Question To F.A.I.R. Members About Participation At F.A.I.R.

[Bob Crockett]

I would quit relying on FAIR if Bro. Reel became one of its members. Nothing personal; I don't know you as a person. But you're way off to the left on some of the things you write about. Populist talks are not authority for doctrine. As much as I like Millet and Wilcox, I don't cite them as authoritative as they are not persuasive.

The "doctrine of Christ" isn't how you have defined it.

Rather, man cannot be saved by grace alone; as the Lord lives, he must keep the commandments; he must work the works of righteousness; he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord; he must have faith like the ancients—the faith that brings with it gifts and signs and miracles.

Just sayin.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

If Brother Reel became a member of FAIR, he would have to abide by the same standards as everyone else in his replies or any work he did. It is a collective endeavour...no one goes off on their own without some oversight in their responses.

Edited November 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I am a fan of FAIR. I don't believe anything that is said about its "tone." I've never seen confrontational tone. And, it is even-handed to the extent one can be defending Church doctrine and history. But it needs rather even-handed persons to run it, rather than those who get upset and demand apologies at every turn.

Normally I wouldn't weigh in on a thread like this but Bro. Reel's story here is rather unusual. I waver between thinking he is a put-up job to embarrass the church, and that his posts are meant to bring out people like me who would cast aspersions about his technical competency in forming posts, and on the other hand thinking that he is legitimate and legitimately struggles with his testimony. Based upon his webcast with Dehlin, I think it the latter. Therefore I don't think it right for a bishop to admit his struggles and purport to speak to doctrine at the same time.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

I am a fan of FAIR. I don't believe anything that is said about its "tone." I've never seen confrontational tone. And, it is even-handed to the extent one can be defending Church doctrine and history. But it needs rather even-handed persons to run it, rather than those who get upset and demand apologies at every turn.

Normally I wouldn't weigh in on a thread like this but Bro. Reel's story here is rather unusual. I waver between thinking he is a put-up job to embarrass the church, and that his posts are meant to bring out people like me who would cast aspersions about this technical competency is forming posts, and on the other hand thinking that he is legitimate and legitimately struggles with this testimony. Based upon his webcast with Dehlin, I think it the latter. Therefore I don't think it right for a bishop to admit his struggles and purport to speak to doctrine at the same time.

I have to disagree. The church is very much a Christ centered church now. Try asking any missionary if we believe we will be Gods and see what they say. Whether you want to believe it or not it is joining mainstream slowly but surely in regards to the Grace issue.

[Calm]

I have to disagree. The church is very much a Christ centered church now. Try asking any missionary if we believe we will be Gods and see what they say. Whether you want to believe it or not it is joining mainstream slowly but surely in regards to the Grace issue.

What has that got to do with Brother Crockett's concerns about a bishop admitting his struggles and attempting to teach what is doctrine at the same time?

[Bob Crockett]

What has that got to do with Brother Crockett's concerns about a bishop admitting his struggles and attempting to teach what is doctrine at the same time?

This does really trouble me. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. I mean, I made posts in the past on this board when I was serving as bishop and I purported to make statements about Church doctrine. But I didn't haul out my bishop card to do so.

And, there are things about Christian and LDS doctrine that need my focused attention and devotion; things I could understand better. But I didn't haul out my bishop card and say I was having a crisis of faith.

Seems that if one is a bishop in the Church, one has an obligation to be loyal to it in all respects, or one should resign. Just like being a CEO of Apple. It wouldn't be right for the CEO to be disloyal in the public marketplace of ideas.

For these reasons, Bro. Reel's various postings and public appearances cause me some heartburn as an ordinary member who also disagrees with his interpretation of grace. But, again, my objections are rather vague, aren't they?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Bob, Your post is truly offensive.... ouch

You miss the boat on several inquiries.

#1 An Apostle, member of the Seventy, and my stake president are intimately aware of my situation, my previous faith crisis, and my questioning previously on certain aspects. All know I was/am serving as Bishop and all have empathized while having continued to encourage me to serve. None have said it was innapropriate to relate my faith crisis and none have been so strong in condemning me as you have. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't it seem strange that your outside of the realm of what those in Church leadership feel and have said?

By the way if I had to and was called upon, I could produce overwhelming evidence to the facts I have stated.

#2 Your judgement of me seems to lack mercy and seems to disregard just how difficult and painful a real faith crisis is. Until one can truly relate to that hurt and pain, one is unable to build the relationship with those who struggle and get to a place where one will hear answers, even good ones.

#3 I have only mentioned being a Bishop on here when others called my purpose into question. When I was accused of being a anti-mormon troll. Otherwise you will not find me mentioning it at all except in cases where like here you have brought it up.

#4 Yes- I am a Bishop, Yes - I had a faith Crisis, Yes - I expressed that pain at times in a way that could have been taken as offensive, though it was simply my hurt and feelings of betrayal showing through

#5 Brad Wilcox's view of Grace recently was a feature article in one of the church's offcial magazines (New Era) and at least from the Church's view has some weight.

#6 My view of the Doctrine of Christ does not exclude our effort or keeping commandments but rather their purpose and role.

Go to BYUspeeches online and you will find that Wilcox's talk is the most viewed this year. Robert Millet is no outsider in the church.

You seem to disparage anyone who disagrees with you, Whether that person is a nonmember or a member. Whether their views seem to be the accepted view currently in the church or not. That seems like dangerous ground to be on. You may want to take a step back and realize you are placing yourself as an outsider by holding onto false presumptions (about me, Brad Wilcox, Robert Millet, Other Leaders confidence in me when you hold so little)

My hand of Friendship is extended but I have deserved a sincere apology from you for some time.

Bill

Edited November 28, 2012 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

#1 An Apostle, member of the Seventy, and my stake president are intimately aware of my situation, my previous faith crisis, and my questioning previously on certain aspects.

That doesn't make my discomfort about your "hauling out the bishop card" any less.

#2 Your judgement of me seems to lack mercy and seems to disregard just how difficult and painful a real faith crisis is. Until one can truly relate to that hurt and pain, one is unable to build the relationship with those who struggle and get to a place where one will hear answers, even good ones.

I judge your posts. I don't judge you.

#3 I have only mentioned being a Bishop on here when others called my purpose into question. When I was accused of being a anti-mormon troll. Otherwise you will not find me mentioning it at all except in cases where like here you have brought it up.

I very strongly disagree. Your entire basis for gaining an interview with Dehlin was the "bishop card." You wear that card on your breast pocket like a missionary to give your posts and your podcasts more authority. That troubles me.

#5 Brad Wilcox's view of Grace recently was a feature article in one of the church's offcial magazines (New Era) and at least from the Church's view has some weight.

Not much. At least the way you explain it, you're off. See my quote above.

#6 My view of the Doctrine of Christ does not exclude our effort or keeping commandments but rather their purpose and role.

Go to BYUspeeches online and you will find that Wilcox's talk is the most viewed this year. Robert Millet is no outsider in the church.

Neither Millet nor Wilcox are adequate authority for doctrinal citation, particularly since Elder McConkie took to task a similar author/speaker. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

You seem to disparage anyone who disagrees with you, Whether that person is a nonmember or a member.

I'd say that if you come in here to challenge church doctrine that you ought to be able to withstand some criticism. Offering opinions, criticisms, and being criticized comes with the territory on a board like this. As long as the criticisms or defenses don't get personal, like "you're fat" or excuse my typos because of "fat fingers," to me there isn't much wrong with polite criticism. My criticisms of your posts are, in large part, direct and polite.

You may want to take a step back and realize you are placing yourself as an outsider by holding onto false presumptions (about me, Brad Wilcox, Robert Millet, Other Leaders confidence in me when you hold so little)

I am glad that other leaders have confidence in you. But, you see, by that comment you're hauling out the bishop card to put some sort of imprimatur upon your posts. You're not in Church here; you're on a public board to discuss, defend and criticize Mormon doctrine. Your status as having the confidence of your leaders should play no role in that discourse.

My hand of Friendship is extended but I have deserved a sincere apology from you for some time.

That does bug me when posters demand apologies. I did that once at your demand and I just can't do it again

My advice is rather simple. You seem like a good guy. I got that from your interview with Dehlin. Before I listened to that, I thought you were not sincere. But you are sincere. But you don't need this board, or an affiliation with FAIR, to rubber-stamp your good guy status. I appreciate many of the points you have made in the past. But please don't take it as a personal affront that I think you have the doctrine of Christ wrong.

BC

[DBMormon]

That doesn't make my discomfort about your "hauling out the bishop card" any less.

Please Provide references. Please provide outside the Dehlin Interview (which is not directly connected to this board), and the first time when I was being called a troll and please show where I pulled out my bishop card? CFR

I judge your posts. I don't judge you.

you seem to do both. You seem drawn to contend with me more then others... something about me personally bothers you. Don't hide behind saying it is my post. Just admit, you clash with me

I very strongly disagree. Your entire basis for gaining an interview with Dehlin was the "bishop card." You wear that card on your breast pocket like a missionary to give your posts and your podcasts more authority. That troubles me.

My Podcasts do not mention that I am a Bishop, other then the Dehlin Interview as far as I can recall. Please - CFR I am unaware that my other podcast mention this. So the burden of proof is on you since you claim so.

Not much. At least the way you explain it, you're off. See my quote above.

So the articles in Church Magazines hold less weight then your personal view?

Neither Millet nor Wilcox are adequate authority for doctrinal citation, particularly since Elder McConkie took to task a similar author/speaker. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

Who can argue with that? Your welcome to your view. I too have one which I will hold as well. And the cool thing is, we can both have our own view without getting into trouble with the church as both have evidence of being firmly rooted in the scriptures and commentary of Church Leaders and Official publications of the church. I won't be excommunicated or discplined for my view and neither will you for yours, it is an interesting conversation and debate, but no reason to draw lines in the sand

I'd say that if you come in here to challenge church doctrine that you ought to be able to withstand some criticism. Offering opinions, criticisms, and being criticized comes with the territory on a board like this. As long as the criticisms or defenses don't get personal, like "you're fat" or excuse my typos because of "fat fingers," to me there isn't much wrong with polite criticism. My criticisms of your posts are, in large part, direct and polite.

First I don't challenge Church Doctrine when it comes to Grace... I challenge your personal view and that of others on Grace. You say you are in large polite. I have had many polite disagreements on here with others. Yours have a different tone.

I am glad that other leaders have confidence in you. But, you see, by that comment you're hauling out the bishop card to put some sort of imprimatur upon your posts. You're not in Church here; you're on a public board to discuss, defend and criticize Mormon doctrine. Your status as having the confidence of your leaders should play no role in that discourse.

When you make personal comments about me needing to resign or should resign as a Bishop. You changed the tone. It does play a role when you call it into question. You brought up my being a bishop... I didn't.

Was it fair for you to suggest I should resign when all levels of leadership have said otherwise? Do you not see how mean spirited that suggestion is. Are you able to acknowledge that was inappropriate?

That does bug me when posters demand apologies. I did that once at your demand and I just can't do it again

My advice is rather simple. You seem like a good guy. I got that from your interview with Dehlin. Before I listened to that, I thought you were not sincere. But you are sincere. But you don't need this board, or an affiliation with FAIR, to rubber-stamp your good guy status. I appreciate many of the points you have made in the past. But please don't take it as a personal affront that I think you have the doctrine of Christ wrong.

BC

suggesting to me to resign as a Bishop was a personal affront. Do you not see that? You make personal attacks. Then say... "how dare you be offended I am only discussing your opinions, can't you take it"

Call a spade a spade

Edited November 28, 2012 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

I have never told you to resign. Why would you care what I think, somebody who lives in California? I'm a complete nobody.

Don't take things so personally. I don't. Nor should you.

This is my position on grace, which seems to conflict with yours. I quote from above. "Rather, man cannot be saved by grace alone; as the Lord lives, he must keep the commandments; he must work the works of righteousness; he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord; he must have faith like the ancients—the faith that brings with it gifts and signs and miracles." Wouldn't you agree?

[DBMormon]

Bob,

#1 I asked for CFR on two items. Any chance you can provide those.

#2 you say you didn't ask me to resign but you said

Seems that if one is a bishop in the Church, one has an obligation to be loyal to it in all respects, or one should resign. Just like being a CEO of Apple. It wouldn't be right for the CEO to be disloyal in the public marketplace of ideas.

For these reasons, Bro. Reel's various postings and public appearances cause me some heartburn as an ordinary member who also disagrees with his interpretation of grace. But, again, my objections are rather vague, aren't they?

What Bishop are you inferring here? What other Bishops have we talked about? Was this a fairytale scenario based not one iota on me? hmmmmmm. Strange isn't it? Why even discuss how a Bishop should resign if he isn't loyal and then say your not insinuating I am disloyal or that I should resign?

You address and explain these two honestly and openly and Then I will be happy to address your question in your previous post.

[Bob Crockett]

You address and explain these two honestly and openly and Then I will be happy to address your question in your previous post.

I don't find it constructive to respond to somebody who issues CFRs about their own posts. If you deny claiming to be a bishop as a means to make your posts more authoritative, then who am I to oppose? I'll take your word for it.

If you don't want to respond further to me, then fine.

But, back to the original thread and the purpose for this thread, and I don't speak for FAIR, I don't think your posts indicate a fitness for duty. (Nor would mine for that matter.)

That's it, for now. Peace, brother. Don't take offense that not everybody finds your posts immune to critique. Ciao.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Bob,

You claim I pull out my Bishop Card and then tout doctrine or state I am in a faith Crisis. Your exact words

I mean, I made posts in the past on this board when I was serving as bishop and I purported to make statements about Church doctrine. But I didn't haul out my bishop card to do so.

And, there are things about Christian and LDS doctrine that need my focused attention and devotion; things I could understand better. But I didn't haul out my bishop card and say I was having a crisis of faith.

So Please CFR where I hauled out my Bishop card and then followed by making authoritative statements? Also please show where announced my office first and then stated I was in a faith Crisis?

I have done neither - In my Dehlin Interview, I stated I was a Bishop, and then went great lengths to state the Prophet and apostles are in charge of receiving Doctrinal revelation and we can choose to follow or rebel but we can't make the rules.

Also I staed I was in faith crisis first, and then when others assumed the worst about me, I revealed my calling so as to put an end to the disparaging and incorrect assumptions. I never mentioned again unless asked.

Edited November 28, 2012 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Your multiple part faith crisis stuff in or around April of this year. You talked about a being bishop [multiple times], having a faith crisis, advanced objections you had to the way the church was doing things, and made doctrinal pronouncements.

To find those threads, do a "search content" under your own name.

One of the posters in your very long self-aggrandizement thread in Dehlin's website speculated that the Church would yank you for that stuff. I'm not the only one with raised concerns. But the Lord calls whom He calls for His purposes, and if I were in your ward I'd support you 100%. From what I hear you're a great local leader; just here I question your judgment. I mean, here I am commenting upon how you haul out your bishop card to make your posts be more authoritative, which you deny, but then in a post above you say that an apostle, seventy and stake president are behind you and support you as a bishop. Can't you see the inconsistency and the questionable nature of such a boast? How persuasive would it be if I revealed to you my prior church callings and relationship with apostles and general authorities who entrust me with responsibility (theoretically speaking)? Or would you find it persuasive if I told you that I've had a general church assignment in the past? (Theoretically speaking.) I'd hope you'd say -- not at all.

I am no more authortative or qualified to speak about LDS doctrine than you. But I object, I really do, to using the trappings of power as a means to build yourself up. Your posts don't need that. Supposedly, the priesthood is about brotherhood, not power over another.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Bob,

I agree that I talked about being Bishop multiple times. It was in an effort to let the folks who painted me as a troll, know "hey guys, your wrong about who you think I am, I am not what your saying. I am a real Latter-Day Saint who is having a hard time" There was no other way to get through to them, and even after saying I was a Bishop, the mistrust continued for what some would still be present day.

One of the posters in your very long self-aggrandizement thread in Dehlin's website

- Why say that? I didn't ask Dehlin for an interview. He asked me. I emailed him to ask him to not be so negative. He in our back and forth dialogue asked if I would do an interview. My purpose was to show those struggling that there is no reason they can't make it through their dark night and still have faith. Loads of people are leaving, and it doesn't have to be. You paint me with a broad brush.

Do you not see that I mention the apostle, seventy, and SP because you insinuated I should resign and I am simply telling you that those who have authority over me are well aware and have taken a different approach then your judgement on me? I know your a lawyer, and I assume a good one. But this isn't a courtroom. So please consider losing the way in which you formulate your arguments to be personal and to rouse up emotion.

I have never said I am right about my view of Grace because I am a Bishop and yet you insinuate that by saying

How would you feel if I said, well Bro. Reel, I think my position about your grace is fundamentally incorrect because I am a stake president?

When did I say your position about grace is wrong because I am Bishop? CFR. When and where did I use my office to say your view of Grace was wrong? CFR

Again you take one's words and rearrange them to fit some paradigm that allows you to castigate me acting out of line. You seem very competent at setting up strawmen when it comes to painting me in the worst light.

- saying I announced my office first, then told folks I was in Faith Crisis (it was the other way around)

- Saying your view of Grace was wrong becasue I was a Bishop and that made me right. (never did that)

- state in my podcasts that I am a Bishop (Other then Dehlin interview, I am unaware of having stated such in any of my other podcasts)

- you claim that I state on this discussion board that I am a Bishop often. your quote -

You wear that card (of being a bishop) on your breast pocket like a missionary to give your posts and your podcasts (notice plural) more authority.

(untrue. I have only discussed it when asked or accused regarding it. The only time I brought it up first, was in the original faith crisis thread and that was so that some might stop accusing me of being a troll and take my faith crisis seriously.

In all of our conversations, you dismiss my questions and throw out more absurd accusations as it progresses. So far I have pointed out multiple times you misrepresent the truth and create false assumptions...... Let's address those before you throw out any more

At what point do you have to at least acknowledge you go out of your way to make me appear way worse then what I actually am responsible for on my own?

This has become personal.