Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[HappyJackWagon]

Bill Reel was recently interviewed on Mormon Stories about FAIR erasing him from their history. It's a fascinating discussion where they talk about the state of apologetics in general and Bill's personal experience with FAIR and other apologists like Brian Hales who kindly told Bill "I hope your podcast dies." I'm curious if anyone else listened and has any thoughts about the state of FAIR and apologetics in general or about Bill's experience in specific.

http://mormonstories.org/bill-reel-discusses-his-falling-out-with-fair-and-his-faithful-dissent-with-lds-policy/

[hope_for_things]

I thought it was a very interesting discussion as well.  I actively participated in the FAIR support board when I first started on this faith journey and wanted to go to a "safe" source for answers to hard questions and exploration of issues.  I found many of the things that Bill experienced to be true from my interactions on that site.  The way many of the FAIR members were hostile to acknowledging complexity, I also experienced first hand.  At the same time, I wanted to continue to try and engage with people in the church who were knowledgeable about controversial history, but who still were actively participating.  I would still be a part of the FAIR support board if they hadn't taken it down with absolutely no warning.  I think it was a place that contributed some good for those struggling learning new information.

There aren't enough good resources for people when they first start to learn about complex history or have a faith crisis of some kind.  Local leaders are rarely equipped to provide sound guidance, and people end up suffering in isolation at times, and it makes me sad.  We need more resources where people can discuss problems without judgement and without someone telling them they are wrong and there is only one faithful way to view situations. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Hope for Things, I had similar experiences on the FAIR board. The rudeness of some of the apologists really perplexed me and I was disappointed when the board shut down with the promise of reopening in 1 week. I believe that was nearly a year ago.

The way I understand Bill's dust-up with the Hales is that his Handshakes and Drawn Swords episode offended and worried them. Essentially, the position was that if a prophet could be misled by evil spirits or angels then that draws every claim or revelation into question. Brian Hales is right that it does open a can of worms but the Race and Priesthood essay opened that same can.

It seems to me that we should evaluate truth claims based on our own spiritual experiences and conscience instead of relying on others without question.

 

Avoiding complicated issues because it may raise hard questions seems to be apologetics at its worst. And when you add in threats to contact priesthood leaders it just gets worse from there.

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

I thought Bill's explanation about why the Hales or other apologists aren't willing to acknowledge certain issues as problematic or complex was interesting too.  That the desire to not run afoul of certain people within the church, as well as the desire to please those stakeholders financing FAIR makes a lot of sense and can explain the motivations of the members.  

You mention the race and the priesthood essay, and I agree, that is probably the most honest institutional acknowledgement of errors made by past prophets, but I find many apologists aren't willing to take that next step applying this principle more broadly.  It seems fair game to say that BY and other leaders were influenced by culture to have racist beliefs, but many don't believe it is fair to extrapolate that concept onto our other doctrines and ask the question, which other teachings aren't in alignment with the will of the divine, and how can we change those doctrines.  I think this kind of thinking is very threatening to many people that are used to official church authorities leading the way, and they aren't comfortable questioning the status quo.  

It only takes a little bit of critical thinking and digging into our history to start to see the influences of culture on all of our doctrines.   

[stemelbow]

Fascinating?  I guess. It was more disappointing and frustrating. 

None of this is a all or nothing thing.  It seems like Bill is saying those who don't acknowledge something won't acknowledge anything.  As if Brian Hales won't acknowledge some of the problems.  I think he has.  I mean that's just from memory in reading his stuff and listening to him.  I also have a hard time hearing one side of the story in things like this.  I don't know Brian Hales, but I know people who know him personally and professionally.  Little stories like this are more problematic than complaining that there's a problem with a whole host of people at FAIR.  I just don't like lumping people together and then going on the attack. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hope for Things, I had similar experiences on the FAIR board. The rudeness of some of the apologists really perplexed me and I was disappointed when the board shut down with the promise of reopening in 1 week. I believe that was nearly a year ago.

 

This is really getting old. From what I saw, the forum was dominated by non-FM people who were coming in to answer questions and not always in a positive manner. I can just as easily accuse you of being rude but I fail to see the point in doing that sort of thing when there is no way to verify it.

