Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[Bob Crockett]

37 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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).

A thin reed indeed to use to destroy somebody's reputation.

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

That is the issue.  This post insinuates that I have created the monster and accepts little responsibility as if his disparaging comments of me and others and his attempts to gain access to my leaders is somehow not a big deal and certainly not an egregious act.  Rather "It seems that Internet activism is greater among the cynics and scoffers. But words of affirmation do come in more private forums. LDS scripture predicts this actuality. Lehi spoke of the inhabitants of a great and spacious building, which was “the world and the wisdom thereof,” describing how they “did point the finger of scorn” at the believers. Some may dismiss such scriptures, but they seem to have application and, at times, an eerie resemblance to my reality."

again he is doing all he can to not have to admit he did what he did and do all he can to shift blame onto us scoffers who point fingers at the believers.  Also by separating himself as a believer he insinuates I am a disbeliever which is an additional rude and disparaging assumption to make.

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

A thin reed indeed to use to destroy somebody's reputation.

not at all.  I dare him to deny it?  Brian has always been quick to defend himself and his ideas.  yet here he has chosen to remain mostly quiet.  

PS.  10 thin reeds fastened together make quite the weapon.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I disagree. I didn't see anything mean-spirited in the interview. The issue with the Hales was an illustration of the larger point about how he had been treated by FAIR.

To the general reader- FAIR works well for many people and doesn't work for others. Those who engage with FAIR should be aware of what they are getting involved with. If you're looking for a gentle, kind-hearted, empathetic source for answering questions, be aware that FAIR may not be right for you. If you're looking for a place where concerns are validated and a diversity of approach and conclusion is supported, FAIR may not be for you. There are some lovely people there, but the overall atmosphere I experienced from the apologists there was very harsh, condescending and dismissive. If that's your thing, FAIR will work well.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

That is the issue.  This post insinuates that I have created the monster and accepts little responsibility as if his disparaging comments of me and others and his attempts to gain access to my leaders is somehow not a big deal and certainly not an egregious act.  Rather "It seems that Internet activism is greater among the cynics and scoffers. But words of affirmation do come in more private forums. LDS scripture predicts this actuality. Lehi spoke of the inhabitants of a great and spacious building, which was “the world and the wisdom thereof,” describing how they “did point the finger of scorn” at the believers. Some may dismiss such scriptures, but they seem to have application and, at times, an eerie resemblance to my reality."

again he is doing all he can to not have to admit he did what he did and do all he can to shift blame onto us scoffers who point fingers at the believers.  Also by separating himself as a believer he insinuates I am a disbeliever which is an additional rude and disparaging assumption to make.

I agree.  I'm just saying this doesn't seem to be doing anything positive.  Hey I sent you a PM.  I'm out of this discussion now.  My participation isn't going to do anything but make matters worse, if anything.

[Jeanne]

12 hours 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.  

I sure enjoyed it.  My apologies that I didn't know who you were on here.    Everyone has a right to their thoughts and opinions without being attacked in anyway by exposure to any church discipline or whatever.  I respect many people in all walks of the LDS faith.  Still trying to understand what is going on here.  Best to all of you..patience, love and understanding is key. 

Hugs, Jeanne

[DBMormon]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. I didn't see anything mean-spirited in the interview. The issue with the Hales was an illustration of the larger point about how he had been treated by FAIR.

To the general reader- FAIR works well for many people and doesn't work for others. Those who engage with FAIR should be aware of what they are getting involved with. If you're looking for a gentle, kind-hearted, empathetic source for answering questions, be aware that FAIR may not be right for you. If you're looking for a place where concerns are validated and a diversity of approach and conclusion is supported, FAIR may not be for you. There are some lovely people there, but the overall atmosphere I experienced from the apologists there was very harsh, condescending and dismissive. If that's your thing, FAIR will work well.

thanks Happy Jack, like you I have gotten multiple messages of past FairMormon members as well as people who went there for answers who agreed with this very point.  It isn't black and white.  FairMormon is great for some and frustrating and disappointing for others.  We can write off one side or the other but I tried to stand by the fact that both views are valid and while saying there are some things FairMormon does not do well, there are things they do exceptionally well.  While there are people they make things worse for they also help many.  I frankly admit they are good for many.  but not good for many others.  Let me know when one of theirs has extended the same compliment to me?  Let me tell you it either doesn't happen or if it did, it has now been erased. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. I didn't see anything mean-spirited in the interview. The issue with the Hales was an illustration of the larger point about how he had been treated by FAIR.

To the general reader- FAIR works well for many people and doesn't work for others. Those who engage with FAIR should be aware of what they are getting involved with. If you're looking for a gentle, kind-hearted, empathetic source for answering questions, be aware that FAIR may not be right for you. If you're looking for a place where concerns are validated and a diversity of approach and conclusion is supported, FAIR may not be for you. There are some lovely people there, but the overall atmosphere I experienced from the apologists there was very harsh, condescending and dismissive. If that's your thing, FAIR will work well.

FAIR is composed of individuals.  SOme people are more harsh, condescending and dismissive than others.  Some probably try to be a little of those things and some try not to be and still may come off as such.  FAIR is just a group of people much like the Church is just a group of people.  We're all different with different personalities and ideas.  The categorizing and building it up like there are battles to wage makes this all a very unfortunate situation. 

I've decided not to comment more about Bill's situation.  I'm getting too opinionated about things that don't involve me, and that bothers me.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are some lovely people there, but the overall atmosphere I experienced from the apologists there was very harsh, condescending and dismissive. If that's your thing, FAIR will work well.

I have absolutely no opinion on Reel or Hale (don't see that i need one), but this example of a passive/aggressive way to insult people who do like FAIR seems like a good example of where this thread has gone off the rails.  As a stranger to this issue and the back story, i can say that both sides are starting to look petty and vindictive.  

 

[DBMormon]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

FAIR is composed of individuals.  SOme people are more harsh, condescending and dismissive than others.  Some probably try to be a little of those things and some try not to be and still may come off as such.  FAIR is just a group of people much like the Church is just a group of people.  We're all different with different personalities and ideas.  The categorizing and building it up like there are battles to wage makes this all a very unfortunate situation. 

I've decided not to comment more about Bill's situation.  I'm getting too opinionated about things that don't involve me, and that bothers me.

Please know I respect your wanting to stay above it.  But this bears more info for readers.  The members of Fair who validate concerns are told behind the scenes not to do that.  While there is a spectrum, the rigid end of that spectrum overrides the others.  So many have messaged me privately and said "I wish I could say more, but it will bring the heat on me."  it isn't about the spectrum but rather what one is allowed to do within the framework given.

Edited December 4, 2015 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

Please know I respect your wanting to stay above it.  But this bear more info for readers.  The members of Fair who validate concerns are told behind the scenes not to do that.  While there is a spectrum, the rigid end of that spectrum overrides the others.  So many have messaged me privately and said "I wish I could say more, but it will bring the heat on me."  it isn't about the spectrum but rather what one is allowed to do within the framework given.

They have nothing to fear if they hold to the notion that truth and evidence prevails.  If "FAIR" is controlling the message then these people need to step up and say so.  With that, if that's what you're doing, then great.  Hopefully others get on board. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Please know I respect your wanting to stay above it.  But this bear more info for readers.  The members of Fair who validate concerns are told behind the scenes not to do that.  While there is a spectrum, the rigid end of that spectrum overrides the others.  So many have messaged me privately and said "I wish I could say more, but it will bring the heat on me."  it isn't about the spectrum but rather what one is allowed to do within the framework given.

This is an excellent example of why I appreciate Bill sharing his experience so much, it helps me understand better the motivations of the FAIR organization.  They have stakeholders, and a line to walk to stay in good graces with these people.  

This is valuable to consider for people who go to FAIR hoping to get the full story around complicated church history.  The reality is they won't tell you ALL the uncomfortable details or help validate some of the difficult problems in an unbiased way.  You have to dig deeper, find historians that are more even handed, research primary sources yourself to get that information.  

[DBMormon]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an excellent example of why I appreciate Bill sharing his experience so much, it helps me understand better the motivations of the FAIR organization.  They have stakeholders, and a line to walk to stay in good graces with these people.  

This is valuable to consider for people who go to FAIR hoping to get the full story around complicated church history.  The reality is they won't tell you ALL the uncomfortable details or help validate some of the difficult problems in an unbiased way.  You have to dig deeper, find historians that are more even handed, research primary sources yourself to get that information.  

EXACTLY

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an excellent example of why I appreciate Bill sharing his experience so much, it helps me understand better the motivations of the FAIR organization.  They have stakeholders, and a line to walk to stay in good graces with these people.  

This is valuable to consider for people who go to FAIR hoping to get the full story around complicated church history.  The reality is they won't tell you ALL the uncomfortable details or help validate some of the difficult problems in an unbiased way.  You have to dig deeper, find historians that are more even handed, research primary sources yourself to get that information.  

But, it's possible some at FAIR disagree about what it telling the whole story and what is telling you all the uncomfortable details.  meaning they disagree with the conclusions about what stories from the history are reasonably accurate or not.  I think this may present a possible complication that may cause me to sympathize with some at FAIR. 

[DBMormon]

Just now, stemelbow said:

But, it's possible some at FAIR disagree about what it telling the whole story and what is telling you all the uncomfortable details.  meaning they disagree with the conclusions about what stories from the history are reasonably accurate or not.  I think this may present a possible complication that may cause me to sympathize with some at FAIR. 

I am ok with that, Again I think they do a lot of good

 

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an excellent example of why I appreciate Bill sharing his experience so much, it helps me understand better the motivations of the FAIR organization.  They have stakeholders, and a line to walk to stay in good graces with these people.  

This is valuable to consider for people who go to FAIR hoping to get the full story around complicated church history.  The reality is they won't tell you ALL the uncomfortable details or help validate some of the difficult problems in an unbiased way.  You have to dig deeper, find historians that are more even handed, research primary sources yourself to get that information.  

Yep, defenders of the faith.  I guess you can't blame them.  I had a great dialogue with Greg Smith, early in.  He was very patient and kind.  Fair did bring up things that I was unaware of, and it was mind blowing.  So not always as faith promoting, but at least they will discuss issues.  Where if you were to go to your bishop, you might get no answers but to go home and pray about it.  

I've listened to the podcast going on 3 times, I'm possibly ADD.     And see that DB is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, like some may think.  He's just a really honest guy, maybe to a fault as far as defending the faith.  I liken myself to what he's going through.  He doesn't want to throw it all away because of the warts, he keeps fighting for the church.  He may not last much longer, but he's trying.  Sorry if I've painted the wrong picture Bill, but that's how I see it.  And really relate well.  You know the good things in the church, and don't want to let go.   

Edited December 4, 2015 by Tacenda

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But, it's possible some at FAIR disagree about what it telling the whole story and what is telling you all the uncomfortable details.  meaning they disagree with the conclusions about what stories from the history are reasonably accurate or not.  I think this may present a possible complication that may cause me to sympathize with some at FAIR. 

We will all form different opinions about information presented.  It's important to know that the official opinions that FAIR presents will always skew towards the church, they don't have an unbiased position.  They even state this position in their mission statement, to defend the church.  The word "fair" implies treatment that doesn't favor either side of a position, but that is not what the organization FAIR is setup to do, their mission is to defend the church, and they will do that at all times, this by definition is not a "fair" treatment.  

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We will all form different opinions about information presented.  It's important to know that the official opinions that FAIR presents will always skew towards the church, they don't have an unbiased position.  They even state this position in their mission statement, to defend the church.  The word "fair" implies treatment that doesn't favor either side of a position, but that is not what the organization FAIR is setup to do, their mission is to defend the church, and they will do that at all times, this by definition is not a "fair" treatment.  

It's unfair to expect people, or a group of people to be completely objective about anything.  Every person carries bias and it's near impossible to act without that bias.  I don't view the above as a very "fair" expectation to put on others. 

 

If you're that concerned, let's put it out there.  In what ways is FAIR trying to control the message?  What are they withholding? 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's unfair to expect people, or a group of people to be completely objective about anything.  Every person carries bias and it's near impossible to act without that bias.  I don't view the above as a very "fair" expectation to put on others. 

 

If you're that concerned, let's put it out there.  In what ways is FAIR trying to control the message?  What are they withholding? 

I agree that no-one can be perfectly objective, I'm merely pointing out that objectivity is not even part of the mission of FAIR. Look at their updated statement following Bill's podcast, it addresses their objectives pretty clearly.  

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/12/01/fairmormons-content-and-update-policy/

I don't want to side track this thread by discussing where FAIR is withholding information about historical issues, that could be a lengthy debate.  

[nealr]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We will all form different opinions about information presented.  It's important to know that the official opinions that FAIR presents will always skew towards the church, they don't have an unbiased position.  They even state this position in their mission statement, to defend the church.  The word "fair" implies treatment that doesn't favor either side of a position, but that is not what the organization FAIR is setup to do, their mission is to defend the church, and they will do that at all times, this by definition is not a "fair" treatment.  

Some organizational history may be useful here. When FAIR started, in 1997, it was to counter the overwhelmingly negative, often egregiously unfair evangelical discourse on the Church that dominated the online forums of the day. It wasn't "fair" in the sense of "We, ourselves, represent ALL SIDES fairly," but rather, "We seek to provide representation for a point of view that is not being fairly or accurately represented at present.

And, I think that continues to be the essence of what "fair" means in FairMormon. We are seeking to give a more fair and accurate presentation of faithful points of view. There are plenty of places to go to get "the other side" if that's what you want.  

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

not at all.  I dare him to deny it?  Brian has always been quick to defend himself and his ideas.  yet here he has chosen to remain mostly quiet.  

That isn't really evidence that Brian Hales doesn't refute your various charges against him.  I think it speaks highly of his character that he's relatively above the fray, although he put your name in a tag line for his blog entry.

Bill, you're just not qualified to speak to Church history -- at least that is my perception.  I'm not qualified.  People like Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin and others won't really correspond with me on history and doctrine because I'm not at their level and they don't have time for mongrels like me to chew on their theories.   So it is with you.  Hales isn't going to waste his time defending against attempts from people like you or me to destroy his character.

 

 

[nealr]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that no-one can be perfectly objective, I'm merely pointing out that objectivity is not even part of the mission of FAIR. Look at their updated statement following Bill's podcast, it addresses their objectives pretty clearly.  

Why should FairMormon make something that is impossible part of their mission? Today, most historians do not make "objectivity" part of their goals and aims. It is a futile effort, and so different benchmarks are put in place. In fact, the very act of having benchmarks, standards, and methods is to establish baises, and thus not be "objective."

Some might talk of being "balanced" or "fair," but by this they do not mean being free of bias or not favoring certain positions over others. Rather, they typically mean honestly addressing and incorporating all the data (or as much as possible) and not ignoring anything that could seriously undermine your position. Based on this understanding of what it means to be "fair," FairMormon certain aims to be so. Anyone who perceives a short coming on this front is welcome to contact us and let us know and we will seek to correct it as we see fit.

[juliann]

2 hours 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.

 

You seem to be unable to distinguish between Hales and FM which makes much of what you are saying incoherent. It seems clear that you have what I can only describe as hatred of Hales. What that has to do with FM remains to be explained. Hales is a respected independent scholar and always has been.  If you are talking about FM talk about FM. If you are talking about Hales, talk about Hales. There may be something to learn from the graciousness of Brent Metcalfe in addressing those he disagrees with. (BTW. I second the suggestion to do a podcast with Randy Paul. He is an advocate for improving communication within the Mormon community.)

 http://www.mormonstudiespodcast.com/005-brian-laura-hales-polygamy-and-polyandry/

Quote

My friends Laura and Brian Hales join me for an informed, candid interview about the practice of early Mormon polygamy. A catalyst for our discussion is their recently published Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding—a distillation of Brian’s three-volume magnum opus Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (Brian has generously uploaded most of his documentation to Mormon Polygamy Documents: A Research Database). Our conversation covers a range of issues from polyandry and polygamy to misfires in rolling out plural marriage to secrecy that attended Joseph Smith’s sealings.

 I'm not informed about or interested in character assaults on Hales. Since you continue to make veiled threats about emails that seem to imply others have something to hide, I'm going to ask again, do you give permission for disclosure of your emails? A yes or no would be appreciated.

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I don't want to side track this thread by discussing where FAIR is withholding information about historical issues, that could be a lengthy debate.  

How would that even make sense for an organization that was created to respond to those historical issues? How do you do that while hiding what you are responding to? I think what you mean is that FM gives a perspective of those events that you don't agree with. 

[Bob Crockett]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

You seem to be unable to distinguish between Hales and FM which makes much of what you are saying incoherent. .

In his podcast interview with Dehlin Bill says that Hales has nothing to do with his dispute with FAIR, but then he lumps them all -- Dr. Peterson comes to mind -- into a category of "unChristlike" apologists and then proceeds to switch between FAIR and Hales.  Part of that is fueled by Dehlin's interest in FAIR and not so much with Hales.  Bill has an axe to grind with Hales, who apparently hurt his feelings, but John would like that axe laid at the root of FAIR.  Just my opinion.  

I would be, however, very curious as to whether Bill takes exception to any of FAIR's written output.  Does this Hope person?  I'll bet the written output is much more significant than some board I've never heard of.  I've read lots of it.  Lots of it quotes my articles on MMM without my permission.  (A little "dig," and my permission is not necessary because BYU holds the copyright, and I'm happy to get the publicity!) Has Bill read any of it? 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett