Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

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 

But he didn't do it while saying he was a believing member of the church, did he?  That's what I meant by not being a danger to the flock.  Whether or not the church see's him as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's not claiming to be a "sheep" anymore, right?

[mbh26]

19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 While many people like to picture the Jesus as offering unconditional love, I notice that it is difficult to find any statements of Jesus that do not explicitly state conditions.  It's not that his love has limits, but that because of his love for us, he is willing to state the conditions deriving from our own actions and attitudes.  He never says, "Because I love you, I will defer and set you free to you make your own commandments. And I will clean up any messes and ensure that nothing you do has any negative consequences for yourself." If my own parents has adopted that attitude, I doubt if I would have survived childhood.  And if I had survived, what sort of person would I be?  Presidential perhaps?

 

I've never understood the idea that God loves us unconditionally.  It was even in the seminary manuals.  It sure seems conditional to me.  If you commit the slightest sin and you're no longer worthy of my presence.  How is that not conditional?  What if earthly parents treated their children that way?  How would we judge them?  

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

I've never understood the idea that God loves us unconditionally.  It was even in the seminary manuals.  It sure seems conditional to me.  If you commit the slightest sin and you're no longer worthy of my presence.  How is that not conditional?  What if earthly parents treated their children that way?  How would we judge them?  

 We are cut off from the presence of God, but we aren't cut off from God. Because of Christ everyone, whether they want to be or not will stand before God someday, see Helaman 14:17. The question is do they want to stay with God or not and it's up to them. Remember Alma 40:11, even God wants to see his evil children again

Edited November 16, 2018 by Duncan

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

I've never understood the idea that God loves us unconditionally.  It was even in the seminary manuals.  It sure seems conditional to me.  If you commit the slightest sin and you're no longer worthy of my presence.  How is that not conditional?  What if earthly parents treated their children that way?  How would we judge them?  

Love is unconditional.  Blessings are conditioned on obedience to the commandments.  Being blessed to enter the presence of God is conditioned upon being worthy, but that does not diminish God's love for us.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Faith in what?  A fictitious Jesus and phony atonement?  Joseph would not have tolerated someone preaching that gospel. Jesus is the cornerstone of our religion, and our God.  Remove that and nothing is left.

You think baptism came before the restoration of the priesthood?  You might want to check your history.  Membership in the church has always been an exclusive right for those who uphold the foundation principles built upon the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I have no uncharitable feelings towards Bill whatsoever. I just don't understand why someone like Bill would feel differently from someone like stemelbow on the subject of excommunication.  Stemelbow's view on excommunication makes sense to me, it feels honest.  When the salt has lost it's savor, and all...  If the pearl of great price is of no more value to you then a rock on the side of the road, then it shouldn't hurt so bad when you lose the pearl.  But honestly I would like to hear from Bill himself, because I am genuinely curious - what does membership in the church mean to him?  What value is it to him spiritually?  Based on his "testimony" he doesn't seem to be losing anything that can't be easily replaced. So what is it that membership gives him?

I personally am willing to sacrifice all that I have to obtain the peal of great price.  It means everything to me.  So when I see people like Bill devalue that pearl to be of no more value than the Koran, I honestly don't understand the pain of losing it.  I think the pain that might come will be more social than anything.  It can hurt to feel rejected by your tribe, but it feels like he has rejected the foundation his tribe is built upon so it feels like the rejection came from him first.  Practically speaking, sociability probably will not change much for him as he doesn't really use his membership nor partake of the privileges of that membership, and I doubt he is going to lose any friends over this.  So again, it is not that I am not charitable, it is that I don't understand. For me, if salt has lost it's savor, I would toss it out and not feel any remorse or pain about it.  

Edited November 16, 2018 by pogi

[phaedrus ut]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But he didn't do it while saying he was a believing member of the church, did he?  That's what I meant by not being a danger to the flock.  Whether or not the church see's him as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's not claiming to be a "sheep" anymore, right?

From what I understand that is correct.  

[Calm]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Interesting.  Where did you hear that Bishop had resigned?

Couple places.  Nothing that is a solid confirm of resignation, but an acquaintance had checked the stake directory and he was no longer listed, which is about as good a confirmation there is likely to be until the lawsuit is over with...if then, if the guy has dementia I don't think the Church would make anything of it in that case.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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!"😡

This actually is a decent representation of how it was at one point. Getting the 2A was as common as receiving the endowment. Obituaries would state that Chuck and Phyllis had received their 2nd anointing. If Chuck and Phyllis got it, I should get it too. There became a clamor for people to receive it, which is understandable. In fact, we treat the temple similarly today. We want everyone to go. There's no reason why we would want to limit the number of people receiving their endowments or being sealed. Yet that's how it is for the 2A which leads me to believe that church leaders view the 2A as much more significant than simply the next step of temple ordinances. I think the commonness of the 2A and the clamor for everyone to receive the 2A (which is the promise of exaltation if they don't murder an innocent person) led for the pendulum to swing far in the other direction where it is super rare.

I don't know if all GA's have received it. I don't know if mission presidents have received it. I would suspect Temple presidents have, but I don't know. We know VERY little about it. For a temple ordinance that is such a big deal, I think that is very strange. When is the last time a prophet or apostle spoke of the 2A specifically or even more generally about having one's calling and election made sure in this life? For such an important issue, I find the silence shocking.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Couple places.  Nothing that is a solid confirm of resignation, but an acquaintance had checked the stake directory and he was no longer listed, which is about as good a confirmation there is likely to be until the lawsuit is over with...if then, if the guy has dementia as I don't think the Church would make anything of it in that case.

Thanks

[RevTestament]

48 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

I've never understood the idea that God loves us unconditionally.  It was even in the seminary manuals.  It sure seems conditional to me.  If you commit the slightest sin and you're no longer worthy of my presence.  How is that not conditional?  What if earthly parents treated their children that way?  How would we judge them?  

He has high standards.  

A parent loves their child even if the child disobeys - thus the Father-Son motif of the Godhead (and no I am not saying Yeshua disobeyed). The parent might separate the child into their room, but still loves the child, and wants the child to learn to be more mature. To think of others, etc. He loves us so much, He sent His unique Son to teach us about Him - to reveal Himself to us through His Son - a fairly simple aspect of Christianity which I think is forgotten in all the creeds and teachings of churches.

[mbh26]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Love is unconditional.  Blessings are conditioned on obedience to the commandments.  Being blessed to enter the presence of God is conditioned upon being worthy, but that does not diminish God's love for us.

What is love if blessings are absent from it?

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

What is love if blessings are absent from it?

Do you have children?  If I discipline one of my children or take away a privilege because they have disobeyed a family rule, it doesn't mean that I don't love them. 

The same is true of our Father in Heaven.  His gifts are conditioned upon obedience to the laws upon which those blessings are based. 

     "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

      And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:20-21)

If I choose to disobey one of the commandments which I've received, I disqualify myself from the associated blessing. 

 

[Jeanne]

18 hours 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. 

My first contact with Bill...he was still very much an active member..but he could put into light how members feel when someone leaves...this helped me.  John at first very much tried to get me to remain in the church.  I guess I did this my own way..my own journey but with help from so many on both sides.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Faith in what?  A fictitious Jesus and phony atonement?  Joseph would not have tolerated someone preaching that gospel. Jesus is the cornerstone of our religion, and our God.  Remove that and nothing is left.

You think baptism came before the restoration of the priesthood?  You might want to check your history.  Membership in the church has always been an exclusive right for those who uphold the foundation principles built upon the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 

Everyone's faith will vary based on what personally resonates with them.  Sounds like you want to create a faith litmus test again. 

As for baptism, it did come well before any of the theological timeline around the Priesthood.  A very good timeline of Priesthood restoration is found in the JWHA 2014 Journal on page 58, Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives, by Dan Vogel. 

Of course there are good books on the history as well if you're interested, I can point you towards.  

http://www.jwha.website/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Journal_14-1.pdf

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have no uncharitable feelings towards Bill whatsoever. I just don't understand why someone like Bill would feel differently from someone like stemelbow on the subject of excommunication.  Stemelbow's view on excommunication makes sense to me, it feels honest.  When the salt has lost it's savor, and all...  If the pearl of great price is of no more value to you then a rock on the side of the road, then it shouldn't hurt so bad when you lose the pearl.  But honestly I would like to hear from Bill himself, because I am genuinely curious - what does membership in the church mean to him?  What value is it to him spiritually?  Based on his "testimony" he doesn't seem to be losing anything that can't be easily replaced. So what is it that membership gives him?

I personally am willing to sacrifice all that I have to obtain the peal of great price.  It means everything to me.  So when I see people like Bill devalue that pearl to be of no more value than the Koran, I honestly don't understand the pain of losing it.  I think the pain that might come will be more social than anything.  It can hurt to feel rejected by your tribe, but it feels like he has rejected the foundation his tribe is built upon so it feels like the rejection came from him first.  Practically speaking, sociability probably will not change much for him as he doesn't really use his membership nor partake of the privileges of that membership, and I doubt he is going to lose any friends over this.  So again, it is not that I am not charitable, it is that I don't understand. For me, if salt has lost it's savor, I would toss it out and not feel any remorse or pain about it.  

Ok, if you don't have uncharitable feelings towards him (and I question that based on what you've said, but I'll try again to give you the benefit of the doubt), why don't you ask him in sincerity what his perspective is?  Instead you seem to want to paint him as a caricature of a real person.  

I respect Stemelbow, but he's not going through actually getting called into a court right now, so he's only speculating on what he might feel about it.  I think experiencing something is often different than just speculating on how you think you'll handle something.  

If you truly want to understand people who've been going through excommunication, why not reach out to these individuals and then listen to their stories.  And listen with a sincerity and try to understand where they are coming from.  I guarantee that if you do this, you will have an increased understanding and your perspective will likely shift from where it is now.  

 

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Everyone's faith will vary based on what personally resonates with them.  Sounds like you want to create a faith litmus test again. 

As for baptism, it did come well before any of the theological timeline around the Priesthood.  A very good timeline of Priesthood restoration is found in the JWHA 2014 Journal on page 58, Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives, by Dan Vogel. 

Of course there are good books on the history as well if you're interested, I can point you towards.  

http://www.jwha.website/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Journal_14-1.pdf

In all of those narratives, "authority" to baptize came before baptism.  The disputation is about the visitations.

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, if you don't have uncharitable feelings towards him (and I question that based on what you've said, but I'll try again to give you the benefit of the doubt), why don't you ask him in sincerity what his perspective is?  Instead you seem to want to paint him as a caricature of a real person.  

I DID ask for his perspective.  Until he can share where he is coming from, you are making as much as an assumption as anyone about how he feels about it - how do you know that this will not bring a huge sense of closure for him? 

 I honestly don't know where you are coming from here.  I have not painted him as a caricature of a real person.  Where have I done so?  What do you base my "uncharitable" feelings on specifically?  All I can go on is what he has said:

Quote

 

Disciplinary Court Scheduled for Tuesday, November 27th at 8:30 PM (I have asked for a date change to a Saturday to give me a healthy space to process and recoup before having to resume the weekly grind)

It has finally happened. I received a disciplinary notice from my stake president. Would those who feel any attachment to my podcast or to me, would you please send positive thoughts into the universe for my family and friends. I always knew that full honesty and transparency and shining a light on unhealthiness and deception would eventually end with me being severed from my tribe. But many around me expected better from the Church and are feeling hurt by this latest detail to transpire. If you have a desire to contact me please email me at ReelMormon AT gmail DOT com.

I put the images of the 2 page letter on my site. didn't want to do here for any violation of the rules here.

Send any Good thoughts to my family and friends!!!

 

"I always knew..." He only expresses remorse that his families and friends expected some other conclusion, and are therefore feeling hurt because of their dashed expectations.  Bill himself, however, had no such expectations and doesn't seem to be feeling as hurt - at least in what he expresses here.  He knew this would happen and he willingly chose it.  I am not saying that can't make it difficult, but it prohibits me from viewing him as a victim and feeling empathy in that way.  I would be feeling more remorse if he truly thought his words/actions were reconcilable with full fellowship and membership in the church. 

 

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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

And the point still stands - a dozen times?  Really? I am supposed to think a dozen times is a real accomplishment?  Please!

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

In all of those narratives, "authority" to baptize came before baptism.  The disputation is about the visitations.

A close reading shows that this isn't institutional priesthood authority, it is more of an individual authority.  The theological innovations around Priesthood didn't happen until 1834 and later.  Reading the timeline closely is helpful to understand what they were thinking at that time, rather than reading back anachronistically.  

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I DID ask for his perspective.  Until he can share where he is coming from, you are making as much as an assumption as anyone about how he feels about it - how do you know that this will not bring a huge sense of closure for him? 

 I honestly don't know where you are coming from here.  I have not painted him as a caricature of a real person.  Where have I done so?  What do you base my "uncharitable" feelings on specifically?  All I can go on is what he has said:

Hmm....  I'm debating in my mind whether or not it would be productive for me to try and point out to you how the rhetoric you're engaging with is uncharitable.  Is it actually possible that this is an honest blind spot and that you're really not aware that what you've said could be very hurtful?  

Ok, so the debate is over in my mind.  I'm done trying to gently point this out to you.  If you are interested in understanding Bill and others in similar circumstances, you'll have to put in the work to actually try and understand, and I've given some advice on how you could accomplish this.  

[strappinglad]

The 2A does guarantee exaltation unless committing the unpardonable sin, however, what seems to be slid over is the idea that any sins committed after the 2A will be paid for by the individual and not Christ's atonement. We are reminded just how painful that can be. People should not be jumping on the 2A bandwagon. They must be tested thoroughly first and found valiant under those tests. For me it would be a case of " be careful what you wish for " .

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmm....  I'm debating in my mind whether or not it would be productive for me to try and point out to you how the rhetoric you're engaging with is uncharitable.  Is it actually possible that this is an honest blind spot and that you're really not aware that what you've said could be very hurtful?  

Ok, so the debate is over in my mind.  I'm done trying to gently point this out to you.  If you are interested in understanding Bill and others in similar circumstances, you'll have to put in the work to actually try and understand, and I've given some advice on how you could accomplish this.  

It appears, I am not the only one who thinks this way.  I have been reading other boards, and many ex-mormons and anti-mormons think the same way I do:

Quote

 

I believe you choose to separate from the church far before the church is deciding to separate itself from you.

You have decided to not only stop attending, pay tithing, go to the temple, wear garments, but on top of all that you no longer provide a balance perspective. You overly criticize, even if it is rightfully so, and have very little empathy for the church it’s cause and it’s mission. You no longer are even willing to recommend the church to non-members. Thank you for you honesty in all this…

 

Quote

Bill more or less drew first blood and threw down the gauntlet...the church is merely responding in the only manner that it can...self preservation by marginalizing Bill in the minds of its true believers by excommunicating him.

Quote

It's like getting kicked out of the flat Earth society.

Quote

This is a blessing in disguise.

Quote

Bill honest question: why the remorse? Why not celebrate? Isn't this finally bringing closure?

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I respect Stemelbow, but he's not going through actually getting called into a court right now, so he's only speculating on what he might feel about it.  I think experiencing something is often different than just speculating on how you think you'll handle something.  

Just to clarify, I suggested I sometimes feel a bit of jealousy.  That is in now way speculating on how I might feel if I were called in for a court, but is describing exactly how I do feel having not been called in and hearing that another is getting called in.  While I feel a sense of jealousy and do think it'd bring me some level of resolve, it'd also likely be an unpleasant experience for me overall.  But that part is just speculation.  

Now if there was some way to leave the middle of your guys' conversation and leave you two at it, I'll do that now.   

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

The 2A does guarantee exaltation unless committing the unpardonable sin, however, what seems to be slid over is the idea that any sins committed after the 2A will be paid for by the individual and not Christ's atonement. We are reminded just how painful that can be. People should not be jumping on the 2A bandwagon. They must be tested thoroughly first and found valiant under those tests. For me it would be a case of " be careful what you wish for " .

I don't understand that.  People aren't suddenly perfect after they receive the 2nd anointing.  They still sin.  It makes so sense to say that after the 2A repentance is no longer possible.    

Edited November 16, 2018 by bluebell

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, mbh26 said:

What is love if blessings are absent from it?

I have a son who believes that everyone in the family is out to get him, and are his enemies. At various times, he has threatened all of us, collectively and individually, with grievous bodily harm. I kept my bedroom door locked at night because of him. Eventually he made threats that were recorded, and the police and the courts became involved. He no longer lives in the home he grew up in, and I haven't spoken with him since the court hearing when his case was adjudicated, nearly four years ago. I don't know where he lives. I may never see him again, and would worry if I encountered him unexpectedly. His behavior caused all of us a great deal of grief, but we still love him, and hope that he finds happiness. But his behavior made it impossible for him to live in communication with his family. In short, he rejected us, and also all the blessings he might have had as part of the family.

Those who reject God have not been rejected by God. They chose the rejection, not the other way around.

And anyway, even the Telestial Kingdom is a kingdom of glory. That will be a wonderful blessing, and those who find themselves there will thank God for it.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Stargazer

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand that.  People aren't suddenly perfect after they receive the 2nd anointing.  They still sin.  It makes so sense to say that after the 2A repentance is no longer possible.    

There isn’t much that makes sense about the second anointing.  And the secrecy surrounding its existence is troubling to me.  

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand that.  People aren't suddenly perfect after they receive the 2nd anointing.  They still sin.  It makes so sense to say that after the 2A repentance is no longer possible.    

I probably have a different understanding of what " delivered unto the buffetings of Satan " means. I've been wrong before.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the aHoly Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

[SouthernMo]

20 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.

That’s fine. I take issue with the idea that being right with the LDS church and God are synonymous.