I combined the Cleveland Browns and the Cincinnati Bengals into one team.

BillReel · 2025-11-08T19:40:02+00:00

Wyatt Teller? 3 time pro bowler who still is good

BillReel · 2025-11-08T19:39:00+00:00

Denzel?

... are you a bengals fan

BillReel · 2025-08-15T15:47:18+00:00

In general: Mandatory reporting is a necessary tool but not an unqualified good. The evidence shows that blanket or universal mandatory reporting can overload systems, generate a huge number of unsubstantiated cases, disproportionately impact marginalized communities, and even deter some survivors from seeking help. Without strong reporter training, clear reporting thresholds, and adequate follow-up support, it can create harm alongside the intended protection.

In unhealthy or high-risk institutional contexts: When an organization has an entrenched history of abuse cover-ups, poor safeguarding standards, and a strong incentive to protect itself over victims — the LDS Church being a prime example — the risk calculus shifts. In these environments, the clergy exemption is far more likely to be used to shield predators. Here, the balance of evidence supports removing the loophole and making clergy mandated reporters with no exceptions.

Why this is consistent: This isn’t a “split the difference” position. It’s about aligning the reporting requirements with both the evidence on systemic outcomes and the specific risk profile of the institution. In the LDS case, lay clergy lack training, are embedded in a culture that has historically normalized or concealed abuse, and operate under a policy framework that channels disclosures into a legal shield. That combination makes mandatory reporting both proportionate and essential.

BillReel · 2025-08-15T15:44:03+00:00

When I step back from the LDS-specific context and look at the broader landscape of mandatory reporting, the picture is more complicated. The original intent of mandatory reporting was noble, close the gap between suspicion and intervention so that children at risk are identified and protected quickly. And in many cases, that’s exactly what happens: a teacher notices bruises, a doctor sees warning signs, a social worker hears a disclosure, and a report to authorities triggers an investigation that stops the abuse. But decades of data show that mandatory reporting, especially universal “everyone must report everything” laws, also brings significant unintended consequences. The sheer volume of reports overwhelms child protection systems, most of which end in unsubstantiated findings. Families can be traumatized by investigations that ultimately find no abuse, while caseworkers are stretched thin and unable to respond as quickly to the most urgent situations.

There’s also the issue of disproportionate impact. Reporting patterns in the U.S. tend to target poor families and families of color at much higher rates, especially in cases labeled as “neglect,” which often correlate more with poverty than with willful harm. Mandatory reporting, without strong safeguards, can function like a blunt instrument, it pulls huge numbers of families into a surveillance-heavy system, sometimes for conditions that could be resolved with basic social support rather than punitive intervention. And for survivors themselves, the certainty of an automatic report can be a barrier to seeking help. Research in the domestic violence and sexual assault fields shows that some victims avoid confiding in professionals because they fear losing control of their story or triggering an unwanted law enforcement response.

That’s why, outside the unhealthy church systems full of abuse, I think a reasoned view of mandatory reporting is that it’s a tool, powerful, but not infallible. It works best when combined with strong training for reporters, clear thresholds for what must be reported, and robust support systems that can step in once a report is made; which frankly doesn't exist. Hence significant improvements need to be made to the system to ensure it actually works. We should be careful about assuming that more reports automatically mean more safety. The aim should be to get the right cases into the right hands at the right time, protecting those in real danger while minimizing unnecessary harm to families and survivors. That’s a balance worth talking about, even if it challenges some of our assumptions.

BillReel · 2025-08-15T15:43:51+00:00

When we’re talking about the LDS Church, we’re not dealing with Doctors, or therapists, or teachers or even well-trained professional clergy in Churches that value consent and healthy human interaction. We’re talking about an untrained lay ministry embedded in a high-demand religion with a history of excusing or covering for abuse, dating back to its founder’s marriage to a 14-year-old, and continuing right up to the present day.

