Bill Reel gets disciplinary hearing - can't see that ending without him being excommunicated

[jfro18]

Bill Reel just posted that he has a hearing on November 27th... will see if I can find a way to post the images to the document here as well.

Man this church wants to silence people but I have a feeling they're only making things worse.

edit: you can see the images at https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... 9Ch4QS-13E

[Corsair]

I met Bill one time at a lecture given by Thomas McConkie (which is a story in its own right). Bill is one of the good guys and wants nothing more than to have an authentic faith in Jesus Christ in all His challenges. The day of the disciplinary council is simply going to pass with no acknowledgement from any of my faithful friends and family understanding what a cataclysmic shift has occurred if (and probably when) Bill is excommunicated.

I understand that the church has lost the rhetorical argument and simply has no tools other than a disciplinary council. I don't know what they hope will happen except to label Bill Reel as an apostate. Look how effective excommunition was in stopping any movement led by John Dehlin, Kate Kelley, Sam Young, or a long line of other principled people that simply wanted to work with institutional Mormonism.

This occurs two days after I am supposed to meet for tithing settlement with my bishop. Bill's disciplinary councel and all of the irony surrounding it will be lost of the kind man who is my bishop. But, I can't imagine that my sustained spiritual leader will have any inspiration for me in this matter.

[Rob4Hope]

I know Bill pretty well, and this doesn't surprise me. He has been frustrated for a while, especially when the church doesn't answer questions.

The letter is interesting with how hard they hit the confidentiality stuff. Of course, its their court, their turf. So, if they themselves make records, that is that. But its pretty one-sided.

I see no advantage for Bill to attend other than to voice his concerns which they don't care about anyway. So, this whole thing seems like a big waste of everyone's time. The decision is already made....Bill is out.

[MoPag]

Poor Bill.

It looks like his SP copy/pasted the confidentiality portion from another letter. The line spacing is different.

[Red Ryder]

Hmmm...

I got nothing.

Expected to happen! Disappointed to see!

Why can't the church allow for an open discussion and dialogue?

If it's true it will hold up to scrutiny! If they are apostles, they will hold up to scrutiny!

Kicking dissenters out only proves both above are false. They've kicked out the left. They've kicked out the right. Now they're kicking out the middle!

So who's next? I'll have to pull out my list of potential excommunicatees.

[Rob4Hope]

They've kicked out the left. They've kicked out the right. Now they're kicking out the middle!

"...and turn yourself about. That's what its all about?...LEFT SIDE...you put your left foot in...."

[dogbite]

Why can't the church allow for an open discussion and dialogue?

There is a prophet talking to/for God at the top. Therefore there is nothing to discuss.

If it's true it will hold up to scrutiny! If they are apostles, they will hold up to scrutiny!

Remember that propphet fella? Scrutiny doesn't matter. By definition the prophet is right on all topics. Similarly scrutiny is of the devil. See 14 fundamentals....

Kicking dissenters out only proves both above are false.

No, playing the prophet card really does mean infallibility even though every mormon will deny it. Prophet trumps facts.

[moksha]

"...and turn yourself about. That's what its all about?...LEFT SIDE...you put your left foot in...."

No need to go overboard and recite the Dusting the Boots curse!


If its discipline the Stake Council wants perhaps they would consider making Bill wear a hair shirt or nipple clamps. If they wish to go a bit further they might consider the rack. Better than going all pre-medieval with an excommunication or using Laban's sword on Bill!

[Hagoth]

I hope he doesn't sign the NDA and that he stresses that party who demands that a deed is done in secret is the party that has something to hide.

Elsewhere I saw someone suggesting that he should cite the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus decries the swearing of oaths. It seems like what Jesus said always drops to lowest priorities in LDS decisions because they play the "that's what Jesus said then and we're telling you what Jesus wants now" card.

[Just This Guy]

I hope he doesn't sign the NDA and that he stresses that party who demands that a deed is done in secret is the party that has something to hide.

Meeting held in secret. That sounds an awful lot like the "Secret Combinations" the BOM condemns.

[Hagoth]

This morning I woke up very early and very upset. I must have been dreaming about this or something. What does it say about the church that it has stooped to excommunicating former bishops - REALLY genuinely good men - whose sin is being alarmed about bad practices in the church - just because they have challenged the leaders to a dialog. Bill and Sam Young are people who are committed to doing the right thing with a degree of devotion that the church could only dream of in its more soul-surrendering obedient members.

I have a lovebird named Charlie. If you're not familiar with lovebirds they are tiny parrots with a lot of attitude. If I poke Charlie with my finger she will bite it. Charlie is pretty much just a little feathery bundle of ego that sees everything as a threat that must be attacked.

I also have a wife. If I were to poke Mrs. Hagoth with my finger she would say, "Hey, why are you poking me?" and then she would listen to my reason. Mrs. Hagoth is a very intelligent and sensible person. She might tell me she doesn't like me poking her but she won't kick me out of the house without considering the reason for my pokery. For all she knows I may be choking and trying to ask her to Heimlich me. Or I might be trying to get her attention to show her something she will find useful or interesting, like that Charlie is stuck in the paper towel roll again, or that the kitchen is on fire.

Based on my observations from my immediate surroundings, it appears to me that Bill and Sam are dealing with birdbrains.

[2bizE]

I hope he attends the inquisition as there is a chance someone in the room will be affected and see the fraud. Like Alma did, who was a real historical person living in south/central/North America and escaped to the waters of Mormon where he baptized people without any priesthood.

[Mormorrisey]

I must admit to not knowing how to feel about this.

On the one hand, I don't know Bill at all. I've lurked on his Facebook page, heard a lot of nice things about him from several people including people on this forum who I respect, so I tend to believe him at face value and that he's genuine about his concerns for both the direction of the church and his own doubts about church history issues. And I think it's stupid for the church to shoot the messenger, and refuse to answer any of his concerns when his SP sent them up the chain - which confirms for me, that there are no answers to his questions, or any of our questions. Them's just the facts.

But on the other hand, as Hagoth mentioned in another post, Bill clearly was "cruisin' for a bruisin'." I think Bill is absolutely correct when he posted on Facebook that the Holland "liar liar" episode did him in, and I agree with him. It's one thing to point out some of the problems of church history, and still another to call an apostle a habitual liar in a public setting - even though the evidence Bill presented is pretty clear! I think what is happening is this - Bill has a lot of people he has helped in their faith transition/crisis, a very public social media presence, and that type of publicity is exactly what the church hates, and will ex him accordingly. Someone like me, although they don't like what I say, I keep largely to myself, have zero social media presence, and can be largely ignored by the TBM's in my area. So even though Bill and I have generally the same perspective on issues regarding the church, I keep my TR and his butt is on the chopping block.

And frankly, those are the two options left - publicize the problems when you discover them, or have no social media presence at all. Put up or shut up. I admire Bill for his public stance, and he's going to get kicked out of the Mormon club. I've chosen to keep quiet other than posting anonymously here, and will stick around for the time being. It just doesn't seem fair.

[Anon70]

Started following Bill recently on fb. Today he posted some communications with the stake president. He’s asking for reasonable accommodations and for the SP to follow the rules as set forth in the handbook. They won’t. He’ll be exed. It’s painful to watch. I keep thinking if only the church was this or did that but the truth is the church just cares about the church. Period. Bill’s making them look bad so...that’s it for Bill.

[Hagoth]

But on the other hand, as Hagoth mentioned in another post, Bill clearly was "cruisin' for a bruisin'."

There is no question that Bill is going to be excommunicated and that he was intentionally backing them into a put-up-or-shut-up corner, but there is absolutely no reason the church shouldn't try to take the high road and attempt to paint themselves as caring shepherds rather than arrogant bullys by showing him some consideration. It's the least they could do considering that they're taking (they believe) his salvation, his children, and his wife -to be given to another man in the eternities - from him.

I hope this thing gets a lot of press attention. Man Excommunicating for Calling BS on actual BS. I have written to both Bill and Consiglieri to offer help in organizing a gathering if Bill wants that kind of support but I haven't heard back from either.

I posted this comment on Bill's website today:
"Bill, your requests are entirely reasonable and within the proper guidelines and they would be respected if this court were really what it claims to be. The people hanged in Salem in 1692 were given considerably more time and opportunity to defend themselves."

[MoPag]

I hope this thing gets a lot of press attention. Man Excommunicating for Calling BS on actual BS. I have written to both Bill and Consiglieri to offer help in organizing a gathering if Bill wants that kind of support but I haven't heard back from either.

If you guys do this, please stream it on his FB page. I loved that Sam did this for his.

[Mormorrisey]

But on the other hand, as Hagoth mentioned in another post, Bill clearly was "cruisin' for a bruisin'."

There is no question that Bill is going to be excommunicated and that he was intentionally backing them into a put-up-or-shut-up corner, but there is absolutely no reason the church shouldn't try to take the high road and attempt to paint themselves as caring shepherds rather than arrogant bullys by showing him some consideration. It's the least they could do considering that they're taking (they believe) his salvation, his children, and his wife -to be given to another man in the eternities - from him.

