Bill Reel Gets Ultimatum from Stake President

[Palerider]

I said, "There's no such thing as denial. Only cowardice."

Nope. I'm going to push back hard right here. Would you say that to a Mother who has been informed that a son/daughter has been killed overseas and has not yet been able to grieve because she is in denial? Then why would you say that to anyone else who might face a level of discomfort with what they might learn about their whole life?

Taken as written my use of the word "cowardice" may be too much of a blanket statement. It is intended to be more specific to the issue at hand.

We're really talking about two different things here.

One is a health issue. "Denial" is sometimes employed temporarily as a defense mechanism to stave of the reality of a coming painful experience. There is no moral issue involved. Only fear of pain. Such is the case of the grieving mother you mentioned. If used continuously to deny reality, it can become a mental health issue.

The second is when "denial" is used deliberately and on a continuing basis to avoid a moral obligation. To avoid truth out of fear. Fear of familial, economic, social cost. Painful, yes. But one's moral compass is at risk of being conflicted if the issue is simply avoided.
One cannot set oneself up as an arbiter of truth and then avoid it because of the cost involved. To do so would not be denial....only cowardice.

[Emower]

One cannot set oneself up as an arbiter of truth and then avoid it because of the cost involved. To do so would not be denial....only cowardice.

This is where I break with most people on this forum, because we really cannot determine why someone is avoiding the truth. This point gets debated here, and on other boards often. What do those guys know? Do they know they are going against reality? Well, reality is different for different people, and once you start throwing in all the complexities that come with a life devoted to a cause, it gets messy really quickly. And we cannot sort out that mess and pass judgement on those folks by saying things like, Russel Nelson is a liar and a coward. Because I dont think there is much difference between my father, and Russel Nelson in terms of belief, and frankly even in knowledge of church history, and that is calling my father a liar and a coward, which I know he is not. I know it is tempting to think that the higher you go, the more ugly details you might be privy too, but I dont think that is a given. And by the time you might be privy to it all, sunk costs are huge and the subconscious mind might not allow you to throw it all away. I am not offended, and I think this is a point where we all are going to disagree to some degree or another. I just feel, especially lately, that the mind is a complicated beast that no one fully understands.

[Random]

the mind is a complicated beast that no one fully understands.

That's for sure!

[Palerider]

Because I dont think there is much difference between my father, and Russel Nelson in terms of belief, and frankly even in knowledge of church history, and that is calling my father a liar and a coward, which I know he is not.

Okay, so I don't want to debate this point nor would I impune the integrity of your father.

But I do want to understand. I like to know what makes people tick.

If I were well acquainted with your dad and one day I asked him honestly if it were even POSSIBLE that he could be wrong about the church, what would he say? Seriously, if I asked him, is it even in the realm of possibility that the church might not be entirely what it claims to be? What would he say?

Because if there is even the slightest chance the church might not be what it says it is, don't we owe it to ourselves to do a very thorough investigation?

If not, what would stop us?

What stops a person from wanting to know the truth?

Is it an unrecognized or even benign type of arrogance? Is it strictly fear? Is it that condition of having made up one's mind and not wanting to go back and re-evaluate? Is it wanting to be "right" so badly that admittance of error is untenable? Would it disgrace the traditions of our fathers? If the church is wrong, then our venerated fathers who have given so much....were wrong. That would be so difficult to face.

I have good friends and family who still believe. I have great respect for them. I wonder why they don't/won't look at the church with a fresh eye. I don't like to think of them as cowards in this particular arena of life. It's painful. Maybe there's another more apt description... maybe there's another reason that I don't understand.

I'd like to know.

[Emower]

Is it an unrecognized or even benign type of arrogance? Is it strictly fear? Is it that condition of having made up one's mind and not wanting to go back and re-evaluate? Is it wanting to be "right" so badly that admittance of error is untenable? Would it disgrace the traditions of our fathers? If the church is wrong, then our venerated fathers who have given so much....were wrong. That would be so difficult to face.

I have good friends and family who still believe. I have great respect for them. I wonder why they don't/won't look at the church with a fresh eye. I don't like to think of them as cowards in this particular arena of life. It's painful. Maybe there's another more apt description... maybe there's another reason that I don't understand.

I'd like to know.

I did not throw that bit in about my father as a conversation stopper or as a bait or anything, only to take things logically further than they are intended to show that generalities don't work.

I do think it's fear. But I don't think you can call that fear cowardice. The fear might be directed towards multiple things all at once. There is fear that your life might have been lived for a false belief. If that is so, but you are still proud of your life, would it be cowardice to stand up for a life well lived, if you knew that the church might have helped you do that? The fear might be towards an adversary that you know is trying to get you to doubt. Is it cowardice to stand up against that adversary? Those people think it's the height of bravery, they really do. I think my point is that fear is the basis, which has been conditioned from childhood, and it most times it doesn't seem like cowardice to me. I am not ruling out that sometimes it might be, but we'll never know. Except Oaks. We can can call a spade a spade with that guy.

[Palerider]

The term "coward" carries some pretty heavy baggage in our culture. I admit that.

But if we turn the tables just a bit and look at the unholy judgement that has been passed by leadership on those who have left the church, I see little to admire and precious little integrity.

Think of the baggage that comes with being accused of being "deceived by Satan" or "you must be guilty of sexual sin". Or let's try "they aren't valiant for the Lord. They're just lazy." Then there's always the old standby that someone was so shallow that they left "because they were offended".

For approximately 180 years these were their knee-jerk judgements on us. It wasn't until Uchtdorf's talk that it was even acknowledged that a person might leave the church as a matter of personal integrity. For most of those years the only way one could leave the church was by punitive excommunication. Think of the baggage that carries...

Maybe they need someone to call them gutless cowards if only to make them think a little bit about how it feels to be labeled and judged unrighteously?

[Palerider]

Is it cowardice to stand up against that adversary? Those people think it's the height of bravery, they really do.

I know. Absolutely. I was one of them.

At those times when I was standing up, all I could think about was "defend, defend, defend". It takes that deep down interview with the self when things are quiet and one is dealing with some new information and a little cog-dis, when we can be strong enough to say, "Do I need to take a new and truly objective look at this?"

Didn't the Savior say that truth makes you free?

[Emower]

I agree. This is where most of these types of discussions end up. The Apostate will rage "why cant they just use logic, evidence, and objectivity! They are willfully ignoring it!" The TBM will rage "why cant they see that logic, evidence, and objectivity has no place in this type of truth seeking! This is a different kind of truth!" That blows the mind of the Apostate and we then the only place to go is name calling. I truly believe that it is important for us as Apostates, to recognize that there are valid to them reasons why they might deny themselves the opportunity to use a deep down interview and avoid that cog-dis. Especially in light of evolutionary information that seems to point to the fact that cog-dis evolved as a mechanism to keep us safe from physical harm. Its hard to fight against a million years of instinct. Why some of can do it, I dont know. It likely has to do with many factors including how we were raised.