Bill Reel on Mormon Stories

[DBMormon]

Also I think the timeline I have created is pretty fair and charitable to FairMormon's side.  I am happy to ask permission of FairMormon to publish it here?  Cal can you check with the powers that be.  I will email you the copy right now and you ask the powers that be if they wish to stand by the anonymous comments of one of their leaders or give permission for the document to be made public.  Can't wait.

By the way they are free to disavow past theories if needed.

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by DBMormon

[Calm]

 

Quote

 

Also I think the timeline I have created is pretty fair and charitable to FairMormon's side.  I am happy to ask permission of FairMormon to publish it here?  Cal can you check with the powers that be.  I will email you the copy right now and you ask the powers that be if they wish to stand by the anonymous comments of one of their leaders or give permission for the document to be made public.  Can't wait.

By the way they are free to disavow past theories if needed.

 

Bill, I have found confusion and misunderstanding increases the more people involved in a discussion.  You know who you talked to, you have their emails right?  Seems the most efficient path is for you to ask, not me.  

Do you not have their email addresses with their emails?.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Calm

[Greg Smith]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

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. 

Don't mistake what Cal and I are saying.

You only requested the podcasts come down. No one debates that, that I know of.

What I am saying is that it was made pretty clear (to me, anyway, in my reading of the documents) that your future behavior and actions could lead to the FairMormon board taking whatever steps they deemed necessary to publicly disassociate themselves from you and your claims and approach, especially if it appeared to them that you were trading on your past association with FairMormon to promote yourself. You expressed disappointment with this stance, but expressed your understanding, and said FairMormon should do whatever they felt they had to do, as it were.

The Broader Picture

All that aside, it's not clear to me if there were (as you say) discussions about podcasts and such worries, why you would think the board's view of your participation at the FairMormon conference would be any different? And, if you'd asked for some of your material to be removed, why on earth would we think that you would mind if other of your material was removed? "Take down my podcasts where I interviewed, but don't you dare touch a live interview that I moderated"? :-)

If anything, the conference is a bigger deal, more FairMormon "branded." I doubt the board would be keen to have it appear that we supported or endorsed your approach due to that.

Surely you can grant that it isn't a stretch to imagine that FairMormon might presume that given your previous requests, on balance, you would likely be glad you weren't there anymore, since you didn't agree with our approach?

No fanfare

Note too that this was not done with a big public announcement or a condemnatory blog post or anything. No one was looking to embarrass you, or put you on the spot, or draw attention to what the board seems to have regarded as posts and remarks that "crossed the line." There was no "let's get Bill Reel" scheme. In retrospect, maybe there should have been a big announcement to avoid the opportunity for others to claim duplicity on FairMormon's part.

Personally, I wouldn't have been interested in the drama, had an announcement been suggested. I would have called it a waste of time. All we'd get is flack for supposedly trying to "smear" Bill's name or put him on some type of anathema list, or say he's "apostate" or something. We don't need the grief. We get enough of that when we critique someone's arguments, as I have better cause to know than most.

But, I ask again--do you really think that we're so dumb that we don't know our site gets archived like most others? We know better than most that anything on the Internet is, in a sense, there forever if someone is determined. We use that feature of it frequently in our work. We knew anyone who cared could find the info, while the removal still allowed the current site to avoid any misleading implications or messages.

Let it go?

This is only a big deal because you've brought it up. Personally, I've said nothing about it for a long while because I was hoping it would simply die down as a tempest in a teapot. I've spoken up simply to give those who are interested the benefit of another perspective that (to me, anyway) seems far more plausible than the absurd idea that we think we can rewrite history. We'd be fools to try.

I think it unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding, as there seems to have been. I apologize for any part that I played in that misunderstanding, though I was admittedly watching from the side lines. Had I had any hint that matters weren't clear, I'd have encouraged them to be so. So, I'm sure, would others--what would we gain from opacity or confusion? It's not like anyone can force us to host their material!

