The Bill Reel Thread on MD&D is Disgusting

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: The Bill Reel Thread on MD&D is Disgusting

Post by _consiglieri »

Kishkumen wrote:
Bingo. So people who are looking to improve the LDS Church associate with him because . . . why?


I have to admit I did my own wincing when I saw Mike Norton was involved with Bill Reel's council.

As I did earlier when I saw him involved with McKenna's "testimony" at Joseph Bishop's home ward.

I do not know the whys and wherefores of Mike's involvement with Bill, but I think one thing Mike brings to the table is his expertise in recording devices.

I am not sure the pros outweigh the cons, though.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: The Bill Reel Thread on MD&D is Disgusting

Post by _Symmachus »

Doctor Scratch wrote:...your post links back to some things I've been thinking about recently: namely, DCP's bizarre defensiveness about money. He and the other apologists are *so* sensitive to accusations that they might be profiting, benefiting financially, or in some way "spending" Church money in any way. Why would they do that when, as you point out, the institutional Church seems to no longer care about actual tithing money? Have I answered my own question: is it true that the Mopologists actually *don't* care about the "widow's mite"? I.e., they "don't care" in the sense that they don't want anyone to imply that they want or need that money--like, they are so loaded and successful that to even insinuate that they would even slightly want that "trashy" money is a huge slight? Hence the need to make it seem as if they've got money raining down from the sky via microcosmically detailed coverage of their lavish vacations and world travels? The only way they want anyone's "dirty" money is if it's going strictly towards "the cause": i.e., Mopologetics. "Don't pay the money to us. Pay it towards our hobby."


I think that is right. There is also a hidden argument about money that is common to traditionalist apologetics that is rooted in the Utah Mormon tradition itself. The argument runs like this: the Church isn't in it for money but rather for the kingdom of God—unlike all those other churches!—therefore it is more likely to be the truest church. Its leaders have a simple and modest stipend—unlike those other churches!—because they are just trying to do god's work, not make a living, and because they are accordingly free of the profit-motive—unlike those other churches!—their claims are more sincere and thus should be taken more seriously. It is a kind of argument from money (argumentum ex pecunia).

Likewise, the FARMSians operate under the assumptions of this informal argument: they make it seem as if they are doing this just on the side, not part of the their day jobs (like bishops, say), and therefore they don't have any financial motive to their enterprise and consequently their formal arguments are just pure scholarship and carry all that much more weight—not like all those other, secular scholars who are just trying to bulk up their CVs so they can get promotion.

Of course, if the name of the church were hidden from view, it'd be hard to conclude that the entity that commands its particular real estate holdings and vast financial wealth really was a church and not an investment firm. Similarly, if one didn't have the title "Professor of Arabic" as a guide, it would be very hard to conclude from his published record that Daniel Peterson was anything other than a professional apologist for the Church. That looks very unseemly and undermines the informal argument (not needing money = true), so better to make it about the cause and the kingdom.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: The Bill Reel Thread on MD&D is Disgusting

Post by _toon »

Kishkumen wrote:I don't believe I did avoid it, Rock. Instead I pointed to the fact that Roger also likes the activists and that I have supported their work myself. What you have done is created a false dichotomy based on an incomplete understanding of my position. No biggie. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify, and I would be happy to do so again if that would help.


Roger Hendrix was in my stake presidency when growing and later my mission in the singles ward I attended after my mission. I genuine and good guy.
_lostindc
_Emeritus
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: The Bill Reel Thread on MD&D is Disgusting

Post by _lostindc »

Jersey Girl wrote:lost there's no possible way that this isn't going to be long winded. I'm being honest. I might be wasting my time entirely here.

I've read the criticisms that you've made over the past couple of days. As I said, I am not in a position to address Bill Reel specifically. I don't think I can rightly comment too much on Dehlin specifically either. I've been following Sam Young since the onset of his movement, so I'll try to move more towards him while commenting.

When I first came online nearly two decades ago, and started posting on an LDS related board linked from the RFM website, I encountered a variety of people. Some LDS, Ex, some Nevers, former and current members of other religions, atheists and agnostics, folks from all over the world. Indeed, some of those old posters are posting on this board. If I am not mistaken, at least one is on this very thread--Nevo.

