Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bede

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

Recommended Posts

14 hours 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?

 

 

 

12 hours 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.

From the examples offered from his facebook, it sounds like he exaggerates.  Hopefully his readers realize that his claims are full of hyperbole.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The problem is with respect to the terms being used.  Can a scholar prove that Mormonism is "true" using the tools of the academy?  No, and none of the reputable scholars who've devoted their lives to these topics would make such a claim.  So in that sense, Bill is correct to say that the church isn't true.  Using this same standard the church also isn't "false".   

Your defense of Bill falls flat by your standard though. Bill didn't say the Church isn't true. He said "Mormonism is a false high demand fundamentalist religion." You yourself said the Church isn't false, but here is Bill saying it is. He is saying it is a false religion. It's an unsupportable attack, which Bede found offensive, as do I. So what do posters do? They call her a troll. While Bill didn't come to this site to call the Church of Jesus Christ false, the fact is he is still trolling on the internet. I find it even worse that he appears to have two faces. One he presents here as kinder, more amiable Bill, and the other he reserves as his true face for the rest of the world. I don't know Bill, but my opinion of him is fallen as a result of this. I am glad Bede is pointing it out for us what his true face is.

Quote

The church isn't true or false.  It is a religious tradition, with a rich history, but it the questions of true or false from a scholarly perspective, don't apply to Mormonism any better than they apply to a political party or a government or a special interest group or an institution of higher learning.  None of those groups are "true" or "false" either.  Those are the wrong questions to apply.   

I believe the Church is true in the sense that it does have Christ at the head. Does that mean the Church is perfect? No. Indeed, it is not. It is no more perfect than any prophet of history (besides Yeshua) has been perfect. However, if Christ came to you and said "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is my sanctioned Church whom I lead and correct" would you call it His true Church?  In that sense I believe it is the true Church. It doesn't mean I believe everything every Church leader has said is 100% accurate, but it is the Church He restored. That is the sense the members or at least I use the term the true Restored Church. I have never claimed her to be perfect, but she sort of stumbles along in the right direction at least - enough to point me in the way I need to go.  Yeshua said "I will lead you along." That doesn't mean we follow perfectly. It means we are led. So I follow the spiritual truths I see. I can't objectively prove the Church is true like a scientific experiment, but that doesn't mean it is not spiritually true. It certainly doesn't mean it is "False" as Bill claimed. Bill has lost any cred as an independent source of information in my mind - I think the truth is he is trolling here to gain audience with the spiritually troubled and line his pocketbook. That is ultimately what it boils down to. You tell it like you see it. He has two faces - one that comes here and brings up controversial subjects, and another that goes elsewhere and says I am a member of a false religion. Where does he claim other Christian sects are false? So, I won't feed the troll.

Edited by RevTestament
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Come on Duncan....now you're calling him an liar?

More personal attacks?  This really isn't like you, Duncan (from what I've seen on here).

If he bothers you this much maybe just ignore him.  Threads like this one just give him more attention and most likely cause more to seek him out and read his blog.

I've probably called him worse! I don't recall but I am hardly afraid of him so I won't put him on ignore.  I think Church history and theology deserve better

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Quote

 "You only get what you know to be so" - same goes for you. But my understanding of Mormonism is expansive and I am well read and I have explored every nook and cranny knowing inside and out the faithful view and the critical view. I know the history deeply. I know the reasons the faithful reasoning fails when it comes to the facts. The faithful view falls apart at every turn. Again simply avoid claiming to know what I believe. You are welcome to believe Mormonism, but honor that I don't. My ground is that it is complete BS. And I know Mormonism is BS. I am 100% certain - That is "what I know" 



 

Quote

"But let me be clear. 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. In fact I am so sure the evidence clearly demonstrates that, that I encourage everyone to look into the church’s history and wrestle with it. Mormonism is a false high demand fundamentalist religion."



 

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."

 

These are the three quotes that are used to formulate this thread.

# 1 "I have looked in every nook and cranny and I know the history deeply"  No claim of knowing everything and I think such is generally true in terms of my grasp of Mormonism

#2  I know Mormonism is false.  That is my knowledge as much as anyone here claims to know it is true.  It is not a statement of absolute truth but rather in context of the entire Facebook post a statement to the person I am talking to that my truth is different than theirs.  Which on its own acknowledges the limits of one personally "knowing"

# 3   I believe 99% of the data points that point to Mormonism not being true are not shared with general membership.  Even when the Church discusses the sticky issues it avoids balancing the argument and avoids the details that will most strongly influence a member to lose belief.

