Bill Reel about to get excommunicated? >:-(

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

There might be motivated forgetting happening, too. One thing I’ve noticed about the exmo community is that many claim to remember what it’s like to be a believer, and many say things that suggest they don’t. I’m left to conclude that at least in some of them, when they choose to move from “us” to “them,” their life as a believer is slowly replaced by an exmo cartoon.

I agree with this, though I wouldn’t call it a “cartoon”. Humans do have a habit of subconciously re-writting their memories in order to be consistant with their present self. We also tend to interpret everything to support and affirm our world view. I don’t believe Bill was being dishonest in his view of the HC’s statement, any more than the Q15 is dishonest in their view of certain aspects of Church History. I don’t think it’s correct, but it’s more “dillusional” (not liking that word), than dishonest or deceptive. And I don’t think it’s enough to persuade others who don’t already strongly agree with them.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

In some ways I see this as similar to the story of Peter and denying Jesus. (I do recognize that there are different interpretations of the story, let’s go with the “common” interpretation that Peter didn’t think he be in that position.) Any member could be Peter. He did not doubt that Jesus was who he claimed to be and refuted Jesus when he told Peter he would deny him. Yet there he was. Every time I hear someone testify something like “I know with every fiber of my being [fill in the blank]” or something similar I think of Peter.

Most of us here have been through a faith crisis/transition, and to some extent many of us have heard the cock crow and even wondered, as Peter may have, “How did I get here? All I was doing was seeking peace.” I continue to seek peace (I believe that’s what everyone seeks in life), but I am ever wary of the power of the dark side.

What’s great post. These kinds of realizations help us be more compassionate to others and their journey, vs where we are in ours.

[Anonymous]

I’m thinking one factor in this is the Bill has the podcast and voice, which doesn’t apply to every excommunication situation.

The church may need some protection, and may even have legal advice about it.

It is kind if just a necessary protection in some cases.

From what I see, Bill’s making decisions on what he sees is best because if a story in his mind on a cause or purpose that compels him to his actions. Such actions come with consequences.

God will be the judge on the choices both sides are making and how actions are revealing where their hearts lie.

We live in a world nowadays where “being honest” seems to mean so many things and facts are argued as true facts or alternate facts. I guess I just see it from my point of view with my limited knowledge of events.

But I agree with Curt…there is a layer of hypocrisy in this, it seems to me. Signing a document and breaking that agreement is what it is, but in light of all the talk about the church needing to be honest…it is hypocrisy. Perhaps it is justified in some minds, or deemed an invalid contract…all those can be argued.

But you can’t argue he signed it with intent to keep to the agreement, and it detracts from prior podcasts calling for more honesty from the other side. He didn’t keep the agreement. For whatever reason. He may have been trying to put a positive spin on things but not truly middle way once a line was crossed. Excommunication was not a surprise and the council meeting wasn’t going to change the outcome unless there was a complete reversal on Bill’s position. Anything other than that becomes drama as a backdrop to the story.

Bill is on his own path now. It wasn’t really a path of reconciliation but a cause he feels compelled to stand up for.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

From what I see, Bill’s making decisions on what he sees is best because if a story in his mind on a cause or purpose that compels him to his actions. Such actions come with consequences.

This is how I’m reading it. It’s a matter of dropping your own perspective for a minute. If you can adopt the perspective that Bill seems to hold — that leaders are liars, that it’s not true, that people are purposefully misled , that believers give up their retirement savings and much of their time doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do — signing a confidentiality agreement like that is merely a means to an end. A means to proceeding with the council, and then exposing the injustice later.

In his view, this may be a case of the greatest good for the greatest number, with virtue ethics relinquished. Much like the utilitarian approach we see in the BoM where it was better to slay one man than an entire nation live without the truth. In this case, the truth, to Bill may well be the his understanding of the truth he perceives about Mormonism.

It’s a backwards way of looking at it to us, but consider that for a moment. And from his perspective, what he’s done may be a kind of heroism or self-sacrifice so he can tell his story.

Anyway, I am not necessarily condoning any one course of action here, but I think it’s of value to take other’s perspectives. The same way I try to take the perspective of traditional believers when they behave in ways I now find puzzling.

[Anonymous]

I agree completely with that, SD. It is why I feel for Bill – and why I said he lost a degree of his integrity, not all of it.

In the end, however, I come back to one core point:

In making the decisions he did, he became exactly what he criticized so severely, even if he felt justified. I feel for him most deeply for that outcome – for the hypocrisy he chose to embrace.

I am trying to honor him, even though his choice absolutely is not mine, by not theoretically taking away his ability to choose and not sugar coating the consequences of his choice. I think downplaying either of those aspects downplays the conviction of his choice.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

In making the decisions he did, he became exactly what he criticized so severely, even if he felt justified.

Did he? I wouldn’t say he “became” anything. He critized the Church, among other things, for not being transparent and open. He lied to prevent the Church from hiding what he felt should’ve been brought to light, and he was open about it afterwards. The Church, on the other hand (and according to Bill), does everything it can to conceal, and to keep its members from the truth. It also continues to hide the truth and decieve, even after being “caught”. I’d also say (again, according to Bill), that the Church’s dishonesty and deception is far greater, further reaching, and much more severe than Bill going back on the agreement. The Church is also much more powerful, for good or ill.

Not saying it was right, but in fairness to Bill, you’re equating two vastly different grivances. Am I a hypocrite for renouncing certain temple covenants, because I feel lied to and decieved by the Church? Have I lost my integrity for sticking with my beliefs, even at the cost of what I had formerly promised to do?

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

In making the decisions he did, he became exactly what he criticized so severely, even if he felt justified.

Did he? I wouldn’t say he “became” anything. He critized the Church, among other things, for not being transparent and open. He lied to prevent the Church from hiding what he felt should’ve been brought to light, and he was open about it afterwards. The Church, on the other hand (and according to Bill), does everything it can to conceal, and to keep its members from the truth. It also continues to hide the truth and decieve, even after being “caught”. I’d also say (again, according to Bill), that the Church’s dishonesty and deception is far greater, further reaching, and much more severe than Bill going back on the agreement. The Church is also much more powerful, for good or ill.

Not saying it was right, but in fairness to Bill, you’re equating two vastly different grivances. Am I a hypocrite for renouncing certain temple covenants, because I feel lied to and decieved by the Church? Have I lost my integrity for sticking with my beliefs, even at the cost of what I had formerly promised to do?

The part in bold resonated with me. We all know that there is a lot of whitewashing. We’ve had prophets say they will never lead us astray, and we are taught to obey. But they have made some pretty big mistakes, with some even taking the status of doctrine for decades and decades.

I’m not out to prosecute the church, as I still go, still remember the testimony-inducing experiences I had a one time (which I have trouble understanding a bit now, but nonetheless, they tend to drive my behavior)….

But when I read Truth Restored for the first time 20 years ago, with a believing and in retrospect, rather naive mindset I ate it up. I read it again a few years ago and I was amazed at how absent certain key elements of our history were, how details were removed (for example, JS was described as imprisoned on a “trumped up charge”, when it was actually related to the destruction of the Expositor printing press). Also how Truth Restored was laden with faith-promoting stories that seemed to deviate from a historical record, to a record meant to “promote faith” in the early pioneers – anecdotes.

Anyway, I agree the disparity is very wide between what Bill did and the church did.

Also, are people made aware they have to sign a confidentiality agreement before a church disciplinary council? Or is it something they have to react to in the moment? I consider reaction time when also considering the choices of people made in a flash moment.

[Anonymous]

Random thoughts:

SilentDawning wrote:

We’ve had prophets say they will never lead us astray…

It’s funny, I think the original context of that statement was to convince an uncooperative body of saints to quit practicing something we view as bad (polygamy).

SilentDawning wrote:

…laden with faith-promoting stories that seemed to deviate from a historical record…

Just like the Bible. One difference is that a lot of the church history stuff is recent enough to be able to check up on. But that gets me thinking, is the value in coming up with larger than life stories to motivate us to attempt larger than life things or is accuracy more important? At church we talk about “restoring the gospel” and in some ways we’ve restored the idea that something can be held up a scripture and that scripture can inspire. The Bible, fantastical stories that give some people hope. The BOM et al, fantastical stories that give some people hope.

ETA: And maybe initially we have to be at that literal believing level to produce that hope. Then, after we move beyond that literal level, is it still possible to use the fantastical stories to produce the same level of hope as they did before?

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

In making the decisions he did, he became exactly what he criticized so severely, even if he felt justified.

Did he? I wouldn’t say he “became” anythingg.

I was thinking more about this part above…I think we all become something in our relationship to the church. I’ve become unorthodox, less engaged, a bit cynical toward certain aspects of church experience — we are our thoughts. And those thoughts tend to define our words and actions, which then tend to define what we are and definitely how the outside world perceives us. And we definitely have to live with the consequences of those perceptions. Traditional believers can become judgmental, very malleable and obedient and self-sacrificing toward the church, or sometimes arrogant toward non-believers.

Sure there are times we make thoughtless comments that don’t really define who we are. I think those are not necessarily indicators of what we are.

But there are also regular patterns of language we use that really do describe what we are. I think those patterns exist in some of Bill’s podcasts. He became rather accusing of the church, with some pretty acerbic podcast titles, and also teamed up with an anti-Mormon who podcasts “behind enemy lines”. This shows a pattern of becoming.

Nonetheless, I would be surprised if there are times Bill feels saddened about the whole church thing. I’m still semi-active and I feel sad about aspects of my own transition. The church gave me comfort at one point, some high moments, even if I was naive in my relationship with the church through that period. The rest of his family are members and he isn’t. It can be tough when family members engage with the church, essentially rejecting your perspective, and that can hurt. Over the holidays I made a couple comments about church and they changed the subject. That actually made me feel a bit angry for a moment, to be cut off that way, particularly when my comments weren’t un-supportive either. At those times I feel sad we don’t have the church in common.

I think someone also said times like these (when we were discussing John Dehlin or Kate Kellys’ excommunication) are a time for compassion for people who’ve had to go through this experience. If his experience is like my transition to less-activity (his experience was probably much more stressful and intense), he’s going to have to deal with his reputation in the face to face area where he lives. That can be kind of tough. It makes it hard to re-engage and creates tension whereever you go among Mormons.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Random thoughts:

But that gets me thinking, is the value in coming up with larger than life stories to motivate us to attempt larger than life things or is accuracy more important? At church we talk about “restoring the gospel” and in some ways we’ve restored the idea that something can be held up a scripture and that scripture can inspire. The Bible, fantastical stories that give some people hope. The BOM et al, fantastical stories that give some people hope.

ETA: And maybe initially we have to be at that literal believing level to produce that hope. Then, after we move beyond that literal level, is it still possible to use the fantastical stories to produce the same level of hope as they did before?

This is probably a different discussion topic, but I have some thoughts on this too…

Accuracy is important where accuracy can be given (due to the tendency for the truth to fade as time wears away memory and destroys historical records). The church claims to have the TRUTH. We bear testimony of its TRUTH all the time. The LDS church is in the truth business. You can’t just pick and choose what truth you want just to shore up your position when your whole premise for existing is to provide access to the truth. It’s not an election

And you could argue that coloring the truth, while expecting pretty significant sacrifices and claiming to HAVE the truth, is a recipe for fragile testimonies and inactivity. If you look at John Dehlin’s report on why people don’t stay active, historical issues are a huge issue, and this appears to have become prevalent with the freely available information on the internet. It can be pretty darn jarring to learn about the MMM, why JS was ultimately arrested, Fannie Alger and more when the first time you hear about all that is on the steps of a non-member on your mission.

Better to acknowledge the truth, even if not necessarily faith-promoting and explain it away as best you can. I think the Gospel Essays were a step in that direction. Although a very closeted one.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I am equating two vastly different actions – IF we look ONLY at the overall scope. However, if we look strictly at the actions themselves, assuming Bill’s perspective was correct, the actions themselves are exactly alike.

“I am not like them, because I did the exact same thing but they did it more (over a much longer period of time and with far more people),” is not a defense I am willing to accept. He charged them with lying to further their cause; he lied to further his cause. Scope aside, the actions were the exact same in character. His condemnation of them for lying makes his own lying hypocritical.

I get what you are saying. I agree the scope is different. However, I think you want to give Bill a break, because you identify to a degree with his struggle and don’t want him to have been a hypocrite in the end. I get it. I sympathize. However, he did what he did. He clearly and unambiguously lied to further his cause. Excusing it while not excusing the same choice by others . . .

I just can’t go there.

Lastly, I don’t want to argue about this. Not here. Have a great day.

[Anonymous]

I think people colored the truth without realizing that they were coloring the truth and we ended up here mostly because our desire to chase hope outstripped the desire to keep things more grounded.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

dande48 wrote:

Did he? I wouldn’t say he “became” anything.

I was thinking more about this part above…I think we all become something in our relationship to the church.

I fully agree, SD. I meant in particular with this situation. I don’t think Bill was “acting out of character” or had a shift in morals. It was exactly what I would’ve expected him to do. He didn’t go from a man of Kantian ethics, to a pathological liar. That being said, when a part of us leaves the Church, a part of us dies. People don’t stay the same. Becoming disaffected with their former religion hurts, and sometimes that hurt can make us bitter.

SilentDawning wrote:

I think someone also said times like these (when we were discussing John Dehlin or Kate Kellys’ excommunication) are a time for compassion for people who’ve had to go through this experience.

I second this.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think people colored the truth without realizing that they were coloring the truth and we ended up here mostly because our desire to chase hope outstripped the desire to keep things more grounded.

Yeah, I agree.

I remember my first post here. When I found the site, it was a perfect fit. I remember thinking “now THIS is a site that I think can help me”.

My first post was:

“Having trouble feeling positive about local leaders”. Even before I introduced myself.

It was the first time I got actual support rather than negativity for being disloyal, all blame placed squarely on my shoulders. It was never about lack of transparency from the church, I was simply hurt, bruised and battered and was trying to find a way to feel more positive about the negative experiences I’d had with indifferent, often demanding local leaders.

I was indeed chasing hope that I could somehow find a way out of the hole I found myself in. Not entirely my own digging either. In fact, mostly not my own digging.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think people colored the truth without realizing that they were coloring the truth…

I agree with this, but I think that sometimes a person’s “truth paradigm” just undergoes an earthquake which shifts what, when, how, and why they define “truth”.

In my case, it was coming to a realization that capacity to receive “truth” – through people teaching me or my own perceptions shifted my paradigm into re-examining and re-defining how I define truth. I have now embraced a paradox where my perception is still skewed AND I in my own way I got it “right” – that I had been processing some truths correctly.

nibbler wrote:

… we ended up here mostly because our desire to chase hope outstripped the desire to keep things more grounded.

This might be hair-splitting, but I came here to stop my paradigm free-fall. I came here looking for hope that it could be done, for non-white-washed answers, and for fodder for really good questions…

[Author]

Posts