Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, nealr said:

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.  

Thanks Neal, this is important to consider the history of the organization.  I'm not anti FAIR, I think it provides an important service and many valuable resources.  

There are more than just two sides to issues, this was a problem that I encountered interacting with FAIR members.  Often I would take a position that I believed was faithful from my perspective, yet it didn't jibe with others at FAIR.  For example, I tend to believe that the BoM lacks strong evidence for historicity, yet I still consider it inspired scripture.  Some FAIR contributors wouldn't respect this position.  I can tolerate others viewing the BoM as historical, no problem, I just ask for the same respect for my views in turn, but that wasn't granted. Just one example where I ran into a conflict on the FAIR message board.  

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

It seems clear that you have what I can only describe as hatred of Hales.

I've seen no "hatred" expressed towards Brian Hales from Bill Reel.  Have you listened to the podcast?

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

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/

 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.

*Bold is mine-

 

Is Hales either a member or a stake holder (contributor) to FAIR? Does he communicate and hold sway with members or leaders at FAIR?  I don't know the answer so I'd really like to know. It would be unfair to conflate Hales with FAIR if they aren't connected in any way. If they are, then it would be justifiable to speak about both.

[Bob Crockett]

I've listened to the podcast and have taken notes.  I'm not so sure about the hatred business, but Bill obvious feels that he has been mistreated and wants his revenge.

 

[Rivers]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

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'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? 

I have still not seen any evidence of apologists being rude or unchristlike.  They all seem like very pleasant people to me. Yet John Dehlin and others keep making these accusations. Do I need to have private correspondence with them to see this dark side I keep hearing about?

[Bob Crockett]

59 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I have still not seen any evidence of apologists being rude or unchristlike.  They all seem like very pleasant people to me. Yet John Dehlin and others keep making these accusations. Do I need to have private correspondence with them to see this dark side I keep hearing about?

Well, apologists are people.  I've taken it on the chin around here for some of my positions and I take it in stride.  I rather like the "apologists" here who have said the rudest things to me.  Some never jump into the fray, and some relish it.  It is impossible to lump them all into the same category as wonderful or unChristlike.  I'd say that lots of people disliked St. Paul, including Peter, because Paul seemed to be somewhat of a bully and a braggart.  

But, then again, people like John Dehlin seem to have a New Age perception of Jesus Christ, lamb across the shoulders, sitting around with children. I guess he missed Jesus's Matt 11 speech.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I've listened to the podcast and have taken notes.  I'm not so sure about the hatred business, but Bill obvious feels that he has been mistreated and wants his revenge.

 

I "liked" your post without seeing the word "revenge" at the end of your post.  I agree with the rest of what you stated, but I don't see that Bill's motives are to get revenge.  My impression is that he wants to clarify and also represent how he sees things.  It seems that he has reached out to Hales to try to make things right, not to get revenge.

Edited December 4, 2015 by ALarson
Correction

[Bob Crockett]

Fair enough.   Maybe not revenge as much as to make sure that Bill's view triumphs.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I "liked" your post without seeing the word "revenge" at the end of your post.  I agree with the rest of what you stated, but I don't see that Bill's motives are to get revenge.  My impression is that he wants to clarify and also represent how he sees things.  It seems that he has reached out to Hales to try to make things right, not to get revenge.

FYI, apparently one of the functions of the new board software is that you can rescind "likes" (or rep points, as we used to call them).

 

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, nealr said:

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.

I think there is a difference between defending the faith (apologetics), and trying to be an objective historian.  Objectivity isn't even mentioned in the mission statement that I linked to earlier.  I would agree with you that everyone has their biases, but the best historians in my opinion, try to look at both sides.  In Richard Bushman's On the Road with Joseph Smith:An Author's Diary he gets into this process of trying to walk a middle path and how difficult that is really well.  

From my perspective, FAIR does not attempt to do be as objective as some historians and scholars do.  Its not even mentioned in the mission statement.  I pointed out that the acronym FAIR has an implication of fair treatment, and I believe that this perception of fairness is intentional, however it is not one of the explicit objectives of the organization.  

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

FYI, apparently one of the functions of the new board software is that you can rescind "likes" (or rep points, as we used to call them).

 

Oh wow.  Good to know!  Thanks 

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding, Bill's report that Dehlin approached him for the interview... well, of course.  Around five years ago, I made myself available to Dehlin for an interview with an apologist, and he assured me that he really wanted it to happen.  But then he got busy with school, he said, and I noticed a string of negative interviews came along lickity split, and the Maxwell thing happened, and I decided I could not in good conscience participate in that forum.  Two items of note.  It did occur to me afterwards to suppose that if I were a celebrity or even more importantly, if I had a good victim story to share, Dehlin may have made more of an effort to interview me.  And I did notice that after I took myself off the list of candidates, Dehlin censored several of my well documented comments on the Mormon Stories board regarding several points of the Coe interview. 

So there is no chance that Bill's feelings on the topic is being exploited in anyway in service of anyone's agenda, and no chance of the Irony Police making inquiries. Right?

Regarding FAIR and the claims regarding who is and is not "objective", I keep referring to Peter Novick's relevant talk at Sunstone, which Sunstone, for some doubtless "objective" reason, never published.

 

Quote

 

I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

 

 

Quoted and sourced here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/#more-7755

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 4, 2015 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

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? 

Why is permission necessary whether BYU holds the copyright or not? My understanding has always been that it is perfectly legal and acceptable to quote limited passages from any work that has been published. Isn't that what "fair use" is all about?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Well, I am a copyright attorney, and you don't want my answer on that.  Suffice it to say, I didn't care about my stuff being copied and if I didn't care, nor would BYU have cared.  I was flattered -- so, have at it.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Neal, this is important to consider the history of the organization.  I'm not anti FAIR, I think it provides an important service and many valuable resources.  

There are more than just two sides to issues, this was a problem that I encountered interacting with FAIR members.  Often I would take a position that I believed was faithful from my perspective, yet it didn't jibe with others at FAIR.  For example, I tend to believe that the BoM lacks strong evidence for historicity, yet I still consider it inspired scripture.  Some FAIR contributors wouldn't respect this position.  I can tolerate others viewing the BoM as historical, no problem, I just ask for the same respect for my views in turn, but that wasn't granted. Just one example where I ran into a conflict on the FAIR message board.  

I think FairMormon, though not affiliated with the Church, is unabashed in its effort to align itself with the orthodox position of the Church (I heard John Lynch say as much at a FairMormon conference on one occasion). Those who go there expecting otherwise are going to be frustrated.

And the notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than it purports to be is decidedly not the orthodox position of the Church.

To put it another way, one can expect FairMormon to be consistent with its own stated mission and with its self-identification. I see that as a rather uncontroversial premise.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I am a copyright attorney, and you don't want my answer on that.  Suffice it to say, I didn't care about my stuff being copied and if I didn't care, nor would BYU have cared.  I was flattered -- so, have at it.

Well, this is not the place to go into the niceties of copyright law, but as a journalist, I have throughout my life functioned on the assumption that one can quote brief snippets (with proper attribution, of course) from an article or a book without fear of violating copyright. If this is not the case, I really would be interested to know, as it is definitely news to me.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

The press reporting on an academic piece is fair use, if the quoting is limited and sufficient for reporting the piece.  That is not what FAIR does, but I am not here to criticize FAIR.

 

For instance, a few years ago I cut and pasted in this forum the Wall Street Journal article about Michael Quinn.  It was removed.  Although a close question, it was likely not fair use.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.   

your fine.  i appreciate your perspective

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The press reporting on an academic piece is fair use, if the quoting is limited and sufficient for reporting the piece.  That is not what FAIR does, but I am not here to criticize FAIR.

 

OK, I understand a little better now.

How about linking to an online version of the piece? Isn't that what FairMormon does, in the main, when using outside work?

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not quite sure about the linking business, but when critics have posted huge segments of my MMM articles I've accepted as a compromise a link to the MI site.  No, FAIR has large-scale quotes; always attributed, but that isn't a defense.  But, again, I'm not here to criticize FAIR.

[Calm]

test...because something weird just happened

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

test...because something weird just happened

derail....

Just kidding...I'm experiencing weird things since the change too. 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Did you or anyone else happen to see my post (I did it twice) that provided a link to a blog?  I am wondering if the board program thought it was spam and automatically deleted it.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you or anyone else happen to see my post (I did it twice) that provided a link to a blog?  I am wondering if the board program thought it was spam and automatically deleted it.

Your link is not visible to me.

 

[Calm]

Trying to do just the content, posting for a FM friend from his personal blog (so not an official FM response but based on his own experience and opinions...I say this because some people seem to have a habit of not distinguishing between what our members do in their own time and efforts and what they do for FM), the link has a spam sensitive word in it so you will have do do a search on the content, my apologies:

 

 

Quote

 

Comments on John Dehlin's interview with Bill Reel

I attempted to post these comments on the Mormon Stories website earlier today, but as I expected based on previous experience, they did not survive the moderation queue.

 

 

Responding to someone comparing the editing/removal of Bill's material to the editing of Elder Poelman's talk given in 1984:

 

Elder Poelman actually rewrote his own talk after realizing how it might be used by fundamentalists. You can see the real story here. And Bill Reel actually requested that his material be removed, and then later suggested that it might be modified as necessary. Neither of these things were done until later, so he may have forgotten, but he was clearly OK with these things happening at the time he parted ways with FairMormon.

 

And then in response to the podcast in general (with some additional information added):
 

If I may make a few clarifications, the reason that you have difficulty getting apologists on your podcast is not that they can't "defend the indefensible," but that they don't want to attract further attention or lend credibility to a podcast series that tends to damage faith. Bill Reel himself said in his first interview that he was attracted to Mormon Stories by the interviews with Bushman and/or Givens, if I remember correctly.

And the reason why the FairMormon Support Board was shut down is that there were a few individuals (including Bill Reel) that were repeatedly shepherding people in the wrong direction, and there was not sufficient manpower to effectively moderate it. It was determined that it was not doing what it was intended for, and so a new site is being worked on with a different format that should work better.

I already mentioned in an earlier comment that Bill himself asked that his material be removed or edited at the time that he parted ways with FairMormon. This was not done immediately, but his activities eventually crossed a line. As explained on the FairMormon Blog:

Many of our volunteers contribute content in other venues, such as on personal blogs, in scholarly publications, and in podcasts. When a current or former FairMormon volunteer publishes views that contradict the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or accuses Church leaders of wrongdoing, malicious intent, and so forth, it may become confusing or harmful to FairMormon’s audience, and contrary to FairMormon’s mission, to maintain that volunteer’s content on our website. Because FairMormon is a trusted entity for many Latter-day Saints and sincere investigators, FairMormon must avoid endorsing external content that opposes our mission and the Church’s values.

FairMormon is constantly accused of ad hominem, but when asked for examples, the accuser always comes up short. Some time ago, John Dehlin even asked for examples on Facebook, and as I recall the only thing that anyone was able to come up with was an acrostic in an article for the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (which was published by a different organization).

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm