Mormon Discussion podcast and negativity

[readstoomuch]

I used to listen to Bill and even defended him here a few times.  I look at his podcasts once in awhile and his posts show up on my Facebook feed occasionally.  I really enjoyed some of his podcasts early on.  Then about two years ago, they became more negative. That seems to have continued.  Then he shows up on my Facebook feed and there isn`t any thing except nitpicking the General Authorities, the Church didn`t do enough of this or that, and a number of other foibles.  Who is posting on his Facebook comments?  Well, I recognized Michael Tweedy from his days at MormonThink.  Then there is John Dehlin.  95% of it is negative, IMO.  

I`m having a hard time finding any thing positive or uplifting about his work.  Ldsperspectives manages to talk frankly and still find ways to make me think and enjoy being Lds.  Bill has read plenty, I can see that.  He can come across as an expert, but his mind seems made up about his opinions.  I also understand that there are people who are troubled and looking for help.  I just don`t think I could find myself sending people to his site or podcasts.  My reading of Facebook comments to his posts puts the toxicity a step below MormonStories.  Most of the comments seem like they could come from people who left any religion or organization.  I thought he was getting on track with a message I could support, but not now.  

I know the history, I read myself.  I was just called as a member of the bishopric.  For three weeks, I have been ministering to those in my ward.  When I teach I am frank.  I have had no pressure about teaching real history.  My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.  That is what I really feel like being Lds is about, not minutiae about church history.  I even find real history  more faith promoting when I do bring it up.  Mostly we are a ward family and are trying to lift one another burdens.  

Sorry Bill.  This is all my opinion, so take it for what its worth.  Could`t hold it in any more.  

Discuss the podcast not the person. Title has been modified.

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.  That is what I really feel like being Lds is about, not minutiae about church history.

This.

If one wants to know what 'Mormonism' is, s/he doesn't have to go back to the partial and contestable past. The artefact is in our midst. Handle it and see.

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I used to listen to Bill and even defended him here a few times.  I look at his podcasts once in awhile and his posts show up on my Facebook feed occasionally.  I really enjoyed some of his podcasts early on.  Then about two years ago, they became more negative. That seems to have continued.  Then he shows up on my Facebook feed and there isn`t any thing except nitpicking the General Authorities, the Church didn`t do enough of this or that, and a number of other foibles.  Who is posting on his Facebook comments?  Well, I recognized Michael Tweedy from his days at MormonThink.  Then there is John Dehlin.  95% of it is negative, IMO.  

I`m having a hard time finding any thing positive or uplifting about his work.  Ldsperspectives manages to talk frankly and still find ways to make me think and enjoy being Lds.  Bill has read plenty, I can see that.  He can come across as an expert, but his mind seems made up about his opinions.  I also understand that there are people who are troubled and looking for help.  I just don`t think I could find myself sending people to his site or podcasts.  My reading of Facebook comments to his posts puts the toxicity a step below MormonStories.  Most of the comments seem like they could come from people who left any religion or organization.  I thought he was getting on track with a message I could support, but not now.  

I know the history, I read myself.  I was just called as a member of the bishopric.  For three weeks, I have been ministering to those in my ward.  When I teach I am frank.  I have had no pressure about teaching real history.  My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.  That is what I really feel like being Lds is about, not minutiae about church history.  I even find real history  more faith promoting when I do bring it up.  Mostly we are a ward family and are trying to lift one another burdens.  

Sorry Bill.  This is all my opinion, so take it for what its worth.  Could`t hold it in any more.  

I agree most of your viewpoints......This guy amazes me , he is a very nice guy, no question about it....but I cannot recognize him from one week to other....Is he the same guy when he talks in such faith filled hour and next time his tongue is as sharp and critical.... 

[Kenngo1969]

Anyone is entitled to his own opinions.  If he has a forum and a following, he's entitled to disseminate them: More power to him (and to his following).  I think, though, that, to borrow and to slightly alter a quote from Peter Parker's sage Uncle Ben, "With a great following comes great responsibility."  (Speaking generally, and not necessarily specifically about Brother Reel, I wonder how many people realize that, and how seriously they take that obligation if they do.) 

There's this, from Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Chapter 27.  (This is not a specific indictment of anyone: With regard to anyone else, his standing before God is between him and God.  If the shoe fits ...)

Quote

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives” [End note omitted].

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I used to listen to Bill and even defended him here a few times.  I look at his podcasts once in awhile and his posts show up on my Facebook feed occasionally.  I really enjoyed some of his podcasts early on.  Then about two years ago, they became more negative. That seems to have continued.  Then he shows up on my Facebook feed and there isn`t any thing except nitpicking the General Authorities, the Church didn`t do enough of this or that, and a number of other foibles.  Who is posting on his Facebook comments?  Well, I recognized Michael Tweedy from his days at MormonThink.  Then there is John Dehlin.  95% of it is negative, IMO.  

I`m having a hard time finding any thing positive or uplifting about his work.  Ldsperspectives manages to talk frankly and still find ways to make me think and enjoy being Lds.  Bill has read plenty, I can see that.  He can come across as an expert, but his mind seems made up about his opinions.  I also understand that there are people who are troubled and looking for help.  I just don`t think I could find myself sending people to his site or podcasts.  My reading of Facebook comments to his posts puts the toxicity a step below MormonStories.  Most of the comments seem like they could come from people who left any religion or organization.  I thought he was getting on track with a message I could support, but not now.  

I know the history, I read myself.  I was just called as a member of the bishopric.  For three weeks, I have been ministering to those in my ward.  When I teach I am frank.  I have had no pressure about teaching real history.  My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.  That is what I really feel like being Lds is about, not minutiae about church history.  I even find real history  more faith promoting when I do bring it up.  Mostly we are a ward family and are trying to lift one another burdens.  

Sorry Bill.  This is all my opinion, so take it for what its worth.  Could`t hold it in any more.  

I have no problem with negative criticism, as long as it is fair and balanced, and I don't care who or what is being criticized.  The late Hugh Nibley was ferocious in his social critique of the LDS community, and of the pretend scholarship of most CES employees -- some of whom were clearly declaring that "all is well in Zion," when the facts were otherwise.

The proper venue for such intellectual discussion is not in ward and stake meetings, where there are very few scholars anyhow, but rather within academic institutions, and in the various symposia and academic books & journals which specialize in such discussion.  Blogs such as this one are also appropriate, as long as they are well-managed and transparent.

What should be taking place within regular ward and stake meetings is the active and frequent use of the LDS Gospel Topics Essays -- as recommended by Apostle M. Russell Ballard during a CES meeting in 2016 (Ballard, "Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers in the 21st Century," Salt Lake Tabernacle, Feb 26, 2016, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGO8R_HDbo ).  Meantime, the content and thrust of those Essays is being incorporated into LDS Church instructional materials.

[RevTestament]

I am basically of the opinion when men begin to criticize, if they obtain a following, it becomes very tempting to maintain a difference with an institution they are criticizing. That sets them apart from that institution, and gives them a cause to pursue. That makes them a "leader" that the following look to in order to address the issues, but it also gives them a motivation to continue to come up with new criticisms in order to maintain their image as a "leader." The motivation is only bigger when money starts flowing in. That reinforces the idea of approval and justification in expanding their "movement." 

I believe the Church has justification in considering such people to be (possible) apostates.

I don't consider myself to be a critic of the Church. I have criticized various teachings of various church leaders, not all of which the Church holds up as doctrine. And I certainly don't make criticism my business. I try to make it a point to support the Church when I bring up some criticism. Other great Church scholars such as Hugh Nibley also had some criticisms, but he for instance was a great defender of the Church. If the Church reaches the point where it tries to squelch all criticism concerning it, I think that would be a day of great alarm. Then it will be following the path of the great and abominable Church. The Church should focus on being a light on a hill espousing the truths of the restored gospel, rather than concerning itself with squelching all dissent - as should its followers. When a "follower" becomes all about criticism, I think that follower has left the fold. Not all criticism is evil, but once someone starts down that road, it seems easy for them to become egotistical and gain a spirit of our Adversary. Have faith that the principles of truth will overcome the adversary in the end, and that the Lord will give His followers the victory. 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I used to listen to Bill and even defended him here a few times.  I look at his podcasts once in awhile and his posts show up on my Facebook feed occasionally.  I really enjoyed some of his podcasts early on.  Then about two years ago, they became more negative. That seems to have continued.  Then he shows up on my Facebook feed and there isn`t any thing except nitpicking the General Authorities, the Church didn`t do enough of this or that, and a number of other foibles.  Who is posting on his Facebook comments?  Well, I recognized Michael Tweedy from his days at MormonThink.  Then there is John Dehlin.  95% of it is negative, IMO.  

I`m having a hard time finding any thing positive or uplifting about his work.  Ldsperspectives manages to talk frankly and still find ways to make me think and enjoy being Lds.  Bill has read plenty, I can see that.  He can come across as an expert, but his mind seems made up about his opinions.  I also understand that there are people who are troubled and looking for help.  I just don`t think I could find myself sending people to his site or podcasts.  My reading of Facebook comments to his posts puts the toxicity a step below MormonStories.  Most of the comments seem like they could come from people who left any religion or organization.  I thought he was getting on track with a message I could support, but not now.  

I know the history, I read myself.  I was just called as a member of the bishopric.  For three weeks, I have been ministering to those in my ward.  When I teach I am frank.  I have had no pressure about teaching real history.  My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.  That is what I really feel like being Lds is about, not minutiae about church history.  I even find real history  more faith promoting when I do bring it up.  Mostly we are a ward family and are trying to lift one another burdens.  

Sorry Bill.  This is all my opinion, so take it for what its worth.  Could`t hold it in any more.  

Its really tough to see people as too negative or not, in my view.  I don't know why I simply don't measure people on whether they are negative or positive.  So what you describe doesn't really resonate with me.  I think he raises interesting points.  I don't use facebook so I'm sure I'm missing quite a bit. 

Anyway, I notice what often happens in some of this, calling someone something--defining someone else--often poisons the well.  He still on occasion posts here.  It's probably good not to do this.  I don't really like it.  if you don't appreciate Bill's contributions then don't listen, but I don't see a reason to start a thread to discuss his personal level of faithfulness, or negativity. 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I used to listen to Bill and even defended him here a few times.  I look at his podcasts once in awhile and his posts show up on my Facebook feed occasionally.  I really enjoyed some of his podcasts early on.  Then about two years ago, they became more negative. That seems to have continued.  Then he shows up on my Facebook feed and there isn`t any thing except nitpicking the General Authorities, the Church didn`t do enough of this or that, and a number of other foibles.  Who is posting on his Facebook comments?  Well, I recognized Michael Tweedy from his days at MormonThink.  Then there is John Dehlin.  95% of it is negative, IMO.  

I`m having a hard time finding any thing positive or uplifting about his work.  Ldsperspectives manages to talk frankly and still find ways to make me think and enjoy being Lds.  Bill has read plenty, I can see that.  He can come across as an expert, but his mind seems made up about his opinions.  I also understand that there are people who are troubled and looking for help.  I just don`t think I could find myself sending people to his site or podcasts.  My reading of Facebook comments to his posts puts the toxicity a step below MormonStories.  Most of the comments seem like they could come from people who left any religion or organization.  I thought he was getting on track with a message I could support, but not now.  

I know the history, I read myself.  I was just called as a member of the bishopric.  For three weeks, I have been ministering to those in my ward.  When I teach I am frank.  I have had no pressure about teaching real history.  My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.  That is what I really feel like being Lds is about, not minutiae about church history.  I even find real history  more faith promoting when I do bring it up.  Mostly we are a ward family and are trying to lift one another burdens.  

Sorry Bill.  This is all my opinion, so take it for what its worth.  Could`t hold it in any more.  

Maybe just unfollow him on Facebook if you don't care for his comments anymore?   

He is a poster here and I'm not sure it would be allowed to do this to other members on this forum (start a negative thread about them).  But I don't know.....it just seems a bit personal to me.  Maybe discuss one of his podcasts you may disagree with or want to discuss rather than making this so personal?

ETA:

Just looking at the board rules, it lists this as a banned behavior: 

Quote

Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)

So maybe discuss an opinion Bill has that you disagree with and not make this about him?  Just the title of this thread is pretty personal, IMO.

And, I should add that I don't follow Bill and haven't listened to any of his podcasts.  I'd feel this way about any thread that was started to personally discuss a board member in a negative manner.

Edited September 29, 2017 by ALarson

[FearlessFixxer]

*Full disclosure, I know Bill IRL.  I have lunch with him semi-regularly and I consider him a friend

 

I totally get why a believing member would be frustrated by Bill.  I would also like to point out that most exmormons, like myself, are equally frustrated.  From our perspective, I (as do many exmos) feel like if he recognizes so many issues with the church, just leave already!  Stop supporting the organization.  I often tell him in person that he needs to wake up and smell the coffee...get out!

But he genuinely thinks he can be a force for positive change.  And he does like and agree with many aspects of the church. So I guess he is doing what he feels is right.  For me, I would love to see him come to his senses and leave the church .

So there he stands...effectively frustrating everyone!

Edited September 29, 2017 by FearlessFixxer

[ksfisher]

9 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I know the history, I read myself.  I was just called as a member of the bishopric.  For three weeks, I have been ministering to those in my ward.  When I teach I am frank.  I have had no pressure about teaching real history. 

There is no such thing as "real history."  Everything is interpretation.  I'm sure that Bill also believes that what he is teaching is just as "real."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Maybe just unfollow him on Facebook if you don't care for his comments anymore?   

He is a poster here and I'm not sure it would be allowed to do this to other members on this forum (start a negative thread about them).  But I don't know.....it just seems a bit personal to me.  Maybe discuss one of his podcasts you may disagree with or want to discuss rather than making this so personal?

ETA:

Just looking at the board rules, it lists this as a banned behavior: 

So maybe discuss an opinion Bill has that you disagree with and not make this about him?  Just the title of this thread is pretty personal, IMO.

And, I should add that I don't follow Bill and haven't listened to any of his podcasts.  I'd feel this way about any thread that was started to personally discuss a board member in a negative manner.

Thanks, I agree, this thread is inappropriate and in violation of board rules.  

[CA Steve]

Funny how "real history" is debatable, unknowable or unimportant when it comes to the 19th century but we are certain of what happened between 600 BC to 400 AD in the Americas.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Funny how "real history" is debatable, unknowable or unimportant when it comes to the 19th century but we are certain of what happened between 600 BC to 400 AD in the Americas.

Funny how if this thread was about Dan Peterson...it would have been shut down by now.

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

My real goal is to bring others to Christ or to bring a small amount of Christ to people.

I believe that is Bill's goal as well.

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I agree, this thread is inappropriate and in violation of board rules.  

The thread is not discussing Bill Reel as a poster on this board, but Bill Reel's public persona.  It seems just as appropriate as a discussion about John Dehlin, Daniel Peterson, or Joseph Smith.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

*Full disclosure, I know Bill IRL.  I have lunch with him semi-regularly and I consider him a friend

I totally get why a believing member would be frustrated by Bill.  I would also like to point out that most exmormons, like myself, are equally frustrated.  From our perspective, I (as do many exmos) feel like if he recognizes so many issues with the church, just leave already!  Stop supporting the organization.  I often tell him in person that he needs to wake up and smell the coffee...get out!

But he genuinely thinks he can be a force for positive change.  And he does like and agree with many aspects of the church. So I guess he is doing what he fells is right.  For me, I would love to see him come to his senses and leave the church .

So there he stands...effectively frustrating everyone!

Thank you for your frankness.

ETA:  The late Sterling McMurrin also remained a member of the LDS Church, even though he did not believe that the Book of Mormon was authentic, etc.  He admired the unique and positive contributions of the Church to society at large.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

From Boyd Peterson on What I Learned About Life, Church and the Cosmos from Hugh Nibley:

Quote

Defend the Church

Hugh devoted much of his work to defending the Church, both responding to anti-Mormon attacks and providing pro-Mormon arguments. He had other opportunities to publish, opportunities that would have helped his career, established his reputation, and earned him notoriety. Instead he cultivated his own garden of apologetics. Some have dismissed that cause as beneath him. In fact, his own friends, Lucien Goldschmidt and Paul Springer, became his harshest critics, admonishing him “we see in you one of the few really first class minds of these muddled times voluntarily consigning itself to oblivion.” Hugh responded,

"of course you are right, but not all right. … Where fourteen or fifteen ineffectual Stubemenschen read my articles, hundreds of thousands have read Lehi in the form of a priesthood manual, and I get communications all the time telling how one way or another some of the stuff I have ground out has changed the life of this person or that and they are not all fools."¹¹

If You Disagree with Church Policy, Keep Quiet

There are several examples I could cite where Hugh disagreed with Church policy. But when he could not argue forcefully for the Church, he kept his mouth shut. During the debate over blacks and the priesthood, Hugh evidently disagreed with the policy. Nevertheless, he never voiced those beliefs until after the priesthood ban was lifted.¹² I once asked him about something that might be seen as heretical today but which was not in the nineteenth century, and he responded, “I never think about that.” Then he paused and restated, “Well, I think about it, but I never talk about it.” This may seem cowardly to some, but clearly Hugh was able to do more for the Church by remaining loyal and quiet; he would have lost that ability had he come out in open opposition to the Church’s position.

You Have to Earn the Right to Criticize

On cultural issues Hugh was never shy about speaking out. But he earned that right with his consistent and unwavering defense of the Church. I once read a book about marriage that I think is relevant to this topic. In Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, Dr. John Gottman argues that the single factor that can determine whether a marriage will survive is the ratio of praise to criticism. He found that in successful marriages there are at least five times as many positive messages as critical ones. I think this applies to our Church membership as well. In fact, Elder Maxwell once stated that Hugh’s “commitment [has been] so visible and so pronounced and so repetitively stated that that’s not even the issue. So then we can get on to what Hugh says.”¹³

Don’t Worry About Offending People with Your Opinions

When I sat in on Hugh’s class, he had an older student who invited him to tour the Koyle Dream Mine. I am confident that this student wanted Hugh to visit the mine and come away converted so that they could use his name to promote stock sales. Hugh consented to take the tour and asked me if I’d like to accompany him. I found it a fascinating experience, but Hugh was not at all impressed. And he voiced that opinion in front of our guests. I was a little bit startled. It seemed bad manners to be so direct. But as I reflected on it later, it would have been far worse for him to leave this person with the idea that he was impressed. They wanted his support, and probably would have taken lukewarm acceptance as praise. Hugh gave them nothing they could use; they knew exactly where he stood.

People Can Disagree and Still be Friends

While Hugh was very direct about voicing his opinions, he did not let disagreements get in the way of friendships. In fact, most of his closest relationships involved people whose beliefs contradicted his own rather violently. Paul Springer, his friend from his days at Berkeley, was politically far to the right of Hugh’s left-wing views; religiously more secular than Hugh’s deep Mormon views; and socially a womanizer and a bootlegger to Hugh’s morally “strait and narrow” views. While his friend Don Decker was far more tame than Springer, he was politically conservative and an unabashed military hawk. What Hugh found in these friendships was great conversation and a love for higher thought. He never bowed to “peer pressure”–everyone knew exactly where Hugh stood. Hugh would often chastise Springer for his shenanigans, but was also extremely supportive when Paul went through a messy divorce. Their friendship was loyal and long-standing.

Seems on point to me.

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2005/what-i-learned-about-life-the-church-and-the-cosmos-from-hugh-nibley

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The thread is not discussing Bill Reel as a poster on this board, but Bill Reel's public persona.  It seems just as appropriate as a discussion about John Dehlin, Daniel Peterson, or Joseph Smith.

So I could start a thread that's critical of Dan Peterson and that would be fine as long as I'm not discussing him as a poster here?  You think a thread like that wouldn't get locked?

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So I could start a thread that's critical of Dan Peterson and that would be fine as long as I'm not discussing him as a poster here?  You think a thread like that wouldn't get locked?

I went looking and couldn't find a comparable thread...stuff about Dan usually quotes something.  Everything .I saw was multiple pages of stuff.

I don't suppose you would like to try it to see what happens?

Or if you could find a similar one, that would be even better.

add-on:  I am assuming someone has reported the thread with this many comments on the appropriateness of locking it.  Otoh, it may not have been reported.  If you claim it would be locked for Dan but haven't reported it, you probably should just in case no one else has as I know some of those who talk about how a thread should be locked when question report they are not the reporting kind.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Calm

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So I could start a thread that's critical of Dan Peterson and that would be fine as long as I'm not discussing him as a poster here?  You think a thread like that wouldn't get locked?

I suppose it would depend on the tone and purpose of your thread.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I went looking and couldn't find a comparable thread...stuff about Dan usually quotes something. 

Which I think is following board rules (not making it personal or about the person).

And no thanks to starting a thread that's negative about Daniel Peterson.  I really do try hard to not make things personal.

[Avatar4321]

if he is too negative for you. Take him out of your life.

I'm not saying that to be mean. I've had friends I've had to remove myself from simply because they were so negative about various things. I still love them. And pray for them. But sometimes the negativity can have a bad influence on you.

Christ said that if our eye offends us pluck it out. If our hand offends us cut it off. If something has a bad influence on you, get it out of your life!

as you said, what is important is ministering and bringing people to Christ. moroni showed us the way to judge. We should follow his counsel.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Which I think is following board rules (not making it personal or about the person).

And no thanks to starting a thread that's negative about Daniel Peterson.  I really do try hard to not make things personal.

well, if anyone can come up with a contrasting thread that shows mods will not shut down thread like this one If about someone seen as more moderate or conservative, who has chosen to be a public figure, it would be more appropriate rather than just accusing mods based on opinion.  I think they deserve more given they are kind enough to provide this forum for us free of charge.

Have you reported the thread?  Has anyone?

It is permissible to discuss public figures and always has been. But the complaint should be about what the person is producing not only the person.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

if he is too negative for you. Take him out of your life.

I'm not saying that to be mean. I've had friends I've had to remove myself from simply because they were so negative about various things. I still love them. And pray for them. But sometimes the negativity can have a bad influence on you.

Christ said that if our eye offends us pluck it out. If our hand offends us cut it off. If something has a bad influence on you, get it out of your life!

as you said, what is important is ministering and bringing people to Christ. moroni showed us the way to judge. We should follow his counsel.

"Avoid loud and aggressive persons, for they are vexations to the spirit."

-- Max Ehrman, from "Desiderata"

[Avatar4321]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Avoid loud and aggressive persons, for they are vexations to the spirit."

-- Max Ehrman, from "Desiderata"

I can't avoid myself