Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

Recommended Posts

And saying someone is unimpressed with someone is not calling people names...  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Any specific examples?

You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding these podcasts.  This is a discussion forum where they can be shared (and discussed).  It's just best to keep the personal insults and attacks out of the conversation (and against board rules too!).

Well, saying someone is unimpressed with how someone represents and acts,  their knowledge and interpretation of the material, and theology is not personal attacks

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Any specific examples?

You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding these podcasts.  This is a discussion forum where they can be shared (and discussed).  It's just best to keep the personal insults and attacks out of the conversation (and against board rules too!).

A specific example is that I at no point picked my jaw up from off the ground

Edited by Steve J

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sure it was.

Are you claiming that the person who posted that comment didn't listen to the podcasts?  

he did listen. to all 6 !

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Well, saying someone is unimpressed with how someone represents and acts,  their knowledge and interpretation of the material, and theology is not personal attacks

you also claimed to listen to only bits of each right?

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

One listener responded

"The reason I think it historic is because of what others are discovering as they listen.
Over the course of 12-hours, Bill Reel gets Jim Bennett to ultimately concede on every important issue.
Amazing as it may sound, Bill gets Jim Bennett to be much more critical of the church than Bill!
Bill manages this by being courteous, fair, and by conceding issues to Jim at the outset.
In response, Jim also concedes issues to Bill.
But the issues Jim ends up conceding to Bill are much more important than the issues Bill concedes to Jim.
it is like Bill is giving Jim a dime and in return, Jim gives Bill a million dollars.
It is really quite the experience to hear.
I kept having to pick my jaw up off the ground, saying, "I can't believe Jim Bennett just agreed with Bill on that!"

Personally, I think Jim did as well as anyone could.  I think in real time long form conversation, Mormonism simply doesn't fair well.  I see this interview as re-inforcing to apologists not to step into this forum as it almost assuredly won't end well.  Jim was kind and he is informed and I think he did as well as anyone could do and in many instances I think he makes a space for belief where critics say there is none.  The trouble is when you take in the whole of Mormonism collectively.  Mormonism collectively in real time long form conversation does not fare well.  That is no fault of Jim's and I am deeply proud of this project and of Jim's part in it.  He should be applauded. 

I've listened to about an hour and a half of bits and pieces of different parts of the interview.

Everyone knows you and RFM are tied at the hip. It feels a little wrong for RFM to speak this way about that interview and for you to promote that comment. It just seems a little insulting to a guest that invested a lot of time with you and spoke so honestly and vulnerably and friendly with you. And I didn't listen to all of it, but what I did, RFM's comment doesn't seem accurate. the dime vs million dollars, especially. But I'll try to listen to more to see if my initial impression was wrong.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

you also claimed to listen to only bits of each right?

I listened to the majority of it. I can't claim I listened to every single bit of a 6 hour podcast

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, churchistrue said:

I've listened to about an hour and a half of bits and pieces of different parts of the interview.

Everyone knows you and RFM are tied at the hip. It feels a little wrong for RFM to speak this way about that interview and for you to promote that comment. It just seems a little insulting to a guest that invested a lot of time with you and spoke so honestly and vulnerably and friendly with you. And I didn't listen to all of it, but what I did, RFM's comment doesn't seem accurate. the dime vs million dollars, especially. But I'll try to listen to more to see if my initial impression was wrong.

 

 

episodes 3 through 6 shift dramatically

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Well, saying someone is unimpressed with how someone represents and acts,  their knowledge and interpretation of the material, and theology is not personal attacks

I meant if you have anything specific (examples) from the podcasts that you can discuss.  Did you listen to all 6 of them in their entirety?

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

you also claimed to listen to only bits of each right?

Oh...missed that part!

I'd love to hear from someone who has actually listened to the podcasts for this discussion.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it possible for a faithful member to confess that there are legitimate problems in Mormon History and doctrine

History yes; doctrine no. It's possible that they might think there is a problem with a point of doctrine, but it's most likely because because they don't understand it fully. Confessing there is and thinking there is are two different things. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh...missed that part!

I'd love to hear from someone who has actually listened to the podcasts for this discussion.

I listened to the majority of them

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, JAHS said:

History yes; doctrine no.

What about doctrine that was once taught, but is no longer believed or taught?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Steve J said:

I listened to the majority of them

But so far, you've given no specific examples of anything that was discussed (and your thoughts on it regarding what you agreed or disagreed with).  Can you give any?

