Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR

nope, I gave my position, I generalized what he does and if you don't like it then move on with life

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- what if no one has ever told me to stop hammering away at Mr. Blow on social media? Then one day they call me to a meeting and throw out an ultimatum that I cease all my social media (not just my comments about Mr Blow), and if I don't, I'll be disciplined. Or I can simply resign. Does that seem like a reasonable response for a situation involving average members? Of course not. It's only an issue because of the elite status of Elder Holland.

I agree that one should first be given a chance to change or stop. I think most "jurisdictions" practice that in the Church. However, if a person were confronted with an ultimatum out of the blue (i.e., with no prior chances to change) by a priesthood leader, I think that person's reaction to that ultimatum is telling. It speaks volumes. If one becomes defiant about that and redoubles the behavior, well, what should the Church do then?

I agree that the deranged (yes, it appears that way to me) way he is obsessing over Elder Holland and making him an offender for a word and proof-texting/quote-mining him is a significant factor. I also agree that were he to do the same to Brother Blow, it probably wouldn't rise to this level (yet). It could, if it persisted, or if he grew more and more unhinged about it. 

2- Bill hasn't been disrupting meetings so that reason for discipline doesn't apply.

In the internet age, with him podcasting and broadcasting, I think it does. Your point about the fragility of the modern church in the face of criticism is well-taken, but it is also a reality that internet apostasy has a broader reach and scope than former circles of influence. I think if he behaved like this within a ward (instead of towards Elder Holland), it could still rise to the level of discipline (see below). 

3- "Conduct unbecoming" a member is the vague, throw away phrase that's used on virtually every DC. It would need to be shown why the conduct is unbecoming. Is making an accusation, even if accurate, unbecoming? Or just accusations against leaders? I think we know the answer to that. I don't have access to HB 1 any more. Can you show me a quote that says a person can be brought up for discipline for "conduct unbecoming"? I remember it being used as a justification in the final letter about the DC, but I don't recall it being used as justification for holding a DC. There's a difference.

My answer to the "conduct unbecoming" CFR (  ) is circular: people can be brought up on those charges because . . . they are and always have been. 

For the record, all of my excommunications and disfellowshippings (and even formal probations) were all either fornication or adultery, so that is what I called it. 

4- Bill is not being accused of disrupting meetings or being inappropriate at church. My understanding is he hasn't been attending in 2018 so disciplining him to protect the sanctity of the building or meetings seems like a huge stretch. It seems much more likely that he's being disciplined because he criticized a leader(s). If that's true, one has to ask if criticizing another person (even if accurate) is justification for losing eternal salvation.

See above. No, not his particular building or meetings, but rather, a broader scope. 

Here's a corollary. I had an experienced sister in a previous ward (former primary and Relief Society president) who was very opinionated and outspoken --- and judgmental. She created a lot of problems by "telling it like it is" to multiple sisters --- badly hurting feelings. The last straw was when she mocked an inactive sister who had specifically been invited to demonstrate how to bake her Pumpernickel bread (hers was to die for! She used cocoa instead of coffee), and she passed a note around calling her an idiot and making fun of her manner. The sister saw it, and was crushed. I made an appointment with her (that was a very bad week, as I had another tough problem that needed to be dealt with. I was dreading both appointments, in her case I knew how she was going to react. And, she didn't disappoint. I told her that I was concerned about multiple incidents, and we discussed these incidents. She was very defiant, and said people needed to have a thicker skin and not be wimps. I insisted that she could not treat people like that, and that it was completely contrary to the letter and the Spirit of Christ. She grew angry and said that she was not going to change anything because of thin-skinned sissies. I called her to repentance and told her that, as her bishop, I was not going to allow that kind of behavior to continue in my ward meetings. The meeting did not end well. I didn't threaten disciplinary action. I was crushed because of how badly it went. Happily (very happily), she completely changed, and was genuinely pleasant, patient, and protective of her fellow sisters in the years I knew her after that. 

But what if she hadn't? What if she not only continued to do things like this, but grew worse? Should the bishop simply throw up his hands and say, "I can't do anything about this?" Should he let it continue in church and auxiliary meetings? 

I see Bill and his behavior in the same light. 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

I hope so but I haven't seen it. I gave my position of what he generally does and if it doesn't work then move on with life, like we all do

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

look them up

It's your responsibility to back up an allegation of dishonesty, not mine.

[Duncan]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

It's your responsibility to back up an allegation of dishonesty, not mine.

read my previous posts, that's your responsibility

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR

nope, I gave my position, I generalized what he does and if you don't like it then move on with life

I too think you need to either provide concrete and specific examples of dishonesty or withdraw the claim.  You made the claim, you provided no specific examples, and you've been given a CFR.  

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

read my previous posts, that's your responsibility

Duncan, come on.  Board rules state you need to respond to a CFR with references and sources.

Accusing someone of dishonesty isn’t a small little accusation.

Post some specific examples and follow the board rules.  It should be simple for you to do if you’ve actually seen or read where Bill Reel has done what you accuse him of doing.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

read my previous posts, that's your responsibility

I have read your previous posts, but I'm not seeing anything but accusations without specifics. If I've missed the specifics, perhaps you can point them out to me.

If nothing else, Bill certainly is a polarizing figure. 

 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Duncan, come on.  Board rules state you need to respond to a CFR with references and sources.

Accusing someone of dishonesty isn’t a small little accusation.

Post some specific examples and follow the board rules.  It should be simple for you to do if you’ve actually seen or read where Bill Reel has done what you accuse him of doing.

I'll give you two hints, seperate issues of course Isaiah and the Gold plates and everyone can come to their own conclusions. I have mine

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'll give you two hints, seperate issues of course Isaiah and the Gold plates and everyone can come to their own conclusions. I have mine

That's not a proper response to the CFR.  You're breaking board rules here now, Duncan.

You would want someone to give specific examples and links and sources to where you've been dishonest, if someone accused you of such.

You need to honor and respond to the CFR or just simply withdraw your accusation and state that it's just an impression you have or an opinion.  But, provide sources if you're going to stick to your accusations and not withdraw them.

I don't even agree with all that Bill does (nor have I really followed him much at all), but I would ask for this for anyone being accused of dishonesty here.  It's not right you've done this and then flippantly refuse to respond to a CFR and all the requests asking for proof to back up your claims.

From the "Board Guidelines":

Quote

BANNED BEHAVIORS
• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'll give you two hints, seperate issues of course Isaiah and the Gold plates and everyone can come to their own conclusions. I have mine

Not cool, Duncan.  

You need to give the actual quotes or links to references (specifying page numbers and specific quotes).

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not cool, Duncan.  

You need to give the actual quotes or links to references (specifying page numbers and specific quotes).

read his FB post about Isaiah and his podcast about the Gold Plates

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not a proper response to the CFR.  You're breaking board rules here now, Duncan.

You would want someone to give specific examples and links and sources to where you've been dishonest, if someone accused you of such.

You need to honor and respond to the CFR or just simply withdraw your accusation and state that it's just an impression you have or an opinion.  But, provide sources if you're going to stick to your accusations and not withdraw them.

I don't even agree with all that Bill does (nor have I really followed him much at all), but I would ask for this for anyone being accused of dishonesty here.  It's not right you've done this and then flippantly refuse to respond to a CFR and all the requests asking for proof to back up your claims.

From the "Board Guidelines":

 

So is "Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given" I told Julie M. what I am talking specifically about, in addition to what previously I generalized what is does, is there no pleasing you?

Edited August 1, 2018 by Duncan

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

read his FB post about Isaiah and his podcast about the Gold Plates

Not a proper response to a CFR.

(I’m not even on Facebook anymore anyway).

Post a link to a source showing what you claim or provide actual quotes and links.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not a proper response to a CFR.

(I’m not even on Facebook anymore anyway).

Post a link to a source showing what you claim or provide actual quotes and links.

http://mdpodcast.org/2018/07/mormon-discussion-2018-sunstone-symposium-gold-plates-ancient-or-modern-fabrication/

his links aren't what I am talking about, he seems to bypass or ignore those

if you're not on FB then that's that I guess

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So is "Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given" I told Julie M. what I am talking specifically about, in addition to what previously I generalized what is does, is there no pleasing you?

That might apply if you'd actually responded to the CFR and given an answer containing references (with links).  You haven't.

I'm not sure why you're acting this way, Duncan.  It's not like you from what I've seen in the past on here.  You've made a very specific claim against Bill and then are just rude and flippant when asked for sources.  Once again, you would not like someone doing that to you (and I'd stick up for you on that too).

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

That might apply if you'd actually responded to the CFR and given an answer containing references (with links).  You haven't.

I'm not sure why you're acting this way, Duncan.  It's not like you from what I've seen in the past on here.  You've made a very specific claim against Bill and then are just rude and flippant when asked for sources.  Once again, you would not like someone doing that to you on here.

Um, because history and coherent interpretation are important and I gave two sources and a generalization

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that the deranged (yes, it appears that way to me) way he is obsessing over Elder Holland and making him an offender for a word and proof-texting/quote-mining him is a significant factor.

When you say Bill is "obsessing" over Elder Holland and "making him an offender for a word" and "proof-texting/quote-mining" what specifically do you have in mind?  I'm curious because I've seen some doozies from Elder Holland over the years, in some cases hearing it from Bill or someone who has linked him.  I don't recall seeing a case of "obsessing", "making him an offender for a word", nor "proof-testing/quote-mining" and I want to be corrected if I'm missing something.  

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

http://mdpodcast.org/2018/07/mormon-discussion-2018-sunstone-symposium-gold-plates-ancient-or-modern-fabrication/

his links aren't what I am talking about, he seems to bypass or ignore those

if you're not on FB then that's that I guess

What does he specifically “distort”?

Where does he claim this material is “his own”?

Edited August 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Duncan]

Just now, JulieM said:

What does he specifically “distort”?

Where does he claim this material is “his own”?

do I have to do everything for you? as I say come to your own conclusions

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Um, because history and coherent interpretation are important and I gave two sources and a generalization

None of your posts give any support whatsoever to your accusation.  I guess it's time to tune you out on this and move on, but I am disappointed in what you've done.  Pretty childish and petty.   

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'll give you two hints, seperate issues of course Isaiah and the Gold plates and everyone can come to their own conclusions. I have mine

I crosspost, or copy and paste from posts, is that against board rules? I should read them again. I recently listened to his recent gold plates podcast. Is this what you are talking about? https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/07/mormon-discussion-2018-sunstone-symposium-gold-plates-ancient-or-modern-fabrication/

ETA: Oh, I see you already posted the link about the gold plates. I'm a friend on FB with Bill Reel and I saw what I think is the post you're referring to. And I looked through the guidelines and saw this following one but I don't think it means FB posts since everyone can see the FB quote, but if I'm wrong then the Mods can correct or ban me: Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards content here or vice versa 

Here is the post: "This is a really good point about the Book of Mormon (BoM). And a huge problem for the claim that it has an ancient origin.

For those who don't know, Nephi, a character from the early portion of the book, supposedly lived around 600 BC and quoted extensively from the writings of Isaiah. In the BoM story, he grew up in Jerusalem and eventually built a boat and sailed to the Americas, so there's no problem so far. (Well, okay, not the problem being pointed out anyway.)

But it looks like Nephi begins and ends each recitation of Isaiah's words exactly where the modern Biblical chapters begin and end. Even when he spans (modern designation) chapters of Isaiah, he always begins at the beginning of a (modern designation) chapter and ends at the end of another chapter. Such chapter designations weren't done in Isaiah's time or even remotely close to Nephi's time.

This points modern authorship."

Duncan, I'm unsure if this is the one, but if it is, will you point it out to me, you may know me, and I'm very unlearned when it comes to the scriptures. And I agree with ALarsen, you're not normally this way but I believe I know why. It's because you read his FB posts as do I, and they are pretty bitter sounding, sorry Bill. 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

None of your posts give any support whatsoever to your accusation.  I guess it's time to tune you out on this and move on, but I am disappointed in what you've done.  Pretty childish and petty.   

I can't help you, see you around

Edited August 1, 2018 by Duncan

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Um, because history and coherent interpretation are important and I gave two sources and a generalization

You have not provided sources to back up your accusations.  IMO, you are not dealing with this in a respectful and honest manner, Duncan.  Just admit it's your opinion because you simply have no quotes or sources to prove your claims.

The CFR has definitely not been met.  

But I'm moving on....it's just disappointing to see you behave in this manner.  But so be it.

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[phaedrus ut]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do I have to do everything for you? as I say come to your own conclusions

No you need to provide support to your accusations.  You can't just say look up X and Y.  

Phaedrus