Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[Exiled]

Just now, JulieM said:

Yup!!!  Excellent response that expresses how I feel perfectly.  Treat the gay members equal to those who are not gay.  Allow them to date and marry the sec they are physically attracted to.  The leaders have learned that advocating they marry the opposite sex was disastrous (for many) and caused so much heartbreak for many.

So this!!!

It's biological.  I grew up with a great person and we all knew he was gay.  No one was surprised when he came out.  He should be treated like everyone else.

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I notice that your quote take my comment regarding interviewer's control on a situation in isolation from the context I labored to provide, about how objectivity is an illusion. In practice, as Richard Bushman observed, it's usually a gambit made to obtain immunity from criticism....

I didn't mean to take that snip out of context or pretend the rest of it didn't exist. Clearly you are a deep thinker. I neither intended to comment on a full, accurate representation of your beliefs in all of their subtleties, nor did I intend to attack a strawman. Rather, I was merely talking about my own view.

This might not be nearly as post-modern or sophisticated as you see the world, but I do think that some viewpoints and paradigms are more valid than others. I think that flaws in thinking exist, and that if there is a flaw in somebody's own thinking, they probably aren't aware of it. While an interviewer with one set of skills <I>could</I> put his thumb on the scale and manipulate the conversation to his own advantage, an interviewer with another set of skills <I>could</I> illuminate how the interviewee's thumb is on his own internal scale. 

I affirm your right to decide for yourself how you will judge this 14-hour long conversation, with or without listening to any of it.

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What was naked about my link? It showed 19th century authors. And the many books authored. To me that said Joseph could write a book as well. But the BoM needed many corrections, so although Joseph wasn't good with grammar, he was intellectual and had a gift for story telling and lots of passion for what he believed to be wrong with current churches. He wanted to change the world.

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense.  Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts.

[PacMan]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

The point is that in reality, Joseph had all the years between his first vision (or at least from Moroni’s first visit) and when he states he received the plates plus the other years before publication.  There’s no proof either way is there?  

Its hard to know since he didn’t even use the plates for much of the translation.  I believe he was inspired and that the BofM is scripture, but there was more time possibly to write it.

He was 24 and barely literate.  I don't care if he used all 24 years to produce the BoM.  You still can't explain it.  And the fact of the references in the large plates of Nephi to the small plates which hadn't been translated yet, makes it all the curious of how Joseph Smith pulled it off.  Unless, of course, you believe that JS had plotted for Martin Harris to lose the 116 pages years before, and staged the impact that it had on Emma Smith's pregnancy....

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense.  Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts.

As evidenced in this thread, you can be rather jerky, ya know?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

You still can't explain it.

The lovely thing is that I don't have to explain it. My epistemic obligation is not to believe something unless disproven. My obligation is to disbelieve something unless proven. And my personal direct spiritual experiences have shown me that Catholicism is where I belong. I don't have to go around and disprove every single religion. I've only had to have one proven to me, the one I'm in. I'm certainly interested in other (obviously, since I'm here), and I study others, but not necessarily to disprove them, but to learn.

Do you go around and spend your time disproving every miracle, every spiritual text, every tenet of every religion on earth? Or do you rely on your spiritual confirmation of the truth of Mormonism instead?

Edited March 14, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

{snip}  And my personal direct spiritual experiences have shown me that Catholicism is where I belong. {snip}

So  ...  something like this?

Quote

Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

 

[MiserereNobis]

34 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  something like this?

 

Yes. I honor the LDS experience of this, too. I can't really explain the fact that we've had different subjective experience of truth confirmation, but I'll rely on mine and let you all rely on yours.

In the end, of course, you'll find out that I'm right, though  

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes. I honor the LDS experience of this, too. I can't really explain the fact that we've had different subjective experience of truth confirmation, but I'll rely on mine and let you all rely on yours.

In the end, of course, you'll find out that I'm right, though  

Et quoque apud te. 😎

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He did try to sell the copyright, but maybe to help build the church.

In order to publish the book without risking it being even more likely to be pirated outside the US, other local copyrights needed to be secured.  They needed money to do that as well as publish once copyright was secured.  The pre-publication copyright was apparently Joseph's no matter what or where if I am reading the article correctly...but once published, apparently people could plagiarize without a local copyright to enforce ownership.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/securing-prophets-copyright-book-mormon-historical-and-legal-context-so-called-canadian

Quote

Prior to the advent of reciprocal copyright treaties, an author needed to comply with the law of each jurisdiction in order to secure his copyright within that jurisdiction. In prior days, it was more common to speak of a United States copyright; a Canadian copyright; a German or French or Ital- ian copyright. In our present day, because of international accords, we speak more commonly of a copyright enforceable everywhere. Thus, when the reve- lation spoke of the effort to secure “the” copyright in all the world, it spoke of protecting within each jurisdiction that one indivisible right the Prophet enjoyed in his copy; and when it spoke of the privilege to sell “a” copyright in Canada, it spoke of selling a divisible portion of that right in Canada (an act that was possible, too, in all other jurisdictions, such as in England and elsewhere, such as would later be done there, for example, with the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants)....