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Jim is a good man. I've known him since childhood. While I disagree with some of his conclusions in his CES letter response and the tone of the response at times, I'm impressed that he undertook such a thorough and reasonable rebuttal. I may have to break my radio silence on things LDS (other than the 2 hours I get on Sundays) and listen to the podcast.

Good to see you, John!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good to see you, John!

Back at you. I'm sometimes amazed at the stamina of posters on this board (on either side of the issues).

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hey Steve J- It looks like you're new here but the trolling on this thread isn't appreciated. I joked at the beginning that haters could get their knives out because I know that's how people often respond to Bill but that doesn't make it right. There's no need to hurl insults at every you can. Please cut the insults. I understand that you may not have anything useful to say but if that's the case, it is usually best to remain silent. Try being a good citizen of MDDB instead of walking in here guns blazing.

I’m done posting. 1. Bc it’s hard to get specific about a 6 hour poscast. Maybe I will comment later if the discussion gets more focused on a certain part.. My main feeling throughout listening was frustration in Reel’s theological framing of the different discussions and certain conclusions.

 

And I wasn’t trolling. I was commenting against what Is disingenous and self-promoting framing of this conversation by having his fellow podcaster frame it in the way he did and then have Reel simply label him as “a listener” in this forum.  While Bill Reel podcasting is not generally for me, I have no issue with people listening to the podcast and found the general interaction between the two men on this podcast congenial and mostly productive 

Edited by Steve J
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh...missed that part!

I'd love to hear from someone who has actually listened to the podcasts for this discussion.

RFM has listened to all 6 in their entirety!

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Jim is a good man. I've known him since childhood. While I disagree with some of his conclusions in his CES letter response and the tone of the response at times, I'm impressed that he undertook such a thorough and reasonable rebuttal. I may have to break my radio silence on things LDS (other than the 2 hours I get on Sundays) and listen to the podcast.

I agree.  I too felt his tone was iffy in the CES letter but have nothing but good things to say about our 6 part interview.  He handled it as well as anyone could.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Steve J said:

 it’s hard to get specific about a 6 hour poscast. 

Seriously?   It is Hard to get specific about a "12" hour podcast.  You didn't even know how long it was and my guess is you actually listened to little of it by your inability to get specific.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I agree.  I too felt his tone was iffy in the CES letter but have nothing but good things to say about our 6 part interview.  He handled it as well as anyone could.

More than anything, I told him I thought the tone (which I take as his trying to keep the subject light) often overshadowed his arguments. 12 hours, huh? I like you, and I like Jim (I've known him since he was "Jimmy"), but maybe not enough to invest that much time. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

........................................... I'll just throw out this question instead.

Is it possible for a faithful member to confess that there are legitimate problems in Mormon History and doctrine, OR does that person immediately become unfaithful when they legitimize errors of the church and it's leaders?...................

I recall Dieter Uchtdorf not long ago saying openly during Conference that mistakes have been made, and Bruce McConkie did the same thing decades ago in 1978, so I am not sure why that should be such a big deal or a big surprise.  A cardinal point of LDS theology is that prophets and other leaders are not infallible.  Some of the Brethren have clearly not agreed with one another on key issues from time to time.  Some famously so.  Moreover, the Bible is replete with clearcut failures by key leaders under pressure.

Jeff Holland has made it abundantly clear in a public interview that the LDS Church tolerates a wide variety of kinds and types of personal beliefs without calling into question the membership of such people.  I have quoted many such comments on this board.  The one problem the leadership might have is when someone decides to start teaching heresy to fellow members.  At that point, it is less a matter of personal belief and more a matter of attacking the LDS Church.  At that point too, a disciplinary court may be called for.  It's called "boundary maintenance."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've been listening to the new Mormon Discussion podcast interview with Patrick Mason. I've heard a number of his other interviews and always appreciate his perspective. He seems to be a true believer who is empathetic to the struggle many are facing in faith transitions. That empathy is often missing in church on Sunday and on the internet. While I don't always agree with him, Mason's approach and tone is something I really support. He acknowledges that sometimes the church can sin collectively and may be in need of repentance for false doctrines that were taught from the pulpit but are now disavowed and "the worst day in Mormon history" at Mountain Meadows. But he also calls for respect and understanding for leaders. I think he gives the true believer and the doubter a lot to think about.
      At the beginning of the podcast Bill makes a great observation about how hope is sometimes discussed in the church as simply a starting point that should move towards knowledge but that many experiencing faith crisis/transition started with knowledge and now hope is all that is left. Not belief. Not even faith. Hope is what many of us hang on to by our fingernails but sometimes we have to adjust our grip of what we hope for or exercise faith in.
      I love how Mason talks about Hope as being more than just a starting point of faith. He talks about how hope is foundational to Christianity and is not some cute principle meant only for beginners.
      This got me thinking about the language of faith crisis and faith transition. I think we sometimes misuse the word faith in referring to crisis and transition. It seems more accurate (for me at least) to talk about a belief crisis or belief transition as it relates to the church. I believe we are intended to have faith in Christ but I have made the mistake in the past of placing my faith in the church. The church and Christ are not the same things.
      There's a lot of good stuff in this podcast to chew on. I recommend it.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/
       
    • By Maestrophil
      Hi all.  
      This weekend, my wife's visiting teaching companion asked to be released as a VT.  My wife reached out to her and said she hoped everything was OK, and that she loved VT with her.  She got a text back reciprocating those sentiments, but not much more information.  Then Sunday morning, this same site was released from her other ward calling from the pulpit.  Then the bishop asked if he could seek with us after the block.
      When we met with him after in his office, he confided with us that this site and her husband had recently discovered and read the CES letter.  They told the bishop they wanted to be released from their callings and needed to take a break from church.  He asked if they were still willing to read the scriptures and pray, and they said after all that they have "discovered" the don't feel like they can.  He hen asked them if they would be willing to talk to other members.  That is when out bishop thought of my wife and I.  He knew that with my experiences with my family leaving the church in a very antagonistic way with me that I had read the CES letter and chosen to maintain my faith and my membership.  He asked us to go and see this couple and talk to them.  
      We relied we would love to show them we love them and that we don't judge them for struggling with these things.  I also informed the bishop that I would not want to get into trying to give a point by point rebuttal to the couple, and that my experience is that most people who talk like they are talking have already made a choice on what they believe about the letter and are not looking for answers.  The bishop has not read the letter and asked me if I thought he should.  I told him that it probably would not serve him well to read it, and that his advice to be proactive spiritually is probably good advice coming from a bishop.
      My appeal to you all is - help me understand how you would approach this "assignment".  What would you do, and avoid doing?  How do you even begin such a conversation?  How do we avoid getting into a legalistic feeling debate about the letter, while still eating them know we know of it's contents and have resolved the dissonance for ourselves?
      I want to serve this couple well, and welcome your input!
       
      Thanks!
      MP
    • By rockpond
      In an interview with Gina Colvin on the A Thoughtful Faith podcast, Greg Prince discusses *this* Mormon moment.  Here's a link to the podcast page.  It's a great podcast -- worth the listen regardless of your opinion on the issues.
      “I don’t know the way forward yet.  I think that it’s going to be a combination of people at the top exercising their inspiration and the people at the bottom exercising their inspiration as well and somehow coming to a comfortable interface in the middle that takes advantage of both sources.” ~~Greg Prince
      He talks about the new policy.  Church growth, activity, and the future.
      He asked an interesting question:  What happens when today's 25 year old eventually becomes a Stake President?
      Also, he's currently writing a book on the Church and LGBT issues.  Should be a fascinating read.
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      Bill Reel was recently interviewed on Mormon Stories about FAIR erasing him from their history. It's a fascinating discussion where they talk about the state of apologetics in general and Bill's personal experience with FAIR and other apologists like Brian Hales who kindly told Bill "I hope your podcast dies." I'm curious if anyone else listened and has any thoughts about the state of FAIR and apologetics in general or about Bill's experience in specific.
      http://mormonstories.org/bill-reel-discusses-his-falling-out-with-fair-and-his-faithful-dissent-with-lds-policy/
    • By Robert F. Smith
      TheSkepticChristian has asked me to post this new topic based on the extensive debunking by FAIRMORMON at http://debunking-cesletter.com/ of the ever-changing "Letter to a CES Director."
       
      TheSkepticChristian finds that that letter "is full of bad arguments and patternicity," and calls particular attention to what the FAIRMORMON debunking says at the end:

      "By academic standards, The CES Letter is inadequate. It makes numerous non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature has said on these matters. Due to their biases and incomplete representations of the topics they address, such publications are often classified as spin or propaganda by scholars" 
       
      Does FAIRMORMON do an adequate job in this case, or do you find it lacking in some way?
×
×
  • Create New...