Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[Steve J]

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

[Steve J]

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

[Steve J]

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 February 22, 2019 by Steve J

[DBMormon]

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 !

[DBMormon]

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?

[churchistrue]

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.

 

 

[Steve J]

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

[DBMormon]

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

 

[ALarson]

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 February 22, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

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 February 22, 2019 by ALarson

[JAHS]

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. 

[Steve J]

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

[ALarson]

Just now, JAHS said:

History yes; doctrine no.

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

[ALarson]

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 February 22, 2019 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

1 hour 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. 

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, Steve J said:

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

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

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!

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jim did an in depth response to the CES letter (https://canonizer.com/files/reply.pdf) 

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I just have to say that I found Jim's CES Letter response to be absolutely hilarious, and about as good as any response is likely to be. 

It's especially apt because it approaches the CES Letter with an appropriately snarky attitude.  The CES Letter is now de-facto scripture for ex-Mormons, and they just hate that someone doesn't treat it with the respect and reverence it deserves.

 

[jkwilliams]

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).

[Steve J]

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 February 22, 2019 by Steve J

[DBMormon]

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!

[DBMormon]

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.

[DBMormon]

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.

[jkwilliams]

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

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."