Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[DBMormon]

I hear you but I stand ready to do so if they come after me in any way.  Let the chips fall where they may.  As for his paper... Don't plan on sharing it. but I do address every criticism he makes in my "Handshakes and Drawn Swords part II"

[Scott Lloyd]

7 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.

Bill has a rather peculiar ethic. Early on, when he began posting on this board, he sent me a personal message. I pasted it into a post to respond to it publicly. He took offense at this. 

I replied that I don't feel ethically bound to give an advance guarantee of confidentiality for an unsolicited message and don't see why I should. 

I surmise that Bill feels it's OK for him to publicly share his own messages to Brian, but he must not give Brian's verbatim responses to him. This greatly privileges Bill and does Brian more of a disservice than if Brian's messages were to have been publicly read verbatim. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bill ehas a rather peculiar ethic. Early on, when he began posting on this board, he sent me a personal message. I pasted it into a post to respond to it publicly. He took offense at this. 

I replied that I don't feel ethically bound to give an advance guarantee of confidentiality for an unsolicited message and don't see why I should. 

I surmise that Bill feels it's OK for him to publicly share his own messages to Brian, but he must not give Brian's verbatim responses to him. This greatly privileges Bill and does Brian more of a disservice than if Brian's messages were to have been publicly read verbatim. 

Not one conservative LDS, yourself included has condemned his conduct.  It only testifies of the defend at all costs that you and others take.  If the roles were reversed and it was my email and his talking publicly you would still be defending him.  That's why your perspective is irrelevant.    

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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.  

So Dehlin's target audience likes it  when somebody goes online and finds fault with the prophet and apostles. Color me underwhelmed.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

21 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I hear you but I stand ready to do so if they come after me in any way.  Let the chips fall where they may.  As for his paper... Don't plan on sharing it. but I do address every criticism he makes in my "Handshakes and Drawn Swords part II"

I know you feel like you are in the crosshairs, I just wish everybody would stay calm and not let a situation escalate more than it already has. Tension is high right now, it seems, and Bill I really respect you and your intentions even if I disagree with you in many ways. Just don't get angry and let it rule over you and leave the justice side of things to God. 

Sorry for the unsolicited friendly words.

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So Dehlin's target audience likes it  when somebody goes online and finds fault with the prophet and apostles. Color me underwhelmed.

 

Let's all just take a deep breath and remember who the real enemy is:

The Unitarians.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Not one conservative LDS, yourself included has condemned his conduct.  It only testifies of the defend at all costs that you and others take.  If the roles were reversed and it was my email and his talking publicly you would still be defending him.  That's why your perspective is irrelevant.    

I'm not going to condemn him based on your one-sided rendition. I'm funny that way. 

[juliann]

Bill, just to clarify, are you giving written permission for your  emails to be disclosed...?

[readstoomuch]

I would say I like Bill.  I have gotten a lot out of his podcasts. No I don't agree with a good deal of what he says.  Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with more of what he has said/done the last two months.  I worry that he is spinning out of control as far as his relationship to the Church.  Now that John Dehlin is more openly hostile to the Church I couldn't go on his podcast in good conscience.

I don't know how to handle all of the troubling issues completely, honestly and faithfully.  I would want to do good and bring people to Christ.  I want to love people concerning the social issues, but maintain the integrity of the Church.  The shrill voices just sit in my head and I have to let go of them.  As I see it John Dehlin, the master of negative spin, produced the storm over the policy about gay marriage (or got the ball rolling).

I read the issues carefully and slowly.  I want to think I have covered most of the problems and weighed them out in my mind.  The people who are going to swirl around the issues of our history will just have to do so.  I am Lds, going to stay Lds and do my best in my little part of the vineyard to do God's work.  Is everything exactly the way it was explained to me when growing up in the Church?  No.  Is it the way I thought it would be in my occupation or the world? No.  Is it all beautiful and full of potential? Yes.

[Bob Crockett]

On the CFR demand, Bill, please note my post contained references to where you could check my assertions.  Your two Dehlin podcasts.  You may disagree with my characterization but I tried to listen.  

I too like Bill.  But I also like to make criticism of posters who let their posts fall into the well of public favor and political correctness.  Bill just needs to smile when he encounters a critic.  

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

Bill, just to clarify, are you giving written permission for your  emails to be disclosed...?

If fairmormon, Brian hales, want to discuss a "let's put it all on the table" referendum I am all ears.  Are you suggesting that? But that includes some correspondence you are likely not aware of.

[DBMormon]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

On the CFR demand, Bill, please note my post contained references to where you could check my assertions.  Your two Dehlin podcasts.  You may disagree with my characterization but I tried to listen.  

and you failed

[Bob Crockett]

Why on earth someone like Hales, whom I respect as a serious scholar, would risk saying intemperate things to a potential enemy in an email is beyond me.  Well, I guess not.  Happens all the time.  

[Bob Crockett]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

and you failed

Well, then you have my unconditional apology.  

[readstoomuch]

Since the Lord doesn't write Church history, we are talking about people's opinion of the sources.  The more controversial, the more opinions there are.  Joseph Smith and polygamy has to be one of the hardest.  Bill, you must disagree with Brian and Bob disagrees with your podcast for Mormon Stories.  I find myself disagreeing with you.  I don't want to fight, though.  

Bill, as someone who tries to defend you, why don't you just let it go.  This does not put you in the best light.  There will always be those who disagree with you.  It is part of the modern world and some of them will publish more extensively than others.  

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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.  

Ahem...

[DBMormon]

6 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

Since the Lord doesn't write Church history, we are talking about people's opinion of the sources.  The more controversial, the more opinions there are.  Joseph Smith and polygamy has to be one of the hardest.  Bill, you must disagree with Brian and Bob disagrees with your podcast for Mormon Stories.  I find myself disagreeing with you.  I don't want to fight, though.  

Bill, as someone who tries to defend you, why don't you just let it go.  This does not put you in the best light.  There will always be those who disagree with you.  It is part of the modern world and some of them will publish more extensively than others.  

You cross a line when you threaten to try and have one' church membership put in jeopardy simply because they take a different position than you ( arguably a faithful position at that).  To me that is pretty serious and combined with fairmormon's removing me from their conference transcript without saying anything and without any notation that they had done so.  Not to mention, Brian hales is a player behind the scenes w/ fairmormon in recent months. When it went this far I felt I needed to shine a light on this behavior.  It is wrong.  It is deplorable.  To protect myself from further witch hunts I had to be sure others knew what kinds of behaviors these folks are capable of in hopes they would be forced to back off.   There is a line and neither even seems to sense that what they did was inappropriate on some level.  Which means both are very likely to do such things going forward unless they are held accountable.  You can say I look bad in this, but you may want to visit the arena of public opinion.  Lastly, I also know several members inside Fair were quite dissapointed when they heard Fair had altered the transcript, that they thought such as inappropriate .  And Brian's actions are even worse and he is playing the victim card on his website.  Not once to me or to mutual friends has he expressed he went too far.  These guys claim to be the protectors of good, but the ends justify any means necessary.   This kind of stuff has to end and the only way it does is if it is brought into the light.  If Brian reached out and apologized and said he went too far, I would back off in a second.  If fair admitted that rewriting transcripts so as to make it seem something occurred differently than it actually did, was probably too much (again they only noted and admitted as much three months later after it was noticed).  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Ahem...

Ahem times 2. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours 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 have not been making any personal attacks against people but rather sharing my experience which seems to offend you. Although you're asking Hope this question, I want to respond by simply saying it is strange to expect and act as though people don't have a right to be critical of FAIR as if it only belongs to you. Many people were a part of the discussion board which means there will be many valid experiences, not just yours, or the public image you'd like to maintain for FAIR.

The issue I have, that your posts on this topic illustrate, is the aggressive, condescending approach many apologists take. There is no need to take disagreements so personally.

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I hear you but I stand ready to do so if they come after me in any way.  Let the chips fall where they may.  As for his paper... Don't plan on sharing it. but I do address every criticism he makes in my "Handshakes and Drawn Swords part II"

I do think your theory that D&C 132 might have been inspired by a false angel, as was Lehi's encounter with an angel in his vision of the tree of life, to be illogical.   In your Dehlin podcast you make a big point about the fact that common consent is necessary to validate a revelation, but then gloss over the fact that the Book of Mormon and the D&C 132 were adopted by the general conference of the Church.

How is your argument consistent?

Quote

Not one conservative LDS, yourself included has condemned his conduct.  It only testifies of the defend at all costs that you and others take.  If the roles were reversed and it was my email and his talking publicly you would still be defending him.  That's why your perspective is irrelevant.  

Well, I'm not "conservative LDS," but I've read Hales' work and find him to be a pretty good scholar.   I think his work needed professional editing, but I have read many of his sources and have concluded that he knows way more about plural marriage than I've ever known.  It is hard to "condemn" somebody merely upon an adversary's say-so.  I have long been on record here disagreeing with the one-sided account of the break-up of the Maxwell Institute, and have been taken to task by "conservative LDS" around here for it to the point that I've been the victim of personal insult for having the temerity to suggest that Dr. Bradford might have a different perspective.   Ask "why me" about that.

But I agree it would be exceedingly foolish for somebody who disagrees with you to tell you in an email that he is going to "Tattle tell" about you to your ecclesiastical superiors.  Not only foolish, but stupid and improvident and poor grammar.  (I speak from experience, as my on-line posting has led to multiple complaints to my stake president.)

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

Wow, this is all a very unfortunate scene. 

Bill,  I would suggest for you to just keep living and going as if no one is after you. 

 

I dont' know your best course, going forward I would refrain from mentioning Brian anymore.  he has no power over you.  I don't know if both of you would benefit from you dropping the issues and just reaching out to him as a brother or not.  But it may help.  If you don't think so, I'd say let it go.  It doesn't seem worth it. 

[DBMormon]

46 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I do think your theory that D&C 132 might have been inspired by a false angel, as was Lehi's encounter with an angel in his vision of the tree of life, to be illogical. 

WHY? you take the time to explain what part of this idea is absolutely unsupportable.?

How is your argument consistent?  

How is it not?

Well, I'm not "conservative LDS," but I've read Hales' work and find him to be a pretty good scholar.  -

yes his scholarship is great.   I have never argued against that and actually argue in favor of it.  His conclusions are as with most of us, up for grabs.

But I agree it would be exceedingly foolish for somebody who disagrees with you to tell you in an email that he is going to "Tattle tell" about you to your ecclesiastical superiors.  Not only foolish, but stupid and improvident and poor grammar.  (I speak from experience, as my on-line posting has led to multiple complaints to my stake president.)

Thanks for finally saying so.  And for the record that part is not in the emails and nor have I claimed it was.  Rather he shared that with a mutual friend (That if he could get my leaders name he would run to him in a second).  If you ask Brian, I doubt he would deny it.  The other things I claim are in the email and then some.

 

[DBMormon]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wow, this is all a very unfortunate scene. 

Bill,  I would suggest for you to just keep living and going as if no one is after you. 

 

I dont' know your best course, going forward I would refrain from mentioning Brian anymore.  he has no power over you.  I don't know if both of you would benefit from you dropping the issues and just reaching out to him as a brother or not.  But it may help.  If you don't think so, I'd say let it go.  It doesn't seem worth it. 

I reached out in kindness several times in our email exchange (If these ever go public that will be obvious - Again These only go public if I feel I am in the crosshairs any further and/or parties involved continue to try to sweep it away playing the victim).  We also have a mutual friend who also tried to mend things.  Brian would have none of it.  Also let it be known, I am not mad.  And I have tried to be charitable to Fair and Brian in the Mormon Stories episode while also putting their behavior in the light.  Listen to it.  Do I sound angry?  Do I sound over-reactive?  I have been sitting on some of this stuff for months (some even years).  Only recently with the FairMormon revisionist history, did it occur to me that that this was building and in some ways connected and hence I am squashing it.  There is too much at risk for all involved if this all gets laid on the table and I am hoping that will be enough for them to back off.   but their "we're the victims here" tells me they don't want to be accountable at all for their behavior and hence I will continue to be vigilant in not letting them get away with it and continue to go after people in the shadows when they disagree.

 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

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.

Apparently you strongly disagree with my assessment, that's fine.  You still haven't explained why my critique of FAIR members not being comfortable with the outcomes of the discussions, and their inability to control the message, isn't a valid observation.  

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.

Where are my accounts inaccurate?  I still have yet to hear any substantive claims otherwise. 

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?

My question to Calm was sincere, sounds like you're reading between the lines here.  I want to understand what she means by "the vast majority of reports trying to shut down others from posting came from those opposing FM posters"

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

I don't have access to any people in the inner circle, these are my observations.    

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.

I think I've answered all your questions, please clarify where I've missed answering one?  As for your critique, I've never claimed I could set the rules for the FAIR site.  I remember referring to the board rules on a few occasions and my behavior on the site was supportive of the rules.  You can ask Calm if she felt I was breaking the site rules or not.

I invested much of my time on that site, it was one of my main outlets going through my faith journey.  Of course I was upset when they shut it down without notice, without courtesy, without explanation.  It was a betrayal of trust to those who spent their time there interacting with others, trying to help those suffering with a faith crisis. I received help from good people on that site, and I was able to help others as well and contribute in positive ways.  I'm still upset about it now all these months later.  FAIR owned the site, so they had the right to close it down, but the shut down wasn't handled properly or ethically in my opinion, and I stand by that.  

 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I reached out in kindness several times in our email exchange (If these ever go public that will be obvious - Again These only go public if I feel I am in the crosshairs any further and/or parties involved continue to try to sweep it away playing the victim).  We also have a mutual friend who also tried to mend things.  Brian would have none of it.  Also let it be known, I am not mad.  And I have tried to be charitable to Fair and Brian in the Mormon Stories episode while also putting their behavior in the light.  Listen to it.  Do I sound angry?  Do I sound over-reactive?  I have been sitting on some of this stuff for months (some even years).  Only recently with the FairMormon revisionist history, did it occur to me that that this was building and in some ways connected and hence I am squashing it.  There is too much at risk for all involved if this all gets laid on the table and I am hoping that will be enough for them to back off.   but their "we're the victims here" tells me they don't want to be accountable at all for their behavior and hence I will continue to be vigilant in not letting them get away with it and continue to go after people in the shadows when they disagree.

 

Hi Bill,

Not sure you are aware but Brian posted a blog post a couple of days ago about this, suggesting he intends to show love to you, even if you disagree about Joseph's polygamy. 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/like-a-ships-captain-complaining-about-the-waves-of-the-sea/

It's apparent he thinks you're wrong and feels like you are disparaging him, or something.  I say that only to point out we all have our own perspectives and often we each feel pretty justified.  I don't think airing this out helps your cause at all.  I don't understand, at all, the position of "I will continue to be vigilant in not letting them get away with it" mentality.  The "them" has me perplexed here.  The whole idea of them getting away with something seems problematic to me, in this whole affair. 

I listened to the podcast episode.  I agree you weren't overly angry or emotional but I did get the impression you are angry about all of this that has happened.  I think it was a bad idea for you to talk about the incidents with Brian Hales.  Talking about and lumping other names in the podcast just seemed mean-spirited.  I also think it a negative to give the impression you are lumping people together in order to attack.  That's the impression I got from listening to the podcast episode.  It seems uncharitable at the very least, and suggests you have some axe's to grind at the most. 

But with all that said, hey, if you feel justified in all of this, don't let me stop you.  I'm just a sideline observer here.  And, no doubt, I got way more involved in this than I should have, even as little as I've said. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by stemelbow