Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Don’t like spinach eh?

my Uncle was in the German Navy in WW2 and that is the extent of our Naval interest, hint Popeye

[smac97]

On 11/21/2018 at 9:15 AM, Analytics said:

I don't know much about Bill Reel, but I just finished listening to the podcast where consiglieri interviewed him on Radio Free Mormonism two days ago. What is clear is that Bill Reel is not a "big list" kind of guy.

Okay.  Back in 2016 he posted something very much like a "Big List" on this very board.  See here.  It consisted of 23 questions (though he presents them as his "21 sincere questions"), many of them loaded and/or conclusory, and not giving much at all of an appearance of being "sincere":

Quote

1.) Can one pay tithing in the present on surplus income and still be a temple worthy and faithful Latter-day Saint? especially in light of the historical and theological evidence that this was the way it was intended/understood?  My question here is based on what I percieve is your discomfort in giving people this option in your public discourse while seemingly approving the 10% of Gross definition in spite that history, scripture, and revelation seem to give more validity to Surplus or something like it.  
2.) Have all 15 prophets seers and revelators at any one time been united on doctrine only to be shown to be wrong? in light of the Race and Priesthood essay. While you seem to hint at this, you seem to steer clear of ever acknowledging it publicly.  It seems you like you are willing to acknowledge this on some surface level and history bears it out but you seem determined to not say this to general membership.
3.) Do you concede church stances on issues have likely contributed to youth suicide especially the Church stances on LGBT issues?
4.) How much money do Full time Seventies get paid.... what about Apostles?
5.) Did you sign a non-disclosure form when joining the seventy... What about the 12?
6.) Was the priesthood ban an error rooted in racism? Again you seem happy to have your words be ambiguous so both sides fight over their meaning... could you just tell us what the essay is saying?
7.) Did John Taylor receive a revelation from God in 1896 that we turn a blind eye to.... Why?  you agree it seems to be Christ speaking and that polygamy will never end and that it was the new and everlasting covenant?  As a followup - You do see how our fundamentalist Brothers and Sisters in the break off groups can validate their schism from this revelation right?
8.) Is it true that Brigham young taught that he believed his Adam God ideas were revelation from God and if he did, why do we now say he was wrong?  The quotes are there, it is just important to hear you acknowledge it due to the repercussion of disavowing an idea once taught by a prophet as revelation revealed from God.
9.) Is it true that while leaders claim to be scripture, that scripture can be wrong?
10.) Is it true that no explanation for the book of Abraham is without deep problems?
11.) Is it true that the strengthen members committee keeps records on dissenting members to assist or encourage local leaders to weed them out?  Do they have a file on me? Can I see it?
12.) Is it true that while Church Public Affairs insists that all discipline matters are handles locally that certain discipline cases have been encouraged by members of the 12 and seventy with pressure to go after certain individuals?
13.) To the top 15 men, have you seen Jesus face to face individually and collectively or one or the other?  If you have not seen him collectively How can you know when you are getting revelation from him and not your own biased prejudiced views like leaders in the past
14.) Why do you continue to pose hope as less than knowing when Alma 32 seems to value both as gifts to be honored by God?
15.) Did the brethren approve/ know / authorize shock treatment to the genitals to "cure" gays at BYU?  Because we can no longer debate if this was done.  It was.  You know that right?
16.) Why do you tell us we can trust you as having attained the mind and will of God when all 15 of you are united when that has seemingly failed in the past and present leaders among you admit as much in the Race essay that approved by the 1st presidency on LDS.ORG
17) Can you help us understand how the top 15 under George Albert Smith were unitedly wrong about Doctrine that is today disavowed theories but in the next breath assure us that the current top 15 are absolutely right on the doctrine of LGBT members?
18.) Why on one hand do we declare that Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations" as if that shows the revelation of today's leaders can be trusted and on the other hand we have set aside several revelations from prophets as being understood today as not true? (Adam God, John Taylor 1886 revelation, and others)
19.) Why do you insist on our not trusting the internet for answers to our questions when you either change our questions or avoid answering them altogether?  In other words why say gone are the days teachers can avoid the tough questions of students but that is exactly what you do?
20.) Why do you not speak up in General Conference and tell our gay youth not to hurt themselves?
21.) How are we to trust our experiences with the spirit when those of other faiths have the same kind of experiences giving them testimony of their beliefs which contradict ours?  Can you validate that others seem to have the exact same experiences about contradicting beliefs?  Can you validate that others outside our faith seemingly feel the holy ghost as strong as those in our faith who have "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"
22.) Was it true that Joseph's treasure digging and mystical practices go much deeper than he let on?  can you truly grasp why stuff like this disturbs peoples faith?
23.) Was there ever a revelation from Christ to cease the participation of the sisters in blessings? If so where can I find it?

I responded briefly here:

Quote

As I read through this list of loaded / compound / vague / previously-answered / laundry-list-of-complaints-and-criticisms-dressed-up-as-"questions" / predicated-on-unproven-assumptions / unfair / inaccurate / lacking-in-good-faith-and-good-will / hostile-to-the-Church-and-agenda-driven-rather-than-truth-seeking questions, a few scriptures came to mind (more than "a few," I guess):

• "And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this..." (2 Nephi 28:8)
• "And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness ... For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off ... That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."  (Isaiah 29:18, 20-21)
• "Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred.  How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove?  Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind?  Yea, ye overwhelm the fatherless, and ye dig a pit for your friend."  (Job 6:24-27)
• "And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. ... And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? ... Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it..."  (Mark 12:13-15)
• "When went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.  And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.  Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?  But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?"  (Matt. 22:15-18)
• "And the chief priests and the scribes ... watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.  And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no?  But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?"  (Luke 20:19-23)
• "Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts.  Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert.  Because they regard not the works of the Lord, nor the operation of his hands..."  (Psalms 28:3-5)
• "Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile."  (Psalms 32:2)
• "Beware of false prophets, which come to you insheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."  (Matthew 7:15)
• "For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing."  (Moroni 7:6)
• "{I}t was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."  (JS-H 1:6)
• "Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given."  (D&C 46:8)
• "And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.  For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed."  (D&C 43:5-7)
• "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of theknowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."  (Eph. 4:11-14)
• "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost."  (2 Cor. 1-3)

I generally try hard to grant an assumption of sincerity and good faith to questions asked on this board.  Sadly, I cannot do that for the laundry list in the OP.  

I am quite open to addressing challenging questions about the Gospel, but not when they are loaded in such a way as to impute guilt or wrongdoing, or where they are based on highly questionable assumptions (of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety).

I think we should ask and investigate difficult questions.  But not in a spirit of acrimony and accusation, but in the spirit of seeking truth and the Spirit.

I think questions and concerns should be fairly posed, not presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium such as we see in the OP.

I think honest inquiry about the Gospel is useful and productive.  But short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions designed to elicit long, complex answers are often neither useful nor productive, particularly when they are asked with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.

I find it an intellectually dishonest exercise to cobble together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel, and then present them as "questions."  There is no rhyme or reason to the list in the OP.  There is no evidence of organic, systematic study which has resulted in the "questions" posed above.  There is no evidence of a good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."  (D&C 109:7).  Instead, the list appears to be yet another "Letter to a CES Director"-type effort (which itself was derivative).  It is intellectually dishonest because these are not "questions," but accusations.  Because they are not the result of sincere study and effort, in either the formation of these questions or in the attempt to answer them.

This is a toxic and unhealthy approach to the Restored Gospel.  No set of religious beliefs could be fairly analyzed through a lens so distorted by hostile assumptions, by the dishonesty in characterizing accusations as sincere questions, by the apparent refusal to engage in meaningful research and study information that is already readily available, by the rank dishonesty of disregarding such resources, of pretending they don't exist, of pretending that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed, and instead re-asking the same questions over and over and over.

Again, I think we should study the Restored Gospel and, as part of that study, address questions and concerns.  But good intent and motives matter.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith and good will matter.  Willingness to study matters.  Willingness to engage and evaluate reasoning and evidence from "the best books" matters.  Willingness to seek guidance from the Spirit matters.  Willingness to have faith, even a seed of faith, even when we "do not know the meaning of all things," matters.  Willing to be patient and persevere in our study and understanding and application of the Restored Gospel matters.  Willingness to listen to prophets and apostles, even when their counsel goes against what the World is saying, matters.  

With respect, I do not think such elements exist in grievances-dressed-up-as-"questions" laundry lists like we see in the OP.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Bill Reel's "Big List" proclivities.

Our back-and-forth in that thread went on for a while.  I came away from it not very impressed with Bill Reel.  He had nothing of substance to say.  So he cobbled together a laundry list of grievances.  So what?  Apart from demonstrating a certain prowess with Googling and Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V, it shows very little of Bill Reel having made a concerted effort to study and research and understand the issues he was presenting.  

Another poster came along and questioned whether "productive dialogue" could be had in relation to Bill's questions.  I responded:

Quote

The absence of good faith generally precludes productive dialogue.

Moreover, my post explains why I am not responding to DB's "questions."  He likes to accuse church leaders of not answering him, so I thought it would be helpful for him to understand why I am not answering him, either.  It's not because I am afraid of his "questions."  It's because I think them lacking in merit and not deserving of attention because they are not asked in good faith,

because they are loaded in such a way as to impute guilt or wrongdoing,

because they are based on highly questionable assumptions,

because they have been presented in a spirit of acrimony and accusation, and not in the spirit of seeking truth and the Spirit,

because they are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium,

because they are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information,

because they are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions",

because there is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith",

because they are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive,

because these "questions" instead disregard such resources, pretend they don't exist or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed,

because good intent and motives matter,

because sincerity matters,

because good faith and good will matter,

because willingness to study matters,

because willingness to engage and evaluate reasoning and evidence from "the best books" matters,

because willingness to seek guidance from the Spirit matters,

because willingness to have faith, even a seed of faith, even when we "do not know the meaning of all things," matters,

because willingness to be patient and persevere in our study and understanding and application of the Restored Gospel matters, and

because willingness to listen to prophets and apostles, even when their counsel goes against what the World is saying, matters.  

All this was in April 2016.  So Bill Reel has been behaving this way for years.

Later on in the thread another poster commented:

Quote

My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).

My take is that he is juxtaposing questions that LDS leaders refuse to answer (or even acknowledge) with their recent pronouncement that "gone are the days" when any questions should be disregarded.

On the one hand, the LDS Church is making a big deal about the new transparency and how no questions are off the table and should all be answered.

On the other hand, Bill has provided a list of questions that the LDS Church considers off the table and refuses to answer.

How did I do, Bill?

And Bill responded:

Quote

Exactly

To which I said:

Quote

Well, I feel rather vindicated in my assessment of the questions in the OP.  Your "questions" were not really intended as such (in that you have admitted that you aren't "so much ... seeking for answers" to them).  There were ulterior motives in play.  That seemed rather obvious from the tone and content of the OP, but I'm glad you've fessed up.

This is why I have declined to address the substance of these "questions."  They were not posed in good faith.

Another poster weighed in as well:

Quote

These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine.  Just don't try to disguise them as questions.  In other cases, the issues are those which are regularly discussed on this board and elsewhere.  There are plenty of scholarly discussions available in books and articles.  Indeed, you should bring guests onto your radio interviews who can adequately summarize the nature of some of those discussions.  You would be performing a real service for those who don't understand the issues.

It is silly and intemperate of you to imagine that the Brethren would allow you to hold their feet to the fire on these or any other issues.  However, now that you have a list, deal with them one at a time.  Twenty-one questions is just a game.  Get serious.  Get Reel.

Bill responded:

Quote

Your being rude and making assumptions which are wrong which I expect from others here but not you.  These are questions.  They are sincere.  They are meaningful to me.  Not that the answers inform me of the questions, rather they inform me where the church wants to stand on these issues, avoid the logic of, or even answer "we don't know" which would also be helpful.  Is the church mature enough walk with me down the logic of where these questions lead holding the ground they want to hold.  Is the church mature enough to answer these questions or not.  I don't think it is but hope someday it might.  

I chimed in:

Quote

His assumption was that what you presented in the OP was "not so much questions you want answered."  You just barely admitted responded to Consig's comment ("My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).") with "exactly."  But when Robert makes a nearly identical observation ("These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine."), you accuse him of being "rude and making assumptions which are wrong."

You can't have it both ways, brah.  You can't admit to your fellow critic that he is "exactly" right when he makes an observation, but that Robert is "rude and making assumptions" when he makes that same observation."

Given the tone and content of the OP, it's rather apparent that both Consig and Robert (and myself) have accurately surmised that your "questions" (or at least a sizable portion of them) were not "questions" at all.

...

Most of your "questions" are not "questions."  They are opinions / accusations / slurs / criticisms presented as a guise / pretext / pretense of being "questions."  Questions presented in such circumstances are axiomatically not "sincere."

So Bill Reel and Consig and Robert Smith and Me all found Bill Reel's "Big List" to be presented not because he was looking for answers, but because he wanted to use them to attack and demean the Church and its leaders.

Golly!  I wonder if Bill Reel's stake presidents, and Elder Holland, and so on perhaps reached similar conclusions?

Later on I posted this in response to another post from Bill:

Quote

Quote

your missing the nuance that stands between the two.  I asked these questions as the answers to them matter.  Not because I simply need an answer to these questions.  I already have personal answers to them.  Rather I need to hear the Church's answers to these questions.  

I don't buy this.  

First, it makes no kind of sense to present these "questions" in a forum where we all know they have zero chance of being answered by "the Church."

Second, these "questions" are not presented in good faith.  They are loaded.  They are compound.  They are vague.  The are asked-and-answered.  They are presented as a pretext for publishing a laundry list of complaints and criticisms.

Third, claiming in this board that you "need to hear the Church's answer to these questions" only further solidifies my assessment.  You are posturing here.  You are not speaking to "the Church" and you know it.  Your "questions" are not directed to "the Church" and you know it.  Your "questions" are posed for reasons other than seeking answers.  They are not presented in good faith.

Quote

Again what their answer is matters little but rather I need to see if the Church is mature enough to be willing.  

Again, you sound like a schoolyard bully with this nonsense.

And if gauging the Church's maturity and willingness were really your objective, you would not be posting these questions on this board.  No reasonable person would do so with the expectation that the Brethren are monitoring this particular board, ready to hop to as soon as DB Mormon issues a laundry list of criticisms and complaints (to which, by your own admission, you already know the answers).

Gimme a break.  You are breaking my plausibility meter with this silliness.

Quote

We stress humility, willingness, and Charity in our faith and if the Church would ever be willing to answer the questions head on, it would demonstrate to me all three of these sufficient enough for me to regain trust in the Church as a safe space for me and tens of thousands of others like me who want to stay in the Church but feel the Church is not a safe space.  

So these are not questions geared toward the acquisition of information.  Yes, I get that.

You've loaded the deck here.  There is no good faith to these questions.  Not a speck.  Not a whit.  This is all just posturing.  Pretext.  You are now on record.  You have presented these questions because you presume to pass judgment on The Church of Jesus Christ.  These questions are a test.  Of the Church.  By you.  And now that you've posted them on this board, you expect "the Church" to locate them and answer them.  And if it doesn't, then the Church is not "mature."  Not "willing."  Not worthy of your "trust." Not a "safe space."

Again, not very impressed with Bill Reel's thinking about the Church.  As with John Dehlin (and Jeremy Runnells), he has not demonstrated much in the way of study or effort or substantive research.  Just a lot of vitriol and accusations.

I was also not impressed with Bill's reasoning/research in this thread.

Quote

He tells the story about how about seven or eight years ago as a bishop he had a faith crisis and reached out to an apostle, which is apparently a prerogative that bishop's are granted. He ended up having several long phone calls and email exchanges with Marlin K. Jensen about his concerns, and continued serving as a bishop for about two years while this crisis of faith was going on. He gave Elder Jensen some ideas about how the Church could best deal with the issues, which Elder Jensen allegedly appreciated receiving. From the way Reel tells the story, it was a productive dialogue.

I'm glad to hear that.  I'd like to know what those issues were, and what suggestions he had for the Church to "deal with" them.

Quote

He said that on the whole he came to the realization that on these issues, the doubters probably had the stronger position.

He's certainly entitled to reach that conclusion.  But I'm not inclined to give this much credence.  What "issues?"  What "doubters?"  What "position{s}?"

And what effort has he taken to meaningfully study and research and address these issues?  Going by his past performances on this board, I suspect "very little" would be an appropriate answer.

Quote

He later started his podcasts and moved to another stake, where he immediately contacted his new bishop and stake president, introduced himself, and let him know that he was somewhat of a public figure and that the general leadership would probably be contacting them about him.

This is starting to sound a bit like Sam Young's narrative (parts of it).  

Quote

He made himself available to talk about the issues.

He "made himself available to talk" with whom?  

Quote

The way he talked of the concerns shifted from, "the doubters have the stronger position" to an abbreviated "there are no [good] answers."

Yes, that is a not uncommon progression.  But I'm not even sure what "good answers" means in this context.  Moreover, ahether it is a reasoned and reasonable progression is another question.

Quote

To make a point, Bill suggested they talk about only five questions. The stake president thought that was a good idea, so Reel wrote down five questions and showed them to the stake president. The stake president was stumped. He sent the five questions to a GA asking for help in answering them. The GA responded to the stake president that he wouldn't provide answers--the stake president needed to figure it out for himself. Bill then moved again to a new stake where he is now being excommunicated.

This is all very vague, even opaque.  What were these "five questions?"  How was the stake president "stumped?"  

Quote

Anyway, I have two points. First, Bill Reel isn't the kind of guy who wants quick and easy answers and then moves on to an endless list of what-abouts every time an answer is given. Bill Reel wants to talk about the details. And talk. And talk.

That kinda jibes with my impression of him based on his appearances on this board (the "talk and talk" bit).  Frankly, I don't think he's that interested in the "details."  I think he's interested in his personal opinions and conclusions, and not in substantive research and reasoning. 

For example, in August 2016 he brought up some issues pertaining to the purported1886 revelation to John Taylor about polygamy.  I responded with some preliminary thoughts about his comments, which overall I found to be facile, surprisingly uninformed, unfair, and loaded with risible claims and assertions.  What I found really surprising was that he had reached sweeping conclusions that - not surprisingly - were condemnatory of the Church, and yet he was apparently not familiar with most of the points and authorities I raised (he responded to my post by quoting only a very small portion of it, and saying "I will look at the rest of this as I have time...").  In a post that I wrote in a few minutes, based on a few minutes of online research.  

In other words, I came away from this exchange with him with an impression that his command of the subject matter was very poor, that his awareness of the "details" was sparse-to-nonexistent, and that he had nevertheless reached a sweeping conclusion in which he publicly accused the Church of "dismissing Christ" by not accepting the 1886 revelation.  I then responded with more substantive stuff here.  And then he responded.  Then me (also here).  Overall, I was not impressed with the scope and breadth of his familiarity with the subject matter, nor did I find his assessment of this issue to be persuasive or thoughtful.  Instead, I found it shot through with sneers and sarcasm and a near implacable hostility toward the Church.

And then there was the time he posted some thoughts about a legal issue pertaining to BYU.  I responded.  Again, he didn't have anything substantive to say.

And so on.

Quote

Second, the reason Mormonism is frequently criticized with big lists is because there are in fact a lot of troubling issues.

The same can be said for pretty much any organization which is unpopular.

Personally, I find many of the "troubling" issues to be exaggerated and distorted and caricature-ish.

Quote

Yes, there are "answers", but the answers are generally strained--they tend to be labored or far fetched.

I think many of the questions are "generally strained" and "labored or far fetched."  So it would stand to reason that the answers to them would reflect that.

Some years ago I worked on a lawsuit in which the borrower of a substantial home loan argued to the Court that he should be excused from repaying the loan (and that the bank should be prevented from foreclosing) because A) the loan was not backed by gold bullion stored in Fort Knox, and B) the loan was invalid under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (he had a number of other arguments as well, but these were the main ones).

Yes, really.  He actually made those arguments.

I could have just said "Hey, these arguments are strained and far-fetched," but I wanted the judge to dismiss the case immediately, so I had to actually go through and research his arguments.  I then prepared a motion to dismiss.  Interestingly, he then responded to my motion by claiming . . . that it was confusing and far-fetched.  I found that to be ironic.

Quote

What tends to happen is that when a sincere believer encounters an issue they study it and work it out in their own mind the best they can, and then put it on their shelf. Then they happen to come across another issue and do the same thing. And another. And another.

It doesn't have to be that way.  I don't have very many issues on my shelf.

Quote

When there are only one or two troubling issues that don't have genuinely good answers, it's relatively easy to put them on the shelf, give the church the benefit of the doubt, and have faith. But sometimes for some people, you take a step back and look at all of the issues on the shelf and a giant collection of strained answers, and you see a pattern. It isn't one issue that breaks your shelf. It is a whole host of issues. And it doesn't come to this because you are lazy or insincere or demand quick-and-easy answers. It comes to this because you were patient, had faith, and let the issues on the shelf build up.

Again, it doesn't have to be this way.

Again, I think we should ask and investigate difficult questions.  Not in a spirit of acrimony and accusation, but in the spirit of seeking truth and the Spirit.  Sadly, my assessment is that Bill Reel's approach to the Church and the Gospel is houses has, for some years now, been predicated on the former, not the latter.  I hope he has a change of heart about that at some point in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 26, 2018 by smac97

[blueglass]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Personally, I find many of the "troubling" issues to be exaggerated and distorted and caricature-ish.

I think many of the questions are "generally strained" and "labored or far fetched."  So it would stand to reason that the answers to them would reflect that.

It doesn't have to be that way.  I don't have very many issues on my shelf.

Again, it doesn't have to be this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

What is the purpose of this documentary?   It's great that you don't have very many issues on your shelf.   As Elder Renlund demonstrated in his CES training this year it is possible to balance 12 nails!  Hive five to you brother.

Edited November 22, 2018 by blueglass

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What is the purpose of this documentary?

What "documentary" are you referencing here?

Quote

It's great that you don't have very many issues on your shelf.   

I didn't intend it as a boast, just as a response to Analytics' statement regarding "What tends to happen is that when a sincere believer encounters an issue."

It's a popular narrative to suggest that there simply are not viable ways to address controversial issues in the Church.  That's what Bill Reel is pushing (the "no good answers" thing).  I think that's a very debateable assertion.  Many, many people have found the Restored Gospel to be broadly and readily plausible and supportable.

Quote

As Elder Renlund demonstrated in his CES training this year it is possible to balance 12 nails!  Hive five to you brother.

Acceptance of the Restored Gospel is, in the end, predicated on faith and the Spirit.  But I have found the plausibility of the truth claims of the Church quite workable in light of extant evidence.  And as time goes on, I think the quantum of evidence favoring these claims will only improve.

Daniel Peterson said something similar in his "Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve" essay (which we discussed at some length ont his board here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2018 by smac97

[blueglass]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Daniel Peterson said something similar in his "Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve" essay (which we discussed at some length ont his board here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's take one point from Daniel Peterson's essay in light of the many time wormholes in the book of mormon.   Peterson:  ["And at one point he finds a line in Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” that will give Joseph a really good line for the Book of Mormon. And Joseph says, “But Sidney, this book won’t even be written for another 35 years.”] 

Let's juxtapose this against the appearance of Malachi in 1 and 2Nephi and Alma. 

What is the best explanation for this?  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Let's take one point from Daniel Peterson's essay in light of the many time wormholes in the book of mormon.   Peterson:  ["And at one point he finds a line in Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” that will give Joseph a really good line for the Book of Mormon. And Joseph says, “But Sidney, this book won’t even be written for another 35 years.”] 

Let's juxtapose this against the appearance of Malachi in 1 and 2Nephi and Alma. 

What is the best explanation for this?  

Well, there's this:

Quote

That justice is an attribute of God is taught in 2 Nephi 26:3. When a people cast out and slay the prophets and the saints, that people shall perish. Figuratively, Nephi speaks of the blood of the ground crying out and ascending to God against them. In the same context and in words similar to a passage in Malachi 4:1, Nephi speaks of the proud and those who do wickedly being burned in a day that would come (2 Nephi 26:4). [5] The doctrine spoken of is the cleansing of the earth by fire at the second coming of the Lord.

...

[5] The source quoted, however, is not Malachi since the date is prior to Malachi’s writing. For the same reason, his writings were not on the plates of brass in 600 BC when Lehi left. This further sustains the doctrine of plain and precious parts being lost from the Bible. Nephi also paraphrased Malachi 4:2 in 2 Nephi 26:9. Apparently Zenos, another Old Testament prophet, foretold the same things as did Malachi (1 Nephi 2:15, 24).

Thanks,

-Smac

[blueglass]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there's this:

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is the intertextual evidence for the time wormhole.  

1 Nephi 2:23, Malachi 3:9
1 Nephi 3:7, Malachi 3:1
1 Nephi 14:17, Malachi 3:1, 4:1
1 Nephi 22:15 copies 27 words from Malachi 4:1
2 Nephi 22:23-24, Malachi 4:1
2 Nephi 22:13 Malachi 4:2
2 Nephi 26:4–9 54 words from Malachi 4:1-2
Alma 45:13, Malachi 4:5
Ether 9:22 compare with Malachi 4:2-3

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Here is the intertextual evidence for the time wormhole.  

1 Nephi 2:23, Malachi 3:9
1 Nephi 3:7, Malachi 3:1
1 Nephi 14:17, Malachi 3:1, 4:1
1 Nephi 22:15 copies 27 words from Malachi 4:1
2 Nephi 22:23-24, Malachi 4:1
2 Nephi 22:13 Malachi 4:2
2 Nephi 26:4–9 54 words from Malachi 4:1-2
Alma 45:13, Malachi 4:5
Ether 9:22 compare with Malachi 4:2-3

Well, let's take a look:

Quote

1 Nephi 2:23:

For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.

Malachi 3:9

Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Both verses mention "curse" as a verb and a noun ("curse them even with a sore curse" and "cursed with a curse").

Quote

1 Nephi 3:7

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Malachi 3:1

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

Both verses describe the Lord helping someone do something they have been commanded to do.

Quote

1 Nephi 14:17

And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.

Malachi 3:1, 4:1

3:1 - Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

4:1 - For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

These passages describe the coming of the Lord.

Quote

1 Nephi 22:15 

For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.

Malachi 4:1

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

A unit of time arrives ("the time cometh" and "the day cometh").

People who are "proud" and wicked ("who do wickedly" and "that do wickedly") will be "as stubble" (or just "stubble") and "must be burned" (the day that comething shall burn them up").

Quote

2 Nephi 22:23-24

No such verses (2 Nephi 22 is only 6 verses long)

Malachi 4:1

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Not sure what you meant here.

Quote

2 Nephi 22:13 

No such verses (2 Nephi 22 is only 6 verses long)

Malachi 4:2

But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Not sure what you meant here.

Quote

2 Nephi 26:4–9

4 Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble.
5 And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away, and buildings shall fall upon them and crush them to pieces and grind them to powder.
6 And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and all manner of destructions, for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them, and they shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts.
7 O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just.
8 But behold, the righteous that hearken unto the words of the prophets, and destroy them not, but look forward unto Christ with steadfastness for the signs which are given, notwithstanding all persecution—behold, they are they which shall not perish.
9 But the Son of Righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them, and they shall have peace with him, until three generations shall have passed away, and many of the fourth generation shall have passed away in righteousness.

Malachi 4:1-2

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 ¶ But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Both describe "burning" at the Second Coming.  Both use "stubble" as a metaphor as the fate of the proud/wicked.

Quote

Alma 45:13

And when that great day cometh, behold, the time very soon cometh that those who are now, or the seed of those who are now numbered among the people of Nephi, shall no more be numbered among the people of Nephi.

Malachi 4:5

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Um . . . both passages . . . have consonants and vowels?  What's the similarity here?  What am I missing?

Quote

Ether 9:22

And after he had anointed Coriantum to reign in his stead he lived four years, and he saw peace in the land; yea, and he even saw the Son of Righteousness, and did rejoice and glory in his day; and he died in peace.

Malachi 4:2-3

2 ¶ But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

Again, not seeing much of a correlation.  The "Son/Sun of Righeousness" thing has been addressed by Royal Skousen (see, e.g., here, and here).

These are, in the aggregate, "intertextual evidence for the time wormhole?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2018 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

On 11/21/2018 at 7:42 PM, blueglass said:

Let's take one point from Daniel Peterson's essay in light of the many time wormholes in the book of mormon.   Peterson:  ["And at one point he finds a line in Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” that will give Joseph a really good line for the Book of Mormon. And Joseph says, “But Sidney, this book won’t even be written for another 35 years.”] 

Let's juxtapose this against the appearance of Malachi in 1 and 2Nephi and Alma. 

What is the best explanation for this?  

The best answer is that this is what was revealed to Joseph, take it on it's own merits and decide if those words and stories are from God, as you would the Bible with the sun standing still a 6 day creation, a talking donkey, a resurrection, and forget historicity.

Either God confirms it to your heart or he doesn't. Simple as that then vote with your feet.

Either God is capable of forgiving your sins or he isn't. None of this has to do with God forgiving your sins, historical facts can't prove that.

it's like saying that because the Battle of Gettysburg happened my sins are forgiven. What is one have to do with the other?

If it doesn't work for you go somewhere else that does.

Pretty pretty simple stuff if you ask me. But I'm quite simple-minded anyway.  😁

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  Back in 2016 he posted something very much like a "Big List" on this very board.  See here.  It consisted of 23 questions (though he presents them as his "21 sincere questions"), many of them loaded and/or conclusory, and not giving much at all of an appearance of being "sincere":

I responded briefly here:

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Bill Reel's "Big List" proclivities.

I guess so. Even though 23 questions is "long", this is a different type of list with a different point than a classic anti-Mormon list. These aren't notes that he gathered from reading a book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, smac97 said:

...So Bill Reel[?] and Consig and Robert Smith and Me all found Bill Reel's "Big List" to be presented not because he was looking for answers, but because he wanted to use them to attack and demean the Church and its leaders. [emphasis added]

Uh, no. Consig thought he was using the questions to make a valid point about how the Church still isn't as transparent as it claims to be.

If you want to represent Consig's opinion on Bill Reel (even then), do so honestly. In the same discussion, Consig said On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 3:43 PM

If you are talking about Bill Reel, my experience has been that he is a reasonable sort who can be dealt with most effectively by engaging him honestly.

Like me, Bill has already been down the apologetic road.

He knows the pat-answers and side-stepping that so frequently parade as "answers."

All he wants is honesty.

The question is whether we will be able to be as honest with Bill as he is with us.

Sure, a convenient way to dismiss people with lots of concerns is to say that they aren't made in "good faith." But I'm not sure if that line of attack is always honest.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, smac97 said:

This is all very vague, even opaque.  What were these "five questions?"  How was the stake president "stumped?"  

He posted the questions on his facebook page here.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, smac97 said:

That kinda jibes with my impression of him based on his appearances on this board (the "talk and talk" bit).  Frankly, I don't think he's that interested in the "details."  I think he's interested in his personal opinions and conclusions, and not in substantive research and reasoning. 

For example, in August 2016 he brought up some issues pertaining to the purported1886 revelation to John Taylor about polygamy.  I responded with some preliminary thoughts about his comments, which overall I found to be facile, surprisingly uninformed, unfair, and loaded with risible claims and assertions....

That is an informative exchange. Getting to the heart of it, several decades after the fact any number of people said that the "new and everlasting covenant" wasn't polygamy, but rather was temple weddings, and since the revelation given to the prophet wasn't ever canonized, we can disregard it as non binding. Yea, we could rationalize that way if we want to. But how many tens of thousands of Saints have joined fundamentalist sects because they interpret the revelation the same way Bill does? Dismissing their point of view as being uninformed, unfair, loaded, etc., isn't exactly fair, either.

Trying to understand and read the revelation in the context of what was actually happening and get to the truth of things isn't necessarily the same thing as performing the mental gymnastics necessary to vindicate the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In response to my claim that the reason Mormonism is frequently criticized with big lists is because there are in fact a lot of troubling issues, you responded,

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, smac97 said:

The same can be said for pretty much any organization which is unpopular.

Actually, the same can be said for any organization which has lots of troubling issues. Most such organizations aren't popular, and for good reason.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, smac97 said:

Some years ago I worked on a lawsuit in which the borrower of a substantial home loan argued to the Court that he should be excused from repaying the loan (and that the bank should be prevented from foreclosing) because A) the loan was not backed by gold bullion stored in Fort Knox, and B) the loan was invalid under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (he had a number of other arguments as well, but these were the main ones).

Yes, really.  He actually made those arguments.

I could have just said "Hey, these arguments are strained and far-fetched," but I wanted the judge to dismiss the case immediately, so I had to actually go through and research his arguments.  I then prepared a motion to dismiss.  Interestingly, he then responded to my motion by claiming . . . that it was confusing and far-fetched.  I found that to be ironic.

You're telling me, lol.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I guess so. Even though 23 questions is "long", this is a different type of list with a different point than a classic anti-Mormon list. These aren't notes that he gathered from reading a book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

Not that much of a difference, IMO.  They are a mish-mash of unrelated topics.  They are posed using loaded, accusatory terms.  They obviously are not presented as sincere requests for information, but rather as merely accusations and criticisms and "gotcha" attempts couched as questions.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sure, a convenient way to dismiss people with lots of concerns is to say that they aren't made in "good faith." But I'm not sure if that line of attack is always honest.

I'm not dismissing.  But I'm not going into a discussion that is predicated on bad faith.

I'm happy to respond to sincere inquiries.  I don't think Bill Reel's inquiries were sincere.  At all.  He admits as much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not that much of a difference, IMO.  They are a mish-mash of unrelated topics.  They are posed using loaded, accusatory terms.  They obviously are not presented as sincere requests for information, but rather as merely accusations and criticisms and "gotcha" attempts couched as questions.

I'm not dismissing.  But I'm not going into a discussion that is predicated on bad faith.

I'm happy to respond to sincere inquiries.  I don't think Bill Reel's inquiries were sincere.  At all.  He admits as much.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is a difference between asking an insincere question in bad faith and using a question as a rhetorical device to express a sincere perspective and start a discussion. Isn't there?

FWIW

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Analytics said:

There is a difference between asking an insincere question in bad faith and using a question as a rhetorical device to express a sincere perspective and start a discussion. Isn't there?

FWIW

By "difference" I was referencing your statement that Reel's "Big List" was "a different type of list with a different point than a classic anti-Mormon list."

I disagree with that.  Jeremy Runnells' CES letter was "a classic anti-Mormon list."  Bill Reel's list is similar, in both tone and content, to that one.  The only difference is one of degree (the CES letter being a considerably longer list).

And FWIW, I don't believe that Reel's questions were "rhetorical device to express a sincere perspective and start a discussion."  His list, again in both form and content, was intentionally risible and offensive and provocative.  It was not intended to start a discussion, or to express "sincerity."  It was intended to insult and demean and denigrate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2018 by smac97

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By "difference" I was referencing your statement that Reel's "Big List" was "a different type of list with a different point than a classic anti-Mormon list."

I disagree with that.  Jeremy Runnells' CES letter was "a classic anti-Mormon list."  Bill Reel's list is similar, in both tone and content, to that one.  The only difference is one of degree (the CES letter being a considerably longer list).

And FWIW, I don't believe that Reel's questions were "rhetorical device to express a sincere perspective and start a discussion."  His list, again in both form and content, was intentionally risible and offensive and provocative."  It was not intended to start a discussion, or to express "sincerity."  It was intended to insult and demean and denigrate.

Thanks,

-Smac

can I give a real world example of this, Non Mormonly. I was in a University class  and there was this guy who constantly was asking questions and interrupting and I think he was trying to show off what he knew, he wasn't interested in a discussion, just trying to impress the Prof. who wasn't impressed and neither were we. After a couple of months of this, the Prof. emotional pot boiled over and he said something i've never forgotten, "We are on step 1,2,3 you are on step 1298 and these students are paying to hear me, not you" we never saw him again, and we were like bye Felicia!!!!

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And FWIW, I don't believe that Reel's questions were "rhetorical device to express a sincere perspective and start a discussion."  His list, again in both form and content, was intentionally risible and offensive and provocative."  It was not intended to start a discussion, or to express "sincerity."  It was intended to insult and demean and denigrate.

The use of "Do you concede" is a big red flag, imo.  Lot of mindreading (talking about supposed comfort level, for example) going on, though often done appropriately as "seems", but then his questions are based on assuming that is true.

So it seems to me his list is composed of more his interpretation of facts rather than facts themselves.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

By "difference" I was referencing your statement that Reel's "Big List" was "a different type of list with a different point than a classic anti-Mormon list."

I disagree with that.  Jeremy Runnells' CES letter was "a classic anti-Mormon list."  Bill Reel's list is similar, in both tone and content, to that one.  The only difference is one of degree (the CES letter being a considerably longer list).

And FWIW, I don't believe that Reel's questions were "rhetorical device to express a sincere perspective and start a discussion."  His list, again in both form and content, was intentionally risible and offensive and provocative."  It was not intended to start a discussion, or to express "sincerity."  It was intended to insult and demean and denigrate.

Thanks,

-Smac

We'll have to agree to disagree. But since you cited Consig as somebody who agrees with you, I'll leave by repeating a contemporaneous quote of him:

"If you are talking about Bill Reel, my experience has been that he is a reasonable sort who can be dealt with most effectively by engaging him honestly.

Like me, Bill has already been down the apologetic road.

He knows the pat-answers and side-stepping that so frequently parade as "answers."

All he wants is honesty."

[Calm]

Actual honesty or agreement honesty?...because honestly I see “thank you for your honesty” most often when someone else is posting something they agree with that.  And I don’t find that behaviour a paragon on honesty (as in being truthful to others and self about your motivations for saying or doing something).  Better to just say “I like what you say”  

The other may be completely believing in what they say, but that is for some reason seen as less honest if it is believed the other is wrong if the frequency and usage of “I appreciate your honesty” is any indication, imo. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

I'm hesitant to speak for Bill but having listened to him quite a bit, I think his desire for honesty is for the Church leaders to admit to errors and omissions (he's used his podcast and social media platforms to point out what these are).

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm hesitant to speak for Bill but having listened to him quite a bit, I think his desire for honesty is for the Church leaders to admit to errors and omissions (he's used his podcast and social media platforms to point out what these are).

The problem is it's not his place to do so. The prophet and apostles do not fall under his stewardship. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by rodheadlee
To satisfy rockpond

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The problem is it's not his place to do so. The prophet and apostles do not fall under his stewardship. They are only errors and omissions in his opinion.

I was just trying to clarify what I believe Bill is looking for.  Obviously the Church doesn't owe him a response.  But the Church does have a moral responsibility to be honest.  Whether or not they are, as an institution, is subjective.

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They are only errors and omissions in his opinion.

You lost me with this sentence. @DBMormon documents his findings VERY well.

One can argue whether or not his religion should allow him to point this out up the hierarchy, but the evidence remains the same.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They are only errors and omissions in his opinion.

I agree with @SouthernMo... If you are going to make this claim, I would ask that you validate it somehow.  Take one of his posts or podcasts and show that his statements are false or only his opinion.

[rodheadlee]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with @SouthernMo... If you are going to make this claim, I would ask that you validate it somehow.  Take one of his posts or podcasts and show that his statements are false or only his opinion.

No matter what's on his podcast they are from Bill's point of view from his reality. If I were to view them and argue them they would be from my point of view and my reality to me it's a pointless waste of time.

Edited November 27, 2018 by rodheadlee

[SouthernMo]

47 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

No matter what's on his podcast they are from Bill's point of view from his reality. If I were to view them and argue them they would be from my point of view and my reality to me it's a pointless waste of time.

Alternative facts, right?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Alternative facts, right?

Philosophy 101.