Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[Robert F. Smith]

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 . . . 

[Steve J]

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 February 22, 2019 by Steve J

[stemelbow]

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😁

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Wow, interesting.  I can relate to all of those listed above (and agree with his concessions).  How does he continue working as a apologist?

I'm honestly not at all familiar with him, so I know I need to do some research on him (and also listen to these podcasts....).

I think you have to distinguish him from the kind of apologists who never concede anything and are willing to die on the most insignificant of hills. Jim isn't that at all, which is why, with some reservations, I have been impressed with his work on these issues. Not that I agree with his conclusions. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

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?

[phaedrus ut]

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 

[jkwilliams]

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 February 22, 2019 by jkwilliams

[phaedrus ut]

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 

[jkwilliams]

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."

[Storm Rider]

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. 

[Judd]

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”?

[phaedrus ut]

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 

[JAHS]

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. 

[carbon dioxide]

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 February 22, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

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 February 22, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[churchistrue]

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.

 

[Calm]

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 February 23, 2019 by Calm

[let’s roll]

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?  😎

[Jean-Luc Picard]

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. 

[Calm]

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

Quote

So on Facebook, a mutual friend thought it would be fun to see me go “toe to toe” with Bill Reel, the host of the Mormon Discussions podcast, which is often critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My response that was that I was willing to talk to anyone, in or out of the Church, but I was more interested in a conversation than a debate. Bill Reel graciously extended an invitation to appear on his podcast, and that resulted in six two-hour-long early-morning discussions that have now been posted on the Mormon Discussions site....

 

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.”

That was kind of him, but it left me with a bit of a pit in my stomach for the rest of the day, and it made me wonder if I had been wise to have agreed to this conversation.

I don’t say that in any way as an indictment of Bill Reel, who I now consider a friend. I think he was generous throughout this whole process – generous with his time, generous with his willingness to let me speak, at length, to represent my point of view, and generously kind even when we disagreed, which was often. My initial reaction was that these kinds of conversations, as difficult as they may be, are necessary. Much of the interaction between faithful members of the Church and those who have chosen to leave are unrelentingly hostile on both sides, and I – perhaps naively – firmly believe that it doesn’t have to be that way. I had hoped to provide an admittedly imperfect model for how such discussions could take place with kindness rather than with rancor. 

The idea that I had been “forced… to concede a lot of ground,” however, felt deeply troubling to me. In the second of our conversations, Bill said something along the lines that our first discussion had been a tie, but I had won the second round. I mostly shrugged that off, but it made me uneasy for reasons I couldn’t really put my finger on. As I read through some of the reactions over at the exMormon subReddit, one commenter was unhappy about what they’d heard from me in the first two podcasts, and Bill’s response was something along the lines of “Just keep listening, because you’ll be amazed at how much ground Jim gives up in the later hours.”

This helped to crystallize what had been nagging at me since I got that message after our last conversation. “Giving up ground” is a military metaphor. In a war, the side that gives up the most ground loses. That analogy defines this as a debate, not a discussion, and as I read most of the exMormon SubReddit comments, that’s how it was interpreted by a large chunk of the listeners. The consensus summation seems to be that since I had given up the most ground, Bill had won, and I, and therefore the Church, lost...

 

Quote

That was also my purpose in having these conversations. I doubt I captured any ground held by any contributors to the exMormon SubReddit, but that was not what I was trying to do. My goal was not to prove the Church true or call fire down from heaven. It was to give courage to any who find themselves confronted with troubling issues and assume that it is no longer possible to believe and still maintain intellectual honesty. I don’t know how many people in that situation are listeners to Bill Reel’s podcast, but if there is a single one who heard me and realized that they don’t have to abandon their faith when confronted by hard questions, then I think my time spent on this project will have been worth it.

That, incidentally, is the most troubling part of Bill’s message to me – the idea that I have participated in a project that will diminish faith rather than increase it. If that proves to be true, that would make me profoundly sad.

I believe that faith, in and out of the Church, is an extraordinarily precious thing that is a lifeline to all of us struggling to get through the experience of mortality, and I don’t want to be the guy responsible for diminishing it, especially if it’s diminished as a result of my own incompetence or arrogance, two qualities that I have in larger quantities than I would like. If I said anything that was damaging to anyone’s faith, I would hope that those individuals so damaged would reach out to me personally, as doing such damage was the polar opposite of my intent.

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

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

Edited February 23, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

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?

[churchistrue]

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. 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

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?"