Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't that like complaining that because one thief didn't face prosecution that prosecuting a thief is wrong.

This is a point that I think we LDS need to accept.  We know it is the stated policy of the church to defer DC to local leaders.  This means there can be a wide array of application and outcomes to any situations.  Also, even when the quorum of the 12 or first presidency to get involved, we have to understand that the apostles have different viewpoints and applications of justice, understanding, control, leniency, and mercy.

We see this in judicial systems, too.  Disparate impact may not be 'fair', but it is just a reality.  I don't see a practical way to address it.

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've never known Bill to be dishonest. He may interpret some things in a way you wouldn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's not honest. Even without cross posting, do you have examples of dishonesty. You must have that opinion for a reason so I'm curious what leads you to believe that.

he reads something online, distorts it and then presents it like he discovered it. I can't get into specifics though. FWIW I don't think he is deliberatley being dishonest, I think he is dishonest by a term I heard in university by a history prof. "distortion by omission", it's a distorted picture of what happened. It would be nice to for him to have an original idea and not borrowed or whatever from someone else

Edited August 1, 2018 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he reads something online, distorts it and then presents it like he discovered it. I can't get into specifics though. FWIW I don't think he is deliberatley being dishonest, I think he is dishonest by a term I heard in university by a history prof. "distortion by omission", it's a distorted picture of what happened. It would be nice to for him to have an original idea and not borrowed or whatever from someone else

It's your accusation.  Why can't you get into specifics?  If you are so intent on showing he's been dishonest, even if by "distortion by omission", you really have a burden to demonstrate your accusation.  

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he reads something online, distorts it and then presents it like he discovered it. I can't get into specifics though. FWIW I don't think he is deliberatley being dishonest, I think he is dishonest by a term I heard in university by a history prof. "distortion by omission", it's a distorted picture of what happened. It would be nice to for him to have an original idea and not borrowed or whatever from someone else

Distortion by omission...I will remember that..Thank you Duncan.  🤤

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It's your accusation.  Why can't you get into specifics?  If you are so intent on showing he's been dishonest, even if by "distortion by omission", you really have a burden to demonstrate your accusation.  

out of fairness to him I won't post what he says elsewhere, I will take your word you can find his comments and come to your own conclusion

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's your accusation.  Why can't you get into specifics?  If you are so intent on showing he's been dishonest, even if by "distortion by omission", you really have a burden to demonstrate your accusation.  

I  lost track here. Are you asking him about Bill's comments or Elder Holland's?

[Steve-o]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he reads something online, distorts it and then presents it like he discovered it. I can't get into specifics though. FWIW I don't think he is deliberatley being dishonest, I think he is dishonest by a term I heard in university by a history prof. "distortion by omission", it's a distorted picture of what happened. It would be nice to for him to have an original idea and not borrowed or whatever from someone else

I've never heard of distortion by omission before. I'm guessing some would accuse the church of the same thing.

[Steve-o]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

out of fairness to him I won't post what he says elsewhere, I will take your word you can find his comments and come to your own conclusion

You are usually a fair and balanced poster. Claiming he is dishonest but refusing to give examples doesn't seem very fair to me.

[Duncan]

Just now, Steve-o said:

I've never heard of distortion by omission before. I'm guessing some would accuse the church of the same thing.

I didn't make it up and they are

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

out of fairness to him I won't post what he says elsewhere, I will take your word you can find his comments and come to your own conclusion

A CFR could be issued, but I hope it wouldn't come to that.  You've made an accusation and stated that Bill has been dishonest.  To be fair, you need to back that up with some (or even just one) example or just withdraw it.  If you really believe he's been dishonest, it shouldn't be difficult for you to at least explain or state an example of why you believe this (if you don't want to cross post).

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Atheist Mormon]

19 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Either you're a believing member or you're not, and if not then just remove yourself and get on with your life.

He will not if he wants to make a career out of this circumstance, as John Dehlin does successfully. I don't agree with their tactics to force Church's hand to ex them which will make them unwilling to resign martyrs.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

A CFR could be issued, but I hope it wouldn't come to that.  You've made an accusation and stated that Bill has been dishonest.  You need to back that up with some (or even just one) example or just withdraw it.  If you really believe he's been dishonest, it shouldn't be difficult for you to at least explain an example if you don't want to cross post.

I already said my position, he sees stuff online, distorts it and presents it as his own and hopes people will fill it out for him. I read in a place that he read something on reddit and so it's not his own or thought out and presented it and people made comments about. He also presented something but the Church and members have been arguing for years now, so I don't know if he thinks he thought it up on his own or he got it from others or what but he came out with this and he thinks it's supposed to bother people, but if they had read what others in the Church did and their research they wouldn't be bothered, that's what I am saying, his stuff isn't his stuff and he doesn't seem to read the literature.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

out of fairness to him I won't post what he says elsewhere, I will take your word you can find his comments and come to your own conclusion

In order to support your accusation you want me to google bill and see if I can find a time he’s been dishonest? 

[Duncan]

Just now, stemelbow said:

In order to support your accusation you want me to google bill and see if I can find a time he’s been dishonest? 

Have at it!

[Exiled]

30 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a point that I think we LDS need to accept.  We know it is the stated policy of the church to defer DC to local leaders.  This means there can be a wide array of application and outcomes to any situations.  Also, even when the quorum of the 12 or first presidency to get involved, we have to understand that the apostles have different viewpoints and applications of justice, understanding, control, leniency, and mercy.

We see this in judicial systems, too.  Disparate impact may not be 'fair', but it is just a reality.  I don't see a practical way to address it.

I think it's easily understood when one realizes that it is just men trying to decide what they think is best.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he reads something online, distorts it and then presents it like he discovered it. I can't get into specifics though. FWIW I don't think he is deliberatley being dishonest, I think he is dishonest by a term I heard in university by a history prof. "distortion by omission", it's a distorted picture of what happened. It would be nice to for him to have an original idea and not borrowed or whatever from someone else

I dishonesty is characterized by the intent. If you say something that isn't true, but believe it is, that's not being dishonest, it's simply being wrong. People are wrong all the time without being dishonest.

Quote

I already said my position, he sees stuff online, distorts it and presents it as his own and hopes people will fill it out for him. I read in a place that he read something on reddit and so it's not his own or thought out and presented it and people made comments about. He also presented something but the Church and members have been arguing for years now, so I don't know if he thinks he thought it up on his own or he got it from others or what but he came out with this and he thinks it's supposed to bother people, but if they had read what others in the Church did and their research they wouldn't be bothered, that's what I am saying, his stuff isn't his stuff and he doesn't seem to read the literature.

Failure to be totally original in presenting topics or opinions isn't "dishonest" either. That's a separate critique. But keep in mind that just because something isn't new to you doesn't mean it isn't new to someone else. Topics are rehashed all of the time, in church, politics, academics etc. Now if he presented other peoples ideas as his own, that would be dishonest, but I've listened to Bill a lot and read many of his social media posts. I don't recall him failing to attribute things to others. Quite the contrary. He shares his sources and how his ideas have developed. He's extremely open about that stuff, maybe to a fault.

I don't think your dishonesty claim holds water. If you want to stick with it, you should really share some examples.

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's what you get for trying to make a nonsensical point.  

It wasn't nonsensical, but thanks fer playin'!  

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I already said my position, he sees stuff online, distorts it and presents it as his own and hopes people will fill it out for him. I read in a place that he read something on reddit and so it's not his own or thought out and presented it and people made comments about. He also presented something but the Church and members have been arguing for years now, so I don't know if he thinks he thought it up on his own or he got it from others or what but he came out with this and he thinks it's supposed to bother people, but if they had read what others in the Church did and their research they wouldn't be bothered, that's what I am saying, his stuff isn't his stuff and he doesn't seem to read the literature.

Where has he stated that it's "his stuff"?  What has he specifically distorted?

I think your accusation of him being dishonest isn't being fair to him and it's also weak if this (the above) is what you're basing it on. 

I'd imagine if someone came on here and accused you of not being honest, you'd demand that they back up that accusation or withdraw it.  In fairness, you should do the same, IMO.

So, what has Bill "distorted?  

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

He will not if he wants to make a career out of this circumstance, as John Dehlin does successfully. I don't agree with their tactics to force Church's hand to ex them which will make them unwilling to resign martyrs.

Yes. This is why I think the proper approach to this is to put out some public statement and be cordial about it, but don't show to the DC. Showing up only gives the proceeding an air of authority when there is none. The authority is only what we ourselves give and acknowledge. Without our participation, there is no authority. Also, why try to embarrass neighbors who are merely doing SLC's bidding?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where has he stated that it's "his stuff"?  What has he specifically distorted?

I think your accusations of him being dishonest isn't being fair to him and it's also weak if this (the above) is what you're basing it on. 

I'd imagine if someone came on here and accused you of not being honest, you'd demand that they back up that accusation or withdraw it.  In fairness, you should do the same, IMO.

So, what has Bill "distorted?  

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA allright..................what has Bill distorted? listen to his podcasts, read his comments and come back  with a straight face and say he has a grasp of the history of the church, because he doesn't

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Have at it!

Everyone’s been dishonest about something in their life.  I couldn’t possibly be surprised if you could find an example that lends evidence to the notion that bill has been dishonest at some point.  but I’m going with the assumption he tries his best to be honest in his online activity.  I haven’t followed him closely though.  I’m just concerned that someone’s being called dishonest on this board and the accuser refuses to supply evidence for the attack.  I find that low.  

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I already said my position, he sees stuff online, distorts it and presents it as his own 

CFR

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA allright..................what has Bill distorted? listen to his podcasts, read his comments and come back  with a straight face and say he has a grasp of the history of the church, because he doesn't

I don't think I've ever listened to Bill's podcast, so I wouldn't know. Some examples might help. 

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I dishonesty is characterized by the intent. If you say something that isn't true, but believe it is, that's not being dishonest, it's simply being wrong. People are wrong all the time without being dishonest.

Failure to be totally original in presenting topics or opinions isn't "dishonest" either. That's a separate critique. But keep in mind that just because something isn't new to you doesn't mean it isn't new to someone else. Topics are rehashed all of the time, in church, politics, academics etc. Now if he presented other peoples ideas as his own, that would be dishonest, but I've listened to Bill a lot and read many of his social media posts. I don't recall him failing to attribute things to others. Quite the contrary. He shares his sources and how his ideas have developed. He's extremely open about that stuff, maybe to a fault.

I don't think your dishonesty claim holds water. If you want to stick with it, you should really share some examples.

 

I really should but I won't because of board rules

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think I've ever listened to Bill's podcast, so I wouldn't know. Some examples might help. 

look them up