Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I really like him too. I've listened to way too much of this 12 hour podcast over the last 24 hours. My takeways.

1) Bennett is a great man. He is about as pure and good as he can possibly be, and I am proud of my religion that it can produce a man like this.

2) Intellectually, from my perspective, if I had to judge this like a judge in a boxing match, I would say Reel won 10-0. It was painful for me because I my heart is on Bennett's side. I'm biased in that I no longer believe literally in the same things Bennett does. For the most part, he gave the FairMormon talking points, but the FairMormon wholistic point by point view after 12 hours just sound ridiculous, imho.

3) Reel and RFM have acted like jerks in the way they've treated him post-interview (gloating about the victory, etc). I say that in the loveliest way possible, because I get their humor, I get their intellectual perspective, I think they're good guys, but it feels slimy the way they've portrayed this. I might think someday I might want to go on with Bill to talk on his podcast, and Bill and I have talked about that. But after stuff like this, I think no way in hell. Bill will be cool to me in the podcast and then he and RFM will slice me up and make me look like an idiot afterwards.

Most evidences seem to reinforce our own established worldviews. I've changed my worldview a lot over the years, but this just reinforced mine. a) all scripture and church historical events are not literally true and defending it as such ends up making us think really illogical and silly things about God and the world b) the church is true in the sense that the lived experience is good and creates really good people like Jim Bennett. 

 

 

 

I may have brought this up before but I know a man who is in his 90's but he is a retired lawyer, great member all around. He said something once that stayed with me he said that some people have no real substance to an argument but they can argue it better than someone who have a lot of information but can't really argue it well. Do you see that going on? 

[churchistrue]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I may have brought this up before but I know a man who is in his 90's but he is a retired lawyer, great member all around. He said something once that stayed with me he said that some people have no real substance to an argument but they can argue it better than someone who have a lot of information but can't really argue it well. Do you see that going on? 

No, I didn't meant to convey that, at least as far as I understand your question. I think Bennett's a smart guy, super nice guy, who understands the FairMormon talking points very well from a logical standpoint. He's also very honest and willing to address every question. Bill is good match for him in terms of he is also well versed in all the CES Letter type issues from both FairMormon and critical standpoint to adequately address all the weaknesses in the FairMormon view. Both are above average smart, both are above average informed. Both are reasonably eloquent and adept at explaining their position. Neither are geniuses. Neither are particular experts in any one field. Similar to how I view myself in this world. But unfortunately, according to my own bias and perspective, anyone who spends 12 hours with someone like Bill who is explaining the FairMormon view and not ducking any questions, is going to get the stuffing beat out of them. I think it's just the nature of the strength of the respective positions.

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by churchistrue

[Steve J]

6 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

No, I didn't meant to convey that, at least as far as I understand your question. I think Bennett's a smart guy, super nice guy, who understands the FairMormon talking points very well from a logical standpoint. He's also very honest and willing to address every question. Bill is good match for him in terms of he is also well versed in all the CES Letter type issues from both FairMormon and critical standpoint to adequately address all the weaknesses in the FairMormon view. Both are above average smart, both are above average informed. Neither are geniuses. Neither are particular experts in any one field. Similar to how I view myself in this world. But unfortunately, according to my own bias and perspective, anyone who spends 12 hours with someone like Bill who is explaining the FairMormon view and not ducking any questions, is going to get the stuffing beat out of them. I think it's just the nature of the strength of the respective positions.

 

“ends up making us think really illogical and silly things about God” ... I have to disagree with you about this statement and as you admit your bias is why you view it as a “blood bath” 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Steve J

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, Steve J said:

“ends up making us think really illogical and silly things about God” ... I have to disagree with you about this statement and as you admit your bias is why you view it as a “blood bath” 

That was quoted from a private message I sent to you which you solicited. Please don't share publicly, especially without total context. But also, I wouldn't say something private that I wouldn't stand by publicly. Yes, I think the FairMormon talking points when viewed wholistically paint a God that's so extremely illogical and inconsistent to me, that for me it's better for my faith to perceive historical and scriptural events that are difficult to explain as metaphor rather than to accept them all as literally true and accept these logical reasons which harm my view of God.

 

 

[Steve J]

13 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

That was quoted from a private message I sent to you which you solicited. Please don't share publicly, especially without total context. But also, I wouldn't say something private that I wouldn't stand by publicly. Yes, I think the FairMormon talking points when viewed wholistically paint a God that's so extremely illogical and inconsistent to me, that for me it's better for my faith to perceive historical and scriptural events that are difficult to explain as metaphor rather than to accept them all as literally true and accept these logical reasons which harm my view of God.

 

 

I did not mean to share anything private. Sorry if that offended you. Since you posted something later similar to the message you sent, I did not think I was violating confidentiality. I also thought that bias wasn’t something unique or relevatory. I also admit that my bias also plays a role in why I don’t find this something “historic” or a “bloodbath.” 

Please accept my apologies 

 

While not saying I agree with everything ever produced by Fairmormon(and that itself would be impossible bc it itself takes varying, and sometime opposite views, on issues, I don’t view that their arguments in general make God “extremely illogical or inconsistent to me”

 

And I have no problem with you shaping a narrative and theology that fits your belief of divinity

Edited February 23, 2019 by Steve J

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Steve J said:

“ends up making us think really illogical and silly things about God” ... I have to disagree with you about this statement and as you admit your bias is why you view it as a “blood bath” 

What?  Where has he posted that?  "silly things about God" and a "blood bath"?

You guys are really getting personal here (and so are others).  I'm not sure why there's a need to personally attack Bill Reel every time there's a thread on here about him.  It would be nice to stick to the topic of the podcasts (and I do understand some don't agree with things Bill is saying, but one can disagree without calling him a "jerk", etc.).

Do you have anything you want to post regarding the content of the podcasts or just continue coming on here and making this personal?

Edited February 23, 2019 by ALarson

[Steve J]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What?  Where has he posted that?  "silly things about God" and a "blood bath"?

You guys are really getting personal here (and so are others).  I'm not sure why there's a need to personally attack Bill Reel every time there's a thread on here about him.  It would be nice to stick to the topic of the podcasts (and I do understand some don't agree with things Bill is saying, but one can disagree without calling him a "jerk", etc.).

Do you have anything you want to post regarding the content of the podcasts or just continue coming on here and making this personal?

My last comments were not anything about Bill Reel.

 

So so I have no idea what you are talking about ??? You can calm down about defending him from these alleged vicious personal attacks.

 

Plus, my general comments are only matching the overall general discussion from others about the podcasts, so I would appreciate if you go 🚔 (police) others as well

 

Well, I’m out again unless someone posts something specific that I feel a post from me can contribute to the discussion.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Steve J

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, Steve J said:

My last comments were not anything about Bill Reel.

 

So so I have no idea what you are talking about ??? You can calm down about defending him from these alleged vicious personal attacks.

 

Plus, my general comments are only matching the overall general discussion from others about the podcasts, so I would appreciate if you go 🚔 others as well

 

Well, I’m out again unless someone posts something specific that I feel a post from me can contribute to the discussion.

You only seem to show up on this thread to continue to make it personal against Bill Reel.  Listen to the podcasts and then you can possibly "contribute to the discussion" in a way that will add some substance maybe?  I'd stick up for you too if you were being personally attacked (or anyone....I don't even know Bill Reel or much about him other than that he used to be a Bishop and has been ex'd and has a podcast....and that he seemed to be associated with FairMormon at one time).

What I would like to know is what actually took place between these two men during the podcast.  I've read it was very civil and well done.  I also read that each one made some concessions.

Bill has posted what he felt Jim Bennett made concessions on or stated regarding some specific topics.  I'm going to try to listen to these podcasts (not my favorite thing to do!), but I'm interested in reading comments from those who have actually listened to them and get their feedback.  I'm not so much interested in reading how much people dislike Bill (I already knew that  ).

Do you have any input into the list Bill posted?  Did you listen to any parts of the podcast that discussed them?

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I may have brought this up before but I know a man who is in his 90's but he is a retired lawyer, great member all around. He said something once that stayed with me he said that some people have no real substance to an argument but they can argue it better than someone who have a lot of information but can't really argue it well. Do you see that going on? 

You nailed my youngest son's personality Duncan, he'll argue with me about every dumb thing!

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You nailed my youngest son's personality Duncan, he'll argue with me about every dumb thing!

hahahahahhahahahahaha! well!

[Steve J]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You only seem to show up on this thread to continue to make it personal against Bill Reel.  Listen to the podcasts and then you can possibly "contribute to the discussion" in a way that will add some substance maybe?  I'd stick up for you too if you were being personally attacked (or anyone....I don't even know Bill Reel or much about him other than that he used to be a Bishop and has been ex'd and has a podcast....and that he seemed to be associated with FairMormon at one time).

What I would like to know is what actually took place between these two men during the podcast.  I've read it was very civil and well done.  I also read that each one made some concessions.

Bill has posted what he felt Jim Bennett made concessions on or stated regarding some specific topics.  I'm going to try to listen to these podcasts (not my favorite thing to do!), but I'm interested in reading comments from those who have actually listened to them and get their feedback.  I'm not so much interested in reading how much people dislike Bill (I already knew that  ).

Do you have any input into the list Bill posted?  Did you listen to any parts of the podcast that discussed them?

 

What did I say about him today at all?????  Gosh, you are paranoid

Edited February 23, 2019 by Steve J

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Did you ever answer the second question that HJW asked in in that post?  He asked "What were the 2 biggest [concessions] you felt you made?"

#1 that these 15 men are almost always behind the times on social change that protects human life and healthiness (directly connected to his admission that these 15 men have done incredible harm at times)
#2 That there is no God Magic or distinguishable difference between these 15 men and 15 men from some other religious system in terms of observable God power.

[DBMormon]

Sadly I am on some sort of limited basis for an unknown reason and after about a dozen posts I am un-allowed to post more for 24 hours.  Any insight into why would be awesome!

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Steve J said:

What did I say about him today at all?????  Gosh, you are paranoid

You’ve been asked several times what you agreed with or disagreed with if you’ve listened to this?  Anything?

I’m just starting to listen, so just curious if you have something to add about the podcasts.  So far, I’m impressed with both of these guys!

[Steve J]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You’ve been asked several times what you agreed with or disagreed with if you’ve listened to this?  Anything?

I’m just starting to listen, so just curious if you have something to add about the podcasts.  So far, I’m impressed with both of these guys!

I’m not sure specifically what subject to talk about that hasn’t been discussed in depth on this board. Others can add stuff too

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, Steve J said:

I’m not sure specifically what subject to talk about that hasn’t been discussed in depth on this board. Others can add stuff too

OK.  Then why remain on the thread?

The podcasts and the discussion between these two men is the topic.

Edited February 23, 2019 by JulieM

[DBMormon]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

OK.  Then why remain on the thread?

The podcasts and the discussion between these two men is the topic.

Is it just me or is this not the weirdest thing. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

#1 that these 15 men are almost always behind the times on social change that protects human life and healthiness (directly connected to his admission that these 15 men have done incredible harm at times)
#2 That there is no God Magic or distinguishable difference between these 15 men and 15 men from some other religious system in terms of observable God power.

These were the two biggest concessions that you made on the podcast?  I guess I thought you believed #1 and #2 already before the podcast took place.

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These were the two biggest concessions that you made on the podcast?  I guess I thought you believed #1 and #2 already before the podcast took place.

I misunderstood.  The two biggest concessions I made......
#1 the geography issues the CES letter points out are not the strongest and muddy the waters
#2 That Joseph's lying about polygamy can be justified 

[bluebell]

Just now, DBMormon said:

I misunderstood.  The two biggest concessions I made......
#1 the geography issues the CES letter points out are not the strongest and muddy the waters
#2 That Joseph's lying about polygamy can be justified 

Thanks!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Is it just me or is this not the weirdest thing. 

I don't see it as that weird given your introduction of the postpodcast narrative (the "listener" review).  Pretty natural progression from that, imo,

Edited February 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

I am issuing a CFR for each of the "concessions" DBMormon has claimed Jim Bennett made, a time stamp would be sufficient, but a quote as well would be nice.  

I would like to hear what Bennett said for himself rather than through the filter we are getting here given it appears Bennett saw the conversation in a very different way than how Reel saw it given his response (linked to above).

Also included in the CFRs is the claim posted on another thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71611-has-debate-ever-changed-your-mind/?do=findComment&comment=1209889461

I am not claiming that DBMormon has misrepresented Bennett, just that I see it as possible (not saying it is intentional, pretty obvious they went into that conversation/debates with different filters in place on what was happening) and I would prefer to hear Bennett's version.

I realize asking for a time stamp from 12 hours is significant, but so are the claims being made.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see it as that weird given your introduction of the postpodcast narrative (the "listener" review).  Pretty natural progression from that, imo,

Possibly, but not the topic of the OP (questions).  Also, no need for the hostility and name calling, in my opinion.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Possibly, but not the topic of the OP (questions).  

Then calling out DB for going off topic seems to be appropriate and possibly reporting that and posts responding to that post to moderators if HJW expresses a desire for a tighter topic.  I got the impression since HJW thanked DB for his post, he saw it as including that subtopic.

I would be happy to start a new thread on differing views expressed in the postpodcast narratives by reposting Bennett's response in a new thread when .I get back from running errands.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then calling out DB for going off topic seems to be appropriate and possibly reporting that and posts responding to that post to moderators if HJW expresses a desire for a tighter topic.  I got the impression since HJW thanked DB for his post, he saw it as including that subtopic.

I would be happy to start a new thread on differing views expressed in the postpodcast narratives by reposting Bennett's response in a new thread when .I get back from running errands.

That all sounds good!