Make no mistake, I agree with you. Bill, Sam Young and even to some extent Jeremy Runnells are all in the same boat - just excommunicated for telling the truth. No question. And I'm not "victim blaming" Bill for what's happening - he himself agreed and admitted on Facebook that he was on unstable ground with the Holland episode. It just is what it is, and we know what the church is before we picked it up - if you make the institution look bad, no matter how much truth is in what you say, they'll react by cutting you off. End of story.

Ultimately, I agree with what you said about how stupid it is for the church to take the low road with Bill, not engage with his concerns, and just show him the door. With Sam and BIll, I'm constantly reminded of the Jean Calvin/Michael Servetus episode during the Reformation. Calvin objected strenuously against Servetus' "blasphemy" against the Holy Trinity, they argued back and forth, and Calvin made it abundantly clear what would happen to Servetus should he step foot in Geneva, especially after Servetus poked the bear and sent Calvin back his own writings with satirical critiques in the margins. Why Servetus showed up in Geneva is beyond my comprehension, and Calvin had him burned him at the stake. That's the short version.

Yet Sebastian Castellio was absolutely correct when he said about this episode, "To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, it is to kill a man." And that's what is happening here - they are just going to metaphorically send Bill to the stake, like they did Sam, rather than engage in debate or to try and defend their position with rigorous intellectual and spiritual certainty. It's all about obedience to the institution, and that's why the institution is currently spinning its wheels and stuck in neutral.

[Corsair]

Yet Sebastian Castellio was absolutely correct when he said about this episode, "To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, it is to kill a man." And that's what is happening here - they are just going to metaphorically send Bill to the stake, like they did Sam, rather than engage in debate or to try and defend their position with rigorous intellectual and spiritual certainty. It's all about obedience to the institution, and that's why the institution is currently spinning its wheels and stuck in neutral.

Story time: I had an encounter last night that brought into focus why Bill will be inevitably ex'ed. My inlaws are in town and we had a family dinner with them. They are putting their papers in for a senior mission and are as faithful as can be.

And then my dear inlaws asked me if I had read the new "Saints" book. It was asked with this aura of grave concern after any grandchildren had left the room. I responded that I had read the "Saints" book (although I neglected to mention that it was with the commentary by our own jfro18). I also said that I liked "Rough Stone Rolling" better and they replied that they had not heard of that book and seemed suddenly concerned that I might be reading some apostate screed. I assured them that Richard Bushman was as faithul that a Mormon could be. This was ridiculous enough, but then they went to the next level.

They looked at me and my wife gravely and said, "You need to have a really strong testimony if you read the 'Saints' book. It talks about polygramy. I think the church published this book so that young people would not be surprised by it." I'm sitting across the table having a decade of deep reading and study on all the issues of the "CES Letter" and "Mormon Think" and my dear inlaws have not a single clue that I might have gone over this terrain in much more painful detail than the "Saints" book would ever want. With my dear, believing wife sitting next to me, I knew that once again this was no time to try and blow up anyone's testimony.

They just continued digging that hole deeper by overtly confusing Fanny Alger with both the Lawrence sisters and the Partridge sisters. Several more profound misconceptions were spoken, but it was all tied together neatly with the final injunction that Joseph Smith was totally still a true prophet and the church was true no matter what new information was in "Saints". If there was some kind of bad apologetic drinking game in play, I would have definitely let my wife drive us home.

My dear inlaws are the kind of people that the church is trying to protect by removing Bill Reel from the membership rolls. These are the tithe paying work horses of the LDS church and they are invaluable to the institutional church. At no point in the evening did they truly want a substantive discussion. Bill's salvation can be cast aside like used toilet paper if it keeps people like my inlaws in the LDS church and not asking the truly challenging questions.

[Just This Guy]

It is interesting from an outside perspectve.
I'm guessing the church views Bill as something akin to cancer. You don't engage, you cut it out. To the TMB, it looks like they are taking action to address a problem.

To the outsider, it is a across between a bully and someone sitting with their fingers in their ears saying "I'm not listening..."

And to someone trying to understand the situation, it is like a company firing the Quality control department because defects are too high. It may solve the short term problem of making the reports look better, but they completely miss the fact that Quality was only the messenger, they are still producing defects, now they are not being caught in house. They are being caught by the customer.

[Hagoth]

it is like a company firing the Quality control department because defects are too high.

Bingo! Love it.