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

According to Elder Jeff Holland there is no problem with LDS members having such divergent views, and their membership should not be threatened by their having such views.  The membership problem for them arises when they make it their mission in life to preach their viewpoint as the only correct view, along with declaring Church leaders to be liars or worse.  Bill smugly portrays himself as honest, Church leaders as dishonest.  It was only a matter to time before he would be called on the carpet for that absolutist position.

and he's on record as saying he knows more than 90% plus people in the Church, well read, studied everything, his humility I don't know about

Edited November 16, 2018 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for your comments.  Just some comments about this piece where you say that LDS excommunication is not God's judgement.  Are you saying its not the final judgement from God, but potentially only temporary, because people have the option to come back if they follow certain prescriptions?

The reason I'm asking is because the messages I've received throughout my life in Mormonism have been that when your temple covenants are revoked that you are essentially being kicked out of the Celestial Kingdom, and that you are also potentially in jeopardy of the most grievous sin of all in the scriptures and that is the denial of the Holy Ghost.  When I was an orthodox believer, my understanding is that for endowed members who are excommunicated, it is one of the worst possible things that could happen to you and potentially eternally damnable. 

The rhetoric around this event that I absorbed and believed in my orthodox days was very close to it being considered a spiritual execution of sorts.  I remember hearing the stories about early church members like the BoM witnesses who returned to the faith and how they potentially lost so much spiritually and eternally because of their straying from the gospel.  They were looked at as second class citizens from the messages I received.  

As far as the denial of the Holy Ghost goes - that is completely wrong. It is my understanding that the only ones that can commit this sin are those who are beyond faith - they have a sure knowledge and still reject Jesus Christ. Never heard the second class citizen bit; that must be local wives tales. 

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Bill is absolutely open to correction and new information that would change his understanding on many things.  My experience in Mormonism has been encountering a multitude of differing opinions on multiple different subjects throughout my lifetime.  

Are you willing to expound on your points about what constitutes “advertising” or “advancing” views?  Also, elaborate on what does “ seeking approval” mean.  For the most part I just see Bill sharing his opinions similar to how other members share their opinions.  

Jeff Holland said in a public interview:

Quote

 

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.
*    *    *    *

I don't know if there's a subject he's spoken [about] more directly and more emphatically than retention. Now, retention simply means that we'd like to keep everybody in the church that comes to the church. I suppose every church would like that. I don't know whether any church succeeds at that very well. There must be lapsed almost everything. There must be lapsed Presbyterians; there must be lapsed Episcopalians. And there are lapsed Latter-day Saints. ...
*    *    *    *

We don't discipline people in this church for very much. In a church of over 12 million people, I keep hearing about the September Six [the 1993 excommunication and disfellowshipping of six Mormon academics]. ... All I'm saying is, I think this church has a history of being very, very generous. There are some lines -- I'd probably say "lines," plural. The chief among these is the issue of advocating against the church. Personal beliefs within the give-and-take of life and associations and whatever you choose -- there are lots of people who carve out their life in the church all the way out to the edge and beyond. I guess that's always the way it's been, and that's always the way it will be. But I think where the church will act is when there is an act so decisive or so glaring, and particularly in this case, so much cast in the spirit of advocacy, that the institution itself cannot retain its identity and still allow that.
*    *    *    *
There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ...  PBS interview, March 4, 2006, online at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html ,