Back then, the boards were sort of primitive in function compared to this board. There weren't as many websites as there are now from which to examine information. Without going into the whole "what the hell is this Jersey Girl about, let's give her a run for her money" story. Let me just say, that even back then...when folks were graduating from locations such as Alt.religion and there were more and more places where folks could share stories (boards) and information (websites), I remember clearly people saying how the Internet was going to be the undoing of the LDS Church because NOW people had access to other sources of information that was previously unknown to them and more importantly, information that was located on "anti" websites that LDS were warned not to view or read.

Toothpaste out of the tube. Ain't no putting it back.

Back then people exited the church without fanfare or support. Some folks had stories about abuse. I read them on the RFM exit stories and posts, and I thought it was all hyped up ____ intended to retaliate against the church that they felt had betrayed them. What better way to fight back against one's disillusionment than to drag one's good name through the mud, right?

I totally ignored those stories. I believe now that they possibly could have happened just the way they were written. Not because of Sam's movement, but because over time, I myself gained experience with sexual abuse cases. I understood the outcomes and the psycho-social damage that it involves. I don't have the ability to look at every story and determine "Yup, that one is true", "No, that's made up". I'm not God and I wasn't there. I can sure enough tell you what rings true.

The trajectory of the stories rings true.

The outcomes where one reports depression/anxiety, low self esteem, sense of worthlessness/shame, difficulties in physically and emotionally intimate relationships, self harm, history of substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, and completed suicide.

Decades ago, some children were harmed by Bishop's interviews and also inappropriate sexual contact with Bishops. I'd like to believe that the latter was rare, but I can't know that is the case. Those children must've had a hard time telling anyone or finding support. More than likely, they kept their mouths shut and endured because they were led to believe that their Bishop was God and God must be right OR that they themselves were partially responsible for how they were made to feel as children.

Those children who were being abused two decades ago, are the adults in the Protect LDS Children movement. The ones who told their stories that Sam collected. The victims to whom Sam has given voice via his presentations and efforts--what he calls "actions".

Assuming that you, lost, think that it's a good idea to stand up for those who are damaged in an effort to acknowlege, affirm and help them heal and to prevent future instances of church related sexual violation, how do you expect an advocate to give voice to the group without actually using his own voice?

You say that someone like Sam wants attention. How do you think that an advocate is going to shine a light on the issues without getting attention for it? Do you expect them to engage a letter writing campaign to Salt Lake City? What's the best way to move the movement in 2018?

What you see as a man wanting attention is what I see as a man trying to get people's attention and use it to help the benficiaries of the movement-- past and possible future victims.

It's no longer just the Internet that is going to be the thorn in the side of those who cover up wrongs. The other thorn is now social media. Facebook, Twitter, and the like. Live stream videos that take one to the scene of an event that others might have liked to be present for but cannot due to time, money, and distance.

Sam throws himself into a car with his audio/video/tech guy, snaps a quick pic to show they are going to attend an event that others likely wish they could attend and you see it as a game.

Sam takes the mic as facilitor of the supportive group, folks ask him about Protect so he answers them, he fills a bit of time here and there lightning the mood with a humorous remark and you criticize him for being a human being.

Solemnity and grief aren't the only pieces of human connectedness to be had in a situation like an excommunication--so is laughter. Have you never attended a funeral repast where the folks ate, told their stories and laughed together? You don't know what comic relief is?

Human emotions and shared experiences are what ties us to each other.

In any case, I find it odd that one or more guys are busting their asses for various causes, trying to make a difference for others and no doubt contributing to their own cathartic process (like what happens on this board every day of the week) and people feel compelled to determine how best they should do it when it's just beginning to be done publicly via social media--anywhere in the world.

Who knows? Maybe the gentlemen in question will read these types of criticisms and find them useful.

Speak out Sam, just don't take the mic over for an hour and for the love of god, don't crack a joke. Be your personable and accessible self Sam, just don't snap a pic on the way to the ex event and if you do, for god's sake don't smile because you are happy you were able to show up to support a colleague.

Say this, Sam. Say it this way, Sam. Do this, Sam. Do it this way, Sam. No, don't say that, don't do that and for god's sake--never laugh while you're doing it!

We wouldn't want to think that mere human beings are spearheading these truth driven movements. It's almost as if you expect him to behave like one of the church leaders, stuffed shirts--SLC honchos.

I once went to visit a relative who was my best running buddy during the teen years and who was in a nursing home having suffered a debilitating stroke that left her paralyzed and unable to speak. The prognosis wasn't good. It was likely that she would die there--she eventually did. When I showed up, I might have felt emotionally upset and grieve for the person she had been, what a horrible circumstance, and what humiliation and frustration she faced on a daily basis. The situation was for sure dire. I should have walked in riddled by grief, sobbing like a baby.

I threw open the front door to that nursing home and walked through there with a huge smile plastered across my face, stepping lightly down the hallways, I swear there were puffy cartoon hearts flying out of my head like in a movie...because I was so damn happy to have made it there for her! So damn happy I was able to show up.

Maybe that is how Sam felt the other night when he snapped that pic. Who the hell are any of us to judge?

And by the way, I made her laugh her ass off for a solid afternoon and more to come! Not every situation requires tears and hand wringing. Sometimes a good laugh is what gets you through a tough time. Sometimes a moment of normalcy serves as a buffer against the sorrow. I saved my tears until after I exited the building, every single time.


I totally get what you're saying about your experience with abuse cases. I totally get what you're saying about various reactions to tragic situations, even the reaction of laughter and joking (I do that often). I also agree that a generation of victims are now stepping forward and the Church will hear their voices.

I just don't agree about Sam.

For me, as someone spending much time as a Mormon and watching a new martyr born each day, fulfilling the Joseph Smith role, I am jaded. Sam, Dehlin, Bill, and others have taken on this Joseph Smith role and their motives often seem confusing. Have you noticed how Sam has made himself a centerpiece in the movement he champions? Why? This seems really counterintuitive to any movement of this nature.

Sam's night as MC for Bill Reel's DC was not good show. If you're going to self-appoint as one of the lead activists for protecting LDS children in worthiness interviews then run a tight ship. If you explore other message boards with believing LDS, they've essentially ignored the protecting LDS children movement and focused on the messenger. This isn't something difficult to do if the messenger continues to insert themselves in the story/movement. Thanks Sam! Sam can't help himself. He loves the attention. The guy can't stop posting on ex-Mormon reddit, he uploads selfies, goes on rants, acts entirely disrespectful to the Mormon leaders, thus losing the ears of members and leaders, he is ruthless to lay local leadership, etc. His cause is good, his approach sucks.

As much as many on this board disagreed with Rosebud, she understood how to approach activism within the Church. Unfortunately, for Sam and others, the activism process didn't entail creating personalities, but rather focusing on the cause.

Bill Reel's excommunication seems like a tipping point for TBMs and many exmos/inactivemos. I am seeing more individuals speaking out in disgust about the characters surrounding this excommunication than any other LDS excommunication in the modern era. The excommunication was all around poor show. The Church did a poor job, Bill Reel was essentially a living/breathing message board post, NNN, as always, was a jerk, Sam made the scene a clown show, and Dehlin is Dehlin (but dang does he make some very good podcast episodes).
2019 = #100,000missionariesstrong
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: The Bill Reel Thread on MD&D is Disgusting

Post by _Kishkumen »

consiglieri wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:Bingo. So people who are looking to improve the LDS Church associate with him because . . . why?

I have to admit I did my own wincing when I saw Mike Norton was involved with Bill Reel's council.

As I did earlier when I saw him involved with McKenna's "testimony" at Joseph Bishop's home ward.

I do not know the whys and wherefores of Mike's involvement with Bill, but I think one thing Mike brings to the table is his expertise in recording devices.

I am not sure the pros outweigh the cons, though.

On his Facebook wall one week before the DC, Mike Norton claimed he is friends with Bill Reel.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply