Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[_suniluni2]

Welcome to the board, Bill. Please be aware that your presence here will indicate to church leaders that you have taken a step on the road to apostasy. Good on you for "standing for something" at fair.

[_Yahoo Bot]

to present I have never felt that Church headquarters has told my local leaders anything. Until that changes I am left only to assume that are not trying to reign me in.

Indeed, you have said many times that stake presidents and general authorities have endorsed you, or encouraged your business, correct? You've appeared at youth conferences, firesides and provided training for high councils, at least what what you've indicated as such in the past, right?

Your business is a podcast, firesides and training, if I'm not oversimplifying, correct?

And, you teach a sort of universalism, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you assert that since everybody will receive baptism in the end and males receive the priesthood, and be sealed, then the LDS Church need not be the single route to salvation?

And, of course, you teach a particular kind of grace which seems to conflict with traditional or orthodoxy in Mormonism? How would you characterize that teaching?

[Again, my interest in all this is as a commentator on LDS social media. I take no position here or any similar place as to whether your views are "wrong" or "right," or the church's views are "wrong" or "right".]

[_DBMORMON]

Hi, Bill!

Was there anything about what happened with you and Brian Hales and/or FAIR that didn't make it into the Mormon Stories interview that you would be willing to share here?

Brian said a lot of negative things and only a few were mentioned. Other than that I think I have said all that I want to.

The silence on their end is deafening.

[_DBMORMON]

Welcome to the board, Bill. Please be aware that your presence here will indicate to church leaders that you have taken a step on the road to apostasy. Good on you for "standing for something" at fair.

I comment on lots of forums and mediums. If this gets me flagged then they are slow to the game

[_DBMORMON]

to present I have never felt that Church headquarters has told my local leaders anything. Until that changes I am left only to assume that are not trying to reign me in.

Indeed, you have said many times that stake presidents and general authorities have endorsed you, or encouraged your business, correct? You've appeared at youth conferences, firesides and provided training for high councils, at least what what you've indicated as such in the past, right?

Your business is a podcast, firesides and training, if I'm not oversimplifying, correct?

And, you teach a sort of universalism, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you assert that since everybody will receive baptism in the end and males receive the priesthood, and be sealed, then the LDS Church need not be the single route to salvation?

And, of course, you teach a particular kind of grace which seems to conflict with traditional or orthodoxy in Mormonism? How would you characterize that teaching?

[Again, my interest in all this is as a commentator on LDS social media. I take no position here or any similar place as to whether your views are "wrong" or "right," or the church's views are "wrong" or "right".]

Bob,
my charitable organization expresses itself in many forms. Yes Podcasts, firesides, conversations by phone and email to those struggling, etc....

I have appeared at firesides, youth conferences and other meetings outside of the official church as well. All at the invitation of members and leaders of those areas and never with me first making an offer.

I try to help members nuance their faith so as to withstand problematic issues when they learn of them. The Mormonism I believe and share is backed up by quotes from prophets seers and revelators

The grace I share is similar to that of Brad Wilcox, Robert Millet, and Adam Miller, and President Uchtdorf

Correct the Lds Church provides the ordinances which are necessary but also which all will receive. So all go through the gate of the Church but people need not see Mormonism as the (only, best, more effective) route to salvation.

[Guest]

DB Mormon, (a.k.a. Bill)

Is there any chance that you would make "The Unreal World of Handshakes and Swords" available? I would love to read it. You were willing to quote from it (And I wish John hadn't interrupted you so that you would have), so I'm hopeful that you might make it available.

I listened to your podcast, here. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... awn-sword/

I would also be interested in how anyone could believe that Joseph could still be a legitimate prophet that speaks for God after implementing a "revelation" from an evil angel? For example, let's say that Joseph did get S132 from "the Devil". How could he continue on in his calling without repenting and making it known that he did? Would God sanction giving him further "revelations" when his "prophet" really couldn't be trusted to speak only for him?

It seems that instead of looking at this historically, you are inventing an ad hoc argument to explain it away. But doesn't this leave Joseph in a far worse position? How then, can you trust that anything that came from Joseph was from God?

How did Joseph Smith know that Hiram Page's "peepstone revelations" were from Satan?

If Lucifer appeared to Joseph, was it as an "angel of light"?

Why didn't Peter, James and John come and rescue Joseph, if they did so with Adam?

How was Lehi "deceived" in 1 Nephi 8? He followed a guy in a "white robe" to a desolate place. How though, was he deceived? Did the person tell Lehi that he was from God? Did he give him instructions to do something that God didn't want him to do? Was God making a point with Lehi about the Dark and Dreary place? (In other words, you can be stuck here like your sons will be, but simply pray and I'll help you). I don't really see this as Lehi being "deceived" about anything. Also, this was a dream, not reality. He didn't in real life, then go and implement commands from "the Devil".

You seem to be putting a lot more into the text than is there. Was this someone posing as an "angel of light"? Lehi doesn't say. It could easily be (in my mind) a messenger making a point to Lehi about what was in store for his sons. You say that Lehi "went off the path", but did he? Was he even on a path at that point? The text doesn't say. It jumps right into the dream or "vision" where this person in white appears before him and leads him to this desolate place. A vision is something that you are SHOWN. Did Lehi actually consciously follow him? Or was this a metaphor of the choices he could make?

One way of seeing this is to look at Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream that Lucy Smith recorded that he had years prior to this time:

Soon after arriving here, my husband received another very singular vision, which I will relate:

"I thought," said he, "I was travelling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, "What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?" My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, "This is the desolate world; but travel on." The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, "Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in there at."

This helps us to interpret what happened to Lehi. It wasn't an Evil Angel leading him astray, it was his "guide" or a messenger, who was showing him the evil world.

So how can one "hold onto Joseph as a prophet"? The problem with quoting Brigham Young and his views on the Bible (which he also claimed were filled with "baby stories") is that Brigham Young specifically recognized S132 as a VALID "revelation". You are therefore misapplying Brigham Young here. I totally agree with your take on Adam God. It was also touted by Young as a "revelation", even Joseph's "revelation".

You are mistaken in your quote about a prophet only being a prophet when acting as such. Mormon "prophets" have never admitted to making mistakes doctrinally. (Except for the anomalous letter by McConkie to Eugene England) Brigham Young first said that if he taught false doctrine, God would take him, the "Saints" would immediately be able to detect it, and that it could not thrive in the Church. None of this happened with polygamy. (It is still upheld as doctrine from God). Even Dallin Oaks at Boise recently said that "there are no errors in the teachings", in doctrine that comes from the President and the Twelve, something that Joseph affirmed, as did Brigham Young and all the rest.

In 1860 Brigham Young said that he wouldn't give the "ashes of a rye straw" for all the written works (standard works) without the "living oracles". They always trump the Standard Works. Always. Your argument about the Standard works is a presentist ad hoc argument concocted in the wake of the Adam God doctrine.

Brigham Young never contradicted himself. That desperate letter by McConkie to Eugene England is filled with contradictions and falsehoods. Brigham Young didn't contradict himself on the Godhead, he simply did not teach Adam God openly all the time and made ambiguous statements about the Godhead at times because some had problems with Adam God, which he classed as a "mystery".

McConkie is the only GA that I know of that has ever said that "the Lord" permits false doctrine to be taught in the Church by the "Authorities" of the Church. His remarkable contortion of the Bible to arrive at that conjecture is astounding. Of course he quotes the King James Version, which has mistranslated the passage. Instead of the word heresy, it should be translated division:

“Heresies - Margin, "Sects." Greek Αἱρεσεις Haireseis see the note at Acts 24:14. The words "heresy" and "heresies" occur only in these places, and in Galatians 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1. The Greek word occurs also in Acts 5:17 (translated "sect"); Acts 15:5; Acts 24:5; Acts 26:5; Acts 28:22, in all which places it denotes, and is translated, "sect." We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some "doctrine" the holding of which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in Galatians 5:20, where, however, the word "contentions" or "divisions," would be quite as much in accordance with the connection. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or "sects," as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations:

(1) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.

(2) it is the sense which the connection here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of "irregularity" in "conduct;" and the first thing which he mentions, is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to "doctrines" would by no means suit the connection, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must he expected that there would be "fundamental errors of doctrine" in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner. The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected: there are causes for it; and it cannot he avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not."(Barnes Notes on the Bible)

This excuse by McConkie is nonsense, especially in the light of the passage from the Book of Mormon that he quotes, that all who teach false doctrine ‘shall be thrust down to hell’. He then states: “This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals.” Why he fails to include Young is this is astounding. Either McConkie clearly does not understand why Young would teach true and false doctrine, or he has chosen to ignore the fact that many Mormon leaders have done so in the past. He also states, “Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.” Perhaps McConkie was not familiar with this story Young once related (which I'll just quote here):

“Joseph once told me to go to his own house to attend a meeting with him. He said that he would not go without me. I went and Hyrum preached upon the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, and said we must take them as our guide alone. He preached very lengthy until he nearly wearied the people out. When he closed, Joseph told me to get up. I did so. I took the books and piled them all up on top of each other. I then said that I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of anything else. When I got through, Hyrum got up and made a confession for not including the living oracles.” (WWJ, January 27, 1860)

To apply this to polygamy (McConkies rantings to England) condemns Mormon "prophets" as much as D&C 132 does. And you then have to have real proof that the story about an angel appearing to Smith to egg him on into polygamy was contemporary with Joseph's life. There is absolutely no credible evidence that it was something that Joseph actually claimed in his lifetime.

The only reason that McConkie and Fielding Smith were "comfortable" with having Young teach true and false doctrine, is that it is the only excuse they can come up with to try and explain away Adam God. It is a pathetic attempt. There is absolutely no teaching, no precedent, no evidence that Joseph taught that any of HIS "revelations" came from, or could come from "the devil", or for that matter Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, or any others. (There is the Kingston "revelation", but that is taking Whitmer's word, which I'm not prepared to do in that case, since he lied about other things constantly).

McConkie and Fielding Smith were simply making crap up. This is the guy (McConkie) who said "Forget everything we said" about racism, it was all wrong and we didn't know what the hell we were talking about when it came to the Priesthood Ban. These are all ad hoc explanations made well after the fact to try and mitigate the damage of Mormon "prophets" never being consistent, never being able to show true prophetic bona fides, and getting just about everything wrong when it came to speaking of future events, doctrine, or anything else.

DBMormon (a.k.a. Bill), I think you are a great person. I think you are likable and interesting. But this line of thinking is flawed. It is flawed historically, doctrinally and won't help. You have latched on to a desperate treatise of illogic on McConkie's part as a lynchpin of your argument.

On the flip side, Brian Hales is his own McConkie. Full of made up BS. He is a hypocrite, a bad historian when it comes to interpreting the evidence, and doesn't understand anything about polygamy. What Mormons need to do is abandon the idea of these men being "prophets, seers and revelators". They aren't and never were. The proof is right here with polygamy, the racist priesthood ban, Adam God, the "gathering", Redemption of Zion, Smith's failed prophecies about the Second Coming and lots more.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Bob,
my charitable organization expresses itself in many forms. Yes Podcasts, firesides, conversations by phone and email to those struggling, etc....

I have appeared at firesides, youth conferences and other meetings outside of the official church as well. All at the invitation of members and leaders of those areas and never with me first making an offer.

I try to help members nuance their faith so as to withstand problematic issues when they learn of them. The Mormonism I believe and share is backed up by quotes from prophets seers and revelators

The grace I share is similar to that of Brad Wilcox, Robert Millet, and Adam Miller, and President Uchtdorf

Correct the Lds Church provides the ordinances which are necessary but also which all will receive. So all go through the gate of the Church but people need not see Mormonism as the (only, best, more effective) route to salvation.

Any comment upon your prior claim that you have the endorsement of general authorities and stake presidents?

What does it mean to "nuance their faith?" This is jargon you use all the time, but what does that mean? Still have faith that President Monson is a prophet but dispute that he has ever received a revelation? Is that a "nuance"?

You realize, don't you, that I've cited Wilcox and Millet to you where they say things contrary to your perception of them, and you've never responded. I guess that is for another day.

I look forward to discussing more of what you believe here rather than having you run to the moderators to shut me up.

[_consiglieri]

Brian said a lot of negative things and only a few were mentioned. Other than that I think I have said all that I want to.

Brian has always given me the impression of an Energizer Bunny.

The kind that will gnaw you off at the ankles if you turn away for a moment.

[_consiglieri]

What does it mean to "nuance their faith?" This is jargon you use all the time, but what does that mean? Still have faith that President Monson is a prophet but dispute that he has ever received a revelation? Is that a "nuance"?

No, that's just the truth.

Or do you have a counter-example of a revelation President Monson has ever claimed?

[_Kishkumen]

What does it mean to "nuance their faith?" This is jargon you use all the time, but what does that mean? Still have faith that President Monson is a prophet but dispute that he has ever received a revelation? Is that a "nuance"?

No, that's just the truth.

Or do you have a counter-example of a revelation President Monson has ever claimed?

Indeed.