Bill Reel Invited to Disciplinary Council

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Just saying "it's a really long story" does nothing to support your theories.

Okay

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

His questions are not new or original. I would contend there are answers but he did not find the answers convincing.

I would further contend that he did not really bother looking for answers, or else he failed to give such answers a fair hearing and meaningful consideration.  

He does not strike me as a particularly well-informed person as to the issues which have caused him so much angst.  If so, that is tragic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

His questions are not new or original. I would contend there are answers but he did not find the answers convincing.

Then I can assume that you must have all the answers...if  I  were to set up a bunch of questions...you would have all the answers.  ???

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then I can assume that you must have all the answers...if  I  were to set up a bunch of questions...you would have all the answers.  ???

Probably answers that would convince me. If you are asking if I could convince you or Bill Reel with my answers probably not.

Answers are overrated. Creationist science is technically an answer and seems to convince many but I find most of it utterly laughable. We seek for better and more convincing answers as we go. And some people cannot be convinced. If the gospel were universally accepted if it was just presented perfectly with perfect methods and perfect explanations then Jesus would have converted the world in his ministry.

Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would further contend that he did not really bother looking for answers, or else he failed to give such answers a fair hearing and meaningful consideration.  

He does not strike me as a particularly well-informed person as to the issues which have caused him so much angst.  If so, that is tragic.

Thanks,

-Smac

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.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Then I can assume that you must have all the answers...

I don't think anyone has claimed have all the answers.

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

if  I  were to set up a bunch of questions...you would have all the answers.  ???

I think there are answers to many, perhaps most, of the common "questions" that people have as to concerns about the Church's history, doctrine, etc.

Will such answers be sufficient and satisfactory?  In the main, I have found them to be so.  But sufficient and satisfactor as to all concerns for all people?  Likely not.  Faith can be hard, particularly when we are asked to have faith in a message conveyed through, and imperfectly understood and implemented by, flawed human beings.

And yet, there is evidence.  There are answers to and about arguments.  There is the Spirit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

So there is a wife of Hyrum named Bathsheba?  I’m confused. 

No, Bathsheba was the wife of George A? Smith, Hyrum's cousin.

The 2007 Church News article made a claim without documentation that her book was the one Hyrum read and dog-eared, probably based on what those donating said, I am guessing.  

The 2009 Deseret News article referenced the actual book, which belonged to Hyrum's son, who wrote the story in the back of the book.  The Church historian, Turley, stated the second book very much like this one (Bathsheba's) was dog-eared after someone heard the story.  He did not say when or who did this, it could have been Bathsheba shortly afterwards or another family member much later.  There was nothing said about it in Bathsheba's online autobiography or apparently any reference to it in Preston Nibley's collection of biographical stories of her husband, George.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did.

"All nonmonetary" being the operative words here.

No, that's not what Elder Holland said.  More to the point, that is not the accusation Bill Reel has made.  See here:

Bill Reel's accusation on this point is not accurate or fair.

Perhaps you should give this matter some study and research before baselessly and snidely slandering a good man.

Bill Reel did it first, much to his discredit.  I am disappointed you are following his poor example.

And since Bill Reel believes it...

🤨

-Smac

It is clear that the church participated institutionally from the church owned DN article and it is also clear that E. Holland emphatically denies the institutional participation.

You then try to change the subject.

It doesn't matter what Bill Reel says or what you say or what I say. The simple fact is that the church, itself, participated in prop 8 and the church owned DN reports this from a church source. However E. Holland says otherwise. Perhaps it was a mistake or perhaps E. Holland wasn't correctly informed or perhaps E. Holland was emphasizing monetary contributions in order to mislead. Even so, he denies that there was any church participation and that isn't true.

Really, it isn't a big deal. But how about we just deal with the truth?

[Duncan]

5 minutes 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.

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

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, Bathsheba was the wife of George A? Smith, Hyrum's cousin.

Thanks!

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Duncan said:

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

Just so I understand your point correctly, we can judge someone as an uninformed individual if they make a mistake?

Help me understand your point?

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Bill did a lot of searching and study - more than most I know

but if he did then why would he make a simple mistake like this?

so, again does he know more than 99% of members if he makes this mistake? and studied more and read all this stuff.

My point is he doesn't know as much as he thinks he knows and I HIGHLY doubt he's read as much as he claims and knows as much as he wants others to think. He can say what he wants but the proof is in the pudding here

[smac97]

4 minutes 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.

His accusations against Elder Holland do not demonstrate much in the way of "searching and study" (see here).

His "Big List" of 23 questions likewise did not demonstrate much in the way of searching and study (see here).

His remarks about the Church's approach to same-sex attraction also did not demonstrate much in the way of searching and study (see here).

Bill Reel is big on invective and bombast and slurs and innuendo and sneers, but in my experience he does not appear well informed.  

I am reminded of an exchange I read a while back between Daniel Peterson and John L. Smith, and evangelical anti-Mormon whose writings were very similar in temperament and tone, to Bill Reel's.  Here's the relevant bit (brown font is Dr. Peterson):

Quote

Dear Rev. Smith:

Both Dennis and Preston are out of the state filling engagements so I will hasten to respond to your "Enough is Enough."

Thank you for your note. I too was out of state, first at an academic conference on Islamic philosophy and then, at his request, taking a non-LDS professor-friend to Mormon historical sites in New York. And, of course, I lied to him the whole time. (I'm good at it. I'm a Mormon. It's what we do.)

My several "d d's" are only conferred so I won't call attention to my qualifications.

I don't recall ever raising the question of your supposed qualifications. But, since you raise it, I will briefly comment.

I did live in Utah for 17 years - however -

I've lived here for about twenty, altogether. Nearly half my life. If knowledge and understanding come from sheer geographical proximity, I win.

and apart from my 10 years of having a booth at the Utah State Fair,

Is handing out shallow tracts at a state fair supposed to be a path toward theological and historical expertise? Darn. And I wasted all that time in graduate school . . .

participating in the Brigham Young University LDS Study-Tour in 1957 - traveling by bus 23 days, 6,000 miles along with 34 Mormons and the BYU professor - also a Mormon,

I know the professor. Someday, if I get around to it, I'll ask him about you. But let's be serious: Although it can be useful and educational, a three-week bus tour does not make one a scholar. (I've led bus tours -- of LDS historical sites in Britain and of biblical sites in Israel, Egypt, and Jordan -- and I have some sense of their limitations.)

I have 2,500 books on Mormonism (by far the most pro-Mormon).

But have you understood -- actually mastered -- their contents? I do not wish to be uncharitable, but I've seen no sign in your writing that you have. Nor any sign in the Evangel and the Inner Circle that anybody there really has much of a clue.

I think that last question could be directed to Bill Reel.  Has he "understood -- actually mastered --" the issues he has been raising?  Based on my personal interactions with him, and on his writings which I have reviewed, I think the answer would be largely "No."  He gives no indication of having meaningfully interacted with the huge amounts of scholarly and apologetic material that is out there for the taking.  So either he is ignorant of such things, or else he is aware of these things but regularly refuses to give such resources a fair hearing and meaningful consideration, and instead pretends that such resources do not exist, and in so doing materially misleads his audience.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Methinks we may have an unreliable narrator problem here.

Based on his accuracy in interpreting other stories, I agree.  Not saying he is lying, I think he has a strong bias that interferes with his perception....such as his assumption the book Elder Holland held in conference was in near mint condition even though the pictures shown with it clearly were not and even had markings on the page that could easily identify it.  If he had actually studied the pictures he himself linked to or fully read the DN article, his questions would have been clearly answered (identical book, Turley explained the Bathsheba book was dog-eared in the same fashion later based on the story of the Joseph F Smith book, not by Hyrum himself).

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It is clear that the church participated institutionally from the church owned DN article and it is also clear that E. Holland emphatically denies the institutional participation.

Wrong. 

First, Elder Holland didn't deny that the Church was involved.  He spoke about it at some length. 

Second, Bill Reel's accusation isn't about "institutional participation," but about financial contribution.  

Third, Bill Reel's accusation against Elder Holland is demonstrably false.  Elder Holland said that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  That is factually correct.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You then try to change the subject.

Quoting, verbatim, the statement by Elder Holland which Bill Reel is declaring to be a "lie" is - in your view - "chang[ing] the subject?"

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It doesn't matter what Bill Reel says or what you say or what I say.

Speaking of changing the subject...

Yes, it matters.  This thread is, in part, about Bill Reel's accusations against Elder Holland.  Bill Reel's accusations are, in my assessment, overwhelmingly inaccurate, unfair, and inappropriate.  That matters.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The simple fact is that the church, itself, participated in prop 8 and the church owned DN reports this from a church source.

Again, speaking of changing the subject...

The Church has never denied that it "participated in Prop 8."  The issue here is whether it donated money to Prop 8.  That is the essence of Bill Reel's accusation.  And it appears that Bill Reel's accusation is false.

That matters.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

However E. Holland says otherwise.

Patently false.  Elder Holland says nothing of the sort.  To the contrary, he spoke at length about the nature of the Church's involvement in Prop 8.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Perhaps it was a mistake or perhaps E. Holland wasn't correctly informed or perhaps E. Holland was emphasizing monetary contributions in order to mislead.

And now you are bearing false witness against Elder Holland.  

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Even so, he denies that there was any church participation and that isn't true.

Patently false.  He describes the nature of the Church's involvement in Prop 8.  That involvement is a matter of public record, and isn't even particularly controversial (except for bigots who feel that religious people and groups should not be allowed to exercise the rights given to all other persons and groups).

What was controversial, per Bill Reel, was the verity of Elder Holland's statement about the Church not donating money to Prop 8.  His statement appears to be quite correct, such that Bill Reel's accusation appears to be quite false.

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Really, it isn't a big deal. But how about we just deal with the truth?

Indeed.  Why don't we?

Bill Reel accused Elder Holland of making a false statement when he (Elder Holland) said that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  Elder Holland's statement was correct, and Bill Reel's accusation was therefore false.

How do you propose to deal with these truths?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

The Church does silence these types of dissenters.  Consider this, John Dehlin and Kate Kelley arguably had more active members following these two when they were both members of the Church.  Active members appear more likely to listen to a Dehlin or Kelley if these personalities remain members.  Once these two were excommunicated they became not trustworthy to many members.  Dehlin did more damage in the middle way than outside.  Excommunicating Dehlin helped in the short term and removed his voice from the lives of many.  He was now excommunicated and just another exMormon.  He was no longer one of us with questions/concerns.

Even accepting your claim as a given (I think it is more nuanced), encouraging people to ignore is not the same as silencing.  They can speak up whenever they want and apparently do.

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did.

"All nonmonetary" being the operative words here.

No, that's not what Elder Holland said.  More to the point, that is not the accusation Bill Reel has made.  See here:

Bill Reel's accusation on this point is not accurate or fair.

I'm confused on this, smac.  Bill made note of the contributions being inkind and not cash donations.  I don't see that as not accurate or not fair--see this DN article.  Are you suggesting that the Church giving donations amounting to $189,000 is equivalent to not one red cent donated?  I can give Holland more of a pass because he said "that he knows of".  There's always room to wiggle out on those types of statements.  Although it's pretty incredible to imagine he'd be commenting on this if he really didn't know.  I can see the fib in that.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you should give this matter some study and research before baselessly and snidely slandering a good man.

Bill Reel did it first, much to his discredit.  I am disappointed you are following his poor example.

And since Bill Reel believes it...

🤨

-Smac

There's not slander here.  THere's no baseless nor snideness.  How do you account for Holland claiming not one red cent being donated if the Church says it donated nearly 200,000 dollars worth?  Do you think Holland meant cash?  If so that could have been offered in his explanation--"yes not one red cent, but we did contribute 189,000 dollars worth".  

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Has he "understood -- actually mastered --" the issues he has been raising?  Based on my personal interactions with him, and on his writings which I have reviewed, I think the answer would be largely "No."

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.

[lostindc]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even accepting your claim as a given (I think it is more nuanced), encouraging people to ignore is not the same as silencing.  They can speak up whenever they want and apparently do.

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.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wrong. 

First, Elder Holland didn't deny that the Church was involved.  He spoke about it at some length. 

Second, Bill Reel's accusation isn't about "institutional participation," but about financial contribution.  

Third, Bill Reel's accusation against Elder Holland is demonstrably false.  Elder Holland said that the Church did not donate money to Prop 8.  That is factually correct.

 

Here's what Holland said:

Quote

Institutionally, not a single dollar, not one red cent of money from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went into Proposition 8, or any other comparable proposition that I know of.  Now, a lot of Latter-day Saints got involved.  And a lot of Latter-day Saints, particularly in California, donated their own time and money to do it.  So I'm not being coy, I'm not dodging the fact that there was a terrific involvement, and a fairly heavy price to pay. 

As you quoted.  

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

Quote

lder Holland when asked about the Church’s contribution to Prop 8 says that the Church did not give “One Red Cent” to the fight against Same Sex Marriage in California.  Problem is it gave a reported amount of almost $200,000.  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.

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.  

Quote

he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed the final report of its contributions — all of which were nonmonetary — to the ProtectMarriage coalition," said Scott Trotter, church spokesman. "The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31 deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.

"The value of the church's in-kind contribution is less than one half of 1 percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the Yes on 8 campaign. The church did not make any cash contribution," he said.

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?

[Rivers]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

His questions are not new or original. I would contend there are answers but he did not find the answers convincing.

Not just that.  He also wants the church itself to answer these questions rather than Latter-day Saint scholars.  He expects all the GA’s to be experts on these things.

[The Nehor]

4 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.

Yep.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Do you have any kind of data to back this up?

Kate Kelley seems to have dropped out of LDS activism after her excommunication.  So, perhaps it did silence her.

It appears more to me a lack of interest on her part, consistent with her behaviour prior to getting involved in OW.

This earlier stuff is from memory, I have documented it in the past, but the search function only goes back for a year.  The later stuff is due to a search I did a few days ago when I was looking for distraction.  It was triggered by someone mentioning Kelly had been trash talking another OW member who had been discussing the origins of OW and other things.

She stated she did not get involved in the earlier Pants to Church Day because she liked wearing dresses.  That she couldn't be interested enough in the cause to join in solidarity for one day makes me question her level of commitment to things she is not in control of.  She moved to Kenya shortly after her excommunication, iirc.  It was then she withdrew or was removed from the OW Board (there seems to have been a power struggle there from reports of OW members and Kelly herself)...which would have robbed her of her pulpit more than her excommunication, imo, based on how Dehlin has continued in the public eye by holding on to power at MormonStories.  So her involvement with OW lasted at most two years.  She refused to be part of the book that OW put out because she wanted more control over it and they didn't give it to her.  When she came back from Kenya, she didn't rejoin OW.  She got a job with Planned Parenthood as a spokesperson and had a few events publicized, the most notable one she shared with Dehlin.  Then no more announcements of her with PP.  Instead she is studying for the bar in Utah and forming her own nonprofit, G.I.R.L. law center (which as far as I can tell is mentioned twice online, once in an interview and in her bio on Columbia Law).  She also supposedly helped in organizing Utah Women Unite (most articles about UWU which mention her don't mention her as a founder, so it is hard to tell, imo) and in organizing two marches, one in DC and one in Utah.  And now she is in New York sometime in this past year as a legal fellow for the Columbia Law Human Rights Institute.

I am not saying she is wrong to move on so frequently, if she enjoys new challenges and can  why not? Just saying it looks much more like a personal choice to get involved in other things, which has led to her dropping out of sight for the most part because she has killed her own momentum as a spokesperson for the various causes.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused on this, smac.  Bill made note of the contributions being inkind and not cash donations. 

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.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see that as not accurate or not fair--see this DN article.  Are you suggesting that the Church giving donations amounting to $189,000 is equivalent to not one red cent donated? 

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.  

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can give Holland more of a pass because he said "that he knows of".  There's always room to wiggle out on those types of statements.  Although it's pretty incredible to imagine he'd be commenting on this if he really didn't know.  I can see the fib in that.  

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

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There's not slander here.  THere's no baseless nor snideness. 

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.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How do you account for Holland claiming not one red cent being donated if the Church says it donated nearly 200,000 dollars worth? 

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.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Do you think Holland meant cash?  If so that could have been offered in his explanation--"yes not one red cent, but we did contribute 189,000 dollars worth".  

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

[smac97]

20 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 concur.  

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I would argue that Bill has made serious efforts to study.

I wouldn't.  His writing and remarks do not show such a serious effort.

Googling and finding pre-packaged and decontextualized gripes about and criticisms of the Church is, in my view, intellectually lazy.  And profoundly misguided and ineffectual.

I don't see the fruits of "serious efforts to study" in Bill Reel's statements.  Lots of evidence of rampant googling, though (and nary a lick of the charity you espouse).

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

That's a nicer word than I would have picked.

His public accusations against Elder Holland are rude, condescending, mean-spirited, and mostly false and misleading.  And they demonstrate no real thought or effort to understand and contextualize and interpret.  Just viciousness.  

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

No, I don't sense much charity from him, either.

Nor much in the way of erudition.  

Thanks,

-Smac