Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Greg Smith said:

In my experience, FairMormon is and was (on the support board) very good at validating in the sense of saying, "Yeah, I can see why that is a potentially tough issue for you." Good grief, we have hundreds or thousands of articles dealing with just such things. If we didn't think that well-intentioned, sincere people could be troubled by them, we wouldn't have written them. Many of us have had that same experience.

If, however you mean "validating" in the sense of encouraging people to conclude that there are no good answers to such questions, or that the best conclusion is things at variance with the Church's truth claims (e.g., claims that the Book of Mormon is not a legitimate ancient document), then FairMormon doesn't (in my experience) do or support that, and have never pretended that we will or have.

Some people want their conclusions or interpretation of the data "validated." That's quite another matter than acknowledging a difficulty or problem.

 

In the podcast, which I listened to last night, Bill repeatedly used the word "messy" pertaining to Mormon doctrine and history, conveying the idea that validating their notion that there is no good answer to their concerns was what some people were seeking when they came to the support board. It strikes me then, that any earnest effort on the part of FairMormon or its members to resolve a concern would be apt to rub them the wrong way, because that would contradict their preconceived conclusion that the issues are "messy."

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Calm, I know that you did not state the above, but are quoting someone else (just clarifying and I hope that is correct).

But, is this accurate?   If so, do you have a reference for this or it is just this person's opinion or experience?

 

I believe this is accurate though I have not read the original exchange.  I read the same source that this individual is reporting.  The person reporting the discussion over what should happen with content is a very credible source.  I don't want to add more because I prefer to let him speak for himself, but I am not sure if more is going to be said.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Greg Smith said:

No, I am saying he was aware that we might remove and/or edit some/all of his material. Or he should have been.

Then did you misspeak when you wrote:  "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."?

Because Bill maybe being aware that something might happen is quite different than him asking to have his material removed.

Edited December 4, 2015 by ALarson
correction

[Greg Smith]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the podcast, which I listened to last night, Bill repeatedly used the word "messy" pertaining to Mormon doctrine and history, conveying the idea that validating their notion that there is no good answer to their concerns was what some people were seeking when they came to the support board. It strikes me then, that any earnest effort on the part of FairMormon or its members to resolve a concern would be apt to rub them the wrong way, because that would contradict their preconceived conclusion that the issues are "messy."

Yes, multi-variable calculus can likewise appear (or be) "messy."

With more experience and time, however, sometimes even terribly messy equations turn out to have solutions.Insert other media

There's always a risk of us becoming "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" or "ever in turmoil, and deciding that there is no answer."

GLS

[Greg Smith]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then did you misspeak when you wrote:  "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."?

Because Bill maybe being aware that something might happen is quite different than him asking to have his material removed.

Both happened. He asked to have some material removed, including things where he was the "interviewer."

I suspect he just meant the podcasts, but he played essentially the same role in the panel.

So, both were factors: he was wanting removal of some material (which, if I recall, we declined to do simply on his say-so, because material produced for FairMormon becomes our property, and he realized that ultimately). And, he was made aware that some material might well be removed at our discretion, and he also suggested at one point that we edit his material as we saw fit to still use some of it.

As I say, I think there was simply a miscommunication, or he has forgotten all this.

GLS

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Calm, thanks for answering those questions.

What I mean is, does Hales have power, either officially or non-officially, to call, email, text, whatever the leadership at FAIR and say, "This Bill Reel guy is a problem. We need to disassociate with him in any way we can."

The implication has been that Hales may have influenced FAIR's erasure of Bill from their history.

 

I don't remember any input from Hales on the topic of Bill Reel to any discussions.  Brian has reported on his projects, not sure if he has done anything else (would have to review emails).  I don't believe Brian was even actively involved with FM at the time the decision was made.  In the conversations I have had and observed, I see it as very unlikely that Brian Hales would have tried to do this.

 

There was one very good reason why the removal occurred and it was completely dependent on Bill Reel's own comments that were out there in public for everyone to see.  I don't understand why people wouldn't go "well, of course FM would distance themselves from Bill Reel" after reading his blog equating church leadership to an abusive father, which featured a picture of a man with a black eye (so the implication is of significant, dangerous, criminal abuse, not just mild, dysfunctional family dynamics).

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Also, regarding your previous quotes from the JD page, I don't know who you are quoting but I find it difficult to believe Bill asked to be completely scrubbed from FAIR's history. I believe he mentioned in the podcast that he was fine with them removing the podcast episodes he provided as content but that is very different than erasing him from the picture of panelists and his comments and questions as moderator. Removing content is a fairly regular occurrence on any website but keeping content up but erasing 1 person's contribution to that content is extreme.

I don't remember if specifics were discussed or not, so it is possible his expectations were not in line with what actually happened, but it was discussed that any content involving him could be edited/removed so what happened was not out of line with what was discussed.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't remember any input from Hales on the topic of Bill Reel to any discussions.  Brian has reported on his projects, not sure if he has done anything else (would have to review emails).  I don't believe Brian was even actively involved with FM at the time the decision was made.  In the conversations I have had and observed, I see it as very unlikely that Brian Hales would have tried to do this.

 

There was one very good reason why the removal occurred and it was completely dependent on Bill Reel's own comments that were out there in public for everyone to see.  I don't understand why people wouldn't go "well, of course FM would distance themselves from Bill Reel" after reading his blog equating church leadership to an abusive father, which featured a picture of a man with a black eye (so the implication is of significant abuse, not just mild, dysfunctional family dynamics).

When I saw the hoopla being made over his removal from the panel discussion transcript, that particular blog post was what immediately came to my mind.

His recent strident public activism in opposition to the Church's policy change has only confirmed my belief that going forward, he should not be presented as the face of FairMormon in any respect.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

Will Bill's children have to wait until they are 18 in order to participate at FAIR?

[Calm]

Quote

FairMormon is and was (on the support board) very good at validating in the sense of saying, "Yeah, I can see why that is a potentially tough issue for you."

It needs to be remembered that not all participants were FairMormon members, including those who were there because they saw themselves defenders of the fath, as only there to help, not to be helped.  I moderated some (and another mod banned those who didn't learn) who were not good at validating because they were not following board requirements.  There were also some very excellent nonFM members who I would have loved to have drafted as 'volunteers', but they felt they didn't have the time when I suggested they join up.

[Greg Smith]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It needs to be remembered that not all participants were FairMormon members, including those who were there because they saw themselves defenders of the fath, as only there to help, not to be helped.  I moderated some (and another mod banned those who didn't learn) who were not good at validating because they were not following board requirements.  There were also some very excellent nonFM members who I would have loved to have drafted as 'volunteers', but they felt they didn't have the time when I suggested they join up.

Good point. And, no one was involved that didn't want to be.

GLS

[Calm]

I may have missed some replies to my posts, not intended but not used to how the new upgrade functions yet.  

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Greg Smith said:

Yeah, I think this type of remark is an excellent microcosm of why there were problems that ultimately proved intractable.

That was actually my thinking as well.

[Calm]

Quote

He was also well aware that a big concern was that some of his statements were inconsistent with our mission, and we did not wish to appear to be endorsing him.

I believe he was the one who first suggested we remove anything that we felt was inconsistent, but that could be my interpretation.

add-on:  he did ask for some content to be removed but left it with FM to make the final decision, I don't know what it was or if it was deemed necessary to remove it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then did you misspeak when you wrote:  "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."?

Because Bill maybe being aware that something might happen is quite different than him asking to have his material removed.

Like I said above, my understanding is that it was his idea/suggestion to edit his stuff as needed and that is what was meant.

[Greg Smith]

23 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Will Bill's children have to wait until they are 18 in order to participate at FAIR?

No, they were already signed over to us for a billion years of servitude as part of the FairMormon blood oath, "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good."

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Like I said above, my understanding is that it was his idea/suggestion to edit his stuff as needed and that is what was meant.

Thanks for your input, Calm  It will also be interesting to see what Bill remembers about this as I really do believe that you are honestly relating what you remember and I believe he'll do the same.   Maybe he doesn't remember suggesting the editing of his contributions to FAIR?

[Greg Smith]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your input, Calm  It will also be interesting to see what Bill remembers about this as I really do believe that you are honestly relating what you remember and I believe he'll do the same.   Maybe he doesn't remember suggesting the editing of his contributions to FAIR?

That's almost certainly the case.

If he had approached us and asked, rather than jumping to conclusions, much confusion could have been avoided.

GLS

[Calm]

I am repeating what Greg said because I am not reading his posts first, but answering the questions as I read them to the best of my ability.  I figured people would prefer multiple versions to help get as many details understood correctly as possible.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your input, Calm  It will also be interesting to see what Bill remembers about this as I really do believe that you are honestly relating what you remember and I believe he'll do the same.   Maybe he doesn't remember suggesting the editing of his contributions to FAIR?

I believe this all took place in early 2014 so it would be easy enough to forget the details of a conversation, especially if nothing occurred for awhile to remind him and he stopped paying attention.

 

add-on:  think I am caught up on questions and will shortly be going to a ward party, don't know if/when I will be back to the thread.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm

[juliann]

7 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Ignore this. No matter what reply option a previous reply of mine fills the window, I can delete everything but this window.

 So.....Happy Jack asks:  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.

First, as a Board member, I would be very pleased to consider anything Brian has to say....as I would any expert. FM relies on them for speakers and advice. It would be very foolish indeed to discuss polygamy without the Hales' input. He has been a conference speaker for us as has Laura. But to say that anyone who has contact with FM is FM is like saying that anyone who publishes with Kofford (as he does) is Kofford. It just doesn't work that way. 

Hope, it is clear that FM had a different vision for their support board than you do. Obviously, you do not agree with our methods. But it is our mission and our forum. It was an experiment and it didn't work for us. (We do have the advantage of having access to the feedback of others you would not be aware of.) You obviously had a lot invested in that forum and I'm sorry that it didn't all work out but we do have to work in our own best interests and for those that rely on us for what we do offer. I hope you can accept that.

[DBMormon]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by DBMormon

[Chaos]

20 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

 

Mr. Reel, do not use our board to publish private email without permission of all parties. Your posts are hidden without that permission..

[DBMormon]

Since I am unable to prove "in this medium" that I only requested my audio be deleted and never was informed based on my recollection as well as the documented conversations, I will simply say anonymous FairMormon guy is wrong as I have the emails mentioned by Cal and they prove I was only speaking of the audio podcast.  

The only thing you have done is violate privacy with cherry picked selections.  GET PERMISSION.

[Nevo]

13 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

He then stated that he could no longer support me or my work and asked me not to use the photo he sent me of him wearing my logo t-shirt.

So you left it up on your site just to spite him?

Anyway, I don't think FairMormon should have deleted you from the transcript of the panel discussion you moderated but I get why they did it. FairMormon's mission is to defend the Church, right or wrong, and you've gone out of your way to publicly criticize the Church, even going so far as to compare it to a physically and sexually abusive father. So no big surprise there.