- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read the update: 1. The opening post indicates that pressure from SLC prompted the rather terse ultimatum described in the original post that started off this thread.
2. The officlal statement (most recent, in the link Roy provided) emphasizes a local initiative, not something required from SLC.
3. The article in the most recent link indicates the church authorities seem to be willing to work with Bill, saying, they hope whatever happens will allow Bill to continue as a member of the church.
4. I think Bill kind of crossed the line – look at some of his podcast titles, particularly those who attack the church.
Elder Holland — Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Elder Oaks Puts the Con into General Conference, parts one and two
Culture of Unhealthiness
Why I Left
Gaslighting By The Numbers
I hope it turns out well for him.
Bill also helped me early on, and I appreciate the work he did. Sadly, I agree with SD – he crossed the line in much the same way as John Dehlin and even Sam Young. I mean it, it is sad. Quote:Sadly, I agree with SD – he crossed the line in much the same way as John Dehlin and even Sam Young. I mean it, it is sad.
In the fury of these events, I find myself often supporting the church, which surprises me. Sam’s was a bit different but similar. I hurt for Sam more because I think the initiative did need continued watchfulness. If he hadn’t done the fasting deal, he may still be here and helping. That was hard for me.
On the others – I actually think the church is patient. In a way they are lenient. I know when we get to this end, there is all this talk about knowing which GA was connected to whom and how the church was behind it. But I look at Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, Sam, and now Bill and they all got second, sometimes third chances to tone down. To shift their approach, etc.
I don’t like or condone excommunication. I think it is medieval, and out moded. At the same time, those who get it, swung hard at the church.
Even if their initial cause was just. If this were an employer and an employee took public shots at the company they would be let go.
If your church doesn’t work for you, you can just walk away.
I also believe strident efforts against the church just cements their rhetoric.
I did a little more investigation today and found Bill also broadcasts on what appears to be an anti-Mormon site, whose by-line is “broadcasting behind enemy lines”. I was really surprised at that — it sets up a very adversarial relationship with the church that surprises me. I’m glad that I draw the line somewhere, and that I encourage people to stay active if it’s working for them. It’s when it doesn’t work for them, that I’m happy to share my opinions about a moderate approach to creating happiness while also maintaining some kind of connectivity to the church. In the past, I’ve noticed people brought up on discipline tend NOT to be willing to give up their sites etcetera, or their positions. So, I guess we’ll see what happens.
mom3 wrote:
If this were an employer and an employee took public shots at the company they would be let go.
This is true but it’s also how an employer would behave. If we’re okay with stating that the church should be nothing more than a man-made organization then we can hold it to the standards of man-made organizations. If we aspire for the church to be something more, something divine, would we not want to work to hold it to a higher standard?
I’m not trying to take away from what you’re saying or trying to be critical, I’m just getting something off my chest.
Quote:If we’re okay with stating that the church should be nothing more than a man-made organization then we can hold it to the standards of man-made organizations. If we aspire for the church to be something more, something divine, would we not want to work to hold it to a higher standard?
It is actually a great debate in our house right now. When is the church a church, when is it an organization?
I have a Catholic friend who was excommunicated because she married outside the church. Crazy, huh? I don’t know if Catholicism still does that, but wow. She wasn’t even podcasting or passing out literature or giving lectures on how horrid the nuns had been to her at the school.
I also wrote in bold and underlined
Quote:I don’t like or condone excommunication. I think it is medieval, and out moded.
But what does a leadership team do when someone from the inside is attacking the ship? Let them keep at it?
I don’t have an answer.
From what I understand Bill and Sam have both been very solicitous and thoughtful. I wish it was more like a jury of peers and that you could have advocates to defend you.
I have screwed up a ton at parenting. I couldn’t parent an organization. Even if I had lofty goals. Maybe someday we will be grown up enough to let things just roll.
mom3 wrote:
But what does a leadership team do when someone from the inside is attacking the ship? Let them keep at it?
I listened to the Radio Free Mormon podcast with Bill Reel, which is something I don’t typically do. In that podcast he made the point that when he attended church he didn’t say anything controversial, he realized that people didn’t come to church to hear that sort of thing. He went on to say that he didn’t hold back on his various social media outlets, figuring that it wasn’t him intruding into other people’s havens, people were free to listen or free to ignore his comments on social media.
He also mentioned that after a season attending church became too painful for him and that he hadn’t attended in the last year or so.
There are various ways to define inside. Inside – a member of the church at all, even if they haven’t been to church in ages. Inside – someone in Sunday School interrupting the teacher. It may be easier to let someone keep at it if they’re off in their corner causing trouble and harder to let someone keep at it if they show up to your corner to cause trouble.
So… is simply ignoring people an option for church leaders? Is it that they don’t trust the general membership to reach the conclusion, “Yeah, that guy is crazy.” so they have to make it an official position of the church? Oh, they were excommunicated.
NowI know to ignore them. A few orthodox people I know that actually knew about the people that have been excommunicated for apostasy already disliked them long before they were excommunicated for apostasy. Maybe the excommunication is to teach the people that can’t reach that conclusion on their own that they should be wary of their message? But most people didn’t even know they existed before, during, or after all the brouhaha. They were already being ignored out of obscurity, so maybe the excommunication is meant to ensure they remain in obscurity, not gaining any more listeners or followers, make sure the orthodox tent remains small.
– – – – –
In the podcast it was mentioned that the thing that set the wheels in motion was one of Bill’s podcasts that was about Elder Holland lying about various things. I haven’t heard that podcast but one thing that wasn’t explored but I wish was asked of Bill on the Radio Free Mormon podcast was whether Bill thought that the label of “liar” was fair. One can say something that’s not truthful and still not be a liar. To quote George Costanza (so it’s first and foremost a joke) “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
As I understand it, one of the “lies” was the comment about double digit stake creation every week made by Holland. Ok, it’s not true, but can anyone say with any degree of certainty that Holland made the statement in an effort to purposely mislead people? Perhaps Holland misremembered something that was mentioned during one of the many meetings he attends. Perhaps he himself was misinformed. Maybe he misspoke and meant wards, not stakes. But to not budge off calling someone a “liar,” yeah, pretty harsh. I felt it was more of a sensational claim meant for click-bait. I could be wrong, like I said, I haven’t listened to that podcast.
nibbler wrote:As I understand it, one of the “lies” was the comment about double digit stake creation every week made by Holland. Ok, it’s not true, but can anyone say with any degree of certainty that Holland made the statement in an effort to purposely mislead people? Perhaps Holland misremembered something that was mentioned during one of the many meetings he attends. Perhaps he himself was misinformed. Maybe he misspoke and meant wards, not stakes. But to not budge off calling someone a “liar,” yeah, pretty harsh. I felt it was more of a sensational claim meant for click-bait. I could be wrong, like I said, I haven’t listened to that podcast.
I’m in a different place belief-wise than most people here, so I get the benefit of listening to Bill on occasion. He called out five specific things that Holland was dishonest about. I don’t remember them all off-hand, but there were three that stuck out. For each of them, he played the audio of Holland actually saying these things.
1) That the church didn’t give “one red cent” to passing Prop 8 in California. Bill acknowledged that Holland could have meant cash, though there were certainly in-kind donations made, and the question seemed to be clear enough to provide a simple answer.
2) Holland’s talk about the BoM where he held up “the very copy” of the BoM that Hyrum had with him when he was killed. Bill pointed out that the church already had that copy on display and it was old and tattered, while the one Holland held up was in near-mint condition.
3) This is the deception that was easiest to disprove and the one that is the hardest to wriggle out from under. Holland claimed that every week in their meetings in the temple, they were creating new stakes in the double-digits. He was very explicit that one week it was 15, the week before was 12, sometimes it was 8, but we’re talking “double-digit stakes every week, every week of our lives”. He says the greatest problem the church faces is its exceptional growth. He said this in 2016 at a Dallas YSA event.
Here’s the video of the YSA event (no commentary, just the raw video from the event)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrYpRzi6xtY&feature=youtu.be&t=53m35s ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrYpRzi6xtY&feature=youtu.be&t=53m35s Here’s the number of stakes that were actually created each year:
2014 – 64 = 1.2 per week
2015 – 60 = 1.2 per week
2016 – 92 = 1.8 per week
I acknowledge that calling Elder Holland a liar is what got him called into the DC, but it’s not hard to understand why he feels the way he does.
My husband and I (my husband, for clarity is MINO – Mormon in Record Only. He used to be a major pod caster etc. He knows all the junk. Including the deep pain.) It is our opinion that a line gets crossed when the church or image of the church becomes embarrassed.
- Crying women pleading out front of a building at Priesthood Session
- holding a public fast for 13 days in front of the church office buildings and reading a “come speak to me letter” through the media
- calling a top leader – still in office – a liar.
Plenty of people, who still attend and hold callings, have public grievances with the church. Just read The Trib. As long as the complainee keeps some decorum or distance, the church lets them alone.
If you go back and listen to John Dehlin or Bill Reel’s earliest addresses and podcasts, the tone, the conversation, etc, was far different. Expressions of love for the top tier people. Words of encouragement over private conversations and connections. It’s that change and how it is presented that tips the scale.
mom3 wrote:
If you go back and listen to John Dehlin or Bill Reel’s earliest addresses and podcasts, the tone, the conversation, etc, was far different. Expressions of love for the top tier people. Words of encouragement over private conversations and connections. It’s that change and how it is presented that tips the scale.
This is my observation as well.
It does seem that that criticizing church leaders in public is a line that the top leaders will not tolerate. But that does remind me of a quote that was attributed to Voltaire (but might not be from him)
Quote:To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
LookingHard wrote:
It does seem that that criticizing church leaders in public is a line that the top leaders will not tolerate.But that does remind me of a quote that was attributed to Voltaire (but might not be from him)
Quote:To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
I have seen this quote — it’s a great one. Very revealing.
I have seen, through this forum and contemporary conflict between members and the church, the following seem to cross lines.
1. Publishing criticism of the church or the leaders. Even if you don’t have a following, being open and public about it can get you into hot water. A former regular on StayLDS is an example. He ran into a problem like that due to postings here.
2. Creating a movement. If you gather a lot of followers toward some kind of contrarion movement in the church, that will get you in hot water. Kate Kelly, and to some extent John Dehlin. John wasn’t encouraging a movement, but he does have a significant number of people who know him.
3. Publishing research that is not faith promoting. The September 6 are an example of this — many were academics who published scholarly research that threw the church in a non-faith promoting light.
4. Complaints to leaders from family members about you.
5. Being quoted in the press. If the press starts coming to you for quotations and opinion on church leader behavior, watch out. That will attract attention.
Excommunication is a double edged sword. On one hand, it sends a message to other would-be agitators that you don’t agitate publicly. On the other hand, it gives the agitator nothing to lose afterwards. They can do whatever they like at that point without impunity. Michael Quinn, a scholar on LDS topics, is a case in point. He’s written a lot of books since excommunication and he’s free to say whatever he wants. Excommunication can create Bravehearts.
LookingHard wrote:
It does seem that that criticizing church leaders in public is a line that the top leaders will not tolerate.But that does remind me of a quote that was attributed to Voltaire (but might not be from him)
Quote:To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
In fairness, the foundation of the Church and all its claims rest with the Priesthood Authority, specifically with the keys held by the top.
At some point, Bill decides what is a lie to him…and what he can no longer stay quiet about. At that point, excommunication is not a surprise or too painful…it just is the course. He could avoid it if he wanted to. But it is not a big thing he stands up for what he believes. It just is the way forward.
I see both sides of it.
Bill is a good guy.
The church is good.
There just is a point mortals are making choices on how to move forward.
I doubt the eternities are impacted and I have faith God loves all for doing their best with it.
Personally, I would not have followed the course of action Bill chose. But I respect him for his convictions.
dande48 wrote:
LookingHard wrote:
It does seem that that criticizing church leaders in public is a line that the top leaders will not tolerate.But that does remind me of a quote that was attributed to Voltaire (but might not be from him)
Quote:To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
In fairness, the foundation of the Church and all its claims rest with the Priesthood Authority, specifically with the keys held by the top.
This is very true, and people will do things for the sake of priesthood authority, without question, when it comes from the prophet or a GA. Not all, but manyh will. There is great awe for those people.
Then you get down to the local, Ward level. I was a priesthood leader of different types — I never got that kind of respect. Any results I achieved were from participative leadership. Claims to feeling inspired about any course of action weren’t enough to convince many people in my quorum or other stewardship to get behind the initiative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.