Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Bill Reel is being called before a disciplinary council but Tom Phillips actually sued Thomas S. Monson calling him and the church a fraud and is still a member.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

 

Phaedrus 

Tom Phillips has his second anointing.  He will not be exed.  Joe Bishop also has not been exed.  I suspect for the same reason. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Tom Phillips has his second anointing.  He will not be exed.  Joe Bishop also has not been exed.  I suspect for the same reason. 

The report is Bishop resigned to avoid excommunication. 

Elder Hamula who was a seventy and the executive director of church correlation was excommunicated. Somehow I doubt that either Bishop or Phillips are somehow protected from excommunication when he was not. 

Add-on:  There is a possibility that Bishop wouldn’t be exed because of dementia. I have no knowledge of how cases like his would be handled, especially if there was a memory issue. 

I have heard that Phillips has health problems, but have no clue as to what kind and have not heard it suggested there are any mental issues involved.

 

  

Edited November 16, 2018 by Calm

[Rivers]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may not have been here on this board in the past when Bill was holding forth with considerable self-assurance.  Some of those of us who were here may have strong opinions about what Bill has said and done.  Bill doesn't like what you call the "LDS traditional faith."  He has basically exed-himself.  With his level of contempt, why would he want to be a member anyway?  Most of us here wish him well, and we feel sorry for him.  He never did seem to get what the LDS faith and church were all about anyhow.

I was one of his listeners since he first started the podcast.  He started out by focusing on the fundamental gospel principles.  I think he understood the faith very well.  I listened as he gradually moved away from that focus.  

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

read the scriptures a dozen times? Really?  Hmm, I know I like to read, but just a dozen times? I can see where he is trying to impress upon you his role as an expert, but I am sorry. The vast majority of the individuals I know would first, never speak in this manner, and second, just quietly chuckle to themselves. I have only known Bill on this discussion board. I have enjoyed him at times and been perplexed by his desire to be disconnected from the Church and God. I can say that I like the fellow without really knowing him, but he seems to have followed in a well-worn path of apostasy. God bless him. 

He said that he had read the book of mormon through a dozen times. Don't misquote him.

[Calm]

Since we don't have many records on 2nd Anointing, I had to go back to the earliest known accounts.  Alpheus Cutler received his on the 15th of Nov 1843 and was excommunicated 20 Apr 1851.

So no protection apparently:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheus_Cutler

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I was one of his listeners since he first started the podcast.  He started out by focusing on the fundamental gospel principles.  I think he understood the faith very well.  I listened as he gradually moved away from that focus.  

What was the reason for his loss of focus?  Did he just sort of sour on the Church?

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Steve J said:

Thank you for keeping me honest. This will be my last post. 

I was just teasing.  I don't care if you post.  

[stemelbow]

I get kind of jealous for those who get ex'd sometimes.  Part of me wants that experience for some sort of resolve.  Sounds silly I guess.  I think it'd hurt in a way, but it'd also feel kind of good to shed myself of it.  I don't think I could play it as I'm a victim though.  I'd guess my beliefs are in some ways inline with the Church and in many others not.  I'm probably not very far from where Bill is.  I don't really shy away from telling people what I think and feel.  But if ever I get ex'd it won't be because of my opposition to the Church, it'd be because of my influence on others.  My local leaders, as they are now, don't know much about me at all aside from the rumors they've heard from others.  Unless I do something that gets attention from higher ups, they'll leave me alone.  If say, they get word from their leaders that I am influencing others by doing a podcast or some other thing, I'd be tossed as quickly as anyone, I'm sure.  And they'd be happy to get involved with another spiritual experience of tossing someone out, I'm sure.  They'd have more stories to tell on that front, and that'd be good for them I guess.  

I've listened to RadioFreeMormon since it has started and I've listened to Bill quite a bit.  I find them both thoughtful members who, like me, in some sense don't want to let go totally of that which was a part of us for so long.  I hear Radio free say he likes to keep anonymous because he doesn't want to have to deal with the very thing Bill is going through--it could negatively effect his family.  Fewf! I hear that.  If I were gifted like they are and were out there telling it like it is, as they say, I can see the virtue of going the route of anonymous and I also see the virtue of doing as Bill is doing.  Ah well, the world, what do you do?  They say one thing and do another too often.  It's certainly not because Bill has views opposed to the Church, fo course.  It's simply that he carries influence.  For the Church's sake this is a very bad move.  But the Church just keeps on making bad moves these days.  

