Hamilton Porter, Mormonmaniac, And Pacman Build Rameumptons

[sethpayne]

Given the attention our friend Bill Reel has been getting lately I thought I'd explore another aspect of the issues being raised.  Namely, those who set themselves up to judge the hearts and intents of others.

 

Bill has been critisized for accepting money to fund his podcast.  Apparently this is priestcraft but buying a book from Deseret Book -- written by a GA -- is not.  Even though that money goes to support these GAs doing "good" and in many cases is the reason they can serve full-time.  

 

He's also been criticized for offering help to local leaders.  Well, I know of a couple of local leaders with whom I am friends who welcome any help they can get.  The reality is a lot of folks are struggling with the Church and leaders are trying their best to help.  And yet  Bill's attempt to help while defraying some costs is labeled as priestcraft and Mormonmaniac has even stated Bill is going to hell.

 

And yet, we have a really interesting thread going on about how to restructure a youth program.  I guess that since the board isn't charging the Church $2 for the recommendations makes this perfectly acceptable.

 

So I'd like to turn our eye on those who accuse Bill (falsely, IMO).  What gives them the right to condemn a fellow Latter-day Saint?  What scriptural basis do we have to justify the accusations leveled by anonymous internet message board participants who have no stewardship over Bill?

 

Because it seems to me that if Bill's local leaders are happy with Bill's activities -- to criticize Bill is to undermine and second-guess his local leaders.

Edited August 7, 2015 by sethpayne

[Kenngo1969]

If you're going to accuse someone of building one, you might want at least to get the spelling right.  Personally, I would've gone with holy stand if I were unsure about that, myself.

 

As for you, Bill Reel, Scott Lloyd, or anyone else, I'll leave it to the Lord and to your local leaders to judge the welfare of your eternal souls, though I will say that directing traffic to, listening to, and reading blogs and podcasts is one thing: if I'm going to contribute money to someone, I better darn well figure out that we're on the same page (and/or that I can live with any ways we might not be on the same page) before doing so.

 

Cheers!

 

P.S.: You know, I was just thinking this morning about how the Lord is turning even the work of the Trey Parkers, the Matt Stones, and the Robert Lopezes of the world on its head to suit his own purposes (and, while your mileage may vary, I think most anyone who would be turned away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by such work probably isn't among the elect anyway, so, apart from having the same charity and concern as we're supposed to have for everyone why worry about them?  See here for some of my ruminations (scroll down to the August 7, 2015 update): 

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/laughing-at-mormons/

Edited August 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[sethpayne]

If you're going to accuse someone of building one, you might want at least to get the spelling right.  Personally, I would've gone with holy stand if I were unsure about that, myself.

 

 

Oh Snap!!!

 

Now that I've been demoted from contributor I don't think I can change my thread title.  Any mod love to help me out???

Edited August 7, 2015 by sethpayne

[Tacenda]

It's a conundrum, especially when the church leaders have done the same thing by bringing up the issues now with the church essays.  And by reading some people's stories, it has damaged testimonies.  Bill is just the net for fall out from that truth.  Hopefully if he changes his mind and doesn't want to be that net, he'll move on and not become publically anti LDS, but it's a free country.  Also, I know Bill is pro-gay & pro-feminism, maybe that's what is bugging people the most when he brings those topics up as well.     

 

To go on about my first point, I believe the blame is correlation and not teaching history as it really was enough, emphasize enough.  So that there are a couple of generations that don't really know their own church's history.  But I understand that some of the older leaders in the church were trying to protect their family members, namely Joseph Smith's.  It's just like some write their history and take away information, to make it better than it really was or not as crazy. 

 

Hopefully my point got across. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

probably isn't among the elect anyway,

 

Judging others seems to be in our DNA. We judge people like Bill or people like MormonManiac for his/her judgement of Bill or simply deem people as "not among the elect anyway." I do it just like everyone else but GEESH! Many seem to think judging others is a public service.