I don't, of course, speak for FairMormon or its board, just me. Personally, I suspect they aren't going to be very interested in rehashing private e-mails with you. But, I think you've spent far more time thinking about this than anyone there has. You crossed a line, the board made a decision, and we've not really thought or worried about it since (that I know of).

Its not clear to me why you care, after all. You don't agree with us. You wanted us to remove your podcasts. You're going a way we don't endorse. You don't agree with our approach. What's the point, unless you want to leverage your association with FairMormon to increase your credibility? (And, if so, that just reinforces the wisdom of the board's decision, in my opinion.)

Isn't the best thing to simply each do our thing? If you disagree with an argument we make, feel free to address it somewhere. Someone may or may not reply, as they feel inclined.

But I don't see much to be gained from gossipy podcast talks of how terrible or mean someone is, or rather absurd theories that FairMormon fancies it can rewrite history.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Greg Smith

[Calm]

Quote

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 tof the audio podcast.  

The bolded part...I don't believe this is a claim (you were informed of the removal when it occurred) being made by FM so there is no reason for you to dispute it.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So the mission of the support board wasn’t to provide support for people having a faith crisis, even though that’s what the board description talked about?  If anyone experiencing a faith crisis comes to conclusions that aren’t in alignment with the direction that FAIR believes is correct (even if they want to continue to be an involved member of the church), then that person is corrected and/or discarded. Conditional support is what FAIR wanted to provide, not mourn with those that mourn and comfort those in need of comfort.  Try to comfort them with a church approved comforting technique, and if they don't feel comforted, well too bad, next person please.  

A rather negative and cynical view by any measure.  The only real question is, How do you know that this is an accurate description of what happened?

[DBMormon]

Greg, Moving forward in this thread you won't find me saying anymore on the specific details of who said what and who did what, the horse has been beaten three times over and it is apparent that there are multiple valid perspectives one can hold based on both sides and the actual documentation (Should I have expected anything less).  But help me with your logic on some principles.

A.) If someone asks you to do ABC, it is then safe to extend that to XYZ?  You really want to hold this logic up as viable?

Gary gave me permission to make Speghetti for the banquet so I felt safe to assume that Pasta Alfredo would be ok with him as well?

B.) When such a measure is done - Don't you think a courtesy heads up to the person would be good taste?

"Ralph Jones, Please be informed we have removed your persona from from the final production of XMen 12.  While you played a valuable role with that movie, your public comments agreeing with terrorists left us no choice.  Please know we appreciate what you the work you have done, but must take this step."

C.) Would it not also be crucial to make a note at the beginning of such a drastic step so that readers are not left assuming all is as it was?

D.) Did FairMormon not consider any implications in terms of historical accuracy when editing such document?  Or Did they simply see the possibility of being seen as messing with history as a lesser priority over protecting their good name and reputation in the public eye as well as not feeling comfortable giving any more access to people becoming aware of an individual you do not want people to be aware of?

Have a great day (And I mean that) 

Bill

Edited December 5, 2015 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

It looks funny and does rewrite history when Bill's words are cut out of the panel discussion with Don and others.  I think it would be fair to put it back as originally done.  And then this whole mess will go away.  

[nealr]

Bill,

I'll leave it to Greg to answer your questions as he sees fit, but as someone who was privy to some of the discussion about it before the decision was made, I can assure it was not done on a whim or without consideration of various factors. I certainly understand where you are coming from on not being informed when it happened. By the same token, however, you could have just as easily contacted FairMormon leadership privately to inquire about it, rather than instantly making a public stink.

What I don't understand, though, is why all the fuss in the first place? How does stirring up controversy like this really help you accomplish your aims and goals? How does it help people lead with faith, as you like to say? How does it strengthen feeble knees, or lift hands that hang down? From what I have been able to tell, it has riled people up more than anything, and despite FairMormon not being the Church, it has nonetheless fed into peoples negative narratives about how the Church handles history, which obviously is not helpful to any sort of cause aimed at strengthening faith. 