#4  I am 100% sure the Church isn't true.  In the same way that some people here are 100% sure the Church is true.  That's my ground  I needed the person I was speaking to to grasp that their view of what I know doesn't match the ground of what I actually know.


#5 I know Mormonism's history more deeply than all the members of my Sandusky ward in Ohio.  I think they themselves would acknowledge this if they were asked.  While such could be tested.  We could for example create a complex test of historical data points and have the entire ward answer them (fill in the blank)  and any member who gets the right answer that question is marked correct.  And it is juxtaposed against my answers.  The ward is full of good people.   But very few of them have stretched beyond the Church's curriculum and correlated material.  And those who have have done so in very limited ways.  I suspect My arrogant statement here actually holds up as true.  and hence perhaps not arrogant at all.   In the membership of that ward.  I am the history expert on Mormonism.


Lastly, never did I claim to know everything.  (every pioneer journal, every tangent statement, etc...) but a strawman is so much easier than steelman.  And as I said even in other instances where I approach this language (knowing almost everything) we ought to sense the polemist in me who uses exaggeration intentionally to make a valid point.
 

Edited by DBMormon

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Duncan said:

I've probably called him worse! I don't recall but I am hardly afraid of him so I won't put him on ignore.  I think Church history and theology deserve better

Then discuss it with him....he seems willing to do that.

And I hope you know I don't believe you're "afraid of him".  It just seems odd to see so many personally attack him (which is against board rules) rather than just engage and discuss the issues with him.  When one has to resort to insults and attacks, it certainly weakens their argument, IMO.  You're usually above that too from what I've seen.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours 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.

 

We've talked about that quote before on the board and DB acknowledged it was correct if I remember right, so that's probably why no one asked for a reference.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've talked about that quote before on the board and DB acknowledged it was correct if I remember right, so that's probably why no one asked for a reference.

So was Bede referring to a different quote when he said this...

Quote

      11 hours ago, Bede said:

I posted that while on my phone and didn’t get the quote right. Let’s not quibble over it

Maybe I'm confused but it sounds to me like he got something wrong.

Regardless, does it seem normal for a person to take a quote from someone's Facebook page to start a discussion here about why it's wrong?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Bill rocks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours 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.

 

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

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.

 

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

This is pretty common unfortunately. 

 

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.)

 

Please see my correction/edit on post #6 (in green). It does not affect my position as stated in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've talked about that quote before on the board and DB acknowledged it was correct if I remember right, so that's probably why no one asked for a reference.

If that’s true (and it wasn’t an inaccurate quote, but the actual quote).  Do we need to discuss it once again and do members here need to personally attack Bill for his beliefs and opinions?

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Bede said:

Please see my correction/edit on post #6 (in green). It does not affect my position as stated in the OP.

Bill has every right to believe the church isn’t true just as we have every right to believe it is.  You made just as definite statements about “knowing” things as he did.

Why do you have a right to do that but he’s a liar or wrong to do that?

What is your reason for starting a thread like this one?

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Bede said:

Please see my correction/edit on post #6 (in green). It does not affect my position as stated in the OP.

So what in that quote do you want to discuss?  Or did you post just to make this personal against Bill?  As others have stated, this has been discussed, but do you have something different regarding the quote that you feel is important to discuss?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, DBMormon said:



 



 

 

These are the three quotes that are used to formulate this thread.

# 1 "I have looked in every nook and cranny and I know the history deeply"  No claim of knowing everything and I think such is generally true in terms of my grasp of Mormonism

#2  I know Mormonism is false.  That is my knowledge as much as anyone here claims to know it is true.  It is not a statement of absolute truth but rather in context of the entire Facebook post a statement to the person I am talking to that my truth is different than theirs.  Which on its own acknowledges the limits of one personally "knowing"

# 3   I believe 99% of the data points that point to Mormonism not being true are not shared with general membership.  Even when the Church discusses the sticky issues it avoids balancing the argument and avoids the details that will most strongly influence a member to lose belief.

#4  I am 100% sure the Church isn't true.  In the same way that some people here are 100% sure the Church is true.  That's my ground  I needed the person I was speaking to to grasp that their view of what I know doesn't match the ground of what I actually know.


#5 I know Mormonism's history more deeply than all the members of my Sandusky ward in Ohio.  I think they themselves would acknowledge this if they were asked.  While such could be tested.  We could for example create a complex test of historical data points and have the entire ward answer them (fill in the blank)  and any member who gets the right answer that question is marked correct.  And it is juxtaposed against my answers.  The ward is full of good people.   But very few of them have stretched beyond the Church's curriculum and correlated material.  And those who have have done so in very limited ways.  I suspect My arrogant statement here actually holds up as true.  and hence perhaps not arrogant at all.   In the membership of that ward.  I am the history expert on Mormonism.


Lastly, never did I claim to know everything.  (every pioneer journal, every tangent statement, etc...) but a strawman is so much easier than steelman.  And as I said even in other instances where I approach this language (knowing almost everything) we ought to sense the polemist in me who uses exaggeration intentionally to make a valid point.
 

no, no, no, false , false false, false. First off there was one quote used to formulate this thread,not three, but thanks for providing them and you didn't use by the way

1) you said, "No claim of knowing everything and I think such is generally true in terms of my grasp of Mormonism" but you literally just said, "I know the history deeply"??? So you know the history deeply but also you don't know everything? How do you figure that?

2)I know Mormonism is false but then you say it's not an absolute statement? do you know what these words mean or?

3) Your first two sentences conflict with each other, 99% of the members don't know "data points" that the Church isn't true (whatever that even means) but then it's supposedly shared with the membership? how can you have both? is it shared or isn't it? How did you get these "data points" that aren't shared with the general membership? who shared them with you and why? do you have secret writings that we don't know about?

4) Please see number 2

5) You know but yet at the same time you don't know, elsewise why ask for a poll???? Way to throw them under the bus.

You have claimed to know everything as provided by my earlier statement on the July FB post and you literally just said you have looked into "every nook and cranny"

it's thinking like this that the Church deserves better

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

no, no, no, false , false false, false. First off there was one quote used to formulate this thread,not three, but thanks for providing them and you didn't use by the way

1) you said, "No claim of knowing everything and I think such is generally true in terms of my grasp of Mormonism" but you literally just said, "I know the history deeply"??? So you know the history deeply but also you don't know everything? How do you figure that?

2)I know Mormonism is false but then you say it's not an absolute statement? do you know what these words mean or?

3) Your first two sentences conflict with each other, 99% of the members don't know "data points" that the Church isn't true (whatever that even means) but then it's supposedly shared with the membership? how can you have both? is it shared or isn't it? How did you get these "data points" that aren't shared with the general membership? who shared them with you and why? do you have secret writings that we don't know about?

4) Please see number 2

5) You know but yet at the same time you don't know, elsewise why ask for a poll???? Way to throw them under the bus.

You have claimed to know everything as provided by my earlier statement on the July FB post and you literally just said you have looked into "every nook and cranny"

it's thinking like this that the Church deserves better

Duncan- You're acting hysterical. This is nuts.

1- Do you legitimately not understand how someone can simultaneously claim to know things "deeply" while admitting they don't know "everything"?  This seems like grade school logic.

2- He "knows" Mormonism is false. That's his testimony. That's his belief. He's not stating that his belief is absolute truth. Again, this is pretty simple stuff.

3- Too bored to respond.

Bill is not speaking for or representing the church, so your statement about "the church deserves better" doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that average guys like you and I don't have a right to share our opinions and beliefs about the church?

If you go back and read again, I think you'll find that Bill didn't claim to know "everything". He claimed to know the issues. Not exactly the same thing is it?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This strikes me as a trolling post, looking to provoke Bill and others.

Let's recap- you are super upset that Bill is so certain that the church is NOT true and you emphatically state "Bill, this is such an insufferably arrogant thing to claim, and it’s not true. "

Bill made a bold statement. You made a bold statement. I think everyone recognizes that Bill is stating his opinion based on what he believes, as are you. Big deal. Why are you so offended by Bill? He's a guy on the internet with a podcast and website. Why do you care?

You illustrate your bias by simply appealing to authority while mocking Bill. Is there some reason why a "pawn shop manager" can't be knowledgeable about the church, doctrine, history, etc? Are university professors always the best and understanding truth? Why should I listen to them? I'll also note that there are plenty of professors who would side with Bill. If we tally all of the professors who side with Bill versus all of the professors that side with you, who would win? No one, because it's still a matter of personal belief and faith.

Your trolling and mockery is unappealing. I'm sure you'll find people who agree with you, but your methods aren't going to lead anyone to Christ or the church. In fact, I think your tactics have the opposite effect.

Trolling is usually meant to upset multiple people (casting multiple fishing lines into the sea). This is a discussion post regarding something a member of this form said publicly on his Facebook page.

You are oversimplifying what I have said in order to reduce it to absurdity. Let me put your mind at ease:

 

Quote

Let's recap- you are super upset that Bill is so certain that the church is NOT true and you emphatically state "Bill, this is such an insufferably arrogant thing to claim, and it’s not true. "

I think you should read the OP again. What I said was "not true" was that 

Quote

@DBMormon I have read and studied every problematic issue in Mormonism (99% of which is not shared with general membership)

1) Bill has not studied *every* problematic issue in Mormonism

2) It is not true that 99% of problematic issues are not shared with general membership.

Quote

Bill made a bold statement. You made a bold statement. I think everyone recognizes that Bill is stating his opinion based on what he believes, as are you. Big deal. Why are you so offended by Bill? He's a guy on the internet with a podcast and website. Why do you care?

I care because the truth matters, HappyJackWagon.

Quote

You illustrate your bias by simply appealing to authority while mocking Bill. Is there some reason why a "pawn shop manager" can't be knowledgeable about the church, doctrine, history, etc? Are university professors always the best and understanding truth? Why should I listen to them? I'll also note that there are plenty of professors who would side with Bill. If we tally all of the professors who side with Bill versus all of the professors that side with you, who would win? No one, because it's still a matter of personal belief and faith.

A pawn shop manager can certainly be knowledgeable about church history and doctrine. That isn't what I was disputing. I think you should more carefully read the OP.

Quote

@DBMormon 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.  In fact I am so sure the evidence clearly demonstrates that, that I encourage everyone to look into the church’s history and wrestle with it.

What I object to is Bill claiming to be 100% absolutely certain about his claim while there are many who are far more knowledgeable than Bill yet remain believers. Why is Bill, a layperson, the expert on Mormonism with 100% accuracy?

Quote

Your trolling and mockery is unappealing. I'm sure you'll find people who agree with you, but your methods aren't going to lead anyone to Christ or the church. In fact, I think your tactics have the opposite effect.

Thanks, but the truth matters to me.

 

 

Edited by Bede
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Duncan- You're acting hysterical. This is nuts.

1- Do you legitimately not understand how someone can simultaneously claim to know things "deeply" while admitting they don't know "everything"?  This seems like grade school logic.

2- He "knows" Mormonism is false. That's his testimony. That's his belief. He's not stating that his belief is absolute truth. Again, this is pretty simple stuff.

3- Too bored to respond.

Bill is not speaking for or representing the church, so your statement about "the church deserves better" doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that average guys like you and I don't have a right to share our opinions and beliefs about the church?

If you go back and read again, I think you'll find that Bill didn't claim to know "everything". He claimed to know the issues. Not exactly the same thing is it?

 

1) No, I don't know how he can make that claim which is why it's dumb, dumb, dumb. He claims to know everything (every "nook and cranny" and deeply yet he literally just said otherwise. So odd he argues against himself, don't you think?

2) If that is true then he has to be open to the idea that he could be wrong, if what he knows isn't the absolute truth then what lies outside his vast knowledge could be the truth but he can't or won't access it for some reason? again so much for his claim of "every nook and cranny"

3) so I am right, we'll move on

We are free to share our opinions but I take people seriously who have well considered opinions and not some chuck the schmuck who makes these nonsense claims and expects people to listen to him and pay him money(see below) for his effort to make it up

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/subscribe-to-access-premium-episodes/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If that’s true (and it wasn’t an inaccurate quote, but the actual quote).  Do we need to discuss it once again and do members here need to personally attack Bill for his beliefs and opinions?

Discussing the accuracy of beliefs and opinions is not a personal attack - it's basically what is done on this site 24/7. I haven't seen a personal attack on Bill yet. I've called him a troll, but that is a term which describes something he is doing, which I find to be accurate. I have seen no personal insults or character assassination. If something said is inaccurate, Bill is, I am sure, going to point it out. i haven't yet seen him disavow the quote: "Mormonism is a false high demand fundamentalist religion." 

  • Like 4

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...