[Jeanne]

I listened to this earlier in the week.  I enjoyed it.  I am not really familiar will Mr. Reel or Fair Mormon but he did put a link to some of his ideas when he was a Bishop.  He is definitely a different man.  Has a lot of people on the earlier Fair Mormon changed this much? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I like Bill Reel and his approach (in general), but understand where Fair Mormon is coming from as well. Given the timing of the incident, I believe Bill had just posted this over at Wheat and Tares comparing the church to an abusive father:http://www.wheatandtares.org/17936/does-the-church-need-an-intervention/

While going back and editing the transcript of a panel seems extreme, I can understand (given Fair's mission) why they might do that.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

This is really getting old. From what I saw, the forum was dominated by non-FM people who were coming in to answer questions and not always in a positive manner. I can just as easily accuse you of being rude but I fail to see the point in doing that sort of thing when there is no way to verify it.

The problem wasn't that people were answering questions in a less than positive manner, its that some FAIR members didn't like the answers that were being given.  There was a lack of tolerance for what some FM contributors consider faithful answers to questions.  I was very involved in the board for well over a year, and saw this play out on many occasions.  

When you have an open forum, you can't control the outcomes of the discussions.  So even though the board guidelines restricted people from directly disparaging the church, they didn't restrict people from coming to conclusions that don't always align with the FAIR interpretation.  That was a problem for many FM contributors, and I agree with Bill's assessment that this ultimately lead to the board being taken down.  

I was upset when the board was taken down, and tried on multiple occasions to contact FAIR and asked for an explanation.  I was told the board would come back online shortly, by multiple FM members, but it still hasn't ever come back, and I doubt that it will.  

[juliann]

Hope, with all due respect, your willingness to speak for FM and everything that occurred in their territory may be an illustration of why the Support Forum wasn't successful. I have always found it exceptionally odd when people come into someone else's home territory and make demands. That happens on this board a lot as well. At some point, people really do need to at least acknowledge that they have limited information and perhaps consider that owners of forums or organizations have no obligation (let alone time) to disclose their internal decisions to anyone who asks. I'm curious why you continue to bring this up as if it was your own forum that was shut down by outsiders.  Have you considered that you might have been just as much the problem as the unnamed FM members you defame?

[Russell C McGregor]

Who is Bill Reel, and why are his opinions so remarkably important?

Is the fact that Mister Dehlin apparently likes him a good indicator of where he stands vis-à-vis the Church of Jesus Christ?

 

 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Hope, with all due respect, your willingness to speak for FM and everything that occurred in their territory may be an illustration of why the Support Forum wasn't successful. I have always found it exceptionally odd when people come into someone else's home territory and make demands. That happens on this board a lot as well. At some point, people really do need to at least acknowledge that they have limited information and perhaps consider that owners of forums or organizations have no obligation (let alone time) to disclose their internal decisions to anyone who asks. I'm curious why you continue to bring this up as if it was your own forum that was shut down by outsiders.  Have you considered that you might have been just as much the problem as the unnamed FM members you defame?

I'm not speaking for FM, but I'm sharing my observations as an active participant of that board.  Feel free to disagree, no one is stopping you, and I'll be happy to engage your observations.  I'm not sure what you mean by my being "part of the problem", can you clarify?  Is the problem that FAIR couldn't control the conversations and conclusions of board participants as I pointed out earlier?  

**Opinions expressed by hope_for_things are solely his and do not represent the official positions of FAIR or any members of that board, or MDBB or any one else.  

[Bob Crockett]

29 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Who is Bill Reel, and why are his opinions so remarkably important?

Is the fact that Mister Dehlin apparently likes him a good indicator of where he stands vis-à-vis the Church of Jesus Christ?

 

 

I listened to most of the podcast.  Dehlin seemed tired and disinterested, particularly when it became apparent that FAIR edited the seminar transcript months prior to Bill's blog statements about the Church being abusive.  My opinion, after listening to the prior podcast with Bill by Dehlin, is that Bill seeks Dehlin out to be interviewed.  Dehlin doesn't seem to be all that aware of Bill and what Bill is doing. 

And I certainly don't buy what Bill is saying about Brian Hales.  First, it is a one-side statement and particularly mean spirited and gossipy about Brian.  Second, it would certainly bug me if my private conversations with Bill suddenly became public fodder.  Sure, there isn't some sort of agreement of confidentiality, but it seems cheesy and why would anybody ever talk to Bill again?

Also, Bill's broad brush statement that "all" apologists are mean and unChristlike, and hope to hide their true natures from the public, is just ludicrous.   "Apologists" are all different people with different personalities.  And then to suggest that Givens and Bushman really have problems with the Church but don't come out publicly with it, but have told Bill so, is particularly obnoxious.  

I for one have found FAIR to be particularly helpful, and certainly filled with lots of information. I might suggest that Bill really hasn't read the written material, as I'm not sure I've ever seen him criticize a written entry.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[rpn]

I think JD''s position (which was at least undisputed by BR, if not endorsed) --- that FAIR members/lds apologists therein act unchristlike because it is inevitable when they try to defend unchristlike things --- is just as dismissive of them, as he is claiming they are to people who acknowledge messiness in church history. 

I also wonder why BR and others propound the arguments that the new policy violates the 2d Article of Faith, or that delaying baptism suggests that ordinances and the Holy Ghost don't matter.  He is afraid of church discipline because of his policy disagreement, but he keeps publicly writing and sharing his dissenting views in public, including arguing the policy is unchristlike.

I did read about a same sex married couple (since 1999) whose adopted children have been attending church with the parents for years, several having been baptized, and one about to turn 8, and wonder how they will fair.   I would think that would be a case in which excommunication might not be necessary for the parents (Elder Christopherson said the council was required, but the outcome was not determined by the policy), and the bishop could seek a policy waiver for the baptism.

Edited December 4, 2015 by rpn

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem wasn't that people were answering questions in a less than positive manner, its that some FAIR members didn't like the answers that were being given.  There was a lack of tolerance for what some FM contributors consider faithful answers to questions.  I was very involved in the board for well over a year, and saw this play out on many occasions.  

But neither you nor Bill Reel were involved in the behind the scenes discussions right before and during the shutdown of the message board so neither of your observations tell the story accurately, imo (I was part of the discussion and was one of the moderators responding to reports and the vast majority of reports trying to shut down others from posting came from those opposing FM posters).

 

The individual working on the replacement ran into tech problems and didn't have enough time leftover from life in general as well as other projects he was working on at the time.  I don't know if it will eventually get replaced or not.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

But neither you nor Bill Reel were involved in the behind the scenes discussions right before and during the shutdown of the message board so neither of your observations tell the story accurately, imo (I was part of the discussion and was one of the moderators responding to reports and the vast majority of reports trying to shut down others from posting came from those opposing FM posters).

Would you care to elaborate on what part of my description wasn't accurate, I'm interested in your perspective.  

Also what do you mean by reports trying to shut down others from posting?  Do you mean to say that reports of people violating board policies were part of the reason that the board was closed?  I certainly wasn't privy to the inner discussions, but I have no reason to doubt Bill's perspective about the discomfort that some FAIR people had with discussions not being faithful enough.  I saw plenty of evidence of this from certain FAIR contributors to believe this was a factor in the shut down.  

[SmileyMcGee]

I really hope this thread declines to the same level as the threads at Mormon Discussion (which apparently saw more use while this board was doing an upgrade)

ad hominem, ad hominem, taking one's perspective for granted....and more ad hominem....it was great reading

[Bob Crockett]

Well, the subject was Bill Reel, so it isn't an ad hominem to discuss him, his qualifications and shortcomings as a Podcaster. 

Further, it isn't an ad hominem to hurl harsh statements to an anonymous pseudonym as there is only a fictitious name to attack. 

As to the ad homs directed to me, you don't see me complaining.   I'm the only one signing my posts with my name there.  