It can't have personally affected you very much, seeing as how it took you months to even notice. And in my estimation, making a public fuss about has only done more to damage both you and FairMormon; it is the stirring up controversy more than the mere facts of the situation. 

So I am frankly at a loss as to why you made such a big deal out of this in the first place. From my vantage point, you and everyone else would be better off if you just dropped this and moved on. And that would be my advice, for what it is worth.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

50 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

 While you played a valuable role with that movie, your public comments agreeing with terrorists left us no choice.  Please know we appreciate what you the work you have done, but must take this step."

 

Do you really see it as reasonable for an organization that promotes peace to be thanking someone for their work for peace when that person has gone on record as proterrorism?

I would see that as rather strange myself.

[HappyJackWagon]

This discussion has meandered in and out of the weeds. As my final thought on this thread I'll just state that I appreciate the podcast content Bill provides. It creates space for nuance and interpretation instead of rigid dogma. I appreciate this about Bill's efforts even if some others don't.

I'll also say that fair or not, FAIR is held to a high standard of behavior based upon it's stated mission to sustain and uphold the church's doctrines and provide faithful explanations to challenging historical or theological claims. As a defender of the faith it is expected that FAIR will live up to high ethical standards and treat others with kindness and respect. I view it similarly to the BYU athletics program. Players and coaches are held to a high standard and when they don't meet that high standard there is increased criticism.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 As a defender of the faith it is expected that FAIR will live up to high ethical standards and treat others with kindness and respect. I view it similarly to the BYU athletics program. Players and coaches are held to a high standard and when they don't meet that high standard there is increased criticism.

So you think it is appropriate when BYU removes a player who is not acting in accordance with those standards, correct?

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you think it is appropriate when BYU removes a player who is not acting in accordance with those standards, correct?

Sure. But after the athlete has already left the program it would be absurd for the team to go delete any video, photographic, or print evidence of his existence. I actually wasn't referring to this aspect though. I was referring to the great offense FAIR members take when others point out the harsh reality of their interactions with FAIR. BYU doesn't like it when their lack of sportsmanship is pointed out and FAIR is the same.

[Paloma]

9 hours ago, Greg Smith said:

...

Its not clear to me why you care, after all. You don't agree with us. You wanted us to remove your podcasts. You're going a way we don't endorse. You don't agree with our approach. What's the point, unless you want to leverage your association with FairMormon to increase your credibility? (And, if so, that just reinforces the wisdom of the board's decision, in my opinion.)

...

Hopefully, you won't mind an outsider's opinion on all of this.  

First, I have to say that as a non-LDS interested observer, it's really none of my business, but having read as much as I have here, I'm left with impressions that I'd like to express.

I have been really impressed with the effort made by those involved with FairMormon to explain as clearly and accurately as possible the reasons for decisions made and actions taken.  There's been a really open and conciliatory tone that I find very helpful.

In Greg Smith's statement above that I isolated from his longer (very helpful, I think) discourse, I find two things that for me, capsulize important factors here.  From the latter part of the statement above, I certainly understand FairMormon's desire to safeguard their mission and message.  

But I also find it interesting that you would say, Greg, "It's not clear to me why you care, after all.  You don't agree with us."  There was a later post after Greg's (by nealr, I believe) that conveyed much the same sentiment ("why all the fuss in the first place?"), along with the idea that the whole is greater than the parts.  While I understand and appreciate the importance of protecting the whol , I also find hints in that of the greater good of the collective, and the minimization of the individual.  I find it really unfortunate that Bill Reel wasn't informed of the (huge!) change in the modified presentation of the event he moderated at the conference.  There have been expressions of regret and apology here, I think.

But I still find it hard to read "It's not clear to me why you care".  

If it were me, I would care if I were scrubbed from a panel discussion of which I was a key participant/moderator.  

I won't presume to pass judgment on decisions made ... it's not my business, and it's also not difficult for me to understand why they were made.

 On reading this thread, i tend to agree with so many viewpoints, from the oddity of the missing participant and the apparent revision of history (the actual event as it happened), and the concern about protecting how FairMormon's output comes across and not wanting to be perceived as endorsing a message that is counter to its own.

The final thing I want to say, even though I don't know Bill, is that I care! That's not to say that others don't, and I think the thoughtful and careful responses here attest to that.

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by Paloma

[BookofMormonLuvr]

23 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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.

 

 

That is one of the most depressing posts I have read in a while. And the fact that you actually seem to see it as acceptable makes it that much worse.

Edited December 5, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Calm]

But FM did not delete all evidence of Bill Reel's existence...he is all over the internet, he had his content on his own site.  Material was removed from our own site with full awareness it was elsewhere, material that was confusing people when they saw or heard him acting as a representative for FairMormon when they knew of inconsistent behaviour elsewhere.  We tried to do it in a way that was least disruptive and was respectful to nonFM participants who had generously given us their time and resources.  

Bill Reel had suggested himself that he be edited from interviews, not seeing a significant difference from being removed from the panel.  

The sports analogy is not completely comparable because past sports events have concluded their efforts and the videos are simply records of those events.  The materials that FM has posted on their site are still active in their purpose of education, etc.  Watching or listening to material today is for the same purpose as when it was first presented, in case of conference material as if they were sitting in the conference itself.  Any material on our site is part of our current mission.  Therefore we need to remove material if it interferes in some way with the effectiveness of that mission.  That is why we delete and replace out of date material in our wiki, for example, often at the suggestion of those who are not a part of FM.

I am not offended by reality, I am not offended that some people feel they or others have been treated harshly.  I do think it wise and prudent not to assume feelings of harsh treatment always equates to actual harsh treatment.  "Harsh" is a subjective term.  It is better to deal, imo, in specific actions.

[juliann]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

I'll also say that fair or not, FAIR is held to a high standard of behavior based upon it's stated mission to sustain and uphold the church's doctrines and provide faithful explanations to challenging historical or theological claims. As a defender of the faith it is expected that FAIR will live up to high ethical standards and treat others with kindness and respect.  

I would modify that to being held to a high double standard ;-) Isn't it the intent of those who object to those who defend the Church to provide the way to a higher standard of thought and behavior? Logically that demands even higher levels of behavior and treatment of others. I hope for the day where that obligation will be accepted by all who attempt to influence others. I am seeing encouraging movement in that direction on other levels.

Many opinions have been expressed. Where there cannot be agreement sometimes there can only be tolerance or forgiveness. FM's position has, I think, been clearly stated.

Quote

 

FairMormon stands as a witness of Jesus Christ and His restored Church. Our mission is to answer charges leveled against the Church, its leaders, teachings and practices.

We are an all-volunteer organization. We seek volunteers who agree with our mission and want to help. These individuals contribute with a full understanding of our mission, and know their work may be used or modified as needed in order to achieve our mission. They further understand that the purpose of volunteering is to defend the Church and not to pursue a personal agenda.

Because our priority is our mission and not ourselves, much of FairMormon’s content is generated collaboratively and not attributed to individuals. Some blogs, podcasts, and other content do have attributed authors. Because our volunteer resources are limited, not all content in blogs and podcasts can be carefully reviewed in advance. Therefore, sometimes it is necessary to edit, refine, or even remove already-published content in order to keep it consistent with our mission.

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 reserves the right to edit or remove content produced by attributed authors in order to ensure that we maintain integrity in our mission. When content is not attributed, there is generally no change to the content we make available to the public.

Our volunteers are never guaranteed their content will never be removed or edited. We try to make sure our volunteers understand that FairMormon’s mission is a higher priority than any individual’s wishes or feeling of pride in his or her contributions. We at FairMormon are not here for ourselves, but to serve the interests of the Lord and His restored Church. We defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unapologetically in the hopes that our efforts will help sustain the faith of those who visit our site.