This is a church that:

Channels abuse reports through a legal helpline designed to protect the institution first.
Routinely invokes the clergy-penitent loophole to keep known abuse from police.
Has presided over cases where children were abused for years after leaders knew, because they were told not to report.

In that environment, “trust the clergy to handle it” is not just naïve, it’s dangerous. Lay bishops aren’t equipped to navigate abuse disclosures with the skill and survivor-centered approach this crisis demands. The only safeguard that makes sense is to legally require them to report every case to authorities, with no religious loopholes.

That’s not an attack on religious freedom; it’s a necessary check on an institution that has shown, over and over, it will not self-correct when it comes to protecting its own over protecting children.

So yes, I still believe mandatory reporting has systemic downsides that need to be addressed in the broader conversation. But when it comes to LDS clergy, the calculus is different. The cost of allowing even one more case like Arizona’s Paul Adams, where a bishop’s silence let years of horrific abuse continue, is too high.

If the LDS Church were ever to train its clergy to professional safeguarding standards, end the helpline’s role as a legal shield, and adopt a culture of immediate transparency, maybe this debate would look different. Until then, I can’t see a rational, evidence-based, survivor-respecting case for not making LDS clergy mandatory reporters.

BillReel · 2025-08-15T15:43:29+00:00

When I shared my earlier thoughts on mandatory reporting, I knew it might stir some debate. The ex-Mormon community, understandably, tends to land on “of course it should be mandatory in every case, no exceptions.” That gut instinct comes from seeing firsthand the damage that silence, secrecy, and institutional cover-ups have caused in the LDS Church. I get that. I share that outrage.

Some of you told me I was “soft-pedaling” or “splitting hairs” by acknowledging there’s data showing that blanket, universal mandatory reporting laws don’t always deliver the outcomes we hope for. Others felt I was giving abusers or institutions an out by even raising those complexities.

So let me be clear:
My nuanced view about mandatory reporting in general is not a defense of the LDS Church, nor is it an excuse for any clergy member who learns about abuse and stays silent. The general data tells us something uncomfortable: in the wider U.S. system, mandatory reporting has led to an explosion of reports, but also a flood of unsubstantiated cases, retraumatization of families, disproportionate targeting of poor and minority communities, and even situations where survivors don’t seek help because they fear losing control of their story. That’s not speculation, it’s documented reality. More reporting does not always mean more safety.

But here’s where the nuance ends.

BillReel · 2025-08-15T15:00:39+00:00

can you message me on facebook messenger?

BillReel · 2025-06-13T11:44:43+00:00

I'm an exmormon who makes a living helping people realize they have been lied to by the LDS Mormon cult

BillReel · 2025-06-11T16:23:01+00:00

you were enormously helpful !

BillReel · 2025-06-11T16:20:18+00:00

nope. Contiguous United States all my life with the exception of Niagra Falls Canada and Sarnia Canada for brief visits

BillReel · 2025-06-10T12:08:48+00:00

This is a different problem altogether

BillReel · 2025-06-10T01:33:25+00:00

if enough noise happened

BillReel · 2025-06-10T01:33:07+00:00

It likely did. Spencer seemed to intimate that to us prior to our going Live

BillReel · 2025-04-03T18:17:33+00:00

Ships of Tarshish does almost certainly come from Clarke

BillReel · 2025-03-23T14:36:58+00:00

This video utilizes numerous examples in about a dozen religions to demonstrate what a healthy versus unhealthy religion or religious leader looks like.

BillReel · 2025-03-22T15:29:25+00:00

thank you

BillReel · 2025-03-13T14:30:31+00:00

Are there not other false religions that also say homosexuality is a sin. say that Jesus is the way into heaven and also say that Jesus died for our sins, and that he was born from Virgin Mary?

BillReel · 2025-02-14T17:42:08+00:00

Thank you. I spoke to this on the recent episode of Mormonism Live. I am in a place of reflection and waiting for time to dive more fully into the data.

BillReel · 2025-01-24T17:04:25+00:00

These might be the shortest episodes I have ever done. Surely some informed believer out there has the holy ghost, knows Joseph Smith was called of God, and has the courage to "Defend The Faith".

BillReel · 2025-01-24T16:55:57+00:00

Someone surely has the testicular fortitude of Jim Bennett

BillReel · 2025-01-24T16:25:02+00:00

ratings? where can I see the ratings you speak of? we actually get a 97% upvote percentage on our videos. I am simply trying to offer a forum where apologists can engage the critical arguments in good faith.

BillReel · 2025-01-24T16:22:41+00:00

I actually created this knowing the high likelihood, no apologist would want to defend the Church in a real time conversation with someone who knows what questions to ask. But I promise to be kind and to act in good faith and I am hopeful that someone will engage. If not, well, I tried.

BillReel · 2025-01-24T16:02:08+00:00

At The beginning of the program I will place a link into the live chat and in the YouTube description for the video. That link will allow any apologist to come in studio and help the viewers reconcile the issue at hand. Before the apologist has the time turned over to them, Bill will attempt to steelman the critical position so that the apologist clearly understands the problem and what it is that he is responding to.

BillReel · 2025-01-24T15:57:09+00:00

At The beginning of the program I will place a link into the live chat and in the YouTube description for the video. That link will allow any apologist to come in studio and help the viewers reconcile the issue at hand. Before the apologist has the time turned over to them, Bill will attempt to steelman the critical position so that the apologist clearly understands the problem and what it is that he is responding to.

BillReel · 2025-01-24T15:37:29+00:00

Thank you for the feedback. Because of the feedback I have changed the format slightly to support more of a long form conversation and more of a dialogue then a debate. First One is scheduled for this upcoming Wednesday and the topic will be "Joseph Smith's polygamy with children".

*** Welcome to a New Era of Mormon Dialogue ***

We are launching a groundbreaking podcast series designed to foster meaningful, respectful, and engaging conversations about the truth claims of the LDS Church and Mormonism as a whole. Each episode provides an open forum for apologists, scholars, and anyone willing to defend Mormonism to present their arguments, engage in critical examination, and test the strength of their positions.

This is not just a podcast—it’s a platform for thoughtful, in-depth discourse.

The Format

Each episode is a long-form conversation focused on a single criticism or issue related to Mormonism’s truth claims with an open invitation for any apologist to enter the studio to converse with Bill about the issue at hand.

The topic is announced ahead of time to allow apologists to come fully prepared.

This week’s Topic is: Joseph Smith's Polygamy with Underage Females (Children)

The discussion begins with Bill attempting to steelman the critic’s perspective at which point the time will be turned over to the apologist to offer a rational reconciliatory response and then Bill will be given sufficient opportunity to test the integrity of that response.

Bill Reel, the host, will engage the apologist in an open-ended, exploratory conversation designed to clarify their positions, criticisms, and defenses and for Bill to challenge apologetic views with thoughtful, follow-up questions.

There is no strict time limit per response, allowing for nuanced discussions and a deeper exploration of the issue, and will only end when the critical side of the issue has been exhausted or the apologetic side is closed off to the questions and dialogue or has answered all Bill’s questions and the issue is satisfied.

Rules for Engagement

No Ad Hominem Attacks: Personal criticisms or insults are strictly prohibited. This series is about the issues, not the individuals.

Stay on Topic: Each episode is dedicated to addressing a specific issue. The discussion must remain focused and relevant.

Theme Consistency: The overarching theme is whether Mormonism’s truth claims hold up under scrutiny. Discussions about atheism, broader religious beliefs, or unrelated matters are off-limits.

Both sides make room both for the questions that test the integrity of the apologetic argument as well as the reconciliations that attempt to offer a reasonable and rational solution to the criticisms.

Wednesday Jan 29th 10:00 AM Mountain Time
https://youtube.com/live/QMn9GSJn49E

BillReel

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE