Bill Reel about to get excommunicated? >:-(

[LookingHard]

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)

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

[SilentDawning]

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)

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.

[dande48]

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)

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.

[Heber13]

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.

[SilentDawning]

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)

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.

[DoubtingTom]

I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.

I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.

[DarkJedi]

I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.

I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.

Yeah, it does make you wonder what his motivations are. I feel sorry for Bill, not because of the disciplinary council but because he was in a position where he had some respect from leaders, at least at the local level, and he blew it. I think he was actually able to help people and did help people at one point. I did speak with him once, and as others have noted he used to be somewhat active here. It's just sad.

That said, the overwhelming vast majority of the membership of the church would say "Bill who? Who is that?" Despite whatever publicizing he does, he's barely a blip on the screen for some of us and nothing to the rest.

[dande48]

I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing.

I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.

I can understand where Bill is coming from on this, though I don't agree with his actions. He was forced to sign the document to attend. Otherwise, he would not have been allowed to attend the council. For someone who advocates openness and transparency in the Church, this is quite the predicament. There was no other way to have a solid record of the proceedings, which was important to Bill.

The Church doesn't want to come under scrutiny. Bill wants others to scrutinize it. In fairness, I think we should scrutinize it. To quote J. Reuben Clark,

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

But if I were in his shoes, I don't think I'd show up. I think it's usually safe to say, if someone is hiding something, it's something they feel is worth hiding. It doesn't reflect well on the Church to force censorship on those being tried, even by their own private councils.

[Curt Sunshine]

He also badly misstated one of the High Councilor's statements in the podcast. What he claimed and what the HC said (from BIll's own recording of the meeting) are diametrically opposite.

I liked Bill. My feelings have changed over time. I sincerely dislike how he handled the meeting - especially manufacturing a quote by the HC that obviously isn't true.

In my mind, he has crossed an obvious line and become what he criticizes - whether or not that criticism is accurate.

[dande48]

He also badly misstated one of the High Councilor's statements in the podcast. What he claimed and what the HC said (from BIll's own recording of the meeting) are diametrically opposite.

Isn't this as strong of a reason as any, for why that recording (and transparency in general) is so important? So that we all have access to the same information, and can make our judgments, not by emotion and favoritism, but by solid evidence.