Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[Calm]

My CFRs stand for DBMormon (I assume and am happy that he has had better ways to spend his Sunday, but hopes he shows up again tomorrow...or rather later today), I am happy for him to answer them here or in the new thread where Jim Bennett responds to those claims of concessions here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71618-jim-bennett-standing-my-ground/

Original CFR post here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71610-bill-reel-vs-jim-bennett/?do=findComment&comment=1209889464

Claims here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71610-bill-reel-vs-jim-bennett/?do=findComment&comment=1209889256

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

My CFRs stand for DBMormon (I assume and am happy that he has had better ways to spend his Sunday, but hopes he shows up again tomorrow...or rather later today), I am happy for him to answer them here or in the new thread where Jim Bennett responds to those claims of concessions here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71618-jim-bennett-standing-my-ground/

Original CFR post here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71610-bill-reel-vs-jim-bennett/?do=findComment&comment=1209889464

Claims here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71610-bill-reel-vs-jim-bennett/?do=findComment&comment=1209889256

 

It sounds like being on limited status may make it challenging to engage a ton on this but I'm glad he's been attempting it despite the limitation. Perhaps the mods could change his limited status. Not sure why it's there anyway.

Calm, didn't Tacenda post time stamps for specific concessions made by Jim? Are you asking Bill to also list time stamps? Do you want different time stamps. It seems like that CFR had been met, even if not directly from Bill.

And if you're wondering who is bringing the "hate" towards Bill, it is true that individual perceptions may vary, but I'd point you towards Steve J. He came out swinging, irrationally so, IMO

 

[DBMormon]

Any CFR's simply require one to listen to the podcast.  I will be happy to point out which episode but I don't have hours and hours to go through something you can find yourself.  If after listening to the particular episode you feel what I am claiming was not said, Let me know and I will have you compile a list here so that we only do this once with all of these questions.  I am happy to resolve these but am not going to be sent of on a time consuming quest simply because you don't want to listen to the source they came from.  make me a list Calm of what you want to hear Jim say and I will point you to an episode.  If you still feel you have not heard what I say is present, then please request a time stamp at that point.

This thread will be closed if you refuse to provide documentation. The burden of proof is on those making claims. Timestamps or quotes must be provided because it is "hours and hours."  You might consider this unreasonable use of our board as a reason you are now on limited. 

[DBMormon]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Timestamps where Jim mentions a doctrine or policy is a mistake:

In podcast #5 start with:

Race and the PH ban: 12:50  

Prophets leading us astray: 27:00...and again at 44:00.

LGBTQ and the November 2015 policy: 51:00

But Jim feels they get a whole lot more right than wrong. 

Thank you for helping with this.  

[DBMormon]

Which CFR's has Tacenda not met CALM and yes I am on limited status with only 10 to 12 posts allowed a day.   And never given a reason for that.

[cdowis]

On 2/22/2019 at 1:20 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Forty  years of apologetics, just another day at the office.  Most "confessions" are simply an admission of ignorance -- lack of preparation.

Finally, to agree to a live voice debate is to set yourself up for failure unless you are really really good.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Forty  years of apologetics, just another day at the office.  Most "confessions" are simply an admission of ignorance -- lack of preparation.

Finally, to agree to a live voice debate is to set yourself up for failure unless you are really really good.

Just to make sure I understand what you're saying...

You're suggesting that if someone confesses that there are legitimate problems in Mormon history and/or doctrine, then that person is really just showing his/her ignorance? So someone like Jim, who seems very knowledgeable, and IMO very faithful as a church member, is really just ignorant if he agrees there are problems?

Am I understanding you correctly?

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Any CFR's simply require one to listen to the podcast.  I will be happy to point out which episode but I don't have hours and hours to go through something you can find yourself.  If after listening to the particular episode you feel what I am claiming was not said, Let me know and I will have you compile a list here so that we only do this once with all of these questions.  I am happy to resolve these but am not going to be sent of on a time consuming quest simply because you don't want to listen to the source they came from.  make me a list Calm of what you want to hear Jim say and I will point you to an episode.  If you still feel you have not heard what I say is present, then please request a time stamp at that point.

This thread will be closed if you refuse to provide documentation. The burden of proof is on those making claims. Timestamps or quotes must be provided because it is "hours and hours."  You might consider this unreasonable use of our board as a reason you are now on limited. 

Which Specific Claims are a CFR being asked?  Will someone make a list of what Perspectives we need time stamps for that Tacenda didn't provide?  And feel free to close the thread if need be.   Like has been stated I won't have time to tackle this for a while.  But happy to do as time permits and I know what is being CFR'd specifically that Tacenda hasn't already answered.  That's my third time asking.  CFR for the CFR still not having their boxes checked.  

Edited February 25, 2019 by DBMormon

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Which Specific Claims are a CFR being asked?  Will someone make a list of what Perspectives we need time stamps for that Tacenda didn't provide?  And feel free to close the thread if need be.   Like has been stated I won't have time to tackle this for a while.  But happy to do as time permits and I know what is being CFR'd specifically that Tacenda hasn't already answered.  That's my third time asking.  CFR for the CFR still not having their boxes checked.  

Personally, as the person who started this thread, I don't want it closed. I would find it extremely strange for my thread to be closed because a poster (Bill) supposedly didn't answer a CFR. Are other threads closed because a commenter didn't answer a CFR? If that were standard procedure we wouldn't have many threads open. I don't understand why Calm is pushing this and then not responding or why the mods seem to be following her lead. Perhaps there is some confusion since Calm has since opened a separate thread on the same topic.

And Bill, your point is right on. Tacenda has answered the CFR from what I can tell so I'm not sure what else they want?

I'm kind of surprised the mods didn't combine Calm's thread in with this one since it covers the exact same material.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Which CFR's has Tacenda not met CALM and yes I am on limited status with only 10 to 12 posts allowed a day.   And never given a reason for that.

Mods never give a reason for limited status or being kicked out of a thread. Its part of rolling with this board.

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, as the person who started this thread, I don't want it closed. I would find it extremely strange for my thread to be closed because a poster (Bill) supposedly didn't answer a CFR. Are other threads closed because a commenter didn't answer a CFR? If that were standard procedure we wouldn't have many threads open. I don't understand why Calm is pushing this and then not responding or why the mods seem to be following her lead. Perhaps there is some confusion since Calm has since opened a separate thread on the same topic.

And Bill, your point is right on. Tacenda has answered the CFR from what I can tell so I'm not sure what else they want?

I'm kind of surprised the mods didn't combine Calm's thread in with this one since it covers the exact same material.

fwiw, I agree with this. The CFR seemed a little dramatic and based on subjective claims, anyway. 

[hope_for_things]

On 2/23/2019 at 7:38 AM, churchistrue said:

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. 

I've finally listened to the whole thing.  I actually found myself agreeing with Jim sometimes at least with respect to how he's articulating an approach that shows how things are more complicated when he pushes back on Bill during the interview.  I certainly didn't agree with everything he said, or with everything Bill said either, but I really appreciate that we had two people engaging in polite discussion with differing opinions.  We need much more of this in religious conversations and political conversations which are both unfortunately quite polarized these days.  

What is surprising to me as I've listened to Bill over the years is how black and white a thinker he still is in spite of all he's learned about human developmental stages, it seems to me that his impulse is revert to back to black and white thinking.  Was Joseph's polygamy a predatory behavior, yes or no, kind of mentality.  As if a person can put Joseph in a box of predator or saint.  The way I see things is Joseph did some pretty bad stuff, and polygamy was bad, and I'm in no way condoning the practices or the theology around polygamy, but that doesn't mean I can put a label on Joseph and caricature him as a predator.  He was a complicated individual and his actions shouldn't be judged lightly and were definitely wrong to various degrees, especially by my 21st century informed mores.  But that doesn't mean we stick a label on him and dehumanize him.  

What we need to do is get away from the binary approaches to these complex issues.  In my opinion we need to quit defining the church in terms of true or false.  This is probably my biggest contention with your approach in your churchistrue paradigm.  The church isn't true, no more than Target is the true retail store or the Utah Jazz are the true basketball team, or the Republicans are the true political party.  These are all institutions with a potpourri of contributing members with various perspectives on things spanning time and culture.  The problem is the dichotomy of true and false that keeps infecting these discussions.  Mormonism isn't true or false, its just is.  Its a tradition will all kinds of divergent history and complicated and changing ideals.  It has good things and bad things and things that are both good and bad and in-between all rolled up in a messy history.  The question of true or false is the problem, the solution is rejecting that question and asking better questions.  

Edited February 25, 2019 by hope_for_things

[Calm]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

fwiw, I agree with this. The CFR seemed a little dramatic and based on subjective claims, anyway. 

Finally having enough time to read this thread, but got popped to the end and just must answer this.

I am not understanding why my CFRs are being seen as dramatic.

In almost every conversation I have ever had anywhere in the last thirty years of my life since I discovered how bad most people are at paraphrasing what others say, I have preferred to hear/read what people say for themselves rather than summaries.  At times we must depend on summaries, but not seeing what the big deal is here when first, the conversation was intentionally recorded for sharing and second, we are being encouraged to listen to it anyway.

But come on,  I don't want to listen to 12 hours to find what probably amounts to 15 minutes of conversation.  Am I being a drama queen with that preference?

[Okrahomer]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But come on,  I don't want to listen to 12 hours to find what probably amounts to 15 minutes of conversation.  Am I being a drama queen with that preference?

No

[Calm]

These are the time stamps Tacenda provided:

Quote

 

Timestamps where Jim mentions a doctrine or policy is a mistake:

In podcast #5 start with:

Race and the PH ban: 12:50  

Prophets leading us astray: 27:00...and again at 44:00.

LGBTQ and the November 2015 policy: 51:00

 

 

The set of claims:

Quote

* 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)

Quote

Even recently Jim Bennett in part 4 of our interview acknowledged that part 3 changed his perspective on the Book of Abraham

So "concession" 1 does not appear to be provided, #3 not provided, #4, not provided, #5 not provided, #6 not provided, not sure about #7.  And since the separate is in section 4 and Tacenda's time stamps are all 5, assuming that isn't provided either.

I had been listening to podcast 5 off and on, thinking I would get to all the time stamps fast enough, but that didn't happened (for some reason it was my daughter's turn for wanting to talk last night, doesn't she know that's my job?), but finally have uninterrupted time again and am just going to skip to the 'ending' like I usually do for my mysteries.

btw...

So if it turns out the time stamps cover any of the ones I am not expecting them to cover, I plan on editing (just in case people want to be patient becfore they call me out for missing something  )

Edit:  turns out none of the claims were matched by any time stamp, so back to the beginning.  I do appreciate Tacenda trying, but it seems to me DBMormon knows best what he has in mind for those paraphrases, so it would be easiest for him to identify them.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Ongoing process...have to save it in process or will lose it

The 12:50 PH Ban....he is explaining his own reaction, I am up to 16 minutes and not seeing anything that relates to the claims above.

27 leading astray...talks about equating with infallibility and that is contrary to agency and implications...listening up to 31 minutes and not seeing anything relating to a claim above...

44 minutes....discussing fallibility, and no punting of our own understanding of doctrine to leaders, have just as much access to Heaven as the 15, Reel goes to hurting people, but then Bennett goes with Blood Atonement was not a practice, but rhetorical excess....Reel goes into LGBT policy hurting LGBT members, "a factor if not a dominant factor" 47:35 and Bennett says "I would agree 100% with that" at 47:58, but not seeing Bennett say the Church teaches us to harm, I am hearing it as there has been harm...but not teaching us to harm.  Up to 49 minutes...Bennett says sustaining leaders is not the same as agreeing with leaders, agrees that in these two cases of Priesthood and LGBT they are hurting people, but still nothing that says  to me "the Church teaches us to harm"  continued to 53 minutes.

Not seeing anything that Tacenda provided that equates to the paraphrases that DBMormon gave, so all my CFRs for the time stamps for where Bennett says these things or the equivalent to them still stand.  I would like to hear Bennett's own words for these alleged paraphrases.

Happy to be corrected if I missed it or just wasn't patient enough, but wanted to not take forever with this post.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't want to listen to 12 hours to find what probably amounts to 15 minutes of conversation.  Am I being a drama queen with that preference?

You are trying to have a rational, critical conversation regarding a medium that is not designed to facilitate such conversations (even when it's not 12 hours!!!). Good luck!

Edited February 26, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Tacenda, I appreciate you providing the time stamps you did.  It was interesting commentary, but I didn't see any matches to DBMormon's claims about what Bennett said, so I hope that DB will still be willing to provide them.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

This seems more appropriate to respond to in this thread:

DBMormon

Quote

Tell me the ones that Jim disagrees with that he in no uncertain terms did not say such.  and I will find you a time stamp,Otherwise I will send you an episode # and you can hear the context and the admission both Jim and I are saying occurred

I am not saying there is any disagreement (Bennett has covered that imo), I want to simply hear what you think translates into the paraphrases you provided.  None of Tacenda's time stamps matched that I could see.

You are the one who best knows what you are referring to, it is logical to me that therefore you be the one to track them down and post them.

And as mods have pointed out, pointing me to 2 hours doesn't qualify as fulfilling the CFR.  I am willing to listening to about 3 minutes to see if in ball park, more if in ball park, so it doesn't have to be down to the second.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, I appreciate you providing the time stamps you did.  It was interesting commentary, but I didn't see any matches to DBMormon's claims about what Bennett said, so I hope that DB will still be willing to provide them.

When I posted the time stamps, I did it because I wanted to mainly show where Jim didn't agree that some policies came from God directly. Did you catch any of that, or am I losing it? My c/p'd quote is below:

Timestamps where Jim mentions a doctrine or policy is a mistake:

In podcast #5 start with:

Race and the PH ban: 12:50  

Prophets leading us astray: 27:00...and again at 44:00.

LGBTQ and the November 2015 policy: 51:00

But Jim feels they get a whole lot more right than wrong. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I posted the time stamps, I did it because I wanted to mainly show where Jim didn't agree that some policies came from God directly. Did you catch any of that, or am I losing it? My c/p'd quote is below:

Timestamps where Jim mentions a doctrine or policy is a mistake:

In podcast #5 start with:

Race and the PH ban: 12:50  

Prophets leading us astray: 27:00...and again at 44:00.

LGBTQ and the November 2015 policy: 51:00

But Jim feels they get a whole lot more right than wrong. 

Oh yeah, I saw that. Like I said I found those comments interesting, just doesn’t match DBMormon’s comments. 

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oh yeah, I saw that. Like I said I found those comments interesting, just doesn’t match DBMormon’s comments. 

Yeah, I really didn't post my time stamps specifically for DB, but in an all around way. And to get you to listen to some of it!  I honestly think by listening to Jim, you get his real self, not written statements after the fact. Where he may have felt like he had to make it look better for Fair and others, but I may have spoke too soon and need to read it on Fair.

I really like Jim, and feel like we feel the same way on so many things.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Tacenda

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yeah, I really didn't post my time stamps specifically for DB, but in an all around way. And to get you to listen to some of it!  I honestly think by listening to Jim, you get his real self, not written statements after the fact. Where he may have felt like he had to make it look better for Fair and others, but I may have spoke too soon and need to read it on Fair.

I really like Jim, and feel like we feel the same way on so many things.

I disagree.  I think writing something is usually more accurate since you have the time to choose correct words. I am willing to see though that with some people, they are more accurate in voice. The thing is that unless you really know a person I don't think it is fair to judge which is more accurate and it is really not fair to basically accuse them of being deceptive in writing after speaking to save face.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Rain

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

I disagree.  I think writing something is usually more accurate since you have the time to choose correct words. I am willing to see though that with some people, they are more accurate in voice. The thing is that unless you really know a person I don't think it is fair to judge which is more accurate and it is really not fair to basically accuse them of being deceptive in writing after speaking to save face.

My thoughts are in purple below. I see what you mean Rain, and agree that his written commentary gave further information, that a discussion on a podcast can't do thoroughly. Now that I've read through, I believe Jim was fair and honest on what he actually said. 

 

c/p'd from the Fairmormon website: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/02/24/jim-bennett-standing-my-ground#more-20627

 

"For anyone who may be interested, I want to take this opportunity graciously provided by FairMormon to use Bill’s map of the “ground I gave up” to provide greater context for where I stand. 

1. 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

 

I do not believe that the top 15 men of the Church are nothing more than 15 older men behind the times and making serious mistakes. I am willing to concede that an outside observer could look at them and arrive at that conclusion, but that is not the same thing as arriving at that same conclusion myself. 

Isaiah wrote of the Messiah that “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” (Isaiah 53:2) His point was that outside observers and even believers would look at the Savior and see nothing particularly remarkable. If that was true of the Son of God, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that anyone can look at the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve and only see human beings, not demigods.

As for being “behind the times” or “making serious mistakes,” those kinds of conclusions require greater context to understand. We are not a church that believes in infallible leaders, as infallibility would require an extraction of agency. I was more than willing to concede that leaders of the Church, as fallible humans with agency, are capable of error and being influenced by the faulty mores of their times, but the discussion did not provide enough focus on the fact that they get far more right than they get wrong. The teachings and actions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have brought millions of people to Christ and blessed the lives of innumerable people in and out of the Church. To conclude that any mistakes leaders have made define the totality of who they are is a gross distortion of the truth, and it certainly does not represent what I believe. 

 

This sounds good to me, and I even mention that he thought the church leaders got a whole lot right than wrong.
 

2. They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue

They are not completely wrong on the LGBT issue, as they now recognize that people do not choose which gender they will find attractive, which is something I consider to be a huge, huge step in the right direction. 

I find it interesting that LGBT issues were not addressed at all in the CES Letter reply, but they became the main focus of our last two podcast discussions, as Bill recognized that this is one area where Jim Bennett and the Church are not in full agreement, so it would be helpful in efforts to tear down the Church to highlight my discomfort. I’m deeply frustrated that my individual struggle to come to terms with this issue is being used to discredit the Church. On this subject, the Spirit has personally counseled me to be as patient with the Church and with its leaders as I hope them to be with me. 

I also tried to point out that I do not believe that the leaders of the Church are callous or unfeeling on these issues. I believe that they have arrived at their current position in good faith, and Bill Reel’s conclusion that they’re just old men who couldn’t care less about LGBT people is not supported by anything I said. 

 

Sounds good to me, and in my thinking at the time I put time stamps was that he disagreed with the November '15 policy, of which I thought was enlightening.

3. He wouldn’t let his daughter work in the Smith Home knowing what he does

It’s true; I wouldn’t. I don’t think that answer, however, means what Bill is implying it means. Bill constantly tried to frame Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy as predatory and possibly pedophilic, and I pushed back hard against that interpretation. Yet by getting me to agree that I wouldn’t be eager for my daughter to work in a circumstance where she might get a polygamous marriage proposal, he seems to be suggesting that I agree with his entirely negative assessment of Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage. I do not. 

 

Good to know. 

4. The Book of Abraham in a vacuum is deeply in favor of the critics conclusion

Key words there are “in a vacuum.” I kept coming back to the Book of Mormon as the anchor of my testimony and as the best evidence of Joseph’s gift of divine translation. I readily conceded that if the Book of Abraham were the only evidence of Joseph’s abilities as a seer, I would likely be unimpressed. But it isn’t the only evidence, and not even close to the best evidence. Critics who want to consider the Book of Abraham in a vacuum are trying to pretend that the Book of Mormon doesn’t exist. 

In the podcasts, I referenced the following statement (https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2012/book-of-abraham-i-presume) by Dr. John Gee, a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist who has written more about the Book of Abraham from a faithful perspective than just about anyone else in the Church. His statement is reflective of the position I was trying to take. 

“It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham. That is, I have never received a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Book of Abraham. I do not need one. I have those for the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel, the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the continuation of those keys and authority through the present day. If you have these things confirmed to you, you do not need to get a cold from every wind of doctrine that blows. It does not matter what some Egyptologist says about the papyri. You might be perplexed for the present, but you have already proved God in days that are past.”

 

I like his honesty.

5. Priesthood blessings to an outside observer have no more power to heal than the healing rituals of any other system

This discussion kept coming up in the form of some kind of “statistical analysis” of the effectiveness of healing rituals used by different religions. I readily admitted that such a “statistical analysis” would prove nothing and be pointless, because miracles require interpretation, and what a believer calls a miracle can almost always be dismissed by a skeptic as something else. 

I provided the specific example of my daughter’s skiing injury where she suffered a spinal cord injury, and I gave her a priesthood blessing promising that she would walk again. That blessing was fulfilled, despite the fact that her surgeon predicted she would spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. I consider that a miracle, but there is no way that its designation as such would survive any kind of objective statistical analysis. Miracles require faith, both to perform them and to believe in them. The Lord seldom produces miracles that scoffers are incapable of dismissing. 

Bill also kept trying to get me to make judgments about miracles that take place outside of the workings of the priesthood. What do I say, for instance, to someone who claims that they were healed by a Catholic priest? My answer, then and now, is to applaud the faith of any who see God’s miraculous hand in their lives. I do not think the validity of the priesthood or the miracles performed therewith require me to invalidate someone else’s miracle. 

 

I'm thankful for his daughter's recovery and the miracle she isn't in a wheel chair!

6. Joseph lacked integrity and fidelity with Emma

Bill pressed very hard on this issue, and I interpreted that as an attempt to get me to admit that Joseph had committed adultery in the practice of plural marriage. I do not believe that. “Fidelity” is a charged word, and I wouldn’t want anyone to think that my concession that Joseph was not always honest with Emma about plural marriage was an admission that Joseph was engaged in adultery. The Church’s essay about Plural Marriage in Nauvoo admits that “Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings,” which would mean they have conceded the same ground that I conceded. This gets back to the idea of prophetic fallibility that both I and the Church have conceded on multiple occasions.

 

Okay!

7. The Church teaches us to harm others at times (prop 8, miracle of forgiveness, LGBT policies)

Notice that the three example he cites are all with regard to LGBT issues, where I admitted to my own personal struggles with regards to the Church’s position. It became clear that as the discussions wore on, Bill was interested in identifying areas where I would be most vulnerable, and he concluded that getting me to admit to my personal discomfort would make the Church look as bad as possible. 

I don’t think that’s fair to either me or the Church. I do not believe Church leaders intentionally teach us to harm anyone, and I believe any harm the Church may do as a result of human error or misunderstanding is vastly outweighed by the countless lives it has blessed and the souls it has helped to save. I think judging a person or an institution only by their worst moments is a profoundly uncharitable thing to do. 

 

I think Bill is very passionate about the LGBTQ crowd and it shows in his actions, and his disdain for the Nov. '15 policy.

I love The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; I fully sustain its leaders, and I am proud to be a member of it. I have a solid testimony of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ that is rooted firmly in the Book of Mormon. I am confident that whatever mistakes I may have made in defending that testimony will not prevent the Church from accomplishing its divine mission, regardless of what Bill Reel or his listeners may say."

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Where he may have felt like he had to make it look better for Fair and others, but I may have spoke too soon and need to read it on Fair.

That is certainly not the impression I got reading his correspondence.  Edit:  I think we agree from your later post.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Calm