 

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

But FM did not delete all evidence of Bill Reel's existence...he is all over the internet, he had his content on his own site.  Material was removed from our own site with full awareness it was elsewhere, material that was confusing people when they saw or heard him acting as a representative for FairMormon when they knew of inconsistent behaviour elsewhere.  We tried to do it in a way that was least disruptive and was respectful to nonFM participants who had generously given us their time and resources.  

Bill Reel had suggested himself that he be edited from interviews, not seeing a significant difference from being removed from the panel.  

The sports analogy is not completely comparable because past sports events have concluded their efforts and the videos are simply records of those events.  The materials that FM has posted on their site are still active in their purpose of education, etc.  Watching or listening to material today is for the same purpose as when it was first presented, in case of conference material as if they were sitting in the conference itself.  Any material on our site is part of our current mission.  Therefore we need to remove material if it interferes in some way with the effectiveness of that mission.  That is why we delete and replace out of date material in our wiki, for example, often at the suggestion of those who are not a part of FM.

I am not offended by reality, I am not offended that some people feel they or others have been treated harshly.  I do think it wise and prudent not to assume feelings of harsh treatment always equates to actual harsh treatment.  "Harsh" is a subjective term.  It is better to deal, imo, in specific actions.

Calm, do I need to get a church attorney to precisely convey my thoughts or can you understand my point that I was referring to erasing Bill from FAIR? Come on, now.

IMO the sports analogy works fine because the program continues long past particular games or seasons. When Jim McMahon lived a riotous lifestyle after leaving BYU did BYU erase his contributions to the football program and it's future for fear that his actions would hurt recruiting and the program's culture? Did BYU attempt to scrub him from every source they had access to edit? Of course not. Why? Because it's an unrealistic expectation that every action, belief, word of an individual throughout his entire life will promote the ideals of the program. No one holds that expectation so if BYU behaved that way it would come across as petty and vindictive. It's totally unnecessary. Frankly, if the content he provided was good then, it is still likely good now.

I was trying to end the conversation earlier but you sucked me back in. I'm really out now

[Calm]

I was not intentionally implying you were referring to the world.  I was trying to make the point that we did not see it as erasing Bill Reel because we knew there were copies elsewhere.  We were instead removing his official connection with us.  The intent was to do it quietly to simply avoid future mistakes of people thinking Bill Reel was a current member and representative of FM, that was all. We would have made a public statement if we had desired to ensure that everyone was aware of our disagreement with his approach.

Your analogy does not work because we had evidence there were people believing he was still connected with FairMormon with the implication that his current position was therefore acceptable in FairMormon's view.  People are generally aware that sports figures only last a certain number of years with an organization and the default assumption will be that a player has left an organization. FairMormon has had members who have been with us since the very beginning and likely will only leave when they die.  FairMormon also does not make announcements when people leave its membership for whatever reason.  We knew people were making the error, that unlike sports figures they were believing a former member was a representative.  There was actual confusion over Reel's standing/position with FairMormon and if we endorsed him.  We felt given his past and current commentary we needed to cleanly cut ties, but it was sufficient in our opinion (speaking generally) to simply remove material where he was acting as a FM representative without a public disavowal.  This possible removal of material if Reel was to eventually take positions significantly contrary to the Church and/or FairMormon was discussed at the time of Reel's leaving FairMormon.  He did, so we did.

And I did not see you addressing the point that our material on the FM website is seen as a current production.  If we would not have someone participate as a FM representative in a live setting, then we won't have them participate as a representative in a recording.  It seems to me a pretty straightforward principle.  It was not a panelist that was removed or conference talk presenter: after all we have had a number of nonLDS presenters and FM does not endorse everything speakers said.  The situation is different imo.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Calm