[DBMormon]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I listened to most of the podcast.  Dehlin seemed tired and disinterested, particularly when it became apparent that FAIR edited the seminar transcript months prior to Bill's blog statements about the Church being abusive.  My opinion, after listening to the prior podcast with Bill by Dehlin, is that Bill seeks Dehlin out to be interviewed.  Dehlin doesn't seem to be all that aware of Bill and what Bill is doing. 

And I certainly don't buy what Bill is saying about Brian Hales.  First, it is a one-side statement and particularly mean spirited and gossipy about Brian.  Second, it would certainly bug me if my private conversations with Bill suddenly became public fodder.  Sure, there isn't some sort of agreement of confidentiality, but it seems cheesy and why would anybody ever talk to Bill again?

Also, Bill's broad brush statement that "all" apologists are mean and unChristlike, and hope to hide their true natures from the public, is just ludicrous.   "Apologists" are all different people with different personalities.  And then to suggest that Givens and Bushman really have problems with the Church but don't come out publicly with it, but have told Bill so, is particularly obnoxious.  

I for one have found FAIR to be particularly helpful, and certainly filled with lots of information. I might suggest that Bill really hasn't read the written material, as I'm not sure I've ever seen him criticize a written entry.

A.) Dehlin asked me if I wanted to talk.  Ask Him.  Once he asked though I was happy to be on the record. (Once again your Wrong... but what's new?  I have never seen another person be wrong as much as you about the facts) CFR that I initiated the dialogue?

B.) You don't buy what I am saying about Brian.  Ask him.  I don't think Brian Hales is a liar so I am sure he will confirm that he said everything I said he did.  If he does deny it, I would release the emails in a second to show that I am being accurate.  Seriously ask him.  I hold all the cards here.  By all means send him an email.  PM me and I will give it to you.  (Again your wrong, but again I have come to expect it as your continual guesses at the truth seems quite dishonorable) CFR that I am lying

C.) in regards to sharing private conversations, you have created a scenario that either way I am in the wrong.  You get to claim I am lying but if I prove I am not then that is bad in your eyes too.  You leave no honorable choice.  Brian hales was quite mean spirited in his emails.  His has said and done everything I have said ... and more.  But in your world I am supposed to be quiet and say nothing when a guy lets you know privately and to your friends that he will do all in his power to destroy you and not to mention threatens to go to my local leader to Tattle tell on me cause my beliefs and perspective doesn't match his.  Again your out of line but I no longer consider you a decent human being and no longer expect better.  

D.) Not once have you said "If Brian did indeed say that and do that he was out of line" as I am guessing you would rather defend his actions and guess at mine.

E.) CFR for where I said  "all apologists are mean and unChristlike"?    Do you actually believe what you say or are you really this jaded?

F.) I never said which scholar(s) have said what again CFR where I say Givens said XYZ or Bushman said ABC?  The fact is I said I have spoken to numerous scholars and I said some of them and I never named names.  You make a lot of assumptions.... sad.  You a lawyer and you do more character defamation than any person I know without a single fact.

G.) Your a homer who whose accusations and assumptions border on disingenuous and frankly libel as well.  

Board Rule - " Libel is not tolerated and you may be held legally accountable "

I have asked 4 CFR's of you.  As usual you won't.  

[juliann]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you care to elaborate on what part of my description wasn't accurate, I'm interested in your perspective.  

Also what do you mean by reports trying to shut down others from posting?  Do you mean to say that reports of people violating board policies were part of the reason that the board was closed?  I certainly wasn't privy to the inner discussions, but I have no reason to doubt Bill's perspective about the discomfort that some FAIR people had with discussions not being faithful enough.  I saw plenty of evidence of this from certain FAIR contributors to believe this was a factor in the shut down.  

When you think you can speak for the motives and/or feelings of others you are speaking for them. What you seem to mean is that not everyone agreed with you....which means that you didn't agree with them. Yet you only see the other guy as the problem. In other words, it is much more likely you were violating the purpose of the board which was very plainly stated. I was also in that forum, if you recall.  Your assessment of other participants during the life of the forum is very selective and inaccurate.

My curiosity continues as to why you feel so entitled to define what someone else's forum should do or not do. You now have a moderator of that forum nicely trying to correct your inaccurate accounts.

Quote

Also what do you mean by reports trying to shut down others from posting?

This is an example of how you take a very plain statement and spin it. Could it mean anything else than those who complain about not being able to control the mission of the forum and complaining about "rudeness" were the very ones sending in most of the post reports trying to quash those they disagreed with?

Quote

 I certainly wasn't privy to the inner discussions, but I have no reason to doubt Bill's perspective about the discomfort that some FAIR people had with discussions not being faithful enough.

So you are simply relying on someone else's speculation who knows no more about those "inner discussions" than you do?

You aren't responding to my questions.....I really would like to understand the mindset of those who think they can set the rules for someone else's forum and continue to complain years later that they weren't allowed to.

[DBMormon]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But neither you nor Bill Reel were involved in the behind the scenes discussions right before and during the shutdown of the message board so neither of your observations tell the story accurately, imo (I was part of the discussion and was one of the moderators responding to reports and the vast majority of reports trying to shut down others from posting came from those opposing FM posters).

 

The individual working on the replacement ran into tech problems and didn't have enough time leftover from life in general as well as other projects he was working on at the time.  I don't know if it will eventually get replaced or not.

No, but I was sent messages by top FAIR leaders telling me (just before the split) how concerned they were that the board was not leading to the desired results that they had hoped and were specific what that meant.  That in essence group discussions on issues were leading to validation of problems rather than more certainty in one's testimony.  I think I might still have those too.

Edited December 4, 2015 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

A.) Dehlin asked me if I wanted to talk.  Ask Him.  Once he asked though I was happy to be on the record. (Once again your Wrong... but what's new?  I have never seen another person be wrong as much as you about the facts) CFR that I initiated the dialogue?

B.) You don't buy what I am saying about Brian.  Ask him.  I don't think Brian Hales is a liar so I am sure he will confirm that he said everything I said he did.  If he does deny it, I would release the emails in a second to show that I am being accurate.  Seriously ask him.  I hold all the cards here.  By all means send him an email.  PM me and I will give it to you.  (Again your wrong, but again I have come to expect it as your continual guesses at the truth seems quite dishonorable) CFR that I am lying

C.) in regards to sharing private conversations, you have created a scenario that either way I am in the wrong.  You get to claim I am lying but if I prove I am not then that is bad in your eyes too.  You leave no honorable choice.  Brian hales was quite mean spirited in his emails.  His has said and done everything I have said ... and more.  But in your world I am supposed to be quiet and say nothing when a guy lets you know privately and to your friends that he will do all in his power to destroy you and not to mention threatens to go to my local leader to Tattle tell on me cause my beliefs and perspective doesn't match his.  Again your out of line but I no longer consider you a decent human being and no longer expect better.  

D.) Not once have you said "If Brian did indeed say that and do that he was out of line" as I am guessing you would rather defend his actions and guess at mine.

E.) CFR for where I said  "all apologists are mean and unChristlike"?    Do you actually believe what you say or are you really this jaded?

F.) I never said which scholar(s) have said what again CFR where I say Givens said XYZ or Bushman said ABC?  The fact is I said I have spoken to numerous scholars and I said some of them and I never named names.  You make a lot of assumptions.... sad.  You a lawyer and you do more character defamation than any person I know without a single fact.

G.) Your a homer who whose accusations and assumptions border on disingenuous and frankly libel as well.  

Board Rule - " Libel is not tolerated and you may be held legally accountable "

I have asked 4 CFR's of you.  As usual you won't.  

You are a public figure.  You have made a podcast.  You should not get your feelings hurt over criticism and should expect that your critics, who don't have the facts like you do, might err.  For what it is worth.  

[DBMormon]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You are a public figure.  You have made a podcast.  You should not get your feelings hurt over criticism and should expect that your critics, who don't have the facts like you do, might err.  For what it is worth.  

4 CFR's    

BANNED BEHAVIORS  - -->  • Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I have been amazed at the totality of feedback on this episode.  It has been overwhelmingly positive.  For those whose experience was positive, I am glad for that.  

[Mystery Meat]

Be careful about publishing private correspondence (even emails) without the other party's permission. There may be legal consequences for doing so.