Bill Reel – Elder Holland Retraction

I will take a look.

I have been uncomfortable about the direction he has been going for a while. It might be time to hide his post to the parking lot. He is doing exactly what we told Rick he can’t do – and he is pushing an agenda we can’t support.

I saw comments by him on another forum (Mormon Dialogue) as well. I didn’t research the whole thing, but apparently he called “bull” when the story was first published, caught a good amount of guff there, and feels vindicated by the retraction. I don’t see the post in the parking lot, but I am in general opposed to just posting a link to a podcast such as his (for which he does get financial gain) and running. I believe I have said this before, but from what I see of Bill’s posts elsewhere of late he has become more negative and antagonistic toward the church.

I moved the entire thread because it does nothing but promote his podcasts, from which he profits. He never comments on any other threads. He isn’t a participant; rather, he is a podcast link and summary poster.

We had this discussion with Rick, and we need to be consistent. I also moved it so that Bill would be unable to add the Elder Holland stuff to it, if he tried to do that.

Frankly, there wasn’t much discussion involved on the thread. There was some, but not much. That aspect isn’t important to me; I simply want to have a consistent standard when it comes to the appearance of profiteering from limited involvement here.

I have been a supporter/defender of Bill for a long time. I believe that he is genuine.

Having said that, I support this move and find the justification to be fair and balanced.

If Bill wants to post a thread with a topic and then link to his podcast then we can make further decisions based on the topic and the content. He does not need a thread dedicated to his site.

I believe I have said this before, but from what I see of Bill’s posts elsewhere of late he has become more negative and antagonistic toward the church.

I do not disagree with that. I just want to make clear that (I believe) his podcast is still a far cry from being “anti” for the purposes of our policies.

I also find it disingenuous to present it as “I’m not negative, but just want to present a balanced view so everyone can decide for themselves.”

…and then proceed to present a very slanted and negative material.

I would find it more worthy of respect if he just called it what it is…he has his issues and it has changed his thinking of the church, but he is trying to work through it…but clearly…he doesn’t agree with the church on certain matters.

That’s ok to say. Just call it like it is.

In some of his podcasts, I have just felt he is trying to convince himself that he is not negative, even while increasingly showing emotion about it.

Regardless of how I view it…the bottom line for us is that he has just been advertising his podcasts for people in our forum who he wants to reach. He isn’t participating in the forum…and moving the thread was the right call. IMO.

Isn’t that the human condition?

Not me…I’m the one that is totally unbiased in all my perspectives that I see from my point of view. It’s just everyone else. :crazy:

jk…of course. I agree with you. Even Bushman accepts that his attempt is to be unbiased, but realizes that it is still there in anything he produces. You can’t get a way from it.

But…intentions are important.

For a while, John Dehlin knew he didn’t believe it anymore…but his intention was to present a front that he was showing both sides…because that was a good way to keep both sides listening. So…he wasn’t really being transparent.

When was the last time Bill Reel did something that was defending the church or clarifying misconceptions by anti- groups? I haven’t seen a topic around that, or even an attempt.

He is picking the negative stuff, and trying to walk to the line…which is not an easy thing to do. But he has been doing it long enough…just call it what it is. He isn’t searching for unbiased information…he has an angle to his stuff and wants that voice to have a platform.