Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[Calm]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

but it did quickly die when Dehlin pushed it away and then upon exit, cut off the idea of a middle way.  

How is this the Church silencing him and not Dehlin's personal choice of approach?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

While it’s hard to prove or measure how well informed someone is, I disagree with you here. Bill did a lot of searching and study - more than most I know.

Being able to process effectively what you have studied is something else though.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and yet he got Hyrum Smith's wife wrong, anybody with wikipedia can look that up!

And he missed what the very pictures he linked to proved about the identity of the book Elder Holland held (that it was the same one that was in the pictures of the opened book in the DN article....this doesn't take training, just paying attention, how hard is it to notice identical parentheses around Moroni?)

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And then he dismissed the note and accused Elder Holland of lying about not making a "cash donation" (or "one red cent" in Elder Holland's words).

Nobody disputes that the Church asked its members to support Prop 8.  Nobody disputes that the Church made "in-kind" donations pertaining to Prop 8.  Nobody.  The only dispute is whether the Church donated money.  And that's only disputed because Bill Reel falsely characterized Elder Holland's statement.

The Church did not donate money.  That the Church donated in-kind contributions is not remotely in dispute.  Never has been.  

That the Church's in-kind donations totaled "less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the 'Yes on 8' campaign" is not in dispute (the link takes you to a February 2009 "Mormon Newsroom" statement).  

That the Church never donated money was also not in dispute, until Bill Reel falsely accused Elder Holland about it.  From the previous link: "The Church did not make any cash contribution."

FAIR has a pretty good synopsis of this issue here.

Bill Reel made a false accusation against Elder Holland.  

No fib.  No need to fib.  The Church's non-monetary, in-kind contributions have long been a matter of public record.

A public - and false - accusation of lying seems pretty slanderous to me.  I think you'd say the same if you were the target of one.

And yes, Bill Reel's accusation is baseless, and his tone and rhetoric are quite snide and contemptuous.

The Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  It is my understanding that as it was a ballot initiative, different reporting and other campaign finance requirements govern monetary versus non-monetary contributions.  

This has only become an issue because people like Fred Karger have wanted to punish the Church (and hence hoped to catch the Church in violating campaign finance laws), and because people like Bill Reel want to malign the Church.

Without people like this, the Church's in-kind contributions - comprising less than one half of one percent of the donations to Prop 8 - would be a non-issue.

So Elder Holland failing to include a specific proviso in a Q&A session that you, in retrospect, think he should have included retroactively justifies Bill Reel's false claim that Elder Holland lied?

That makes me confused.

Thanks,

-Smac

So it seems you're trying to go down the loophole Bill identified--'in-kind donations are not really donating money at all'.  Well, I'd agree with Bill that is just a very squirrely way to try and say no money was donated to prop 8.  Here's what the DN article says, "The church's in-kind donations consisted of video production from its studios, church employee time, airfare and lodging for church leaders, etc."

It seems clear someone had to pay the employee salaries, the lodging for Church leaders who traveled there to get the message out, and for those who made the videos.  there is actual money being spent.  

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Here's what Holland said:

As you quoted.  

You aren't being fair to what Bill said in the line he offered on his site:

Elder Holland didn't say, as you suggested that he's only talking about cash donations when he says that.  Indeed, he clarifies and suggests that the only involvement was from members doing it on their own.  But as we also know the Church claimed to have spent 189,903.58 on the campaign.  

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705282297/LDS-Churchs-in-kind-donations-to-Prop-8-total-190K.html

So did the Church spend the money as Trotter claimed here, or did the Church not spend 1 red cent.

So i'm curious what's factually incorrect about what Bill said on this?

Oi.  I've addressed this a few times now.  Elder Holland denied that the Church donated money.  He is quite correct on that point (though I am open to correction if otherwise).  This isn't anything controversial or new or unexpected, nor is the fact that the Church gave non-monetary contributions towards Prop 8.  A Google search for "in-kind contributions to proposition 8 lds" yields 146,000 results (weirdly, a search for "in-kind contributions to proposition 8 latter-day saints" yields 16 million results).  The first search result is an article on the Church's Newsroom website:

Quote

The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.

Nevertheless, people like Fred Karger (and, more recently, Bill Reel) have tried to make hay out of this.

The Church messed up on compliance with daily reporting requirements.  It paid a fine of about $5,000.  That's the sum total of the Church's wrongdoing, and it's a matter of public record.

Bill Reel has fabricated a controversy by conflating monetary and non-monetary contributions to Prop 8, and the imputing that conflated notion onto Elder Holland.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Excommunicating Dehlin, Kate, Sam, and others is a warning to all members to be silent, don't voice dissent or you will get excommunicated.  These personalities can speak up when they want but they will get kicked out of the Church, therefore, if you want to be a member, don't speak up.

That speaks to silencing others, but not those who are actually excommunicated, which was the claim I disagree with.

I don't think it is as simple as the way you state it here, but I do believe that excommunication of others and the threat of excommunication of those who desire to be fully part of the membership (as opposed to being members primarily to effect change in the organization as Kelly described it) can lead those who would like to speak out more in disagreement to being silent or at least more silent.  In many cases I view this as a good thing.  In others, especially if it bleeds into not being open with friends and loved ones as not so good.  It is a balancing act that sometimes the leadership errs in too much (I don't think Gileadi should have been excommunicated, for example, and this does seem to have been relatively quickly remedied) or too little (Dehlin had his pulpit for over ten years, iirc; I think the line was crossed by him a lot earlier and less damage would have been done by a quicker response...but that is second guessing his leaders and I may very well be wrong).

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

So it seems you're trying to go down the loophole Bill identified--'in-kind donations are not really donating money at all'. 

What "loophole?"  Are you familiar with the differences between monetary and "in-kind" contributions under campaign finance laws?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well, I'd agree with Bill that is just a very squirrely way to try and say no money was donated to prop 8. 

The Church did not donate any money to Prop 8.  It's not "squirrely" to say that.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Here's what the DN article says, "The church's in-kind donations consisted of video production from its studios, church employee time, airfare and lodging for church leaders, etc."

It seems clear someone had to pay the employee salaries, the lodging for Church leaders who traveled there to get the message out, and for those who made the videos.  there is actual money being spent.  

Sigh.  I encourage you to give this matter some further thought and analysis.  If you really are that interested in it.  

This is a manufactured controversy, I think.  The Church only made in-kind contributions, not monetary ones.  This matters for legal reasons (campaign finance laws).  This also matters because people like Fred Karger wanted to punish the Church for getting involved in Prop 8, but pretty much the only way to do that would have been to catch it violating campaign finance laws (such as, for example, not reporting monetary contributions).  As it turns out, the Church did screw up and inadvertently violated those laws by failing to adhere to daily reporting requirements.  This omission was likely an honest error (the law is fairly complex).  The Church paid a small fine for its violation.

That's about it.  But then comes Bill Reel, who in his ignorance disregards the distinction between monetary and "in-kind" contributions, and then from that position of ignorance launched a false accusation against Elder Holland.

Not cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  I've addressed this a few times now.  Elder Holland denied that the Church donated money.  He is quite correct on that point (though I am open to correction if otherwise).

A Google search for "in-kind contributions to proposition 8 lds" yields 146,000 results (weirdly, a search for "in-kind contributions to proposition 8 latter-day saints" yields 16 million results).  The first search result is an article on the Church's Newsroom website:

Nevertheless, people like Fred Karger (and, more recently, Bill Reel) have tried to make hay out of this.

The Church messed up on compliance with daily reporting requirements.  It paid a fine of about $5,000.  That's the sum total of the Church's wrongdoing, and it's a matter of public record.

Bill Reel has fabricated a controversy by conflating monetary and non-monetary contributions to Prop 8, and the imputing that conflated notion onto Elder Holland.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

"The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution. "

So there is a monetary value to the Church's contributions?  Great.  That is what Bill had said.  

Now to clarify.  I don't care that Holland was deceptive here, leaving out info, trying to play a little coy, even if he claimed he wasn't be coy.  I don't.  I find it dishonest.  But, as I explained, I would expect anyone to be dishonest at some point.  We all are.  There's no way out of it.  We just do it.  

[smac97]

Just now, stemelbow said:

"The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution. "

So there is a monetary value to the Church's contributions?  Great.  That is what Bill had said.  

But that's not what Elder Holland said.  

Just now, stemelbow said:

Now to clarify.  I don't care that Holland was deceptive here,

I don't accept the premise.  I don't think Elder Holland was deceptive.  What's the point?  What he said was a matter of public knowledge, and had been for years before he said it.

Just now, stemelbow said:

leaving out info, trying to play a little coy, even if he claimed he wasn't be coy.  I don't. 

He wasn't being coy, either.  Watch the video.  He was speaking in a Q&A session (at Harvard, IIRC).  He was quite frank in his remarks.

Just now, stemelbow said:

I find it dishonest. 

Elder Holland stated that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  That is a factually correct statement.  A widely-known one, too.

Just now, stemelbow said:

But, as I explained, I would expect anyone to be dishonest at some point.  We all are.  There's no way out of it.  We just do it.  

Agreed.  But on this point, I don't think Bill Reel's accusation is accurate or fair.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's about it.  But then comes Bill Reel, who in his ignorance disregards the distinction between monetary and "in-kind" contributions, and then from that position of ignorance launched a false accusation against Elder Holland.

Not cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's just not true, smac.  Even if the little snippet you yourself quoted from Bill "Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."  Why are you saying Bill disregards the distinction when in the very thing you are trying to criticize he mentions the very distinction?  That makes no sense.  

You say the Church did not donate any money.  But I will repeat, seems this is not getting addressed:

"The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31 deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58."

There we go.  Trotter claimed "donations" and put a money amount to it.  To speak of donations and claim there was none other than members getting involved and passionate is not being forthright.

 

In truth on this issue, I've not really cared much.  But when I saw you getting all worked up over it, I looked a little closer and realized you were clearly wrong.  So that's why I chimed in.  Just so you know.  have a good one.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's not what Elder Holland said.  

 

Indeed, the dishonesty in his remarks is what he did not say.  he spoke of donations, yet only mentioned that the Church did not donate any money and it was really just an involvement of Church members, as if on their own.  Sadly the Church did spend money.  They paid employees and paid for Church leaders to head over and campaign.  Holland failed to mention that when talking about the Church's involvement.  now true, he might not have known, but that seems highly unlikely.  

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

His writing and remarks do not show such a serious effort.

I think he has put a lot of time and money into collecting information and discussing it.  Whether this qualifies as "serious" depends on the definition.  If by serious, one means paying close attention to all information and critiques of one's ideas, I would say there is evidence he lacks in this area.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's just not true, smac.  Even if the little snippet you yourself quoted from Bill "Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole."  Why are you saying Bill disregards the distinction when in the very thing you are trying to criticize he mentions the very distinction?  That makes no sense.  

You say the Church did not donate any money.  But I will repeat, seems this is not getting addressed:

"The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31 deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58."

There we go.  Trotter claimed "donations" and put a money amount to it.  To speak of donations and claim there was none other than members getting involved and passionate is not being forthright.

In truth on this issue, I've not really cared much.  But when I saw you getting all worked up over it, I looked a little closer and realized you were clearly wrong.  So that's why I chimed in.  Just so you know.  have a good one.

Elder Holland stated that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.

This statement is factually correct.

Bill Reel's accusation that Elder Holland lied is therefore inappropriate and unfair and false.

And for you, pointing this out makes me "clearly wrong."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So it seems you're trying to go down the loophole Bill identified--'in-kind donations are not really donating money at all'.  

When one is making accusations of lying based on lack of precision in what the accused has said (as Reel does), such precision should be evident in one's own claims and writings.  My opinion is such is lacking in Reel's work.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

When one is making accusations of lying based on lack of precision in what the accused has said (as Reel does), such precision should be evident in one's own claims and writings.  My opinion is such is lacking in Reel's work.

I think the little writing introducing his podcast episode is not really intended to be complete, but more of a taste.  I also think if one is talking about a topic, like Holland talking about the Church's involvement and donations, and yet doesn't mention the involvement and donations, there seem to be clear efforts to mislead.  It's as if he's trying to escape on a technicality--"well we didn't give any money so therefore our involvement was really just the members getting involved".  I'm not sure there's a good way to get away from the obvious here.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the little writing introducing his podcast episode is not really intended to be complete, but more of a taste.  I also think if one is talking about a topic, like Holland talking about the Church's involvement and donations, and yet doesn't mention the involvement and donations, there seem to be clear efforts to mislead.  It's as if he's trying to escape on a technicality--"well we didn't give any money so therefore our involvement was really just the members getting involved".  I'm not sure there's a good way to get away from the obvious here.

If that is so serious why would Reel make up monetary donations instead of using it? We have seen he can be even pettier with his accusations of dishonesty about an off the cuff comment about Stake creation.

[flameburns623]

59 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is an important point.

I think that to truly understand a perspective, one needs to come to a point of charity. Because, when we feel charity, we have seen the world from another’s perspective.

I would argue that Bill has made serious efforts to study. There is no doubt in my mind that he has read far more on Mormonism and Mormon history than I have. But, as he admits, he is a natural challenger. Challenging has its place in exploration of truth. But, understanding and charity go hand in hand (I think), and I don’t sense much charity from Bill towards the church leaders. But, maybe I’m wrong.

Bill is at an angry place in his pilgrimage.  He decided,  somewhere,  that he was not confronting well-meaning errors or differences due to paradigm perceptions: but various deliberate and willful levels of deception.

He likely sees nearly everyone,  from General Authorities down to Mo'pologists as caught up in a web of bad faith,  partly believing what they are saying but mostly just saying ANYTHING to preserve their relationship with the Church,  with family members,  or their status within the Church.

That's driving him, now, I think. If eo, the natural course of things is that he will eventually acquire some perspective.  

But I am mind-reading and speculating.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he has put a lot of time and money into collecting information and discussing it.  

But not much in studying and understanding it, or in giving it a fair hearing and reasonable consideration.

His near-total failure to address the huge amounts of scholarship and "answers" he claims to be pursuing is, to me, fairly telling.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whether this qualifies as "serious" depends on the definition.  If by serious, one means paying close attention to all information and critiques of one's ideas, I would say there is evidence he lacks in this area.

He, as a Latter-day Saint, has publicly announced reckless, and seemingly ignorant and largely false, accusations of serious misconduct against an apostle, one with whom he previously had an amicable relationship.  

He talks a lot, I'll give him that.  And like John Dehlin, that may lend a veneer of erudition.  But when I examine the substance of what he is saying, I find it overwhelmingly lacking.  And uninformed.  And nasty, to boot.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[lostindc]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

That speaks to silencing others, but not those who are actually excommunicated, which was the claim I disagree with.

I don't think it is as simple as the way you state it here, but I do believe that excommunication of others and the threat of excommunication of those who desire to be fully part of the membership (as opposed to being members primarily to effect change in the organization as Kelly described it) can lead those who would like to speak out more in disagreement to being silent or at least more silent.  In many cases I view this as a good thing.  In others, especially if it bleeds into not being open with friends and loved ones as not so good.  It is a balancing act that sometimes the leadership errs in too much (I don't think Gileadi should have been excommunicated, for example, and this does seem to have been relatively quickly remedied) or too little (Dehlin had his pulpit for over ten years, iirc; I think the line was crossed by him a lot earlier and less damage would have been done by a quicker response...but that is second guessing his leaders and I may very well be wrong).

I pretty much agree with your statements and retract that the personalities I mentioned were silenced by the Church.  The membership was sent a message by leaders that if you speak out you will get excommunicated.  Those personalities, e.g. Dehlin, Kelly, Young, etc, had a game plan and the only control the Church had was to cut off contact and excommunicate.  The Church played into exactly what they wanted.  

I would've liked to see what happened if the Church just let them continue to say what they want.  I believe that all of the personalities would've continued to push their plans of excommunication and would've ended up doing something to hurt their causes.  The Church kind of screwed up by bouncing them prematurely (in my opinion prematurely, others heavily disagree).

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I pretty much agree with your statements and retract that the personalities I mentioned were silenced by the Church.  The membership was sent a message by leaders that if you speak out you will get excommunicated.  Those personalities, e.g. Dehlin, Kelly, Young, etc, had a game plan and the only control the Church had was to cut off contact and excommunicate.  The Church played into exactly what they wanted.  

I would've liked to see what happened if the Church just let them continue to say what they want.  I believe that all of the personalities would've continued to push their plans of excommunication and would've ended up doing something to hurt their causes.  The Church kind of screwed up by bouncing them prematurely (in my opinion prematurely, others heavily disagree).

I don’t think whether or not to excommunicate someone should come down to PR tactics.

[lostindc]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

When one is making accusations of lying based on lack of precision in what the accused has said (as Reel does), such precision should be evident in one's own claims and writings.  My opinion is such is lacking in Reel's work.

This is somewhat true.  Personalities like Bill are careless with words and claims.  The church is quite lucky that they haven't gone up against a David Bokovoy in recent years.  These types of individuals are careful and very capable.  The latest crop of personalities that got excommunicated have good points but don't deliver the message as well.  I will say that Sam Young did a really good job.  I think his excommunication looked really crazy.

[lostindc]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think whether or not to excommunicate someone should come down to PR tactics.

Totally, but unfortunately that's the case right now.  If Church leadership didn't use PR tactics concerning excommunications then they would've excommunicated Dehlin and Kelly from HQ instead of pushing this to the local leadership.

In my above quote, I don't necessarily think it's just PR tactics, but allowing the story to be told, meaning allowing for Dehlin and Kelly to continue to voice concerns, complaints, protests, etc and maybe even embrace that these voices are allowed.  Leadership doesn't need to change policies/doctrines, but maybe just let it ride, what's the worst case scenario?

[The Nehor]

Just now, lostindc said:

Totally, but unfortunately that's the case right now.  If Church leadership didn't use PR tactics concerning excommunications then they would've excommunicated Dehlin and Kelly from HQ instead of pushing this to the local leadership.

In my above quote, I don't necessarily think it's just PR tactics, but allowing the story to be told, meaning allowing for Dehlin and Kelly to continue to voice concerns, complaints, protests, etc and maybe even embrace that these voices are allowed.  Leadership doesn't need to change policies/doctrines, but maybe just let it ride, what's the worst case scenario?

The worst case scenario is that they are still under covenants they are flagrantly disregarding and are doing damage to their spirits. Releasing them is a mercy.

Why would having the First Presidency make the determination make for worse PR?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I pretty much agree with your statements and retract that the personalities I mentioned were silenced by the Church.  The membership was sent a message by leaders that if you speak out you will get excommunicated.  Those personalities, e.g. Dehlin, Kelly, Young, etc, had a game plan and the only control the Church had was to cut off contact and excommunicate.  The Church played into exactly what they wanted.  

I would've liked to see what happened if the Church just let them continue to say what they want.  I believe that all of the personalities would've continued to push their plans of excommunication and would've ended up doing something to hurt their causes.  The Church kind of screwed up by bouncing them prematurely (in my opinion prematurely, others heavily disagree).

We saw what happened with Dehlin being allowed to speak for years.  I saw the damage he did from many letters written into FairMormon asking for help with how to hold families together that were now filled with contention due to one member becoming a follower of Dehlin, becoming a disbeliever, and then attempting to push others into disbelief.  He seemed, imo from observations, to contribute to creating an activist form of disbelief rather than one that actually allowed space for different beliefs in the family in spite of his claims to want otherwise, but the letters might have been extreme cases so I am open to the possibility in general this wasn't his effect.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

This is somewhat true.  Personalities like Bill are careless with words and claims.  The church is quite lucky that they haven't gone up against a David Bokovoy in recent years.  These types of individuals are careful and very capable.  The latest crop of personalities that got excommunicated have good points but don't deliver the message as well.  I will say that Sam Young did a really good job.  I think his excommunication looked really crazy.

I agree someone like Bokovoy would be more effective for serious students, but many like the soundbite drama of Dehlin, Reel, and Kelly types.

I find it hard to see Young as careful and capable when he refuses to vet the stories he posts and publicly supports an off the wall Satanic Panic story.