 

And SethPayne...how DARE you mispell Rameumptom. It's such a normal word I'm not sure how you managed to mangle it.

 

 

I always find it humorous when people attack spelling or punctuation. Grammar nazis abound.

[Kenngo1969]

Happy Jack Wagon,

 

How does Christ, in the scriptures, define "the elect"?  "Mine elect hear my voice, and harden not their hearts" (emphasis mine). The elect are the elect because of what they choose.  It's not a matter of being tapped on the shoulder with a sword ("Oooh, you're one of the lucky ones!")

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

First off people are infallible. And I (the general I not me specifically) have just as much right to judge what people say as anyone else. People do it all the time. You judge Bill's motives as fine and dandy. Others don't. Why is one an issue and the other is not? Because one is favorable? And Bill's leaders are quit irrelevant to the person making the judgment as long as that person is not making a judgment in ignorance. Which I guess every one does to some degree. So what is the solution? Just assume that when people make comments that are controversial that all is well and sing Kumbaya?

 

BTW we are supposed to make judgments. What we are not to do is make finally judgments such as "Bill is going to hell". That is not our place to say that.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[sethpayne]

First off people are infallible. And I (the general I not me specifically) have just as much right to judge what people say as anyone else. People do it all the time. You judge Bill's motives as fine and dandy. Others don't. Why is one an issue and the other is not? Because one is favorable? And Bill's leaders are quit irrelevant to the person making the judgment as long as that person is not making a judgment in ignorance. Which I guess every one does to some degree. So what is the solution? Just assume that when people make comments that are controversial that all is well and sing Kumbaya?

 

BTW we are supposed to make judgments. What we are not to do is make finally judgments such as "Bill is going to hell". That is not our place to say that.

 

Hey Mola --

 

I agree with much of what you say.  I suppose what I find a little problematic is leveling accusations against someone's faithfulness -- epsecially when done anonymously.  Regardless of what one may think of Bill and his podcasts, at least he has the guts to use his real name and deal with real-world consequences.

 

Seems a little out a whack to attack someone's faithfulness when you don't have the guts to attach your own name to the criticism.  If someone wants to accuse Bill of being headed to hell, is it too much to ask that they use their real name?

 

Seth

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey Mola --

 

I agree with much of what you say.  I suppose what I find a little problematic is leveling accusations against someone's faithfulness -- epsecially when done anonymously.  Regardless of what one may think of Bill and his podcasts, at least he has the guts to use his real name and deal with real-world consequences.

 

Seems a little out a whack to attack someone's faithfulness when you don't have the guts to attach your own name to the criticism.  If someone wants to accuse Bill of being headed to hell, is it too much to ask that they use their real name?

 

Seth

You are probably right. I know that Bob Crockett agrees with you.

 

I have considered having my name changed to my real name.

 

I use a screen name because I have a real fear of people trying to destroy my self. What I mean by that is to attack me personally. It has happened to other people and I just am not sure. Maybe I am just being paranoid.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ttribe]

What we are not to do is make finally judgments such as "Bill is going to hell". That is not our place to say that.

 

Might want to discuss that one with Mormonmaniac, since that is exactly what he said.

Edited August 7, 2015 by ttribe

[sethpayne]

You are probably right. I know that Bob Crockett agrees with you.

 

I have considered having my name changed to my real name.

 

I use a screen name because I have a real fear of people trying to destroy my self. What I mean by that is to attack me personally. It has happened to other people and I just am not sure. Maybe I am just being paranoid.

 

Let me clarify.  I don't see any problem with being anonymous on a message board.  Your fear of being harassed is not misplaced.  Just ask DCP.  Heck, I've even received some very nasty messages/emails due to things I've stated on boards.  So I don't think you are being paranoid at all.

 

But there is a difference between arguing points of doctrine, history, or faith -- and publicly denigrating and trying to undermine someone you happen to disagree with.  If you want to go after someone personally ... then have the guts to do it *personally* rather than hide behind an anonymous screen name.

[ttribe]

You are probably right. I know that Bob Crockett agrees with you.

 

I have considered having my name changed to my real name.

 

I use a screen name because I have a real fear of people trying to destroy my self. What I mean by that is to attack me personally. It has happened to other people and I just am not sure. Maybe I am just being paranoid.

 

You are wise to remain anonymous.  Scratch came after me once.

[jkwilliams]

I keep a portable rameumptom in the trunk of my car. That way, no matter where I am, I can raise my hands and thank God I am not like other people. 

[Mars]

i think it's best to attack things said or done rather than the person

 

i haven't listened to bill's podcasts, but he's been kind to me on here.  his posts on here, at least the ones i've read, raise questions that imply certain misgivings and doubts that i don't share.  public dissection of the doubts, implications, and opinion is fair game.

 

public dissection of bill the person isn't.

 

imo

[provoman]

You are probably right. I know that Bob Crockett agrees with you.

I have considered having my name changed to my real name.

I use a screen name because I have a real fear of people trying to destroy my self. What I mean by that is to attack me personally. It has happened to other people and I just am not sure. Maybe I am just being paranoid.

I am lead to believe that defenders of the faith have even caused problems in the private lives individuals.

[ttribe]

I am lead to believe that defenders of the faith have even caused problems in the private lives individuals.

That, too, has happened.

Edited August 7, 2015 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

You are probably right. I know that Bob Crockett agrees with you.

 

I have considered having my name changed to my real name.

 

I use a screen name because I have a real fear of people trying to destroy my self. What I mean by that is to attack me personally. It has happened to other people and I just am not sure. Maybe I am just being paranoid.

 

You are wise to do that. I wish I had never used my IRL name, I've had death threats, someone spread rumors that I'm a sexual predator, and people have set up profiles in my name on some unsavory web sites. I can handle that, but someone sent a series of threatening emails to my wife, who suffers from PTSD. It nearly put her in the hospital. It wouldn't have happened if I'd just stuck with a screen name, and I deeply regret it. Too late, now, obviously.

Edited August 7, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Storm Rider]

Given the attention our friend Bill Reel has been getting lately I thought I'd explore another aspect of the issues being raised.  Namely, those who set themselves up to judge the hearts and intents of others.

 

Bill has been critisized for accepting money to fund his podcast.  Apparently this is priestcraft but buying a book from Deseret Book -- written by a GA -- is not.  Even though that money goes to support these GAs doing "good" and in many cases is the reason they can serve full-time.  

 

He's also been criticized for offering help to local leaders.  Well, I know of a couple of local leaders with whom I am friends who welcome any help they can get.  The reality is a lot of folks are struggling with the Church and leaders are trying their best to help.  And yet  Bill's attempt to help while defraying some costs is labeled as priestcraft and Mormonmaniac has even stated Bill is going to hell.

 

And yet, we have a really interesting thread going on about how to restructure a youth program.  I guess that since the board isn't charging the Church $2 for the recommendations makes this perfectly acceptable.

 

So I'd like to turn our eye on those who accuse Bill (falsely, IMO).  What gives them the right to condemn a fellow Latter-day Saint?  What scriptural basis do we have to justify the accusations leveled by anonymous internet message board participants who have no stewardship over Bill?

 

Because it seems to me that if Bill's local leaders are happy with Bill's activities -- to criticize Bill is to undermine and second-guess his local leaders.

 

This seems more spin to meet an agenda than realistic complaint.  The thread you are discussing began with a specific scripture that defined priestcraft.  Unfortunately, most of the comments that attacked the thread ignored the scripture and began with a litany of false accusations about why judging was bad or wrong among a host of other similar issues.  It makes discussion frustrating when you prod contributors to address the issue and they ignore it and just spin the issue to meet their knee-jerk responses to pet issues. 

 

The scripture was not difficult to understand and clearly was a viable issue for discussion - it wasn't.  It was the same old dodge and shift rather than discuss how it applies to each of us in our lives and how can we do things better.

[sethpayne]

This seems more spin to meet an agenda than realistic complaint.  The thread you are discussing began with a specific scripture that defined priestcraft.  Unfortunately, most of the comments that attacked the thread ignored the scripture and began with a litany of false accusations about why judging was bad or wrong among a host of other similar issues.  It makes discussion frustrating when you prod contributors to address the issue and they ignore it and just spin the issue to meet their knee-jerk responses to pet issues. 

 

The scripture was not difficult to understand and clearly was a viable issue for discussion - it wasn't.  It was the same old dodge and shift rather than discuss how it applies to each of us in our lives and how can we do things better.

 

That is quite true of one of the threads I reference.  PacMan did raise an interesting question but I think that whenever you suggest someone is guilty of priestcraft -- that is a pretty serious allegation.

 

But Brother Porter also opened a now-closed thread specifically intended to attack DBMormon and call his faith into question.

[Bob Crockett]

You are probably right. I know that Bob Crockett agrees with you.

 

I have considered having my name changed to my real name.

 

I use a screen name because I have a real fear of people trying to destroy my self. What I mean by that is to attack me personally. It has happened to other people and I just am not sure. Maybe I am just being paranoid.

 

Yes, that's a good justification.  If you're going to rob a bank, might as well use a mask so that people won't harass you in real life. 

 

As to the opening thread:  (1) It is completely low class cowardice anonymously to criticize anybody's character, whether they be wolves in sheeps' clothing or stupid wolves who make no pretenses about themselves; and (2) persons are criticized all the time on this Board (Bill has really torn into my character before and after reporting my posts -- seems like dozens of times), especially public figures; cannot we comment upon the production values and contents of Bill Reel's work??  [Commenting on his motives, well, that's kind of silly and wrong but certainly many many book reviews in prestigious journals comment upon the author's motives but never anonymously].

 

I think Bill's written production values are terrible and his podcasts entertaining, although I generally hate podcasts as a medium unless its sports radio.  I think Hamilton is a decent guy and pretty mild.  I think Mormonmaniac shouldn't be questioning folks' character anonymously.  I don't know PacMan.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Nemesis]

When were you a contributor? There are no logs of any change to your account.  Members are automatically made contributors at 3500 posts you have 2934.  Did you lose 550ish posts somewhere?  Maybe during a clean up several years ago? 

 

Nemesis

[The Nehor]

I would just like to thank God I am better then everyone in this thread.

Edit: Plus I have Contributor status to prove it.

Edited August 7, 2015 by The Nehor

[sethpayne]

When were you a contributor? There are no logs of any change to your account.  Members are automatically made contributors at 3500 posts you have 2934.  Did you lose 550ish posts somewhere?  Maybe during a clean up several years ago? 

 

Nemesis

 

Hey Nemesis --

 

I was made a contributor back when the site was archiving useful old threads.  Not sure when I was put back in the members bucket and I only noticed when I couldn't lock a thread I had started .... which wasn't a big deal because the thread participants got the thread locked shortly thereafter anyway.  

 

Seth

[Nemesis]

Hey Nemesis --

 

I was made a contributor back when the site was archiving useful old threads.  Not sure when I was put back in the members bucket and I only noticed when I couldn't lock a thread I had started .... which wasn't a big deal because the thread participants got the thread locked shortly thereafter anyway.  

 

Seth

Ok well you have been around long enough.  Ill alter your post count and see if that reinstates it.  If it doesn't I can manually make the change.

Nemesis

[The Nehor]

Ok well you have been around long enough.  Ill alter your post count and see if that reinstates it.  If it doesn't I can manually make the change.

Nemesis

Wait a minute........how did you get over 100k posts? I have not seen you posting that often.

Oh no! This board is rigged!