Bill Reel about to get excommunicated? >:-(

I think Bill has helped a lot of people. He seems like a good guy.

I don’t think his podcasts are aimed at helping the church, though there is an angle of trying to build bridges, although mostly one way.

It’s not totally surprising.

It would be nice if they could talk about how to make his voice work for the good of the church, and if he is involved to also be careful not to tear down the church.

Who knows if they’ve tried that collaborative approach already or not.

I don’t listen to his podcasts to know how often he crosses the line.

From Radio Free Mormon

Oh yes, he was allowed the option to resign, as well.

I am surprised by this — there was policy once (I saw it in either a handbook, or a bulletin) that name removal was not to be used as an alternative to excommunication. So I am surprised they are allowing people to just resign and forgo a disciplinary council. In fact, inviting him to resign hastens his own faith crisis to the point he would probably carry on his podcasts like John Dehlin does. Ultimately, the church wants the perceived negative influence of the podcast to go away — so inviting excommunication would only invite more public broadcasting of criticism toward the church.

It also sends the message ‘we don’t want you’ without any concern for Bill or for the continuation of his podcast — it only encourages such continuation.

Also disturbing is that this came from on-high. In the past, local leaders have denied that their efforts to deal with public nay-sayers toward the church came from SLC. But if the statement above that local leaders were in fact getting pressure from SLC, then it shows that perhaps those statements aren’t always true, and that SLC does direct local leaders to take on people on the fringe. Or maybe it was just general direction “make sure you are scanning your local wards for naysayers and deal with them”.

I think people like Bill Reel who go out to help people in faith crisis are often using a form of projection. In trying to help other people, they are trying to help themselves. Or perhaps giving a voice to their own faith crisis under the vehicle of trying to help other people in faith crisis. I thought that repeatedly about John Dehlin. I have no desire to do that unless someone approaches me, and then I’m cautious about it if they are local. I’ll help them here though, no problem, but I’m not out to start my own site or podcast. Such things seem to hasten movement along the path to the door.

You gotta be anonymous and not be perceived as building a following to openly criticize the church and not face consequences.

Also, if you post on sites like StayLDS, you have to be careful that you aren’t coupling it with some kind of LOCAL unorthodox behavior that screams apostate. Or your online posting will be used against you in that case. We’ve seen it happen to people here. I have never heard of someone being called out for posting unorthodox or contrarion, or even critical ideas as individuals on sites like StayLDS, however. The other thing his SP and BP objecting to is Bill’s facilitation of local support groups. There is a list on his site — almost like the Middle Way groups that tried to form in Cache Valley a few years ago when CWald was brought to task by his local leaders. It was this Middle Way movement into face to face groups that seemed to be part of the hoopla.

I am glad they gave Bill a warning rather than go straight to discipline. That is good practice. I generally like to see counseling first though — simply talking about it. Then if the person doesn’t comply, a warning, and then, if no compliance, something more heavy-handed. I haven’t experienced Bill’s stuff, but in the beginning it seemed pretty clean with published authors and speakers only profiled on his podcast.

Seems to me Bill has been on a downward trend in regards to the Church since the November 2015 policy, and more recently has distanced himself even more after confronting some dishonesty from church leaders.

I agree. I am a “premium” subscriber to his podcast (I throw a few bucks his way) and I get some podcasts earlier than the general public. There is one that I have listened to that is a sharp turn and is much more accusational towards one specific apostle. His tone (IMHO) is clearly more of, “I am done being nice.” It is scheduled to be released on Aug 15 and has “Liar Liar Pants on Fire” in the title. I suspect that someone has become a premium subscriber and passed this on to COB/SMC and this may be the item that caused the reaction from the SP/church.

From Radio Free Mormon

Oh yes, he was allowed the option to resign, as well.

I am surprised by this — there was policy once (I saw it in either a handbook, or a bulletin) that name removal was not to be used as an alternative to excommunication. So I am surprised they are allowing people to just resign and forgo a disciplinary council.

My understanding is that this was a policy, but someone sued the church in the US and won with the courts saying you can’t force someone to stay a member of a volunteer organization.

I agree with most all your other comments SD.

I think people like Bill Reel who go out to help people in faith crisis are often using a form of projection. In trying to help other people, they are trying to help themselves.

I agree, well said.

And that is fine for people to deal with it however works best for them.

But I don’t expect the church to do nothing to protect itself either. So…that just goes along with it.

I used to think apostasy and excommunication was such an awful thing…(gasp!!!! Apostasy!!! 😮 )

But not so much anymore. I mean, if you’re not happy with the church or rules…then…leave or fight against it and risk being invited out.

There are worse things in the world than to be told to leave the group you are talking bad about. Right?

You follow your path.

Bill put himself in that position. Whether he wants to admit it or not. Every other infamous excommunication has happened the same way. Bill has changed. He is angry, tyrannical, reactionary. Maybe it’s not SLC who is complaining as much as members complaining. I remember one time someone stating that every where John Dehlin went he would talk about his issues. Including family reunions or hang out nights. There became no off button.

With each major ex process, the individuals have had multiple opportunities to tone down their volume. I remember Bill raving about how he had so much support from his local leaders. Especially when he moved to Utah. He was the golden child of faith transitions. Ironically, John Dehlin had similar statements a few years ahead of Bill. He was happy to name drop a GA or two that he’d conversed with.

I believe the ego loves the intrigue. The minute the intrigue gets boring or less adulatory, the craving gets worse. When the craving increases, the rhetoric and tone changes. Anything to keep the froth of intrigue going. A person feels invincible. “I am the master of my fate. Captain of my soul.” From there the only way is down. It’s no longer about a religion you loved or cared for, it’s about you. It’s about being the hero. It’s about being angry at the dragon that bit you. Even though you tickled it. Somehow you were supposed to win.

I think you might be right.

I want to catalogue some other possibilities, though. Some people truly feel others’ pain and want to do something about it. Some people have friends and loved ones who are being emotionally abused by church doctrine and culture, who can’t say anything about it publicly. (Me, for example.) Some people don’t know how to build an identity that’s not related somehow to the church. Some people take a really long time to discover that they’ve reached the limits of their influence in an organization that by definition resists all change except from the top.

Plenty of people have been on the outs with the church. Some stay and take it. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Juanita Brooks. Other’s just walk away quietly. If Bill is so ticked at the church, since the November policy, stop attending. Resign. Or take a long break. Focus on your family business. Shut down the podcasts. Quit publicly posting on Reddit – Exmo. Move on.

While this might be a good idea for Bill, I think it’s suspect advice in general. “If you don’t like it, just walk away” ignores a great deal of complexity that arises from having half of your personal and family identity defined by Mormonism. And if everyone with an ax to grind took this advice, I think the world would be a worse place. Thank God for ax-grinders, is what I’m saying.

Jesus was an ax-grinder. He couldn’t leave those Pharisees alone.

I think it’s a good idea for public critics like Bill to keep assessing whether their tactics are getting the results they want, though. IMO, his are approaching only being effective at pushing people off the fence.

But don’t cry foul when you have had so much leverage. Just like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. You made a play. It may not work out. Own it or get off. (Didn’t go so well for Kaepernick, once the golden QB for the San Francisco 49ers. Why should it be any different for Bill?)

Now this I agree with 100%. You give it your best shot and move on.

I had a friend who was told by a councilor in his stake presidency that his (my friend’s) name had been submitted to the first presidency to become the next bishop, but was rejected. My friend was devastated to hear that. The only reason my friend could think of was he had been formally disciplined shortly after his mission for a transgression with his girlfriend. When I heard this, it infuriated me – If it was true, then our church doesn’t really believe in repentance and being washed clean by the atonement. We were teaching that God remembers our sins no more, but all the while our church is keeping a file on us, using our past mistakes to judge us.

I had a friend who was a talented manager. I live in a Ward where they have to change boundaries to include people who can be Bishops, leadership is so scarce. This talented manager was an obvious choice for Bishop, but he too had a transgression when he was in his early 20’s. He told me that was the likely reason he wasn’t called. I asked how he felt about it, and he replied that it was Ok because it was administrative, and did not affect salvation.

I am not so sure — it really doesn’t show full belief in repentance when you annotate membership records for the purpose of excluding people from callings due to past sins for which the church has issued a clearance or repentance achieved. Now, if the sin was grievous, and could injure people, I can see it, but someone who transgressed in the hormone-raging years and has since repented, been active and a TR-holder, and been faithful to his wife for thirty years — can we really justify preventing them from being called to positions like Bishop and Maybe Stake President? And still be a beacon of knowledge and belief about repentance?

The sad part of this is they called a lame duck to be our Bishop. He was AWFUL. Everyone detested him, and even Traditional believers commented openly about how bad he was — most of them — in spite of promises not to do this. For 3 years, people suffered, left the ward, etcetera, when this other man would have led the Ward to greater heights of activity and spirituality.

I wondered what file they had one me. Did they have notes from my mission president that I didn’t work hard enough? Can they look at my file and see that I never trained or was a district leader? Can they see that I was on informal probation when I was a teenager? Can they see that I sometimes post on StayLDS and have an account on New Order Mormon? Can they see my temple attendance (easily tracked by the bar-codes on our recommends)? Do they look at my home teaching percentages (even though we don’t track those anymore)? Do they see how much tithing I pay? How much I give for fast offerings? Can they see every calling I’ve ever had?

I don’t know what they keep, but I do know that membership records can be annotated. I think if they knew your identity here and saw some very apostate sounding comments, or doubtful comments, leadership roulette takes over. At that point you’re at the mercy of your local leaders. Go global with it and start getting a following, and you’re likely to get on SLC’s radar and have your SP swoop in to take care of it. That is why I never talk to local, live members.

I still wonder. I would like to learn more about SCMC. Is it used to track and groom up and coming leaders and ensure that bad seeds never assume leadership? Or is it truly only to root out those publicly vocal critics like Bill Reel?

Good question. I do believe they might have files out there on people. There is a story, although not confirmed, about a university student in a political party in Britain on whom information was kept. The pattern is clear though — you start building a following, disseminating ideas critical of the church, and are in the public eye, you are at greater risk of being targeted than if you are someone with some unorthodox ideas seeking support in one discussion forum like this that is on the true side of support — notwithstanding the fact there is criticism here.

The official church responses regarding the Strengthening Church Members Committee all say decisions are made by local leaders. However, this could be weasle words. Decisions, to me, refer to whether, or how, to discipline someone. And having a directive from on high to ‘look into’ the activities and beliefs of a particular member carry a tacit message. I was once in a Bishopric and we were referred a case by the SP of someone who had made a mistake, and asked to hold the disciplinary council at the Bishopric level. This to us, sent a message we were to go easy on the person given some extenuating circumstances. Myself and our first counselor both said the same thing. This is because the person was an Elder, and therefore, the case normally would be handled in a Stake high council disciplinary meeting.

So, even though no direction is given about WHAT to do, people in leadership read the subtext in any message from a higher leader.

Anyway, I don’t see local leaders around my area scouring the internet for apostates — they might hear about it from someone — and some of the online chatter about the SCMC says they tend to respond to complaints from other members than keep dossiers on their members.

I have to confess, the name “Strengthening Church Members Committee” has a hollow ring to it when they offer Bill Reel the option of simple name removal. Sounds more like “we don’t want you” rather than — go through this discipline process in hopes you see the gravity of your actions and make a turnabout.

I want to catalogue some other possibilities, though. Some people truly feel others’ pain and want to do something about it. Some people have friends and loved ones who are being emotionally abused by church doctrine and culture, who can’t say anything about it publicly. (Me, for example.) Some people don’t know how to build an identity that’s not related somehow to the church. Some people take a really long time to discover that they’ve reached the limits of their influence in an organization that by definition resists all change except from the top.

Reuben I do get that. I look at the history of change making, including civil rights, women’s suffrage, and many more issues. I try to compare all the variations. The leaders who appear most successful – both in creating change and staying the course – know how to balance. To give and to take. That doesn’t mean it always turns out smooth. (I could spend hours on it). Bill still has a choice. He’s known it whole time.

Juanita Brooks knew she was correct about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. She took the dual risk of staying, being bold, then being silent and letting the tide take it’s course.

Bill is in the same boat. If I was to advise him, I would say, chill out. Be quiet. Let the water rest for a while.

LH – I think you’re right

It does seem to me that the one line you can’t cross over is demeaning or criticizing the top church leaders.

Bill began as a friend to the church. An insider who cared. A leader from the other team (A former church leader). Both sides benefited. On the day he chose one side over the other, the game was up. That’s true of many arena’s. You start bad mouthing the coach or head office of a sport team – you better start looking for another job. You spout off about your boss – you better have proof of your accusations or find another job.

My heart hurts most for Bill’s family. I haven’t listened to him for a while, maybe his family feels the same way he does. But I don’t think he should cry foul or any of us feel bad for him. As long as the church has been around stuff like this happens.

Sadly I believe events like this make it slower for us to change. Everybody (both sides) get so protective – they lose sight of a much more important picture. Love and Christ-like-ness.