Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

2 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

And that is all well and good, but if the BOM comes from God, Bill Reel's position is untenable. 

 

"If" being the operative word here. 

 

I am glad we agree here.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

2 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Start at about 32:30.  Bill says at 33:20 ..

“No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

 

 

I think this is where most of the points of discussion will come down to.  I just started listening to these podcasts, so I'll wait to say more....but my impression from what I've seen posted is that they both concede some points and it remains a respectful discussion.  I am looking forward to a printed version of the discussions as I'm not sure I'll find time to listen to all 12 hours.

Once again, the operative word there is "if" and I don't see Bill conceding anything (since as far as I know, he does not believe the BofM is historical).  He also believe that Joseph was very intelligent, so I'm not sure what that statement proves.

1

"Very intelligent" is different from "3 to 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have ever seen."

This is the place Jim Bennett is coming from.  It is the place I am coming from.  

It is more likely that EVERY difficult subject for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS is exactly as the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th most likely pro-LDS apologetic claims them to be and the church's truth claims are thus not damaged by ANY anti-Mormon argument ever composed than that Joseph Smith was capable of producing a top 3 or 4 act of intelligence and cohesiveness.  As I said in my previous post:

On 3/1/2019 at 2:48 PM, TOmNossor said:

Before I became excited about weighing and measuring all things Mormon, I took IQ tests, studied psychometrics, and spent time thinking about brilliance and intelligence and …

I left brilliant successful folks yesterday (many at the 1 in 10000 level).  I used to interact with brilliant unsuccessful folks who made their living by being bouncers, being strippers, writing sitcoms, and doing other odd things (folks above the 1 in a million level).  Joseph Smith before he became a prophet by ALL accounts from friend or foe was nothing like the successful or the unsuccessful folks.  He was nothing like them after he became a prophet either.

Bill is correct, the BOM if not divine is an act of astronomical genius.  I personally believe it was not 1 in 2-3 billion genius as Bill Reel claims, but rather more rarefied than that such that no act of human genius could have produced it.  BUT, Joseph Smith is quite unlikely to be a 1 in 10000 level genius.  Those folks pick up reading quickly as their family reads the Bible and they just look over their shoulders.  Those folks think about things that make their neighbors think they are ODD and strange and probably intelligent.  Joseph was ordinary and didn’t pick up reading or writing or ….     

 

Problems with the Book of Abraham though real are no reason to believe that Joseph Smith could have produced the Book of Mormon so, I must embrace something that involves the facts associated with the Book of Mormon existing and facts associated with BOA/BOB issues.  The most rational IMO by a long shot is that the BOM came from God and that the BOA did too.  

For me to embrace the Bill Reel thesis, I would have to believe that Joseph Smith was perhaps the top universal genius ever to walk the earth and for some reason, at 3 years old, he decided to hide his intelligence in preparation for the production of the BOM some 17-18 years later.  He would also need to choose this path while seeing many other paths that would produce way more worldly success.  And then he would stick to this path through all the average farm boy things present until his moment to strike.  Then having struck, he would continue to hide his brilliance, he wouldn't speak much of the content of the BOM as if he was not familiar with it, he would shoot in the dark with this or that potential connection to BOM some making sense and other not, he would never explain virtually any of the volumes of hidden easter eggs found by those who have studied the BOM, and ....

I do not consider that to be a reasoned position.  Not a position I would embrace when I discover polygamy and thought it was hidden from me; not a position I would embrace when I discover rocks in hats and thought it was hidden from me, not a position I would embrace when I decided that LGBTQ folks were being mistreated.

Bill Reel's story according to Bill Reel is built upon his concern for the hurt caused to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.  Jim Bennett and I can feel this hurt too, but we cannot deny the EVIDENCE that the BOM is not some natural production and this must be part of our worldview.  Having embraced the weight of the EVIDENCE, we also choose to not deny our spiritual testimony for emotional reasons.

Charity, TOm

 

 

 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

For me to embrace the Bill Reel thesis, I would have to believe that Joseph Smith was perhaps the top universal genius ever to walk the earth

Not true (and pretty extreme  ).  Some do believe that Joseph Smith either wrote the Book of Mormon by himself or with help.  One would not have to be the "top universal genius to ever walk the earth" to accomplish that.  

16 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Jim Bennett and I can feel this hurt too, but we cannot deny the EVIDENCE that the BOM is not some natural production....

