Bill Reel announces excommunication is official, as a recording of his Disciplinary Council is released.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If there is evidence of true repentance then one will find cases where a person is not exed. 

Iirc, rather than excommunicated, Grant Palmer was disfellowshipped because he agree to do or not do certain things.  I don't know if later he was excommunicated as he didn't stop antimormon behaviour, but there might have been a gap.

[carbon dioxide]

The Church can easily stop these recordings.  They can simply communicate through a closed text system with no talking allowed.  This will be the future anyway as young people prefer to text than actually talk to people.

[carbon dioxide]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 If excommunicating an unrepentant person who is committing apostasy removes someone that is a spiritual danger to the flock, from the flock, more times than not,  then the approach is working.

 

Its a common practice in the medical field.  If a tumor is found in the body, it is excommunicated from the body.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So what do you think about those who appear to connect and promote his antics, even go along with them (thinking specifically about Denson)? (Serious question, not a challenge)

I react the same way as well as others who are postmo the way I do here.  It is better if he stays out of things...I and many others on the other board disliike what he did in that ward with Denson...it made her look worse.  I don't like what he did in Temples and so many agree...there are tasteful ways to make points or a better understanding.  I don't hate the man..I understand anger...but what he does creates the biggest divides for some of us that are trying to make things work in two worlds. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Jeanne

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I react the same way as well as others who are postmo the way I do here.  It is better if he stays out of things...I and many others on the other board disliike what he did in that ward with Denson...it made her look worse.  I don't like what he did in Temples and so many agree...there are tasteful ways to make points or a better understanding.  I don't hate the man..I understand anger...but what he does creates the biggest divides for some of us that are trying to make things work in two worlds. 

I am not asking about him though, but what you think of others who intentionally get involved with him.  You said it made her look worse, but did it actually discredit her at all in your view?  Do you question people's sincerity if they make a point of involving him in their events?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not asking about him though, but what you think of others who intentionally get involved with him.  You said it made her look worse, but did it actually discredit her at all in your view?  Do you question people's sincerity if they make a point of involving him in their events?

It did discredit her in my view...doesn't mean I don't believe her...but I know that it makes her so desperate when it was unnecessary to do so.  They caught up...I realize that ...but going along with NNN is a huge mistake.  This is where she left a certain path for a voice of fame....unfortunate.   I believe anyone who connects with NNN soon regrets it.

[TOmNossor]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I appreciate your opinion, and I think the way you're talking about how to treat people with respect and love is good advice for all of us to follow.  That said, I think the way you've described Bill Reel isn't accurate, and is really a straw man.  From what I understand in listening to Bill over the years, he has never been a person that was disruptive in his local ward, so your story about him going up to someone and dropping bombs of historical criticism, isn't at all accurate.  

As for what is essential for salvation or if the COJCOLDS has a net positive impact on peoples lives or not, I think those questions will vary widely by individual, and they are subjective questions with subjective answers.  I try to respect people all along the spectrum with respect to what they find value in.

I don't agree that people like Bill should be excommunicated, or labeled as apostate, I don't see a value in using those tools in a modern age.  I think the church should be open to people expressing a large amount of criticism online, much more than they seem to want to tolerate today.  We live in a society that considers freedom of speech to be a fundamental right of citizenship, and I think religious institutions ought to try and foster this basic human right.  People like Bill, someone who wasn't attending in his local ward, but just expressing his opinions online, ought to be completely tolerated.  He essentially had self selected out of the local tribe, and putting him through a mock trial and removing his name from the records is just a show, and its dumb.  

I do not know Bill Reel IRL.  I could be wrong.  I have a vague memory of him starting by trying to explain difficult issues in way that preserves faith.  I then have a vague memory of him seeming almost upset that many folks didn't believe the difficult issues were as difficult as he thought they were.

I didn't intend to claim that Bill dropped bombs in his ward.  I was suggesting that his podcast and postings became about presenting the bombs.  And I would also suggest that his podcast and postings ceased to be about presenting the bombs in a way that encouraged faithful members to continue to be faithful members.  This suggest to me that for Bill caring for others does not involve caring if they have a faith crisis and/or cease to be members.

It is a free country and I am very happy that we have freedom of speech.  I am also happy that we have freedom of association.  I guess I would say that the "act of excommunication" AND the "label of 'apostate'" are not IMO medieval tools.  The label "apostate" means one who no longer believes what the community believes and excommunication is the exercise of "freedom of association."  I do not believe that LDS have a well defined set of beliefs, but it seems to me that one of the basics is that somehow life as a LDS is beneficial to many/most/all in this life and probably in the life to come.  Bill Reel does not IMO believe this.

I am not sure if Bill's ecclesiastic leaders offered him the chance to disassociated himself, but I do believe he used his membership (his former callings even) to lend credence to his positions and OPINIONS.  He CERTAINLY used his excommunication.  The association has a right to remove its association from those who use that association for purposes antithetical to the purpose (purported purpose if you will) of the organization.  

If I joined Former Mormon for Christ and offered an exit narrative that was really not an exit narrative at all and then continued to explain why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's Church on earth, I doubt I would be long for that organization.

I suspect that some of the problems folks have with the CoJCoLDS calling itself God's Church is that they really think that God has no preferred belief structure on earth or elsewhere.  As such when a Church, that claims to be God's Church, communicates that there is a preferred belief structure and a member cannot openly rejecting it (and inviting others to do so) and remain a member, this is wrong.  Well, if there is zero importance to which communion we humans associate, then the CoJCoLDS has at least this as an error.  Why is it surprising that this error (or truth) has consequences.

Anyway, I do hope doubting members continue to fellowship with the Saints.  I would gladly have a soda with Bill Reel and his family and he can sit next to me during sacrament meeting too.  But, I do not think he should say the things he says and use his membership as something to give credence to his words.

You can come by for a soda and or sit next to my family at sacrament meeting too.

Charity, TOm

    

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You probably know this, but applications for a restoration of blessings all go the first presidency (which I take to mean that their secretaries typically handle them). 

I remember a talk where it was made clear  that they themselves handle ALL such decisions, even if is  obvious and routine.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It did discredit her in my view...doesn't mean I don't believe her...but I know that it makes her so desperate when it was unnecessary to do so.  They caught up...I realize that ...but going along with NNN is a huge mistake.  This is where she left a certain path for a voice of fame....unfortunate.   I believe anyone who connects with NNN soon regrets it.

Thanks for sharing.  Appreciate getting different views.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I was suggesting that his podcast and postings became about presenting the bombs.  And I would also suggest that his podcast and postings ceased to be about presenting the bombs in a way that encouraged faithful members to continue to be faithful members.

It would appear that Mr Reel would agree: 'The podcast will continue for the foreseeable future and I will continue to ensure that it offers the tools and resources to help others wake up and to deconstruct their religious system'.

[SouthernMo]

27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I remember a talk where it was made clear  that they themselves handle ALL such decisions, even if is  obvious and routine.

Would be great if you had a reference on that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

By the way, if I were appealing an excommunication to the First Presidency, I might not begin that appeal by stating that 'Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets [sic] brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read' when the members of the First Presidency probably know that Hyrum Smith was never actually married to anyone named Bethsheba [sic] ...

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Its a common practice in the medical field.  If a tumor is found in the body, it is excommunicated from the body.

God’s children aren’t tumors, though?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/3/2018 at 10:28 AM, hope_for_things said:

What you're going by is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the transcript.  I trust Bill's interpretation and I can see from the wording of the transcript how it could be interpreted the way Bill explained as well.  I like critical thinking, and carefully going over wording is important, that is why I'm not ruling out your version as being possible, and Bill as being in error here.  But I think its much more likely that Bill's version is correct.  

How do you explain, then, all of the high councilors, including the one in question, voting to sustain the decision to excommunicate?

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, if I were appealing an excommunication to the First Presidency, I might not begin that appeal by stating that 'Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets [sic] brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read' when the members of the First Presidency probably know that Hyrum Smith was never actually married to anyone named Bethsheba [sic] ...

It is incredible to me that he is continuing to double down on his sorry misconception of the facts in this incident. As recently as within the last few days on this board, calm has given a very thorough recap of said facts, which have been in the public venue for several years.

By the way, I presume that in the tradition of good academic historians, you are preserving Mr. Reel's orthographical failing in rendering Bathsheba as "Bethsheba."

[Tacenda]

deleted, wrong thread, haha.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

God’s children aren’t tumors, though?

Depends how you define a tumor.  A tumor is a mass that even when grown within a body becomes so foreign and harmful that it must needs be removed.

That perfectly describes how some of God's children develop within the Church.  And as premortality teaches us sometimes God himself has no choice but to remove them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, I presume that in the tradition of good academic historians, you are preserving Mr. Reel's orthographical failing in rendering Bathsheba as "Bethsheba."

Hence the '[sic]' when I repeated it.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:45 AM, hope_for_things said:

I suspect he recorded it.  Fine by me, because asking people not to record these things is silly.

And signing a statement swearing that one won't record something and then recording that very thing is, well, dishonest. In fact, one could make a solid case that the act of signing the statement in such a case is a blatant lie. No doubt Mr Reel has been able to justify this lie in the service of what seems to him to be some greater good, but the situation is certainly pregnant with both irony and hypocrisy.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[SouthernMo]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends how you define a tumor.  A tumor is a mass that even when grown within a body becomes so foreign and harmful that it must needs be removed.

That perfectly describes how some of God's children develop within the Church.  And as premortality teaches us sometimes God himself has no choice but to remove them.

Would you truly explain to an excommunicant to their face that you think they are a tumor?  That’s a metaphor you’d use?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, if I were appealing an excommunication to the First Presidency, I might not begin that appeal by stating that 'Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets [sic] brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read' when the members of the First Presidency probably know that Hyrum Smith was never actually married to anyone named Bethsheba [sic] ...

Someone really needs to tell him to correct that.  It has a similiar effect on me now as fingernails on chalkboard.  

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Would you truly explain to an excommunicant to their face that you think they are a tumor?  That’s a metaphor you’d use?

No, because it wouldn't be necessary.  Excommunication "trials" are usually foregone conclusions.  

Either the subject is so disillusioned with the Church they have lost faith and apostatised (like Bill).  Or their sins are so serious that there's really only one anticipated outcome.

Most of the time they've excommunicated themselves.  The Church just makes it a matter of record.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone really needs to tell him to correct that.

Do you think he would? I'm skeptical ...

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is incredible to me that he is continuing to double down on his sorry misconception of the facts in this incident. As recently as within the last few days on this board, calm has given a very thorough recap of said facts, which have been in the public venue for several years.

There is no reason to assume he has been reading this board the last few days though.  And sometimes when we have made mistakes, it gets so engrained it takes a sledgehammer to get us out of the rut, so even if in public view his brain may have rewritten what his eyes saw....assuming he actually looked at other references to review facts when remaking the claim.  He may not have done so, which would be an alternative explaination of the repetition of the significant error (I say significant because of the different implications between the likelihood of it being his wife owning the book vs. his son having the original and his son vs. his cousin's wife having the original).

Edited December 5, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you think he would? I'm skeptical ...

My opinion....It makes him look like an idiot if he continues to repeat it....he is calling Elder Holland out for lying that Reel even has said could be a mistake and continues to make a major mistake like that?!?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Calm