Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[flameburns623]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I only know about them from what is said here -- I've never listened to them or researched them, so I'm not really able to make a comparison.

There are automatic excommunications in Catholicism that happen the moment the act occurs. These include things like getting an abortion, physically striking the Pope (gotta protect the Holy Father), ordaining a bishop without Papal approval, desecrating the Holy Eucharist, breaking the confessional seal, and some others.

Then there are excommunications that are declared by the bishop in authority (remember, bishops are like LDS stake presidents). The bishop, under canon law (our version of the handbook of instructions I suppose), can excommunicate someone for a variety of reasons, but the ones that would probably apply to this case are heresy, apostasy, or creating a schism. These are sins that are almost exclusively reserved to clergy, often groups of clergy that try to set up their own church, try to ordain women, etc. There might be examples of bloggers being excommunicated, but I've never heard of it. In fact, it is hard as a lay person to get a decree of excommunication from a bishop. Perhaps part of that is due to the size and culture of Catholicism. With 1.2 billion members, there are a lot of cultural Catholics (just try getting a seat at Easter and Christmas mass!). With so many Catholics, a lot of stuff is ignored.

Excommunication doesn't invalidate your baptism, like it does in Mormonism. It means that you are no longer able to receive any of the sacraments, except the sacrament of penance (confession). If you are a clergy, you cannot celebrate any of the sacraments. You cannot hold any office, job, or position. Excommunication, generally speaking, is lifted by the bishop in authority, though there are a few types of excommunication that can only be lifted by the Pope. There is no rebaptism -- lifting means that you are able to receive the sacraments again.

Also, you are not removed from membership rolls if you are excommunicated, because there is not a membership roll. There is a register that each parish keeps that marks when people receive sacraments like baptism, confirmation, marriage, and holy orders, but that is not centralized. So excommunication doesn't "kick you out" of the Catholic Church. We're the ultimate cult -- there's no way to leave us because Catholic baptism is permanent and indelible, muahahaha!

One other thing: an excommunicated person at point of death can receive the Last Rites. And even an excommunicated priest could administer those rites in case of necessity. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'm not defending Bill Reel.  I don't really give him any thought, actually. But, I do think it is very classless for you to openly question the mental health of the man like this. 

Yet, sometimes when I read what Bill is saying it reminds me of nothing so much as a "Dr. Phil" episode.  You know, one in which some very sincere person seems completely deluded.  That is the risk of holding forth online and in podcasts.  People may see your psychological flaws or instability up close and personal.  I have no doubt that Bill sees himself as a fully competent victim of horrible LDS depredations.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Steve J said:

I just read the letter he sent....TL:DR 

i am smarter than all of you. No one answered all my questions specifically  to my satisfaction. Read the CES letter and To know the  church is false. 10000000 problems that I specifically counted. I have  a podcast and everyone who isn’t a complete idiot(ex of complete idiots- anyone who believes in the truth claims of the church) knows me for my complete honesty, integrity, and 100% knowledge on church scholarship. Again,m your church is false and you don’t know that bc the church hid it from you and you’re too big of a sheep to know it.  This excommunication will be really hard on me since I Will be separated from my tribe of dumb lazy superstitious sheep that don’t know the 1000 things that prove the church truth claims false. Here is a link to the CES letter. 

 

(World I will post this everywhere and let everyone know down to the minute when I sent it to my SP) 

 

 

I am sorry, can you explain what this is? Who wrote this? To whom? When? Where is it published?

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I suppose that’s because we are an ancient religion

I am not sure how this helps.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, so can and do we.  Excommunication is, after all, a very rare form of discipline.

Second, "dissent and criticism" covers a fair spectrum of behavior, and only behavior at the extremity of it merits discipline.  I have been involved in dozens of disciplinary matters, not a one of which has resulted in an excommunication.

Third, the Church has a fairly clear mandate as to disciplinary matters:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

I think the Church is among these.  But even if not, I'm not that concerned.  We need to follow the mandates we have received, including the difficult ones.

As I have said before regarding people who have been excommunicated: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

Upholding the doctrines and mandates of the Church can be difficult.  But them's the breaks.  For bishops and stake presidents, being a judge in Israel is not supposed to be easy.  They are called upon to administer the Restored Gospel, both when doing so is easy and when it's hard.  

Christ Himself said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually😞 "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when it is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am well aware of all the scriptural mandates, have conducted disciplinary councils, sat on Stake councils, etc. And a number of then have resulted in excommunication.  I never liked them except the ones to readmit someone. I suspect few do. I think they rarely serve the supposed purpose of bringing someone to "repentance."  When I was a bishop my SP said we should use church discipline rarely because rarely do those excommunicated come back.

I guess I simply view this through different lenses than I used to. But I understand your position.  I simply now view it as an antiquated and outdated means to punish someone. I am sure we won't agree on this one.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Why does that matter?

Apparently it doesn't to you.

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am well aware of all the scriptural mandates, have conducted disciplinary councils, sat on Stake councils, etc. And a number of then have resulted in excommunication. 

The vast majority, however, do not.

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I never liked them except the ones to readmit someone.

Perfectly understandable.  Nobody "likes" them.  The issue is whether they are necessary and apprpriate.

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I suspect few do. I think they rarely serve the supposed purpose of bringing someone to "repentance." 

That is up to the individual.  But some do.

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When I was a bishop my SP said we should use church discipline rarely because rarely do those excommunicated come back.

Makes sense.

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I guess I simply view this through different lenses than I used to. But I understand your position.  I simply now view it as an antiquated and outdated means to punish someone. I am sure we won't agree on this 

I guess not.  We can't ignore open apostasy, or the mandates pertaining to it.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The vast majority, however, do not.

Perfectly understandable.  Nobody "likes" them.  The issue is whether they are necessary and apprpriate.

That is up to the individual.  But some do.

Makes sense.

I guess not.  We can't ignore open apostasy, or the mandates pertaining to it.

Well sure you can choose to ignore open "apostasy" if you want to .  Many church's do.  And open apostasy is subjective isn't it?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

We can't ignore open apostasy, or the mandates pertaining to it.

Well sure you can choose to ignore open "apostasy" if you want to . 

Deliberately choosing to disobey God (by ignoring open apostasy and the mandates pertaining to it) would place the Church in a condition of apostasy.  So in that sense, no, we cannot make that choice.  At least, we cannot make that choice and hope to remain in communion with God.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Many church's do. 

I'm not sure that's the proper measure here.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And open apostasy is subjective isn't it?

Sort of.  But that's why we have judges in Israel.  To make judgment calls on matters pertaining to the Gospel, including matters which have a subjective element.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The vast majority, however, do not.

Ironically I think it's not the ones held for sin but the ones held for public disagreement with the Church that result in excommunication.  Maybe I'm wrong...

[Sheshonq]

I am new to the board so my understanding of how this all works may take some time for me but my concern here is about Bill.  He and I worked together at FairMormon doing podcasts.  He got the heave ho when he did something that was conflicting for his own personal podcast and the work on FairMormon.  Not going to give details but I could see both sides.  Bill tends to become confrontational when he feels threatened and is very sensitive about how his view of the gospel and the Church.  He is also very quick to calm down and apologize for any offense he may have caused.  

I'm not sure what is going here.  I have contacted Bill direct and he has not responded.  Does anyone know the details?  I sure would hate to see him go off the rails through misunderstand and personal opinion.    

[Duncan]

He's saying he's a "high profile persona", yeah, until you're playing cribbage with the Royals....then maybe not

Edited November 19, 2018 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The vast majority, however, do not.

Perfectly understandable.  Nobody "likes" them.  The issue is whether they are necessary and apprpriate.

That is up to the individual.  But some do.

Makes sense.

I guess not.  We can't ignore open apostasy, or the mandates pertaining to it.

In my experience the Church largely ignores open apostasy.  The rare times it does not is when the targeted person carries influence that somehow catches the eye of those beyond the local leaders.  The real issue here is fearing their influence.  The Church carries many fears.  

When you say "we can't ignore" it, I don't know if you are trying to set a new bar to reach to, or if you simply aren't aware that most people in any given ward hold views contrary to the teachings of the Church.  It just so happens on average most members in any given ward don't attend Church.  In my many years serving in various capacities in the Church, I ran into many members who openly opposed to the Church.  And discipline never sought them, and likely never will.  

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He's saying he's a "high profile persona", yeah, call me when you're playing cribbage with the Royals, until then....

Does he admit to being the previously-anonymous author of the "Letter for my Wife" letter (discussed here)?

And he appears to claim some sort of privilege or immunity from discipline because he served as a bishop in the Church.

He complains about not being able to record the disciplinary council, as if that is an unusual measure (rather than a standard prohibition).

He publicly accuses the Stake President of making excommunication a foregone conclusion, and one orchestrated from Salt Lake.

He publicly accuses the Stake President of lying.

He is asserting that his "questions and concerns" about the Church's "foundational truth claims" are unanswerable ("don't have good answers").  This seems strikingly ironic, as he himself is not addressing pre-existing answers to most of his concerns.  He doesn't address the answers, except to say that they aren't "good."  He makes what appears to be an appeal to authority ("I have been studying Church history in depth for 20 years" and "I am seen as one of the most honest and authentic voices discussing Mormonism") and denigrates the members of the High Council, telling them they do not know as much as he does ("none of you likely know our history well enough to know if I am telling the truth or simply sharing false propaganda").

He wants to have a public debate with the leaders of the Church ("while the Leaders of our Church do not like what I have said, there is nobody saying that what I have said is inaccurate or untruthful"), and that therefore he is "being punished for telling the truth").

Not a lot of good faith here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Does he admit to being the previously-anonymous author of the "Letter for my Wife" letter (discussed here)?

What gave you the idea that he is the author of that letter?  It starts out saying:

"I was born in the covenant to two faithful Mormon parents."

Bill is a convert, I believe, when he was in his late teens.  I've heard his story and I believe it deals with him meeting a young woman who was LDS.  

Quote

And he appears to claim some sort of privilege or immunity from discipline because he served as a bishop in the Church.

Where?  CFR< I guess is the way to say it here.  

Quote

He complains about not being able to record the disciplinary council, as if that is an unusual measure (rather than a standard prohibition).

Where?  or CFR?

Quote

He publicly accuses the Stake President of making excommunication a foregone conclusion, and one orchestrated from Salt Lake.

Please link?  

Quote

He publicly accuses the Stake President of lying.

Link again please.  

Quote

He is asserting that his "questions and concerns" about the Church's "foundational truth claims" are unanswerable ("don't have good answers"). 

So what's wrong with him saying this as his own opinion/conclusion?  

Quote

This seems strikingly ironic, as he himself is not addressing pre-existing answers to most of his concerns.

He's not at all?  I'm just curious what concerns he's expressed that you say have answers that he has not addressed.  Any examples of this accusation?  

Quote

  He doesn't address the answers, except to say that they aren't "good."  He makes what appears to be an appeal to authority ("I have been studying Church history in depth for 20 years" and "I am seen as one of the most honest and authentic voices discussing Mormonism") and denigrates the members of the High Council, telling them they do not know as much as he does ("none of you likely know our history well enough to know if I am telling the truth or simply sharing false propaganda").

Do you seriously think anyone on his high council knows more about the Church's history than he does?  If so, who?  Who on their council would you say is an example of one who is not as Bill says?  

Quote

He wants to have a public debate with the leaders of the Church ("while the Leaders of our Church do not like what I have said, there is nobody saying that what I have said is inaccurate or untruthful"), and that therefore he is "being punished for telling the truth").

Not a lot of good faith here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You should start by pointing out what is inaccurate or untrue about what he has said, then.  What do you have?  

Edited November 19, 2018 by stemelbow

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my experience the Church largely ignores open apostasy. 

Hmm.  That has not been my experience.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The rare times it does not is when the targeted person carries influence that somehow catches the eye of those beyond the local leaders.  The real issue here is fearing their influence.  The Church carries many fears.  

Meh.  The Church can't win with people like this.  There is nothing wrong with the Church taking disciplinary action against a member of the Church trading on his membership to destroy the faith of other members.  Disciplinary action is not only understandable and rational, it's required by scripture.  And yet it's denigrated as "fear."

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When you say "we can't ignore" it, I don't know if you are trying to set a new bar to reach to, or if you simply aren't aware that most people in any given ward hold views contrary to the teachings of the Church. 

I'm aware.  The Church recognizes that faith is a work-in-progress kind of thing.  We need to have some space to figure out what we believe and why, and time too.  This process can be messy, and can include errors.  And it can also be a difficult process, as we learn more about the human frailties of the imperfect men and women through whom the Lord works.  And yet most members are allowed to remain in full fellowship during this process.  Moreover, the Church is getting better and better at providing resources itself.  And then there are the scriptural exhortations to seek out wisdom from the "best books."  

Nevertheless, such efforts can go awry.  Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 of the CHI defines "apostasy" as follows:

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

So it is the extremity of behavior that merits discipline.  Behavior that is ongoing and adverse to the Church and its members.  Short of such extreme misconduct, the Church tries - and overwhelmingly succeeds - to give members space and time and resources to study and sort out these things.

And yet here you are, somehow managing a way to find fault with the Church.  That's the terrible thing about faultfinding: you will pretty much always be able to succeed at it.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It just so happens on average most members in any given ward don't attend Church. 

And yet such members are not disciplined.

And this, in your view, is a basis upon which to find fault with the Church?

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my many years serving in various capacities in the Church, I ran into many members who openly opposed to the Church.  And discipline never sought them, and likely never will.  

I can't speak to that.  Section 6.7.3 of the Handbook says that a disciplinary council for alleged apostasy ("act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders") is mandatory.  It is unfortunate if local leaders ignore this, but I will leave such things to those in authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What gave you the idea that he is the author of that letter?  It starts out saying:

"I was born in the covenant to two faithful Mormon parents."

Bill is a convert, I believe, when he was in his late teens.  I've heard his story and I believe it deals with him meeting a young woman who was LDS.  

Where?  CFR< I guess is the way to say it here.  

Where?  or CFR?

Please link?  

Link again please.  

So what's wrong with him saying this as his own opinion/conclusion?  

He's not at all?  I'm just curious what concerns he's expressed that you say have answers that he has not addressed.  Any examples of this accusation?  

Here.

Quote

Do you seriously think anyone on his high council knows more about the Church's history than he does? 

I don't know.  Nor, I suspect, does Bill Reel.  He simply asserts that he knows more.

Quote

You should start by pointing out what is inaccurate or untrue about what he has said, then.  What do you have?  

I'm not particularly interested in such an exercise.  It's been done before, though.  Bill Reel isn't the only person to try the "Big List" approach.  Jeremy Runnells perhaps set the gold standard for it.  And there have been a lot of responses to it.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

There have been many, many responses to Runnells' letter:

• Kevin Christensen's article in Interpreter: Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay
• Kevin Christensen's second article in Interpreter: Image is Everything: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
• FAIR's "Response to 'Letter to a CES Director' and 'Debunking FAIR's Debunking' (Debunking FairMormon)
• Michael Ash's "Bamboozled by the 'CES Letter'"
• Jonathan's Cannon's "One Believer’s Reactions to the CES Letter"
• Daniel Peterson's "Some Reflections On That Letter To a CES Director"
• Anonymous ("Church is True")'s post, "CES Letter"
• Jim Bennett's "A Reply from a Former CES Employee" (as well his many, many articles on Runnell's piece, though I haven't checked to see if they are duplicative of his "Reply")
• Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 1: The Case For The Book Of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells)
• Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 2: The Case For The Book Of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells)
• Jeff Lindsay's "Coping with the 'Big List' of Attacks on the LDS Faith
• Stephen Smoot's "The 'Real Scholars' of Jeremy Runnells"
• Stephen Smoot's "More Blatant Misrepresentations from Jeremy Runnells"
• Stephen Smoot's "Who's the Real Amateur?"
• Brian Hales's "Jeremy Runnells – the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?"

I recognize that this is a lot of material to cover.  That's sort of them problem that we run into when we get a neophyte like Runnells who presumes to speak broadly about a plethora of issues, but whose writings end up being a lot of "tinkling cymbals and sounding brass."

I made some further observations about Runnells' approach which may have some application to Bill Reel (same link):

Quote

One of my less pleasant responsibilities as an attorney is responding to lawsuits filed by pro se litigants (plaintiffs who represent themselves, rather than hire an attorney).  This becomes less pleasant because

• A) the area of law I am involved in - consumer finance litigation - is fairly complex, such that even seasoned attorneys can often make serious mistakes, let alone those not trained or experiences in the law, and
• B) pro se plaintiffs are often so out of their depth that they don't even know what they don't know, such that they end up
• C) resorting to a scattershot, throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach in their legal pleadings, which in turn
• D) I have to spend disproportionate and unreasonable hours responding to. 

These disproportionate hours are not time well-spent.  They are time spent sorting out the big fat mess that the plaintiff has created and trying to systematically address the legal arguments being presented (such as they are).  So that means a lot of context has to be provided.  Background has to be explained.  Foundation has to be laid.  And then comes the substantive rebuttal.  All of this takes quite a bit of time and effort, far more than the plaintiff's legal theory really deserves.  However, judges want to let people have their "day in court," which means that the defendant's attorney has to sigh, reconcile himself to the task ahead, and then dig in.

I think that seasoned scholars like Daniel Peterson and Jim Bennett and Kevin Christensen and Michael Ash and so on look upon Runnells' letter in the same way.  The letter is intellectually lazy.  It's a shortcut.  It's slapdash.  It demonstrates no real time spent in study, no real effort to understand.  It's just a pastiche of unrelated gripes cobbled together from the Internet and organized into broad topics.  

And here:

Quote

I have a friend whose brother recently left the Church.  The brother sat down with my friend and offered his exit narrative.  My friend was a bit disconcerted, so she asked to talk with me.  She walked through the points her brother raised.  I summarized my understanding of these issues.  I encouraged my friend to continue to research and study these issues.

And so it goes.  

Jeff Lindsay has some interesting thoughts on this phenomenon:

Quote

One of the challenges in defending one's faith is coping with critics who use the "Big List" technique in their attack. This involves throwing out numerous arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage that decimates the faith in question (see the related post, "If Only 10% of These Charges Are True..."). The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren't written in search of a real answer. If there is a good defense to the arguments raised at first, never mind, there are many more to be launched in different directions. 

As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it's time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.

This doesn't just happen in anti-Mormon attacks. Attacks on many other faiths use the same approach. Interesting, attacks on some aspects of modern science by religious fundamentalists or young earth Creationists also may rely on the Big List approach, much to the exasperation of scientists who know there are good answers to the attacks, but often may not be able to adequately deal with the barrage of questions from critics not really interested in the answers. Some scientists call the tactic the "Gish Gallop" after Duane Gish, a Creationist noted for hurling numerous brief arguments to overwhelm opponents in debates on evolution.

Mr. Runnells's letter is a Gish Gallop.  On steroids.

Quote

To help those coping with Big List issues, I've begin compiling my own list of recommended reading for students of the LDS religion. I hope it will be helpful to some. I'm not saying that you have to read this list before you leave the Church (or join it), but if you're willing to look at answers and evidences, it might be a great place to start. 

Jeff's reading list is pretty extensive.  And I'd wager that Mr. Runnells hasn't read 5% of it.  And if he has, he has not attempted to master their contents, or to give them a fair shake.

Quote

I was curious to see what you disagreed with though.

I think Daniel Peterson's "Reflections" presentation covers a lot of what I find problematic.  Michael Ash also makes some very important points (pages 13-15 are a good summary).

Jim Bennett's "Reply"  is a massive (251-page) fisking of response to Runnells's letter.  If you haven't read it, I think it is worthwhile.

I have read Runnells' letter several times, but have never systematically reduced my critique to written form.  Not particularly interested in doing so, since it's been done.  A lot.

See also here:

Quote

The problem here is that Mr. Runnells was provided answers to the questions he asked.  Extensively.  Take a look at FAIR's responses to the letter.  And Mr. Runnells knew about and extensively responded to FAIR's treatment of his letter well before his disciplinary council.  Kevin Christensen also responded extensively to the letter (at least twice, in fact), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well (well, sorta - he had a fellow critic write the response for him).  Daniel Peterson has also addressed the letter (not in a point-by-point kind of way, but rather from a "let's take a step back and look at the broader picture" kind of way), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well.  

All of these remarks about Mr. Runnells' letter were published well before his disciplinary council.  And yet Mr. Runnells is running around insisting that he's never received an answer to them.  That the Church has been "ignoring" his questions for "3 years."  

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Runnells claims to have asked his SP to "identify error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so {he} can publicly correct it."  In his various responses to FAIR, Christensen and Peterson (here, here and here), he does not appear to give any substantive reconsideration to his letter based in response to the points raised by these folks.  I acknowledge that Mr. Runnells posted a list of 17 trivial "errors" he made in his letter, but he then triumphantly declares that the balance of his letter, "95%," consists of "correct claims."  He declares his opinion to be "correct" at pretty much every turn.  Such self-congratulatory validation is rather problematic.  

In other words, here is where I think we can detect some bad faith in Mr. Runnells.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.

If Mr. Runnells was really interested in a good faith discussion about his letter, he would not have written the letter in such a deliberately offensive, risible, and profane manner.  He would not have written it in such a mishmash, throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-how-much-of-it-sticks, death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts kind of way.  He would not have been so demonstrably hostile and angry to the responses he claims to have wanted to receive.  

I see this schtick rather frequently in litigation, almost always from pro se litigants (who appear in court to represent themselves rather than hire an attorney).  The type of guy I usually see (I'll call him "John Q.") presents a laundry list of grievances and expect the court and the defendant to hop to and spend months, if not years, answering each any every point raised by him.  

The defendant (that's me, or rather, my client), however, is typically significantly more well-versed in the law, and sees that John Q. is upset but isn't as interested in using the court system to obtain information relevant to his claim, and instead is spoiling for a fight and hoping to punish the defendant by using the court system to "show up" or embarrass the defendant and force it to run up significant legal expenses.  

An attorney in my position has no choice, really, but to not engage John Q in addressing the particulars of his grievances, and must instead work to sever the litigation by resorting to the law.  There have been times when I can see that a John Q. is basically a good guy who ended up in tough circumstances.  But when John Q. is angry at and determined to publicly injure my client, there's not much point in trying to reason with him.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  He wants money.  

This is how I perceive Jeremy Runnells.  He's really, really angry.  He's not looking for answers or information that could shore up and strengthen his faith in the Restored Gospel.  He is looking for argument, for validation of his point of view, for attention, for bragging rights.  He wants to injure and humiliate the LDS Church.  He wants to alienate others from the LDS Church, both by persuading adherents to leave it and by persuading outsiders to reject it out-of-hand.  And he wants to do all of these things in order to obtain "the praise of the world" and "to get gain."  For money.  Filthy lucre.

I am saddened, but not surprised, by what Mr. Runnells is doing.  I hope at some point in the future he stops and takes a few steps back and reconsiders what he is doing.

I suspect Bill Reel has slipped into this mindset.  It looks like he is angry at and determined to publicly injure the Church, such that there's not much point in trying to reason with him at this point.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  I think he wants attention.  Notoriety.  Praise.

How else to reconcile the weird phenomenon we see so often of people like Bill Reel who publicly speak of their contempt and distrust and animus against the Church, while simultaneously expressing indignance that doing so imperils his membershp in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 19, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  That has not been my experience.

How many of the millions of non participating members get excommunicated or disciplined in some way and how many of those non-participating members express sentiments that are opposed to the teachings of the Church?  Either we are saying two different things or you are woefully unaware of what is going on.  

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  The Church can't win with people like this.  There is nothing wrong with the Church taking disciplinary action against a member of the Church trading on his membership to destroy the faith of other members.  Disciplinary action is not only understandable and rational, it's required by scripture.  And yet it's denigrated as "fear."

I think you highlighted the issue quite well by describing a member who is out to "destroy the faith of other members".  That there is fear.  Call it understandable if you want, but that is fear.  Letting  people speak their mind on certain topics as members is not an effort to destroy the faith of other members.  Instead of a let us reason together and let people decide, you speak in histrionics as per one man's opinion.  Faith becomes interesting on this front though, of course.  One can certainly agree with many of Bill's points of the Church and it's direction and still hold faith in God.  The issue may be they lose faith or trust in the Church.  So when you speak of destroying faith, you really only speak of people becoming disillusioned with the Church.  
I won't deny though, that many who become disillusioned with the Church also question their faith in God.  But, as they would say it, It seems to me, their loss in faith in God came as a result of the church trying to tell them to trust the Church as if it is speaking for God.  

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm aware.  The Church recognizes that faith is a work-in-progress kind of thing.  We need to have some space to figure out what we believe and why, and time too.  This process can be messy, and can include errors.  And it can also be a difficult process, as we learn more about the human frailties of the imperfect men and women through whom the Lord works.  And yet most members are allowed to remain in full fellowship during this process.  Moreover, the Church is getting better and better at providing resources itself.  And then there are the scriptural exhortations to seek out wisdom from the "best books."  

Ok.  I agree.  I see where you're coming form there.  

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, such efforts can go awry.  Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 of the CHI defines "apostasy" as follows:

So it is the extremity of behavior that merits discipline.  Behavior that is ongoing and adverse to the Church and its members.  Short of such extreme misconduct, the Church tries - and overwhelmingly succeeds - to give members space and time and resources to study and sort out these things.

And yet here you are, somehow managing a way to find fault with the Church.  That's the terrible thing about faultfinding: you will pretty much always be able to succeed at it.

And yet such members are not disciplined.

And this, in your view, is a basis upon which to find fault with the Church?

No.  I"m pointing out that largely the Church ignores it.  How many "inactives" as they are often referred to have their issues with the Church addressed by the Church?  In effect it seems to me, and this largely in speaking with so many, they feel largely ignored--not from people randomly stopping by from time to time inviting them back, but by the Church which simply seems to disregard the issues.  The very types of issues Bill has raised over the years.  

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak to that.  Section 6.7.3 of the Handbook says that a disciplinary council for alleged apostasy ("act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders") is mandatory.  It is unfortunate if local leaders ignore this, but I will leave such things to those in authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's do and it'll remain ignored.  Which is actually good.  It simply means the rare cases when people who oppose so much of what is the Church gain a following large enough where non-local leaders take notice.  One thing seems pretty certain most local leaders have no clue how to deal with members who become educated on the issues.  I'm sure there are some who become at least somewhat educated.  But even then, most of those don't ever take their effort far enough to really understand the issues, at least from what I've seen.  So we have largely ignorant folks judging the welfare of people.  I think Bill is clearly correct on this.  

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here.

Let's see your accusation is "And he appears to claim some sort of privilege or immunity from discipline because he served as a bishop in the Church. "  In that link where does it say that, or where do you get this idea? 

Where in this letter does "he complains about not being able to record the disciplinary council, as if that is an unusual measure (rather than a standard prohibition)."  I see a side note when he mentions he's been asked to not record, but characterizing such a comment as complaining seems silly.  

In the letter you linked he says the SP told him there are no answers, not from him or those above him.  So when you say, "He is asserting that his "questions and concerns" about the Church's "foundational truth claims" are unanswerable ("don't have good answers"). "  He's repeating what leaders told him.  You didn't add that detail to your complaints about him for some reason.  

Quote

I don't know.  Nor, I suspect, does Bill Reel.  He simply asserts that he knows more.

He actually used the "likely" qualifier.  I think you and he both realize that is true.  They likely won't know whether he's telling the truth about whatever issues he raises or if he's repeating anti-Mormon lies.  I think he's correct.  Members, local leaders are typically that ignorant.  There's really little question on that, as I see it.  

Quote

I'm not particularly interested in such an exercise.  It's been done before, though.  Bill Reel isn't the only person to try the "Big List" approach.  Jeremy Runnells perhaps set the gold standard for it.  And there have been a lot of responses to it.  See, e.g., here:

If you're not interested and instead link to complaints about Jeremy Runnells, then I don't see why you need to state complaints about his claim to not having seen answers to the questions.  

Quote

I made some further observations about Runnells' approach which may have some application to Bill Reel (same link):

And here:

See also here:

I suspect Bill Reel has slipped into this mindset.  It looks like he is angry at and determined to publicly injure the Church, such that there's not much point in trying to reason with him at this point.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  I think he wants attention.  Notoriety.  Praise.

Wow.  I dont' know what more to say, Smac.  You want to attack him like that?  And won't try and engage at all in the process?  That seriously too bad.  I'm quite disappointed.  

Quote

How else to reconcile the weird phenomenon we see so often of people like Bill Reel who publicly speak of their contempt and distrust and animus against the Church, while simultaneously throwing a hissy fit when doing so imperils his membershp in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

My goodness..."people like Bill Reel".  Why the need to throw people in a box together?  He's made many substantial points over the years, as I've seen it.  And you have, as you say, decided to not engage. If he hasn't made good points it'd be easy to show.  But instead you just want to characterize him as one of many people like him and completely disregard any attempt at engagement, while attributing nonsensical (particularly when hearing him out) and ugly motives to him.  

I will likely get booted from the thread and will likely be unable to respond again, due to moderating here, so take this and run with it, I guess.  But to note, as I've done before, to my knowledge I've never broken a rule and have never been notified of why I get booted, arbitrarily, seeming, and have been forever put on limited without notice and without ever having broken a rule.  Ah well.  Take care.  

Edited November 19, 2018 by stemelbow

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Hmm.  That has not been my experience.

How many of the millions of non participating members get excommunicated or disciplined in some way and how many of those non-participating members express sentiments that are opposed to the teachings of the Church?  Either we are saying two different things or you are woefully unaware of what is going on.  

Again, look at the definition of "apostasy."

Quote

I think you highlighted the issue quite well by describing a member who is out to "destroy the faith of other members".  That there is fear.  Call it understandable if you want, but that is fear. 

Meh.  The Church's approach to discipline is pretty good.  I don't think the Church is acting out "fear."  Disciplining members for substantial misconduct is a reasonable thing to do.

Quote

Letting  people speak their mind on certain topics as members is not an effort to destroy the faith of other members. 

And the Church does let "people speak thir mind on certain topics."

But there are times when things can go awry, when an individual can stray into inappropriate conduct.  That's a judgment call, but one that the Church invokes rarely.  Excommunication is a very rare thing.  And yet you still manage to find a way to find fault.

Quote

Instead of a let us reason together and let people decide, you speak in histrionics as per one man's opinion. 

Oh, the irony.  Here you are, purporting to champion the right of individuals to "speak their mind."  But when I do it, you dismiss it as "speak[ing] in histrionics."

Quote

Faith becomes interesting on this front though, of course.  One can certainly agree with many of Bill's points of the Church and it's direction and still hold faith in God.  The issue may be they lose faith or trust in the Church.  So when you speak of destroying faith, you really only speak of people becoming disillusioned with the Church.  

Bill Reel appears to have fallen into that category.  And he appears to be trying to persuade others to join him in his disbelief.

I'll leave that assessment to those in authority over him.  I also hope that he sooner or later has a change of heart.

Quote

No.  I"m pointing out that largely the Church ignores it. 

"The Church" meaning local leaders?  How often is section 6.7.3 "ignored?"  I don't know.  I don't think you do, either.

How often does "the Church" (again, meaning local leaders) strive to not invoke discipline?  I don't know that, either.  I understand the reluctance.  Meting out discipline in the Church is a difficult and unpleasant thing, and there may well be times when it should be happening but isn't.  I'm not in a position to measure that, or to take corrective action about it.

I don't understand your position here.  You seem to be faulting the Church for both meting out discipline (against Reel) and not meting out discipline (other, unidentified instances).

Quote

How many "inactives" as they are often referred to have their issues with the Church addressed by the Church?  In effect it seems to me, and this largely in speaking with so many, they feel largely ignored--not from people randomly stopping by from time to time inviting them back, but by the Church which simply seems to disregard the issues.  The very types of issues Bill has raised over the years.  

Sorry, but you are speaking in very vague terms.  I don't know what you are referencing here.

Quote

Let's do and it'll remain ignored.  Which is actually good.  It simply means the rare cases when people who oppose so much of what is the Church gain a following large enough where non-local leaders take notice. 