Having embraced the weight of the EVIDENCE,

What EVIDENCE is that (other than relying almost entirely on the witness statements)?  

Edited March 3, 2019 by ALarson

[TOmNossor]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not true (and pretty extreme  ).  Some do believe that Joseph Smith either wrote the Book of Mormon by himself or with help.  One would not have to be the "top universal genius to ever walk the earth" to accomplish that.  

It is Bill Reel who said, "If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

If Joseph Smith was capable of a top 3 or 4 act of intelligence and cohesiveness at 21, he would have been PRETENDING to be something he was not from age 3 or younger when such precocious intelligence begins to manifest itself.  AND if he began his delusion at that age, he was brilliant and conniving at far higher than "universal genius" level.

This is why Bill Reel gave away the whole debate.

No one who had a testimony should abandon it (probably period) because they have intellectual problems with something they think is part of the CoJCoLDS (even the BOA) when they recognize how impossible a non-supernatural explanation for the BOM is.  No One! 

Bill Reel claims to recognize this and then primarily because he thinks the church hurts those who identify as LGBTQ (a nebulous and debatable position less clear than many others) , he works to tear down testimony and the church.  It is emotion by his admission.  

 

“Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”

 

Bill Reel has missed this lessen.

Charity, TOm 

Edited March 4, 2019 by TOmNossor

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

It is Bill Reel who said, "If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

If Joseph Smith was capable of a top 3 or 4 act of intelligence and cohesiveness at 21, he would have been PRETENDING to be something he was not from age 3 or younger when such precocious intelligence begins to manifest itself.  AND if he began his delusion at that age, he was brilliant and conniving at far higher than "universal genius" level.

This is why Bill Reel gave away the whole debate.

 

LOL.  Ok....he "gave away the whole debate"?   Not quite from what I hear.  You seem to really speak in absolutes, Tom

 

Where do you get the age of "3 or younger" that you keep referring to (regarding Joseph Smith)?  Was that part of this discussion/podcasts? 

 

20 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

“Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason was once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”

 

Bill Reel has missed this lessen.

LOL again.  I don't know of anyone whose faith doesn't evolve (and beliefs too) as they are able to have access to more and read more.  

As I posted earlier, I'm just starting to listen to these podcasts.  So far, I'm impressed with both of them with how they are disagreeing, but each making their points.  In the end, every person has to look at the evidence (or lack of evidence), records, journals, documents, etc. on each of the many topics they discussed and come to their own conclusions.

Edited March 3, 2019 by ALarson

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 

LOL.  Ok....he "gave away the whole debate"?   Not quite from what I hear.  You seem to really speak in absolutes, Tom

 

Where do you get the age of "3 or younger" that you keep referring to (regarding Joseph Smith)?  Was that part of this discussion/podcasts? 

 

"3 or younger" is when 1 in 10000 level genius is regularly noticed.  The level Bill Reel is attributing to Joseph Smith is MUCH higher than this.

Those who knew him found him to be simple.  His family explained that he struggled with reading and writing.

The type of genius Bill Reel claims Joseph Smith must have had means that either all the folks (critics and believers both witnessing to what I claim is there) are lying about what they witnessed or Joseph Smith began at age 3 to HIDE his intelligence so later in life he could produce the BOM and claim it was not from him, but from God.  The genius necessary to form a plan at such a young age, carry it out, and then produce the Book of Mormon is even more rarified than the genius necessary to produce the BOM.

 

I might note that if I was dialoguing with a member in my ward troubled by the Church's views on LGBT issues, I would not highlight the profound intellectual error I think Bill Reel evidences.  I would also be unlikely to point to the emotional and not rational genesis I see evident in these things.  I would make this change because my intellect tells me that real people are not logic machines and while I regularly make incorrect allowances for humans with emotions, I try.  I am presenting these things here in a JARRING way because I think that most folks trapped in their personal perceptions of these issues have built walls around their departure from the faith.  They tell themselves it is the "intellectually honest" choice.  They tell themselves that they are the brave who are willing to walk through the horrors of a faith crisis.  And they speak of those who do not agree with them as emotional and clinging to their testimony despite the evidence.  They walk into the arms of Bill Reel and his fans who echo these thoughts.  This is a huge deception IMO.  The post-debate (which was billed as discussion) framing was a huge deception too.  

I was a member of the church for a long time almost without a testimony and the idea that the evidence indicated the church was unlikely to be from God had nothing to do with my "faith crisis."   Perhaps I am the one whose faculties do not weigh these issues correctly, but it is very unlikely that I am the one ruled by emotion.  IRL, my intellect seems up to the task, it is my emotions that those around me regularly puzzle over.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

LOL again.  I don't know of anyone whose faith doesn't evolve (and beliefs too) as they are able to have access to more and read more.  

As I posted earlier, I'm just starting to listen to these podcasts.  So far, I'm impressed with both of them with how they are disagreeing, but each making their points.  In the end, every person has to look at the evidence (or lack of evidence), records, journals, documents, etc. on each of the many topics they discussed and come to their own conclusions.

 

Faith EVOLVING is not what the quote was about.

“Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”

What this means is that having gathered the data (including answers to prayers and miracles experiences) one should not let the vicissitudes of life cause you abandon that which was KNOWN.  Faith as C.S. Lewis is using the term here is refusing to abandon things previously believed for emotional reasons.  

Bill Reel once said he hoped to "strengthening feeble knees."  But, as he claims, it was the hurt he thinks the church causes LGBT members that lead him to disbelieve the whole thing.  Compassion for LGBTQ folks is admirable, but it is an emotional motivation.  Jim Bennett has the same compassion for the plight of LGBTQ folks, but does not allow this to cause him to abandon what he knows.

Charity, TOm

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by TOmNossor

[Kevin Christensen]

On 2/26/2019 at 7:24 PM, DBMormon said:

Thank you!

Any discussion of this sort of thing as an alternative to the bloody knuckles approach?

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

And if a person happens to be addicted, regardless of their orientation (a different issue), if you tell them, "There is nothing to be done, this is just the way you are," doesn't that turn out to be harmful?  

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Any discussion of this sort of thing as an alternative to the bloody knuckles approach?

He that hath ears to hear ...

I have said before, and I say again, that one of most genuinely ungodly things anyone can do is to deny another person the options that freedom/agency are divinely designed to provide.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[PacMan]

After listening to all the episodes, what sticks out to me is that (1) Bill concedes Jim has tenable views throughout, and then (2) completely loses it in the last episode because he believes he’s ahead of the church on every major social issue (which is weird since he wasn’t alive (or barely so) during polygamy and blacks and the priesthood).

Frustratingly, I think both Bill and Jim set up a straw man to LGBT issues.  The “policy” was not about preventing harm.  It was about putting kids in an untenable position of needing to effectively renounce their family structure at 8 years old.  Given the church’s focus on the family, even an alternative and sinful structure needs to be respected while children are minors and in the care of their parents.  I think it’s that simple, and something that Bill certainly didn’t address.

Bill’s reasoning throughout is also annoying because he keeps going back the what he deems as “healthy.”  Who knows what that means, particularly seeing through his modern and contorted glasses. 

Jim’s best explanations throughout was noting the bigger contexts involved; eg, sure the BoA has some questions, but it can’t be despositive because it can’t explain the BoM or the 3/8 witnesses.  The bigger context needs to inform how we approach particular issues. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by PacMan

[Bede]

On 2/23/2019 at 4:18 PM, 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 

#3: the witnesses testimonies are some of the most powerful evidences of the Book of Mormon.

#4: there has never been an adequate secular explaination for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

[Bede]

Hey @DBMormon

I really enjoyed the exchange between you and Jim. I thought you both were kind, respectful, friendly, and also had an intellectually rigorous discussion.

I am familiar with your story, and know you are no longer a member. If you have time, I have two questions:

1) I visited your Facebook page. I saw mostly mocking and vitriol towards the church. I saw hateful words and memes. This is not the Bill Reel of the podcast I listned to—the respectful, kind, gracious host who has a different opinion but can understand the other side. This isn’t the “every kid gets a toy” Bill Reel from southern Utah. This seems to be an entirely different person. Why? Can you help me understand?

2) You say “we” a lot in the podcast, as if you still consider yourself a member. Do you? If not, why use “we” and not “they?”

Thanks in advance.

 

[DBMormon]

On 3/8/2019 at 8:52 PM, Bede said:

1) I visited your Facebook page. I saw mostly mocking and vitriol towards the church. I saw hateful words and memes. This is not the Bill Reel of the podcast I listned to—the respectful, kind, gracious host who has a different opinion but can understand the other side. This isn’t the “every kid gets a toy” Bill Reel from southern Utah. This seems to be an entirely different person. Why? Can you help me understand?

2) You say “we” a lot in the podcast, as if you still consider yourself a member. Do you? If not, why use “we” and not “they?”

#1 - My comments are vitriol?  or those upset with the church commenting on my page?

#2 - While not a member of record in the Mormon Church, Mormonism is my tribe.  Reza Aslin says it best.  Simply substitute Mormonism for Islam and LDS for sufi Mormon for Muslim

My well is Islam, and in particular, the Sufi tradition. Let me be clear, I am Muslim not because I think Islam is "truer" than other religions (it isn't), but because Islam provides me with the "language" I feel most comfortable with in expressing my faith. It provides me with certain symbols and metaphors for thinking about God that I find useful in making sense of the universe and my place in it.

[DBMormon]

all the faith defenders keep pointing to my comment 

“No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

Keep in mind that context means everything

3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.

I am not informed or aware of the details of every act of genius in the world.  I am instead pointing to the idea that in my limited exposure to the world and its history, this level of genius would be at the top of my awareness of that world history.  

People hear what they want to hear.

[DBMormon]

lastly still working on the transcript but was out of town last week.  doing as free time permits

 

 

[Steve J]

Tomorrow Morning we release Pt 7 of my ongoing conversation with Jim Bennett. This conversation was my favorite.

I personally feel like Mormonism when exposed in a long form real time conversation forces the defender to show that the faithful position requires a ton of allowances and qualifiers. When these allowances and qualifiers show up over and over again, one is confronted with having to decide if such a position is rational or logical.

For instance if I want to argue in favor of a flat earth and I enter a 15 hour conversation over whether a flat earth is defensible or not, my position is going to require numerous extra allowances and qualifiers. Each person willing to have an open mind must then decide what level of rationality or irrationality they will allow in their brain to maintain a position or change positions.

This part 7 is for me the most beautiful example of this throughout our 7 part series. Every person after listening to these 7 parts is confronted with how many allowances and qualifiers Mormonism requires in order for the faithful position to be believed. Each person must decide or at least their brain must (our minds are exceptional at maintaining beliefs in the face of contradictions) decide if Mormonism requires too much or if the faithful view is truly tenable. Then one must confront or their brain again must confront the difference in allowances and qualifiers needed for the critics conclusion to be held. Our minds do best at moving towards rational and logical thought when sacred beliefs are concerned when we are overwhelmed with the irrationality of our argument and weakness of the evidence or the preponderance of the critics evidence and best when these two are juxtaposed against each other...

...In the end the purpose of the project for me was to expose Mormonism to such a long form conversation, allow the data to be laid out and discussed openly by both sides, and then allow the listener to make their own conclusions.

My goal was for people to confront a Mormonism they want to be what it claims and the data that compels it isn't what it claims. That for me took a tightrope act. And I am extremely happy with the end result.

... Jim did great. Mormonism laid out objectively..... doesn't

BIll Reel

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Steve J

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, Steve J said:

Tomorrow Morning we release Pt 7 of my ongoing conversation with Jim Bennett. This conversation was my favorite.

I personally feel like Mormonism when exposed in a long form real time conversation forces the defender to show that the faithful position requires a ton of allowances and qualifiers. When these allowances and qualifiers show up over and over again, one is confronted with having to decide if such a position is rational or logical.

For instance if I want to argue in favor of a flat earth and I enter a 15 hour conversation over whether a flat earth is defensible or not, my position is going to require numerous extra allowances and qualifiers. Each person willing to have an open mind must then decide what level of rationality or irrationality they will allow in their brain to maintain a position or change positions.

This part 7 is for me the most beautiful example of this throughout our 7 part series. Every person after listening to these 7 parts is confronted with how many allowances and qualifiers Mormonism requires in order for the faithful position to be believed. Each person must decide or at least their brain must (our minds are exceptional at maintaining beliefs in the face of contradictions) decide if Mormonism requires too much or if the faithful view is truly tenable. Then one must confront or their brain again must confront the difference in allowances and qualifiers needed for the critics conclusion to be held. Our minds do best at moving towards rational and logical thought when sacred beliefs are concerned when we are overwhelmed with the irrationality of our argument and weakness of the evidence or the preponderance of the critics evidence and best when these two are juxtaposed against each other...

...In the end the purpose of the project for me was to expose Mormonism to such a long form conversation, allow the data to be laid out and discussed openly by both sides, and then allow the listener to make their own conclusions.

My goal was for people to confront a Mormonism they want to be what it claims and the data that compels it isn't what it claims. That for me took a tightrope act. And I am extremely happy with the end result.

... Jim did great. Mormonism laid out objectively..... doesn't

BIll Reel

 

yes part 7 tomorrow

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Steve J said:

My goal was for people to confront a Mormonism they want to be what it claims and the data that compels it isn't what it claims.

I get to 'confront Mormonism' literally every day of my life, no podcast needed. It is precisely what it claims to be -- reliably, consistently and predictably.

[Bede]

11 hours ago, DBMormon said:

#1 - My comments are vitriol?  or those upset with the church commenting on my page?

#2 - While not a member of record in the Mormon Church, Mormonism is my tribe.  Reza Aslin says it best.  Simply substitute Mormonism for Islam and LDS for sufi Mormon for Muslim

Your posts and the comments on your posts (which you aren't responsible for). The "you" on the podcast with Jim Bennett seemed like a nice, reasonable person who, while not believing in the teachings of the church anymore, can understand why reasonable people do believe in its teachings.

The "you" on your Facebook page seems to be posting mocking memes and disdain for the church and those who believe in its teachings and nothing else.

So, I guess my question is this: Do you acknowledge that there are smart, reasonable, logical, earnest, and educated people on both sides of the coin? Can you acknowledge that there are members of the church who believe in its teachings while not being insane, stupid, or duped?

Secondly, Jim Bennett "won" the second podcast where you both agreed that the witnesses are solid evidence for the Book of Mormon, and that it's pretty evident that they didn't change their testimonies even though some became enemies of Smith. You also both agreed that the most reasonable explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is the one Joseph Smith told. Why don't you acknowledge these when you're talking about this? You just keep saying things like

I personally feel like Mormonism when exposed in a long form real time conversation forces the defender to show that the faithful position requires a ton of allowances and qualifiers. When these allowances and qualifiers show up over and over again, one is confronted with having to decide if such a position is rational or logical.

But Jim Bennett, in my view, got you to concede just as much as you got him to concede. Why not tell the other side of the story?

And finally (I promise): I just want to say that the CES letter is trash--it's tabloid-level plagiarism from existing critical resources. There isn't a new idea or thought in it, and Jim Bennett, in my opinion, totally owned J.R. which his magnificent reply.

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, Bede said:

The "you" on the podcast with Jim Bennett seemed like a nice, reasonable person who, while not believing in the teachings of the church anymore, can understand why reasonable people do believe in its teachings.

Mr Reel can certainly answer for himself, but elsewhere he seems to provide some explanation for the podcast persona he chose to adopt specifically for this occasion:

Quote

I wanted him [Bennett] to see quickly that I was going to be kind and to try and be minimal on harsh argumentation. This was to help the audience feel safe and for Jim to feel safe sensing this was something designed to be fair and respectful. I wanted a vulnerable conversation and I had to show first that this conversation was going to be a safe space for that ... I wanted this to be a conversation that believers would take a chance listening to and be confronted with Mormonism's messiness.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Bede said:

Can you acknowledge that there are members of the church who believe in its teachings while not being insane, stupid, or duped?

Or while having explored Mormonism to its logical conclusions without seeing it as giving up a lot of allowances and qualifiers?

[Kevin Christensen]

16 hours ago, Steve J said:

Tomorrow Morning we release Pt 7 of my ongoing conversation with Jim Bennett. This conversation was my favorite.

I personally feel like Mormonism when exposed in a long form real time conversation forces the defender to show that the faithful position requires a ton of allowances and qualifiers. When these allowances and qualifiers show up over and over again, one is confronted with having to decide if such a position is rational or logical.

For instance if I want to argue in favor of a flat earth and I enter a 15 hour conversation over whether a flat earth is defensible or not, my position is going to require numerous extra allowances and qualifiers. Each person willing to have an open mind must then decide what level of rationality or irrationality they will allow in their brain to maintain a position or change positions.

This part 7 is for me the most beautiful example of this throughout our 7 part series. Every person after listening to these 7 parts is confronted with how many allowances and qualifiers Mormonism requires in order for the faithful position to be believed. Each person must decide or at least their brain must (our minds are exceptional at maintaining beliefs in the face of contradictions) decide if Mormonism requires too much or if the faithful view is truly tenable. Then one must confront or their brain again must confront the difference in allowances and qualifiers needed for the critics conclusion to be held. Our minds do best at moving towards rational and logical thought when sacred beliefs are concerned when we are overwhelmed with the irrationality of our argument and weakness of the evidence or the preponderance of the critics evidence and best when these two are juxtaposed against each other...

...In the end the purpose of the project for me was to expose Mormonism to such a long form conversation, allow the data to be laid out and discussed openly by both sides, and then allow the listener to make their own conclusions.

My goal was for people to confront a Mormonism they want to be what it claims and the data that compels it isn't what it claims. That for me took a tightrope act. And I am extremely happy with the end result.

... Jim did great. Mormonism laid out objectively..... doesn't

BIll Reel

 

Notice the overall all lack of specifics here, the reliance of sweeping generalizations, and in the middle, the flat earth metaphor, implying, not demonstrating, that LDS belief is akin to flat earth belief, which of course clashes with certain statements in Moses 1 and the Book of Abraham, for starters, and continuing on to the fact that the LDS produces an outsized proportion of scientists.

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic. ( Madad Sarup, Post-Structuralism and Post Modernism , p51-52)

The metaphor makes a valuation that here turns out to carry the entire weight of the argument.  It is the only specific detail. Everything else is non-specific generalization.

And notice too, the claim to have "Mormonism laid out objectively".

Quote

An objective account would at least attempt to account for all of the evidence. The goal of the objective historian, even if one could not quite achieve it, was to tell it like it was — if not without preconceptions, with as few as possible, minimizing as much as possible any ulterior didactic motives. Even if one could not completely eliminate partisanship or bias, one could try to keep what remained under as tight a control as possible. If one could not eliminate outside influences, one would struggle against them with all one’s strength. But above all — and if I repeat myself, it is because it bears repetition — the objective historian was to cleave to one goal and one goal only, mirroring to the best of her powers the past as it really was.⁴

I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from [Page 121]among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New,” Sunstone Symopium, 1989, 4 (transcript in my possession).

One crucial thing that an interviewer does is control the course of a conversation.  Which questions get asked, and not asked, which evidence considered, and not, what values are applied, what emotional context appears, how much time is given to any particular subject, and how it is all framed and packaged.  The interviewer always and inevitably has their thumb on the scale.

The same words, Jesus observed, can yield up a vastly different harvest, depending on soil, time and nurture.

Quote

To the extent . . . that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what is a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent.  ( Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 109-10.)

So it is important to pay attention, not just to what one person decides is decisive evidence, but their modes of selecting, testing, assessing, and deciding.

One of the most enlightening things I have ever learned regarding human belief came through this passage in an art book by Betty Edwards:

Quote

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are.  ( Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, rev. ed. (Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1989), 134 )

And the framing insight from my study of Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets was that the arguments against true prophets offered by Biblical peoples in the Bible all boil down to their saying, "It's not what I think, it's not what I want."  Those are the wrong questions because they make the asker the measure of all things.  That is, they put the critic in the position of saying, "It's not the way I would do things if I were God," when the fact that the critic is not God ought to be self-evident. The right question is rather different and it affects what questions are asked, and what matters most, and how much time is given, and which kinds of evidence matter most.  The right question is "What is real?"  Not, "Is it what I want?"  Not, "Is it what I think it should be?"  And it turns out that the Biblical recommendations for seeing truth turn out to be a directed method for asking what is real, which requires making the sacrifice of a broken heart (what I desire) and what I think (a contrite spirit).  It means that I entirely ignore the pointing fingers and the mocking that comes from the larger society, rather than using current society and a desire for popular acceptance as a measure of my subject.  It means that when I run across something I did not expect or want, I ask "What should I expect?  What is of most value?"

Over my life, I have tested my LDS faith a variety of ways,  as a participant, in light of many different scholarly and academic approaches, learned all sorts of things from believers that I have never seen placed on the balance scale by any critic, especially those fondest of claiming objectivity, and made investigations that no one had done before me, and learned much from others that I would never have imagined if left to myself.

I like it here.  My knowledge may not be perfect, but the seed is growing, impressive, fruitful, and promising.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, DBMormon said:

yes part 7 tomorrow

I really liked this last part, thanks for having the follow up discussion.  

I would have liked to hear further discussion on the idea that Jim was asserting that the divine method is "reliable".  I think Jim's overall argument throughout the multiple episodes on this subject weren't logically consistent.  He admits many times that religious experience is subjective and an objective outside observer will not be able to prove religious experience in a testable and objective sense, but then he seems to want to assert that Mormonism is uniquely able to overcome this problem.  I don't understand how though.  How can he assert exclusive authority from God on one hand, and on the other hand say that all religious experience is subjective.  

I agree with the statement that religious experience is subjective.  I just don't understand how Jim is saying that it is also reliable in an objective sense.  I'm fine if he's saying its reliable subjectively, that is a statement that is not testable and open to individual interpretation.  But when he tries to assert the concept of reliability in any objective sense, he needs to back that up with objective evidence that can support the claim.  Reliability is testable and I think he's making an illogical category error when he makes that claim, but I'm not entirely sure I understood why he's holding that ground.   

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I get to 'confront Mormonism' literally every day of my life, no podcast needed. It is precisely what it claims to be -- reliably, consistently and predictably.

Since you seem to agree with Jim on the "reliability" point, can you take a look at my last post.  I really was hoping for more discussion on that point as I didn't fully understand how Jim's argument makes sense and is logically consistent.  If you have any insights to add perhaps you could explain your take on it.  Thanks

[hope_for_things]

A couple more thoughts this discussion has prompted for me.  

In one of the earlier episodes when Bill shares the point that people in different religions all around the world have spiritual experiences and that these spiritual experiences are authentic to them and just as real as Mormon spiritual experiences,  Jim seems to agree with this, but not entirely.  When Bill tries to claim that members of these other religions have just as strong of a conviction that their religion is true, Jim seems to push back saying that the language these other people use to describe their conviction about their religion is materially different than the language a Mormon would use to describe their experience.  I agree the language is different, but I don't agree with the conclusion I think Jim draws from this difference.  

Jim then uses Moroni's promise to illustrate the difference, and the specific instructions in Moroni's promise about reflecting on how God has blessed us and the instruction to then ask God a very specific question and look for a very specific answer to that specific question.  In this case about the truth of the BoM.  This difference seems to be important to Jim's overall argument for Mormonism. 

He seems to be using it in a way to assert that this formula (Moroni's promise) if followed as directed by a sincere individual will yield a result that will prove the efficacy of Mormonism in some kind of universal sense.   This became clearer to me in the final episode when Bill started to bring up an example using Scientology, and Jim quickly shot that down saying that Scientologists don't believe in God, as if that should disqualify their personal subjective religious experiences.  Bill quickly switched to using the Centennial Park example instead of Scientology, but I personally think this revealed a little more about how Jim is emphasizing the Mormon method for evaluating truth. 

I see the Moroni's promise method as just the unique language that Mormons use to describe their subjective religious experience.  But if Jim is saying that the Moroni's promise method is something more, that it is some kind of tool that can be more objectively used for evaluation of "reliability" then I think that undercuts all his other arguments for subjective religious experience and honoring the experiences of other religions as being just as valid as Mormon experiences.  From my vantage point, this argument is not logically consistent.  

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One crucial thing that an interviewer does is control the course of a conversation.  Which questions get asked, and not asked, which evidence considered, and not, what values are applied, what emotional context appears, how much time is given to any particular subject, and how it is all framed and packaged.  The interviewer always and inevitably has their thumb on the scale.

It depends on the interviewer. Behavioral Economics has demonstrated that the human brain is adept at systematically distorting the way we perceive the world so that what we think are honest impressions of an objective reality are really warped views driven by our cognitive biases. A good interviewer could focus on the big issues--on the main points--and ask good, probing questions the way that Socrates would so that the inconsistencies in our own thinking become apparent. Did Bill have his thumb on the scale, or did he simply remove Jim's thumb from it?

You would have to listen to the interview to create an informed decision about whether Bill manipulated the conversation by focusing on the objectively wrong things, or whether he focused on the right things and exposed the inconsistences in Jim's belief structure. Either way it is a fascinating conversation, and Jim and Bill should both be congratulated for engaging in the conversation and sharing it with the rest of us.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Analytics