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The report is Bishop resigned to avoid excommunication. 

Elder Hamula who was a seventy and the executive director of church correlation was excommunicated. Somehow I doubt that either Bishop or Phillips are somehow protected from excommunication when he was not. 

Add-on:  There is a possibility that Bishop wouldn’t be exed because of dementia. I have no knowledge of how cases like his would be handled, especially if there was a memory issue. 

I have heard that Phillips has health problems, but have no clue as to what kind and have not heard it suggested there are any mental issues involved.

 

  

Interesting.  Where did you hear that Bishop had resigned?

[CV75]

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

When did a handbook become God’s word and authority from which his children are judged? Perhaps scripture would be a better source than an ever-revising policy manual?

Read this conference talk about the relationship between God's authority, scripture, and handbooks: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

Any church defines the conditions and policies for membership and discipline, presumably based on a particular understanding of their scripture. Some, like ours, have handbooks. Revisability is an attribute of all delegated authority, policy and scripture.

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

While i certainly cannot speak for Bill, from my experience, you are missing the perspective of many who struggle with LDS traditional faith.

Being right with the church and being right with the Lord are not the same thing.  I know many strong LDS members believe this, but some do not.  Your genuine plea to get right with God misses the point entirely.

Lastly, who are you to judge if he is or is not right with God?

I understand the perspective. I simply have to conclude its wrong. 

Moroni has given us the principles to judge between good and evil. If you right with God, you would not have issues with apostasy. You would not resist the urging of the Spirit to be humble and submissive. You would be bringing people to Christ and not taking them away.

Look at King Benjamin’s sermon on putting off the natural man, if you are following his admonition you would be right with God. Otherwise you are in the natural man state and an enemy to God.

another good reference is the attributes that being priesthood power in 121.

can you be humble, Meek, submissive, gentle, kind etc and fight against the authority God has established over you?

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Tom Phillips has his second anointing.  He will not be exed.  Joe Bishop also has not been exed.  I suspect for the same reason. 

Not familiar with these people but how would any of us know whether they’ve received their second anointing?

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Tom Phillips has his second anointing.  He will not be exed.  Joe Bishop also has not been exed.  I suspect for the same reason. 

The church has excommunicated members who have received the second anointing before.

John D. Lee, Amasas Lyman, James Hamula, and John W. Taylor, for example.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Not familiar with these people but how would any of us know whether they’ve received their second anointing?

I think mostly it's assumed because of the position they held in the church.   Such as when an apostle is excommunicated, for example.  With others it might be a part of some historical records. 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I get kind of jealous for those who get ex'd sometimes.  Part of me wants that experience for some sort of resolve.  Sounds silly I guess.  I think it'd hurt in a way, but it'd also feel kind of good to shed myself of it.  I don't think I could play it as I'm a victim though.  I'd guess my beliefs are in some ways inline with the Church and in many others not.  I'm probably not very far from where Bill is.  I don't really shy away from telling people what I think and feel.  But if ever I get ex'd it won't be because of my opposition to the Church, it'd be because of my influence on others.  My local leaders, as they are now, don't know much about me at all aside from the rumors they've heard from others.  Unless I do something that gets attention from higher ups, they'll leave me alone.  If say, they get word from their leaders that I am influencing others by doing a podcast or some other thing, I'd be tossed as quickly as anyone, I'm sure.  And they'd be happy to get involved with another spiritual experience of tossing someone out, I'm sure.  They'd have more stories to tell on that front, and that'd be good for them I guess.  

I've listened to RadioFreeMormon since it has started and I've listened to Bill quite a bit.  I find them both thoughtful members who, like me, in some sense don't want to let go totally of that which was a part of us for so long.  I hear Radio free say he likes to keep anonymous because he doesn't want to have to deal with the very thing Bill is going through--it could negatively effect his family.  Fewf! I hear that.  If I were gifted like they are and were out there telling it like it is, as they say, I can see the virtue of going the route of anonymous and I also see the virtue of doing as Bill is doing.  Ah well, the world, what do you do?  They say one thing and do another too often.  It's certainly not because Bill has views opposed to the Church, fo course.  It's simply that he carries influence.  For the Church's sake this is a very bad move.  But the Church just keeps on making bad moves these days.  

You know, you guys keep saying that the church is making a bad moves, but it never seems to go badly for the church. We keep growing in numbers and influence.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Not familiar with these people but how would any of us know whether they’ve received their second anointing?

Tom Phillips discussed it in an interview with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast. 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

That is not true, Mormonism was founded upon the restoration of the priesthood, and the principles of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and the ordinances of baptism etc.  Not all “perspectives” are tolerated, nor should they be.  Excommunication has existed from the beginning of the church for those whose “perspectives”, teachings, and actions are antagonistic to those core principles.  Should we tolerate the perspective that open marriages are righteous?  Obviously, there have always been boundaries.  If you are antagonistic to the mission and principles of the restored gospel, then excommunication is warranted to protect the flock.  If you make a living off of bashing the church, then the church needs to sever ties  

And yet we have the quotes from Joseph Smith about creeds and about forgiving people for erring in doctrine and we have the whole foundational perspective from the BoM that was not based on a restoration of the priesthood, that developed later, and that these basics of faith, baptism and repentance constituted the fullness of the gospel.  I see those ideals as foundational as they came first, before the later institutional structure and more explicit appeals to institutional authority.  

11 hours ago, pogi said:

I honestly have a hard time feeling empathy for excommunication.  I have nothing personal against him, and I wish him well, and hope for a change of heart,  but he claims to have known that his actions would lead him to this inevitable conclusion.  He “knew” and therefore he chose it.  He felt that his podcast was more valuable to him then membership in the Church.  I am not saying that it won’t be hard for him in some ways, but spiritually he wasn’t really using his membership anymore, and he doesn’t really believe that his priesthood is tied to membership, and he doesn’t believe that participating in the ordinances is really that special, and he didn’t really agree with the leaders on almost anything.  Spiritually, nothing will be lost according to his “testimony”.  He will certainly feel the pings of rejection, and I can empathize for him there a little, but He has publicly rejected just about everything the church is, so it’s hard to feel much empathy when the wind starts to blow the other way.

Unfortunately, this sounds to me like justification for very uncharitable views.  I don't wish to debate with you on this issue, but I am very saddened at how you've articulated things here.  

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Tom Phillips discussed it in an interview with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast. 

IIRC there was a blog or some internet posting from like 2005 or something, he wrote it all out, Elder Ballard was involved

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

You know, you guys keep saying that the church is making a bad moves, but it never seems to go badly for the church. We keep growing in numbers and influence.

Debatable. 

While we are still growing in raw numbers, our growth rate has been in decline for some time now. 

Are we growing in influence?  I don’t think so but that’s tough to measure. 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

How can you be kicked out when you are not in the Celestial Kingdom yet since that doesn’t happen until resurrection?

Conversely, how can someone be saved in the Celestial Kingdom, when that is a future state?  This is the promise of Mormon ritual, that we can have the assurance of these future events in this life.  In the Mormon theology that I was taught you can be damned or saved by the holy spirit of promise.  If I remember my McKonkie correctly, he taught that Cain was a Son of Perdition before he even was born on earth, and that God allowed this because the act of murder needed to be introduced into the world.  

[phaedrus ut]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

That might have something to do with it.  Maybe since he doesn't consider himself a member, the church doesn't view him as a threat to the flock.

He did press criminal charges against the Church and Thomas S. Monson in 2014.  I can't imagine a much bigger public confrontation than this. 

 

Phaedrus 

Edited November 16, 2018 by phaedrus ut

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think mostly it's assumed because of the position they held in the church.   Such as when an apostle is excommunicated, for example.  With others it might be a part of some historical records. 

It's an interesting issue. I'm not sure if all of these people received their 2nd anointing or not as it has been administered quite differently throughout the history of the church. From what I recall reading Devery Anderson's book, the Development of LDS Temple Worship, there was a time when the 2A was just as essential and expected as receiving the endowment. At other times church leaders moved away from it and it virtually vanished from practice. And other times, like now, when it is rare. The system for recommending individuals to receive the 2A has also changed over time, which I'm sure played in to the why/how it was easier to receive at various times. At some points bishops and SP recommended people to receive the 2A, at others, it required an apostle to recommend. At other times, people requested it themselves, so the practice of the 2A is kinda hodgepodge.

Still, if someone takes the language of the 2A at face value, then the individual/couple who receives it is promised exaltation, except for the shedding of innocent blood. If that's true, I guess an excommunication wouldn't really matter because the person is already promised exaltation. On the other hand it creates a problem for the church if they rescind all saving ordinances (including temple) for someone who has already been promised exaltation via temple covenant/ordinance. In that case, either the 2A isn't as powerful as it claims, or the church doesn't really have the power to rescind saving ordinances as it claims. It's a mess.

My recommendation to the church would be this- get out of the business of passing judgements that are said to be sealed throughout eternity, and leave it to God to sort out. We say that all the time anyways, right? When it comes to complications with sealings etc the common refrain is "God will work it out in eternity". Cool. I agree. But if that's true, why the intense focus on doing things that will last through the eternities when we don't really know that they will last through the eternities. God is big enough to fix any issue, so why not trust him to do it and get out of the way and stop pretending like we have all the answers to declare God's eternal will.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's an interesting issue. I'm not sure if all of these people received their 2nd anointing or not as it has been administered quite differently throughout the history of the church. From what I recall reading Devery Anderson's book, the Development of LDS Temple Worship, there was a time when the 2A was just as essential and expected as receiving the endowment. At other times church leaders moved away from it and it virtually vanished from practice. And other times, like now, when it is rare. The system for recommending individuals to receive the 2A has also changed over time, which I'm sure played in to the why/how it was easier to receive at various times. At some points bishops and SP recommended people to receive the 2A, at others, it required an apostle to recommend. At other times, people requested it themselves, so the practice of the 2A is kinda hodgepodge.

Still, if someone takes the language of the 2A at face value, then the individual/couple who receives it is promised exaltation, except for the shedding of innocent blood. If that's true, I guess an excommunication wouldn't really matter because the person is already promised exaltation. On the other hand it creates a problem for the church if they rescind all saving ordinances (including temple) for someone who has already been promised exaltation via temple covenant/ordinance. In that case, either the 2A isn't as powerful as it claims, or the church doesn't really have the power to rescind saving ordinances as it claims. It's a mess.

My recommendation to the church would be this- get out of the business of passing judgements that are said to be sealed throughout eternity, and leave it to God to sort out. We say that all the time anyways, right? When it comes to complications with sealings etc the common refrain is "God will work it out in eternity". Cool. I agree. But if that's true, why the intense focus on doing things that will last through the eternities when we don't really know that they will last through the eternities. God is big enough to fix any issue, so why not trust him to do it and get out of the way and stop pretending like we have all the answers to declare God's eternal will.

what I would like to know is if you recommend 2 people and they recommend another 2 people in time you could cover the globe, with everyone knowing everyone else and wouldn't you feel slighted not to be invited, "I see how it is Chuck and Phyllis, some friends you turned out to be!"😡

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's an interesting issue. I'm not sure if all of these people received their 2nd anointing or not as it has been administered quite differently throughout the history of the church. From what I recall reading Devery Anderson's book, the Development of LDS Temple Worship, there was a time when the 2A was just as essential and expected as receiving the endowment. At other times church leaders moved away from it and it virtually vanished from practice. And other times, like now, when it is rare. The system for recommending individuals to receive the 2A has also changed over time, which I'm sure played in to the why/how it was easier to receive at various times. At some points bishops and SP recommended people to receive the 2A, at others, it required an apostle to recommend. At other times, people requested it themselves, so the practice of the 2A is kinda hodgepodge.

Still, if someone takes the language of the 2A at face value, then the individual/couple who receives it is promised exaltation, except for the shedding of innocent blood. If that's true, I guess an excommunication wouldn't really matter because the person is already promised exaltation. On the other hand it creates a problem for the church if they rescind all saving ordinances (including temple) for someone who has already been promised exaltation via temple covenant/ordinance. In that case, either the 2A isn't as powerful as it claims, or the church doesn't really have the power to rescind saving ordinances as it claims. It's a mess.

My recommendation to the church would be this- get out of the business of passing judgements that are said to be sealed throughout eternity, and leave it to God to sort out. We say that all the time anyways, right? When it comes to complications with sealings etc the common refrain is "God will work it out in eternity". Cool. I agree. But if that's true, why the intense focus on doing things that will last through the eternities when we don't really know that they will last through the eternities. God is big enough to fix any issue, so why not trust him to do it and get out of the way and stop pretending like we have all the answers to declare God's eternal will.

I think the leaders of the church believe that Christ has given them a scriptural mandate to 'seal on earth and seal in heaven' regardless of what they think or how they feel about it.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

You know, you guys keep saying that the church is making a bad moves, but it never seems to go badly for the church. We keep growing in numbers and influence.

What guys?  I think the Church is moving along.  But the bad moves are adding up, and I think it's showing, sadly.