Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bede

Bill Reel (DBMormon) “I know everything...)

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Bede said:

@DBMormon in a recent Facebook post you tell a story about a former ward member who contacted you and claimed that you “both know the truth.” While I agree with you that claiming to know what someone else believes is insensitive, your response is, in my opinion, ridiculous. 

 

 

Bill, this is such an insufferably arrogant thing to claim, and it’s not true. 

But even if it were, many people have read, studied, and even dedicated their lives to the academic study or Mormonism—in other words, far exceeding your “vast” Quinn and Vogel book collection—and yet still remain believers. 

So here is where people like you usually make excuses “well, they aren’t really believers.” That, of course, is the same arrogant take you attribute to your friend, claiming to know what others believe.

So how do you reconcile this? A pawn shop  manager who has read a bunch of Quinn and Vogel books and becomes an unbeliever vs. university professors and scholars who have dedicated their lives to these topics and still remain believers?

 

 

Nothing would change their minds, I agree there are those members.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, JulieM said:

For him, it’s true because that’s what he believes.  It’s pretty much the same as when anyone says they know the church is true.  

Neither can really know.  So you’re kind of doing the same thing he’s doing.

I think it’s best to acknowledge and respect other’s faith and beliefs, but refrain from making such absolute statements (which was done by Reel in your quotes and then by you with what you state about him.) 

The whole comment about “99%” of the material he has read being unavailable to members is untrue. In fact, @DBMormon is probably aware of that, so it’s therefore a deliberately deceptive thing to say.

 

Edit: This is the misquote, which is not misquoted in the OP. Bill actually said 99% of the material is not shared with the general membership. 

The OP contains a direct quote and that is the topic of this thread.

Edited by Bede
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Bede said:

The whole comment about “99%” of the material he has read being unavailable to members is untrue. In fact, @DBMormon is probably aware of that, so it’s therefore a deliberately deceptive thing to say.

don´t know all the details of these comments, but I just want to point out that there is a significant difference between saying ¨99% of which is not shared with general membership¨ and saying ¨99% of which is unavailable to members¨. Perhaps in other comments he indicated that he meant the latter just as much as the former.  But otherwise, I think it is important to treat what he does say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

don´t know all the details of these comments, but I just want to point out that there is a significant difference between saying ¨99% of which is not shared with general membership¨ and saying ¨99% of which is unavailable to members¨. Perhaps in other comments he indicated that he meant the latter just as much as the former.  But otherwise, I think it is important to treat what he does say.

No, there is no difference in what he's saying. Not sharing something is the same thing as saying it's unavailable. I am not sharing my VHS copy of Weird Al's 1989 classic movie "UHF" with anyone is the same thing as saying it's unavailable. Besides of which how did he get access to this secret information? What makes him so special and who is giving it to him and not 99% of members access to these documents and books that we've never heard of? It's a ludicrous claim he's making.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

don´t know all the details of these comments, but I just want to point out that there is a significant difference between saying ¨99% of which is not shared with general membership¨ and saying ¨99% of which is unavailable to members¨. Perhaps in other comments he indicated that he meant the latter just as much as the former.  But otherwise, I think it is important to treat what he does say.

I suppose it depends upon what "shared with general membership" means. I'd be the first to admit the Church until recently is putting out its best case with the assumption people have a testimony that needs strengthened. I'm glad they're shifting, although even the recent Saints book doesn't give all the information. However my sense is that critics of the Church who have lost their testimony think that the only thing that ought be out is the worst case portrayal. Which (IMO) is equally misleading. 

That said, there are plenty of things out there these days with all the history. So I think things are all available these days and honestly hard to avoid given the activities of critics online.

Where things are pretty misleading though is the presumption that the falsity of the church is obvious to those aware of these things. It clearly isn't as probably the vast majority of people writing here are well aware of all these issues.

1 hour ago, mapman said:

He is saying that he is absolutely sure that a religion is "false." He sounds like a fundamentalist to me. Plenty of members and ex-mormons are fundamentalists, they just latch on to different simplistic worldviews.

This is pretty common unfortunately. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

For him, it’s true because that’s what he believes.  It’s pretty much the same as when anyone says they know the church is true.  

Neither can really know.  So you’re kind of doing the same thing he’s doing.

I think it’s best to acknowledge and respect other’s faith and beliefs, but refrain from making such absolute statements (which was done by Reel in your quotes and then by you with what you state about him.) 

A big rep point here!!

My ministering home teachers came by today and stayed nearly 2 hours and during that time they tried to convince my husband and I to come back to church. We're not against it, but they went on about the truthfulness of the church and that it's led by real living prophets.

I love them both dearly, they were an answer to my heart prayer because I was definitely wanting to hear in person someone out there that knew the history, and he being a CES teacher at LDS Business College teaching church history, I felt I hit the jack pot!

I finally just mentioned that I don't need the temple ordinances because I really want to just be an angel. Then I mentioned that I feel that the kingdom of God is inside of me, thanks MFBukowski! 

I'm not afraid to attend and would like to take the sacrament, since that was what they felt we were missing out on. But what makes LDS so sure that they have the truth or the authority. And then I brought up that it would only be 1 percent of the world that has it then. Why would God even do that? Segregate that many people? 

Anyway, I like what you say here JulieM, we should all agree to disagree on what is truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Nothing would change their minds, I agree there are those members.

Tacenda,

It is not that the data COULDN’T change my mind.  Instead, it is a degree of consistency that I bring to this question that Bill Reel IMO just refuses to do.

As I have been fond of saying Bill said, “If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

It does not matter if Bill believes that folks who want to marry someone of the same sex are right and the church is wrong.  Joseph Smith was not that type of genius. To believe such was possible is to be ignorant of genius or of Joseph Smith.  And yet Bill’s emotions are the straw that broke the camels back.  This is not reason.  This is not “I have read and studied every problematic issue in Mormonism (99% of which is not shared with general membership) and I am 100% absolutely certain Mormonism is not true.”  This is emotionalism pure and simple.  C.S. Lewis warned us against it.

Bill’s statement well illustrates why I am at PRECISELY the same place he once was.  I hope to strengthen the feeble knees.  I hope this because the only BIG unsolved problem for LDS truth claims (the origins of the Book of Abraham) cannot overcome the existence of the Book of Mormon.

I was once happy I was not a California LDS because I didn’t want to feel the need to choose how fervently I would deal with Prop 8.  The issue on that day long ago was something I would have decided differently without the Church, but it was still not a simple issue.  If Bill thinks it is as simple as loving one another, he is not informed on this issue and probably much less informed in other areas than he beliefs himself to be.

Charity, TOm

Edited by TOmNossor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

For him, it’s true because that’s what he believes.  It’s pretty much the same as when anyone says they know the church is true.  

Neither can really know.  So you’re kind of doing the same thing he’s doing.

I think it’s best to acknowledge and respect other’s faith and beliefs, but refrain from making such absolute statements (which was done by Reel in your quotes and then by you with what you state about him.) 

To the extent you really mean Bill Reel's position is a "faith in things unseen" I agree.

But Bill Reel is trying to claim he has a position based on EVIDENCE that is 100% certain.  He is wrong IMO.  The evidence that he once used to "strengthen the feeble knees" is the same as it was before.  He claims that due to his certainty concerning the morality of same sex marriage and the hurt the church "causes" folks who might enter same sex marriage.  The certainty he describes is pure emotionalism.

Charity, TOm

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bede said:

........................... 

But even if it were, many people have read, studied, and even dedicated their lives to the academic study or Mormonism—in other words, far exceeding your “vast” Quinn and Vogel book collection—and yet still remain believers. 

So here is where people like you usually make excuses “well, they aren’t really believers.” That, of course, is the same arrogant take you attribute to your friend, claiming to know what others believe.

So how do you reconcile this? A pawn shop  manager who has read a bunch of Quinn and Vogel books and becomes an unbeliever vs. university professors and scholars who have dedicated their lives to these topics and still remain believers?

Surely Bill has acquired more than just a collection of books by Dan Vogel and Mike Quinn, but to no avail..  Indeed, Bill has held forth on this board many times over the years, making it apparent to all that he was far from omniscient on things Mormon.  What is ironic is that Mike Quinn, an excommunicant, still has a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon.  Moreover, when Quinn writes about the LDS Church and the Brethren, he tells the truth about them.  Why can't Bill Reel do that?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that only really matters if that is the only copy of UHF  available to anyone.  If the information is available through other sources, even if one person does not share, the experience of watching UHF is still available  through others.

Given the work of the Church History Dept, I highly doubt he is close to correct on his claims, nor do I find it necessary for a Church to be publishing information that is sourced from antagonists as some early history sources are.  So I am not disagreeing on the general criticism of Reel's claims, just saying I disagree in this specific that saying the Church isn't sharing means it is unavailable.  This would only be true in the cases itis the sole source.

I posted that while on my phone and didn’t get the quote right. Let’s not quibble over it: yes Bill actually said that 99% of the secret stuff he knows is not shared with the general membership.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bede said:

I posted that while on my phone and didn’t get the quote right. Let’s not quibble over it: yes Bill actually said that 99% of the secret stuff he knows is not shared with the general membership.

and we know that it isn't true that he knows all the alleged secrets or 99% of them. He needs to keep up this lie to have an audience elsewise who would listen to him? he has no special stick with no carrott at the end, he doesn't know anything more than anyone else, in fact he knows less. He's smoke and mirrors

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JulieM said:

For him, it’s true because that’s what he believes.  It’s pretty much the same as when anyone says they know the church is true.  

Neither can really know.  So you’re kind of doing the same thing he’s doing.

I think it’s best to acknowledge and respect other’s faith and beliefs, but refrain from making such absolute statements (which was done by Reel in your quotes and then by you with what you state about him.) 

I disagree. Anyone who has received a revelation from the Father can know for themselves that it's true.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I disagree. Anyone who has received a revelation from the Father can know for themselves that it's true.

IF they have received an actual revelation from the Ultimate, sure. But that is begging the question. Rather, one believes that they have received revelation and thus believes that they know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am disinclined to speak about Bill or what he may or may not have said elsewhere, that is until he comes here and speaks for himself.

However, I have found that as a general rule, those who resort to flesh and blood history as a means for determining spiritual truths, fail to grasp the critical principle in Mt. 16:17.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

IF they have received an actual revelation from the Ultimate, sure. But that is begging the question. Rather, one believes that they have received revelation and thus believes that they know.

Your statement is fair. The Church has often preached about the still small voice and I would never disagree with that.  But there are other ways of getting a witness and when they occur they are beyond any doubt.  I have never been struck blind as Paul was on the road to Damascus but have experienced physical things within my body.  Once I was performing a Priesthood duty and was doing it in anger at a person that was not even present.  It was like a huge hand reached inside of my torso and started gently squeezing.   I knew right away that I needed to listen carefully and then as clear as anything you can describe in the realm of sound a voice said "You will not do this in anger".  I replied Yea Lord I will not do this in anger and the squeezing stopped.  So when someone says they have had a witness it can be difficult indeed to tell the depth.  Some run so deep that to go against them one would risk being  mentally unwell.

Edited by Metis_LDS
spelling & grammar
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

A couple of observations.

If this sort of criticism were being made of anyone within the church the OP would be required to substantiate the OP as something Bill had actually said with a reference that could be verified.

Given the incredible amount of material there is covering Mormonism, it is not possible, in my opinion to  "read and study every problematic issue in Mormonism" any more than I think it is possible to claim, as Elder Corbridge did recently in reference to material antagonistic to Mormonism, that "There may not be anything out there of that nature that I haven't read."

Link to Elder Corbridge Talk.

Rep point again! As mentioned in a post above, my ministering couple came by today and asked both my husband and I what questions we had for him to find an answer. I told him something that may sound very close to Bill's, that I thought I'd seen everything to discuss. But today I thought of Joseph Smith's plagiarism of his Bible translation. I doubt he knows how to answer to that one. But this information is a year old, maybe the church has some. It's like every year or so, a new item pops up. Never a dull moment in the LDS world. So Bill can't say 99 percent, with new things coming up all the time, lol. ETA: Here is Bill interviewing Haley Lemon, one of the researchers of the JST plagiarism at BYU. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/05/haley-lemmon-joseph-smith-translation-revelation-plagiarism/

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bede said:

I posted that while on my phone and didn’t get the quote right. Let’s not quibble over it: yes Bill actually said that 99% of the secret stuff he knows is not shared with the general membership.

That does make a difference.  If someone quoted a church leader and didn’t get it right, I think many would “quibble over it”.

Also, I think he’s right if he’s talking about the past, but it’s changing which is good.  But so many members still don’t know about or haven’t read the essays even.  And, just try to bring up Joseph’s polygamy!  Then there’s polyandry.  So many have no idea what that even means.

So Bill does have a point and you should correct the opening post to make it’s accurate, IMO.   (Just make sure what you’re claiming he said, is what he really did say.)

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

I am disinclined to speak about Bill or what he may or may not have said elsewhere, that is until he comes here and speaks for himself.

I agree, Wade.  He probably will come and post.  I know I’d want to speak for myself rather than be misquoted and judged (if that’s happened).

I may or may not agree with him (I often don’t agree with him), but I would like to wait and hear from him.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

sort of criticism were being made of anyone within the church the OP would be required to substantiate the OP as something Bill had actually said with a reference that could be verified.

I didn't ask because I think we have already discussed it here at least once, but perhaps I am confusing it with other comments made.

I could have sworn Duncan started a thread on the same comment.  If he hasn't mentioned it yet, I will try and find it.

add-on:  it was when Duncan posted the quote from above back in Nov, possibly before as well.  It was the repeat of  using a claim of 99% that triggered the deja vu....wonder how often Reel gives numbered 'facts' like that which can't even be quantified most likely in reality.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71271-bill-reel-invited-to-disciplinary-council/?do=findComment&comment=1209869840

----

must have been a dream...vision of the future maybe since this occurred on the 27th and I am thinking of something said long enough ago, I can't remember timing.... ;)

here is the current claim:

https://www.facebook.com/bill.reel.7/posts/10218775739727059

Warning:  language, not much, but in case you prefer to choose

Given he is saying he knows what others in his ward know well enough to judge that he knows more than all combined...by his own standard, that is toxic and abusive (claiming to know what someone doesn't know is equivalent to claiming what they know, imo)

Quote

How much about Mormonism do I know? I know the history more deeply than the entire sandusky ward added up. So while I may be wrong, I am the expert in the room on the data. And I am certain I have arrived at the correct answer.

Again simply refrain from claiming to know what is inside anothers head, as to do so is abusive and toxic."

I wonder if he polled the ward members for the level of their knowledge?  In my previous wards, a few women knew of my interest in the Old Testament, but I never talked Church history in depth with anyone that I recall and no one ever asked me except a couple of missionaries we had grown close to.  My shelves of books were not where anyone from the ward except my son's friends who went into the basement to play computer games would have seen them. And they probably paid more attention to the sci-fi.  Only my last bishop had a clue because he knew about FairMormon when I asked him about posting info on the conference.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...