Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Steve J said:

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

I get unimpressed by people all the time, and they with me . . . 8)

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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.

I did and I got confused in writing with 6 parts and 12 hours. But thanks for being consistent with your expectations

Edited by Steve J

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

CFR for where I think I am the smartest.  I actually think Radio Free Mormon far smarter than me and more knowledgeable.

And cuter😁

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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. 

Hi Bill.

It seems odd that HappyJack's response in the OP is quite different from yours.  He seems to think that both sides did well.  Your conclusion seems not along those lines at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi Bill.

It seems odd that HappyJack's response in the OP is quite different from yours.  He seems to think that both sides did well.  Your conclusion seems not along those lines at all.

You find it odd that people have a different opinion? Really?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know Jim Bennett but seeing Bob Bennett's name come up reminds me how much of a decent man I thought he was.  I remember just a few years ago while on his deathbed he wanted to apologize to all Muslims for Donald Trump's words.  Politics could use a lot more Bob Bennetts these days. 

Phaedrus 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I don't know Jim Bennett but seeing Bob Bennett's name come up reminds me how much of a decent man I thought he was.  I remember just a few years ago while on his deathbed he wanted to apologize to all Muslims for Donald Trump's words.  Politics could use a lot more Bob Bennetts these days. 

Phaedrus 

Indeed. I've known the Bennetts since I was about 8 years old, and I can't think of a negative thing to say about Bob, his wife, Joyce, or any of their children. Just good, decent people with a great deal of integrity. But Bill Reel ... well, that's another story. ;)

Edited by jkwilliams

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed. I've known the Bennetts since I was about 8 years old, and I can't think of a negative thing to say about Bob, his wife, Joyce, or any of their children. Just good, decent people with a great deal of integrity. But Bill Reel ... well, that's another story. ;)

I'll admit I was a little sad to learn he wasn't Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal. He was considered by many to be a leading candidate. 

Phaedrus 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'll admit I was a little sad to learn he wasn't Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal. He was considered by many to be a leading candidate. 

Phaedrus 

People in our ward used to tease him about that. His son Rob told me that Bob had seen a tabloid in the supermarket claiming to have unmasked Deep Throat. Bob read the article, and then said, "Darn, it wasn't me."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

* as an outside observer the top 15 men of the Church give no impression of being anything more than 15 older men behind the times and making serious mistakes
* They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue
* He wouldn't let his daughter work in the Smith Home knowing what he does
* The book of Abraham in a vacuum is deeply in favor of the critics conclusion
* priesthood blessing to an outside observer have no more power to heal than the healing rituals of any other system
* Joseph lacked integrity and fidelity with Emma
* The Church teaches us to harm others at times (prop 8, miracle of forgiveness, LGBT policies)
And there are many others but this is a start

 

Hmm, not really anything about the gospel doctrine, but rather personal attacks on the character of Joseph Smith and the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ. Got it. No ad hominem attacks on you, but it is open season on dead men and old men. Yep, the very epitome of fairness, tolerance, and equality. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'll admit I was a little sad to learn he wasn't Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal. He was considered by many to be a leading candidate. 

Phaedrus 

And you considered Bob Bennett anonymizing himself with something like “Deep Throat”?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Judd said:

And you considered Bob Bennett anonymizing himself with something like “Deep Throat”?

It was the editor of the  Washington Post that gave the informant that pseudonym.  Bob was revealed as a informant to Bob Woodward but I think Ichabod Crane would have been more suitable but maybe not as anonymous. 

Now to get back on topic.  I'll have to give this a listen when I have the availability.  Hopefully it's more thoughtful discussion than debate.  

Phaedrus 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ALarson said:
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

History yes; doctrine no.

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

It's still doctrine that was important at its time but not at the present time.  Latter-day revelation.  Line upon Line. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

* as an outside observer the top 15 men of the Church give no impression of being anything more than 15 older men behind the times and making serious mistakes

The role of these men is not be be "up with the times" or to be popular.  When one says they are "behind the times", I think one does not really understand what their job is.  In fact any apostle who is basically up with the times of how the world is and the world is agreeing with him has failed in his calling.  God and the devil can not be made friends.  The gospel and the world likewise can not be friends. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

priesthood blessing to an outside observer have no more power to heal than the healing rituals of any other system

Jesus healed people and people watched these miracles but I guess rationalized it away.  Joseph Smith also did through the priesthood and to outside observers say he did but they could not put it all together I guess.  This account was written in Campbellite publication.  

"Ezra Booth, of Mantua, a Methodist preacher of much more than ordinary culture, and with strong natural abilities, in company with his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and some other citizens of this place (Hiram), visited Smith at his home in Kirkland, in 1831. Mrs. Johnson had been afflicted for some time with a lame arm, and was not at the time of the visit able to lift her hand to her head.  The party visited Smith partly out of curiosity, and partly to see for themselves what there might be in the new doctrine.  During the interview, the conversation turned on the subject of supernatural gifts, such as were conferred in the days of the apostles.  Someone said. "Here is Mrs. Johnson with a lame arm; has God given any power to men now on the earth to cure her?"  A few moments later, when the conversation had turned in another direction, Smith rose, and walking across the room, taking Mrs. Johnson by the hand, said in the most solemn and impressive manner: "Woman, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command thee to be whole," and immediately left the room.

The company were awe-stricken at the infinte presumption of the man, and the calm assurance with which he spoke.  The sudden mental and moral shock-I know not how better to explain the well-attested fact-electrified the rheumatic arm-Mrs. Johnson at once lifted it up with ease, and on her return home the next she was able to do her washing without difficulty or pain." (A.S. Hayden, "Early History of the Disciples of the Western Reserve, [Cincinnati: Chase and Hall, 1876], p. 250)

 

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

episodes 3 through 6 shift dramatically

 

I listened some more. OK, I get a little more what RFM is saying and why you'd share that. The conversation turned a little more argumentative in trying to win point vs point. I wouldn't say that Bennett conceded to Reel. I would just say that to someone without tons of bias, or at least similar bias as what I have, would say Bennett got absolutely torched in this. I hope RFM doesn't get hold of this. I can see hear him in that sarcastic voice: "I don't know about the law is where you live, but I'm an attorney here in California, and if my client was facing charges for rape, and his story was that when he said he would destroy her if she didn't have sex, what he actually meant was that she would be destroying the possibility of our future children together if she refused to have sex with me, well I can tell you with surety in California, I would have zero chance to win that case." btw, it pisses me off, but it's freaking hilarious, I can't help but laugh.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

ey Steve J- It looks like you're new here but the trolling on this thread isn't appreciated

While I don't agree with his tone, I don't see it as trolling to point out Reel's posting isn't really just some random "listener" as I think is implied by his choice of label, but rather his fellow podcast host who unsurprisingly once we know his identity thinks Reel did a great job and destroyed the believers' view.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I can’t take seriously anyone who claims the “to an outside observer” points are major concessions.

Those points can fairly be summarized as non-members don’t believe in Priesthood power and modern day prophets.  I hardly consider that a concession.  More like acknowledging the obvious.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You find it odd that people have a different opinion? Really?

Well, Bill was there, and you listened to the same podcast.  I can't see you applying team-sport bias in this case.  So, how is it that Bill sees Bennett getting the worst of it, and you thinking that it was well-balanced?  Are you just trying to be nice?  😎

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours 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 have always been unsure of what to think of the CES letter. I think Jim brought up a few points about the BOM and the CES letter. Jim is right in some ways that through CES letter throws lots of theories at BOM creation, and as they pile up it actually weakens the CES letter's argument. 

I tend to think Brent Metcalf and Vogel's argument that BOM creation did not need to involve plagiarism is much stronger. The ideas in the BOM where already in the open in early 1800's, anarchonisms and all. That seems to be a better argument.

The CES letter has always been just to all over the place for me. It accomplishes it's task of letting readers know that history/leadership/creation have problems and these are the issues...just the explanations don't always suffice.

I can only comment on part 1 (that's all I had time for). Gimlet podcasts and Audible take up most of my listening time between teaching knucklehead 13 year olds (this time of the year is tough).

Both Bill and Jim seem like nice knowledgeable guys who like to have conversations about this stuff. More power to them.

I wouldn't mind eating a burger with them. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, cinepro said:

The CES Letter is now de-facto scripture for ex-Mormons ...

Astute!

Quote

He then sent me this message.

“I think Mormonism has forced you to concede a lot of ground but that is no fault of your own.  I think you handled those 12 hours as well as anyone and promise I will continue to express that as we go.  I think such a conversation will move more people towards a diminishing of faith than an increase but you expressed a tenable faithful view as well as anyone and you should be proud.  I mean that.”

Well, Mr Reel certainly has his talking points mastered. It must be helpful that his 'listeners' seem to have access to them as well.

Sincere question: do people who either produce or consume 12-hour podcasts have jobs? Or kids? Or washing? Or ministering families?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Jim Bennett apparently sees things a bit differently than RFM or Bill Reel:

 

 

https://canonizer.com/blog/ces-reply-conversations-with-bill-reel/

I really like this guy.  That last paragraph just hits me.

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. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, DBMormon said:

* as an outside observer the top 15 men of the Church give no impression of being anything more than 15 older men behind the times and making serious mistakes
* They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue
* He wouldn't let his daughter work in the Smith Home knowing what he does
* The book of Abraham in a vacuum is deeply in favor of the critics conclusion
* priesthood blessing to an outside observer have no more power to heal than the healing rituals of any other system
* Joseph lacked integrity and fidelity with Emma
* The Church teaches us to harm others at times (prop 8, miracle of forgiveness, LGBT policies)
And there are many others but this is a start

 

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?"

  • 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...