After publication of the Book of Mormon in the United States, the rights to the book likely would have had no value in Canada. Piracy, on both sides of the border, was common. And in order to give a publisher in Canada incentive to publish the book and forbid others from publishing it without the Prophet’s permission, the natural and legally appropriate action would have been to sell a copyright to a willing buyer in Canada.

A Canadian publisher likely would have then simply published the book either pursuant to a short-run lease153 or pursuant to the purchase of a par- tial interest in the copyright. The publication history of the 1830 American Cook Not Mad cookbook, republished in 1831 in Kingston, reflects this real- ity. Notwithstanding its publication in Canada, sales of the American text of the Cook Not Mad continued in the United States, advertised for sale in bookstores everywhere, even in Palmyra.154 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But the BoM needed many corrections, so although Joseph wasn't good with grammar

Which can be explained by its grammar being correct for an early time period as well as dictation provided no punctuation and for some reason they just had the publisher do that (cost of paper perhaps, trying to stick it in without rewriting might have made it more difficult to read?)

[Calm]

4 hours ago, PacMan said:

Yeah, that doesn't even make sense.  Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts.

The reason the board has survived in my opinion is the civility from most participants.  I have been enjoying much of your posts, you are focusing on relevant points, imo.  However, this kind of stuff is distracting...and ends up wasting your time.  I would suggest just asking someone to stay on topic and the ignore and report them if they don't.

Public forum and all posters have been invited to participate as long as they abide by the written and unwritten order of the board.  You can't bar someone from posting, so just ignore them if it annoys you.  

[Duncan]

Does anyone have a source for Elder Cook's quotation about know Christ's voice and face?

[DBMormon]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone have a source for Elder Cook's quotation about know Christ's voice and face?

here

here

here

and the last 4 minutes here

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

We do?  Where?  I seriously am not aware of this.  I did a search on "Reel" and "income" and came up dry.  I would not be surprised if some members speculate this and perhaps post it as a private individual, but is there anything on our website saying this?  If you know of something, I can pass on the info you shared and hopefully get it corrected.

This was in response to DB's comment that FairMormon likes to claim he makes a living off his podcast.

Further update:

I have checked with others of FM and we can't think of or find any such references to us making claims Bill Reel makes a living off of the podcast.  I also shared the correct info here to help avoid making the mistake in the future.

So again, I hope if DB or anyone else has come across something like this on our site, please let us know.  

Otherwise, I am going to assume that there has just been confusion of us with others who have said it and not worry about it, though I will correct any comments I might see on our site (or anywhere else I participate if I have the opportunity) in the future unless DB lets us know the situation has changed.

[Rivers]

10 hours ago, DBMormon said:

here

here

here

and the last 4 minutes here

I want respond to a comment on the Reddit board in one of the links.  The commenter referenced Jesus’ council to not hide your candle under a bushel.  But I think it’s worth noting that Jesus, in the same sermon, also said not to throw pearls before swine.  There’s a time and place for everything.

[DBMormon]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

This was in response to DB's comment that FairMormon likes to claim he makes a living off his podcast.

Further update:

I have checked with others of FM and we can't think of or find any such references to us making claims Bill Reel makes a living off of the podcast.  I also shared the correct info here to help avoid making the mistake in the future.

So again, I hope if DB or anyone else has come across something like this on our site, please let us know.  

Otherwise, I am going to assume that there has just been confusion of us with others who have said it and not worry about it, though I will correct any comments I might see on our site (or anywhere else I participate if I have the opportunity) in the future unless DB lets us know the situation has changed.

Ask John Lynch if he has said it.  He has.  He is not the only one. I have his comments saved.  He has said it more than once (both publicly and privately).  I know FairMormon likes to claim that its members do not necessarily represent it but it also has to be on some level accountable if its members say or do things that are contrary to its claims of what it does.  What is FairMormon if not a collective group of its members?  Its members, Steve Densley, John Lynch, Steve Smoot, Neal Rappleye, and others are a significant part of the body of FairMormon.  

Secondly I am also aware a private subreddit where some members of FairMormon reach out to people who say on reddit that their shelf fell to invite them to this private sub where in they tell people "Bill Reel" should be dismissed because he makes a financial living from his podcast.  

Lastly as John Dehlin just pointed out here FairMormon's honesty is questionable.  Notice the ad is published by the FairMormon's official Reddit account while the ad claims to be unconnected to FairMormon.  This is dishonest.  But hey who cares when the Good Guys lie

I do not make a living off the podcast.  I put hundreds of hours in and other than normal reimbursable expenses I take zero salary/income from the podcast.  I hope to take a salary in the future but that still appears to be years away

Edited March 15, 2019 by DBMormon

[Bede]

Hey @DBMormon, I see that a lot of folks are coming at you right now, and I understand that you have many other things on your plate than replying to a thread on an LDS discussion board, but I was hoping you'd give me the honor of a reply?

[stemelbow]

On 3/13/2019 at 3:45 PM, DBMormon said:

3.) a written back and forth is insufficient for such a fruitful dialogue.  You are welcome on anytime to discuss with as much time given to you as you need. 

Wow.  Quite an offer given to Pacman.  Pacman seemed to have ignored it and just continued to be insulting and angry.  I dont' know if such an episode would produce much more than him getting upset, but I think it a gracious offer that was completely ignored for some reason.  hah...go figure on that.  

I thought the discussion between you and Jim was great.  I feel badly for Jim by the end, I admit, but I also have to admit I'm no where near his position on the church.  I feel badly because when it was all done I think the sum was Jim argued more against the Church than he defended it.  Staying in the church while holding views contrary to what the Church does is fun.  I know, I did it for years.  good for him, but it proved too difficult for me.  

I have no idea why he got upset, or frustrated or both, with what you posted here and elsewhere about the first 6 parts.  That seventh part was really good, though.  It really gets to the bottom of it, and explains nicely how frustrating it is to try and stay in--at least to me.  

[DBMormon]

42 minutes ago, Bede said:

Hey @DBMormon, I see that a lot of folks are coming at you right now, and I understand that you have many other things on your plate than replying to a thread on an LDS discussion board, but I was hoping you'd give me the honor of a reply?

link me the place where the question is or ask it here?

 

[DBMormon]

strange........ this thread suddenly went real quiet

[Anonymous Mormon]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

strange........ this thread suddenly went real quiet

@DBMormon - It seems like you are looking for something to do right now. In the other post "Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition" I posted you a request to honestly evaluate the cut and paste claims you made about the Nov 2015 policy to see if you really believe all of those claims are valid (see page 4 Posted yesterday at 12:30 PM). Since you currently seem to be looking for a conversation this would be a good start.

[DBMormon]

On 3/13/2019 at 9:49 PM, Bede said:

Yes, and you are entitled to do that. It's your Facebook page. 

 

But we aren't talking about irrational people, are we? Is Jim Bennett irrational? He didn't seem so on the podcast. So who, or what group, exactly, do you believe is irrational? And are you certain they are irrational and not you?

Do Flat Earth believers sense the irrationality and illogical framings of fellow flat earthers who use the same reasoning?  I dont think so.

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by "walked into the irrationality of their beliefs," but if you are suggesting that the hundreds of active LDS scholars from various academic fields (and the hundreds who have passed) are duped, fools, idiots, or deliberately blind, what makes you think you are the only one who knows the truth? Do you think that celebrated LDS historians don't know LDS history; that you know more than they do?

I don't think they would fare well in a long form real time conversation.  In fact no scholar or historian or church leader would do as well as Jim did.  a tie with him perhaps but no better,  Mormonism is not tenable if one is left to make sense of it using the rules of logic and rational thought.  The only people who believe the mental gymnastics are those who want to believe the mental gymnastics

Quote

This isn't true, either. Your first statement is a textbook all-or-nothing fallacy. Where did this 15% number come from? Why does the whole thing fall apart if 15% of it does?

Anecdotal... yeah lets go with that

Quote

Okay, then Jim can just claim that all of the points you believe he conceded was for the same reason. So where does that leave us? 

It leaves us agreeing to disagree.  If Mormonism were illogical and irrational, would there still be people who have an awareness of the data and still believe?  of course.

Quote

Of course it falls short. It's a rehashed gish gallop of old critical chestnuts. JR just copied and pasted from the internet. Is there one new idea? One new piece of scholarship? Anything worth anything in the CES letter? 

doesn't have to be new to be problematic and effective and damaging

Edited March 15, 2019 by DBMormon

[PacMan]

On 3/14/2019 at 1:52 PM, MiserereNobis said:

My epistemic obligation is not to believe something unless disproven.

Try that one again...

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

Try that one again...

Too complex..?

I'm not obliged to believe something unless it is disproven. I'm obliged to disbelieve something until it is proven.