Bill Reel $150 Challenge to Church Newsroom

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Bill who?

Indeed the question is:    Is he Reel?  

His Reelism and lack of understanding got him in the end, 

 

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The ordinance still exists, much like the plural marriage ceremonies.  It is just not the current default.

And where does this ordinance exist outside of wishful thinking?  Is it written in the CHI? The Proc?

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that Mr Reel is soliciting contributions on his Facebook page to help cover the cost of paying out the wager ...

Now that’s just embarrassing. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now that’s just embarrassing. 

At least he's consistent ...

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

And where does this ordinance exist outside of wishful thinking?  Is it written in the CHI? The Proc?

Well the marriage sealing ordinance remains in the temple and the Law of Sarah remains in D&C 132.  All that would be required to perform said ordinance would be the sealing keys and the Lord's permission. Just as in the Woodruff quote.

The Woodruff quote allows for Law of Adoption sealings if the Lord commands.  Jacob 2 and D&C 132 allow for plural marriage sealings if the Lord commands.

He's not commanding, but the exception to the current norm is still extant.

[6EQUJ5]

I will admit that I am disappointed in the glee and satisfaction some are taking at Bill's expense.

He is our brother who has lost his eternal blessings.  All due to pride and short-term satisfaction.  This is a very sad situation.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I will admit that I am disappointed in the glee and satisfaction some are taking at Bill's expense.

He is our brother who has lost his eternal blessings.  All due to pride and short-term satisfaction.  This is a very sad situation.

I think you are confusing glee with weariness. 

[katherine the great]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

 

I couldn’t get past the misuse of  “infer.” It’s like screeching chalk on a blackboard. 

 It’s so common I think we just need to coin a new, all purpose word: ”Infly””

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well the marriage sealing ordinance remains in the temple and the Law of Sarah remains in D&C 132.  All that would be required to perform said ordinance would be the sealing keys and the Lord's permission. Just as in the Woodruff quote.

The Woodruff quote allows for Law of Adoption sealings if the Lord commands.  Jacob 2 and D&C 132 allow for plural marriage sealings if the Lord commands.

He's not commanding, but the exception to the current norm is still extant.

All that is required for more biblical sized  mass murder would be the Lord’s permission. But nobody thinks that is going to happen either. 

And Sarah’s Law? The one that says if a woman says no that gives the husband the right to ignore her completely and go behind her back to satisfy himself?  Yeah, that is really in line with what the church teaches. 

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

All that is required for more biblical sized  mass murder would be the Lord’s permission. But nobody thinks that is going to happen either. 

And Sarah’s Law? The one that says if a woman says no that gives the husband the right to ignore her completely and go behind her back to satisfy himself?  Yeah, that is really in line with what the church teaches. 

None of which changes the fact of a darned thing I said.  The ceremonies still exist, along with the authority to perform them.  Permission from God is all that is required to make an exception to the norm.

It may never come, but the option remains.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

In the Church's recent press release regarding the Temple changes, they made the following claim:

This claim appeared to pique Bill Reel's curiousity, as nothing seemed to come to mind that would support such a claim.  In the pursuit of knowledge, Bill issued a reward to anyone who could provide quotes supporting the claim.  Others pitched in and the bounty climbed to $150.

On January 12, Here is how Bill worded the challenge:

Interestingly, today it was announced that the challenge has been met and the reward awarded!  Here are the quotes that were found:

 

 

Congratulations to "Kevin Owens", the winner, and thank you to Bill for issuing the challenge.  Whether or not Bill actually expected the challenge to be met, I think it was an interesting exercise (and I suspect the writers of the press release themselves might be surprised to see that actual quotes were found...)

True to form, Bill is again slaughtering the mother tongue. “Infers” does not mean “implies.”

Maybe, now that I’m no longer working, and since he produces a great deal of written as well as spoken material, I could offer my services to him as a proofreader. 

Of course, I don’t come cheap, and my services may be too expensive for him. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe, now that I’m no longer working, and since he produces a great deal of written as well as spoken material, I could offer my services to him as a proofreader. 

Please do! It's so painful that I've considered offering my services pro bono.

Quote

Of course, I don’t come cheap, and my services may be too expensive for him. 

No doubt he can solicit more funds on his Facebook page ...

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

So Bill, the expert in all things Mormon, still hasn’t gotten the memo that you can find just about anything in copious LDS writings/records? 

I couldn’t get past the misuse of  “infer.” It’s like screeching chalk on a blackboard. 

Ah, I see you noticed that too. Pardon, but I didn’t see your post before I made my own. 

The infer-imply error has long been one of my pet peeves. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

But that doesn't address what was said in the press release.  Perhaps the press release went about it wrongly and should have just pointed to changes over the eons to show consistency, but they appealed to prophets' comments so of course people will ask "what comments" if they are not personally aware of them,

As long as Bill lives in a truncated world in which only the LDS Church exists, of course all such questions will be dealt with in the narrowest and most rigid manner.  Those of us who are more interested in substantive issues see the press release as irrelevant.  Moreover, if the only prophets which can be considered are LDS prophets, then we are again hamstrung by a false configuration of reality.  I don't confuse public relations with scholarship.  They are just not the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, blueglass said:

There's this quote by the disaffected John Hyde in 1857, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs "There is one thing that is utterly ridiculous, the pretending to claim inspiration as its source. Its signs, tokens, marks and ideas are plagiarized from masonry.  The whole affair is being constantly amended and corrected, and [Heber c.] Kimball often says, 'We will get it perfect by-and-bye.''

John Hyde right here makes the case for change in the temple rites  What is so telling, however, is that the LDS temple signs, tokens, marks, and ideas are far more ancient and fundamental than those described for Freemasonry or Rosicrucianism, in turn based on ancient Hermetic texts revived in the Renaissance.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I will admit that I am disappointed in the glee and satisfaction some are taking at Bill's expense.

He is our brother who has lost his eternal blessings.  

I don't presume he's lost them, it may be he has misplaced or delayed them due to not understanding their value.  If he really doesn't value them, then I would say he has rejected them rather than lost...but I think we need to know what blessings are  in ways mortals can't know before we can fully and eternally reject them.

As to why he has chosen to step away from his faith, that is for God to judge imo, not for us to speculate.  I don't believe anyone else is capable of mindreading yet.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As long as Bill lives in a truncated world in which only the LDS Church exists, of course all such questions will be dealt with in the narrowest and most rigid manner.  Those of us who are more interested in substantive issues see the press release as irrelevant.  Moreover, if the only prophets which can be considered are LDS prophets, then we are again hamstrung by a false configuration of reality.  I don't confuse public relations with scholarship.  They are just not the same.

No, they are not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be curious about what the people involved in the public relations experience of the press stament were thinking when they wrote that sentence.  I am not saying approach it from the position of "I don't know of any, so they were probably lying and I won't believe they weren't until someone proves those comments exist", but rather simply "I want to know more".

Edited January 17, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True to form, Bill is again slaughtering the mother tongue. “Infers” does not mean “implies.”

Maybe, now that I’m no longer working, and since he produces a great deal of written as well as spoken material, I could offer my services to him as a proofreader. 

Of course, I don’t come cheap, and my services may be too expensive for him. 

The only problem with that is you'd have to actually read that drivel.

You couldn't pay me enough.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

No, they are not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be curious about what the people involved in the public relations experience of the press stament were thinking when they wrote that sentence.  I am not saying approach it from the position of "I don't know of any, so they were probably lying and I won't believe they weren't until someone proves those comments exist", but rather simply "I want to know more".

What discomfits me, and what clearly discomfited Joseph Smith and Brigham Young was a world more interested in public relations and political correctness than in straightforward truth.  The institutionalization of a religion will inevitably lead to such tensions. That is organizational behavior 101.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

All that is required for more biblical sized  mass murder would be the Lord’s permission. But nobody thinks that is going to happen either. 

And Sarah’s Law? The one that says if a woman says no that gives the husband the right to ignore her completely and go behind her back to satisfy himself?  Yeah, that is really in line with what the church teaches. 

Yeah, not likely.

But what do you make of Sarah's Law still existing in canonized LDS scripture? The church may not actively teach it but it IS scripture.

[stemelbow]

it seems obvious Bill's mistake was in assuming or hoping Church leaders wouldn't have contradicted each other on this point.  Some saying it would never change hardly means that others at various times might not say it could change.  This type of contradiction has happened throughout the Church's history.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

I get my personalities mixed up, and honestly don't remember anything I've ever learned about Bill Reel.  But I will always remember to the end of my days, if he pays up or welches out of it.  If he pays, I will think of him with a measure of respect, as his behavior will have backed up the notion that a person's word is important.  If he does not pay, I will think of him with a measure of disrespect, as one who welches on a bet has lied, and is exposing something very negative about his character. 

This is, like, "speak up when one of my brethren kneels at the feet of his Master and receives final judgment" type stuff.  If I'm there and have a voice, I'll bear record of this event.

Edited January 17, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I get my personalities mixed up, and honestly don't remember anything I've ever learned about Bill Reel.  But I will always remember to the end of my days, if he pays up or welches out of it.  If he pays, I will think of him with a measure of respect, as his behavior will have backed up the notion that a person's word is important.  If he does not pay, I will think of him with a measure of disrespect, as one who welches on a bet has lied, and is exposing something very negative about his character. 

This is, like, "speak up when one of my brethren kneels at the feet of his Master and receives final judgment" type stuff.  If I'm there and have a voice, I'll bear record of this event.

I can't imagine Bill wouldn't pay. I would be disappointed as well. Bill, if your reading, please dispell this idea!

[juliann]

52 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I get my personalities mixed up, and honestly don't remember anything I've ever learned about Bill Reel.  But I will always remember to the end of my days, if he pays up or welches out of it.  If he pays, I will think of him with a measure of respect, as his behavior will have backed up the notion that a person's word is important.  If he does not pay, I will think of him with a measure of disrespect, as one who welches on a bet has lied, and is exposing something very negative about his character. 

I think it is clear that HE doesn’t intend to pay if he is expecting donors to do it for him. 

I think he sealed his own fate as far as respect goes when he set up a podcast for the woman who embezzled a huge amount of money from Exponent II. And then lectured her victims on forgiveness when she hasn’t paid it all back or admitted how much she took over the years.  (She is awaiting sentencing.) 

It is quite a feat to alienate the largest feminist group in Mormonism in one fell swoop. He was so off the rails Exponent  blogged a response to his mansplaining tone deaf male elitism. 

It will take a lot to top that. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, not likely.

But what do you make of Sarah's Law still existing in canonized LDS scripture? The church may not actively teach it but it IS scripture.

The same thing I think about all the other discarded ideas in scripture. We need to remember that this “law” is so fuzzy few claim to understand it to begin with. It makes great fodder for fundamentalists though.