Again, I don't understand your faultfinding here.  The Church allows some amounts of individual "apostasy" to slide by, which you say is "actually good," but then you object when an individual seeks out a "following" amongst the members of the Church to follow him/her into apostasy?  And taking action against these folks is . . . bad?  Why?

Quote

One thing seems pretty certain most local leaders have no clue how to deal with members who become educated on the issues. 

I'm not really persuaded that Jeremy Runnells was "educated on the issues."  When "become educated" amounts to "I googled stuff," I'm not persuaded that the information being acted upon in curated, accurate, well-rounded, etc.  This is particularly so where, as seen with people like Jeremy Runnells and Bill Reel, who spend all sorts of time and energy asking "questions," but precious little on addressing and giving a fair hearing to the "answers" and associated data.  This conclusion is bolstered when these folks turn nasty and contemptuous.

Again: "I suspect Bill Reel has slipped into this mindset.  It looks like he is angry at and determined to publicly injure the Church, such that there's not much point in trying to reason with him at this point.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  I think he wants attention.  Notoriety.  Praise."

I can understand why a bishop might have difficulty with "how to deal with members" like Bill Reel.  Not because he has "become educated," but because he has become combative, profane, accusatory, relentlessly negative, faithless, and so on.

Quote

I'm sure there are some who become at least somewhat educated.  But even then, most of those don't ever take their effort far enough to really understand the issues, at least from what I've seen.  So we have largely ignorant folks judging the welfare of people.  I think Bill is clearly correct on this.  

I don't.  "The issues" aren't really the points in dispute.  It is Bill Reel's behavior that is problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 19, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In the letter you linked he says the SP told him there are no answers, not from him or those above him.  So when you say, "He is asserting that his "questions and concerns" about the Church's "foundational truth claims" are unanswerable ("don't have good answers"). "  He's repeating what leaders told him.  

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to take Bill Reel's recitation of the SP's remarks, or his characterization of those remarks, at face value.  

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wow.  I dont' know what more to say, Smac.  You want to attack him like that? 

Meh.  Your indignation sure is selective.  

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And won't try and engage at all in the process?  That seriously too bad.  I'm quite disappointed.  

What "process" are you talking about?  I have no stewardship over Bill Reel.  And he has not sought out my assistance.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My goodness..."people like Bill Reel".  Why the need to throw people in a box together? 

Birds of a feather...

I am describing a self-selected group of people.  People who group themselves together by shared characteristics and behavior.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He's made many substantial points over the years, as I've seen it. 

And I've responded to some of those points on this board.  See, e.g., here and here.

Also, most of the points Bro. Reel has made are not original to him.  I suspect I've addressed many of those points during my 14 years on this board, even if they weren't specifically raised by Bro. Reel.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And you have, as you say, decided to not engage.

Yep.  I don't know Bill Reel.  Never met him.  And I have no stewardship over him.  And he's never asked me for input or counsel.

However, I've been on this board for 14 years and have racked up 8,000+ posts.  So if you are trying to characterize me as not being willing to substantively address and discuss difficult topics pertaining to the Church's history, doctrines, practices, leaders, members, etc., I think that's wrong.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If he hasn't made good points it'd be easy to show. 

Spare me the taunts.  Again, 14 years and 8,000 posts.  I am quite willing and able to address issues with the Church.  I do so a lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, look at the definition of "apostasy."

Meh.  The Church's approach to discipline is pretty good.  I don't think the Church is acting out "fear."  Disciplining members for substantial misconduct is a reasonable thing to do.

And the Church does let "people speak thir mind on certain topics."

Not in my experience, having been silenced a couple of times in my days in the Church.  

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But there are times when things can go awry, when an individual can stray into inappropriate conduct.  That's a judgment call, but one that the Church invokes rarely.  Excommunication is a very rare thing.  And yet you still manage to find a way to find fault.

I'm not faultfinding, Smac.  That's quite an accusations.  we're exploring this particular case, this case you seem unwilling to engage, but very willing to accuse on.  Certainly it's obvious Bill is being disciplined, and yes, likely ex-communicated because he has caught the eye of leaders beyond his local leaders.  I don't think there's anyway to doubt that.  I've called that out.  But accusing me of faultfinding suggests I'm commenting on something trivial.  I dont' think so.  

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, the irony.  Here you are, purporting to champion the right of individuals to "speak their mind."  But when I do it, it's "speak[ing] in histrionics."

I'm not sure how else to honestly characterize what you said there.  

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bill Reel appears to have fallen into that category.  And he appears to be trying to persuade others to join him in his disbelief.

I'll leave that assessment to those in authority over him.  I also hope that he sooner or later has a change of heart.

"The Church" meaning local leaders?  How often is section 6.7.3 "ignored?"  I don't know.  I don't think you do, either.

How often does "the Church" (again, meaning local leaders) strive to not invoke discipline?  I don't know that, either.  I understand the reluctance.  Meting out discipline in the Church is a difficult and unpleasant thing, and there may well be times when it should be happening but isn't.  I'm not in a position to measure that, or to take corrective action about it.

I don't understand your position here.  You seem to be faulting the Church for both meting out discipline (against Reel) and not meting out discipline (other, unidentified instances).

Again, I'd maintain faultfinding is the wrong word here.  I commented because you had suggested the Church has to act on apostasy.  I'm pointing out, even according to the definition in the handbook, the Church largely ignores apostasy  as I've seen it.  That is pointing out what I've observed.  It is a neutral observation neither faulting the Church nor praising it.  

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings. 

Surely you don't think to be in apostasy one has to meet all five of these requirements right?  Only one or two?  Just so you know, I have many friends in same-gender marriages and have not been touched by local leaders.  I have many friends who have joined other churches and have not been touched by discipline from local leaders.  I know of many people over many years who have been "corrected by their bishop" on certain teachings and yet persist to teach as they please.  So my impression is by and large it is ignored.  You seem to disagree, to which I say.  Fine,  Either I'm seeing things that aren't happening elsewhere, you are seeing these things, or we're still not agreeing on the fundamental elements of this conversation.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, but you are speaking in very vague terms.  I don't know what you are referencing here.

Again, I don't understand your faultfinding here.  The Church allows some amounts of individual "apostasy" to slide by, which you say is "actually good," but then you object when an individual seeks out a "following" amongst the members of the Church to follow him/her into apostasy?  And taking action against these folks is . . . bad?  Why?

I'm not really persuaded that Jeremy Runnells was "educated on the issues."  When "become educated" amounts to "I googled stuff," I'm not persuaded that the information being acted upon in curated, accurate, well-rounded, etc.  This is particularly so where, as seen with people like Jeremy Runnells and Bill Reel, who spend all sorts of time and energy asking "questions," but precious little on addressing and giving a fair hearing to the "answers" and associated data.  This conclusion is bolstered when these folks turn nasty and contemptuous.

Again: "I suspect Bill Reel has slipped into this mindset.  It looks like he is angry at and determined to publicly injure the Church, such that there's not much point in trying to reason with him at this point.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  I think he wants attention.  Notoriety.  Praise."

I can understand why a bishop might have difficulty with "how to deal with members" like Bill Reel.  Not because he has "become educated," but because he has become combative, profane, accusatory, relentlessly negative, faithless, and so on.

I don't.  "The issues" aren't really the points in dispute.  It is Bill Reel's behavior that is problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get the fear of the Church.  I do.  Fine if that's how they want to play it.  They need to get someone out who has made some noise.  But don't expect me not to comment.  What you want to characterize Bill as, is one thing.  Have at it.  I find it all empty accusations, of course, since you are unwilling to engage and all of that.  I am want to push back on that.  Because largely I find it unfair.  It sounds, in fact, mean-spirited at this point.  I've not commented about Runnells, and that remains a huge distraction to me.  

[Bob Crockett]

On 11/15/2018 at 12:24 PM, 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

Bill, you and I have had our differences.  You have attempted to get me banned from the board over personal differences.  But I would not wish what you are going through on anybody.  Best wishes. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not faultfinding, Smac.  That's quite an accusations.  We're exploring this particular case, this case you seem unwilling to engage, but very willing to accuse on.  Certainly it's obvious Bill is being disciplined, and yes, likely ex-communicated because he has caught the eye of leaders beyond his local leaders. 

I think that if he is excommunicated, it will be because he engaged in misconduct amounting to "apostasy" as that term is defined in section 6.7.3 of the Handbook.

He's not a hapless victim of circumstance.  He knew his rhetoric and behavior would likely lead to this point.  

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think there's anyway to doubt that.  I've called that out.  But accusing me of faultfinding suggests I'm commenting on something trivial.  I dont' think so.  

You misunderstand.  I don't think faultfinding is "commenting on something trivial."  I think faultfinding can be a very dangerous, toxic thing.

As evidenced by the rhetoric of Jeremy Runnells, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and, perhaps, Bill Reel.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Again, I'd maintain faultfinding is the wrong word here.  I commented because you had suggested the Church has to act on apostasy.  I'm pointing out, even according to the definition in the handbook, the Church largely ignores apostasy  as I've seen it. 

Some local church leaders may be ignoring apostasy.  They shouldn't, but I'll leave that to those in authority to address.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just so you know, I have many friends in same-gender marriages and have not been touched by local leaders.  I have many friends who have joined other churches and have not been touched by discipline from local leaders.  I know of many people over many years who have been "corrected by their bishop" on certain teachings and yet persist to teach as they please.  So my impression is by and large it is ignored.  You seem to disagree, to which I say.  Fine,  Either I'm seeing things that aren't happening elsewhere, you are seeing these things, or we're still not agreeing on the fundamental elements of this conversation.  

Again, some local leaders may be ignoring these forms of apostasy.  Again, I'll leave that to those in authority to address.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I get the fear of the Church. 

Again, I don't think the Church is acting out of fear.  Disciplining members for substantial misconduct is a reasonable thing to do.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do.  Fine if that's how they want to play it. 

I don't understand the point of these taunts.  

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They need to get someone out who has made some noise.  But don't expect me not to comment. 

I've said nothing to silence you.  At all.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What you want to characterize Bill as, is one thing.  Have at it.  I find it all empty accusations, of course, since you are unwilling to engage and all of that. 

Again, what "process" are you talking about that I should "engage?"  I have no stewardship over Bill Reel.  And he has not sought out my assistance.

And again, I've been on this board for 14 years and have racked up 8,000+ posts.  So if you are trying to characterize me as not being willing to substantively address and discuss difficult topics pertaining to the Church's history, doctrines, practices, leaders, members, etc., I think that's wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it was in one of Smac’s links that he mentioned “the Big List” as a common form of attack on the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I found this insightful commentary from Jeff Lindsay on the FairMormon site about the Big-List mode of attack. The whole thing is worth a read, but here’s an excerpt:

“As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it’s time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.”  

Here’s the URL: 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/author/jeff-lindsay

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd