Jim Bennett: Standing My Ground

[Calm]

The promised new thread, but with a new blog (Bennett took some of his response and added specific rebuttals to claims being made).  I encourage reading the entire blog, but will post the claims of Reel and others about alleged concessions to provide Bennett's view of the post podcast narrative spin (my word, not his) by Reel and others.

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/02/24/jim-bennett-standing-my-ground

Quote

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.”

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. 

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.

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 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.

 

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

It's sad that we live in a culture where discussion is no longer allowed without someone trying to "score points." It saddens me that Jim Bennett had even had to make such a blog post to set the record straight. 

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

It's sad that we live in a culture where discussion is no longer allowed without someone trying to "score points." It saddens me that Jim Bennett had even had to make such a blog post to set the record straight. 

Yeh, but didn't you enjoy seeing the New England Patriots whip the L.A. Rams 13 to 3 at the Super Bowl?  Isn't that what America is all about? And on a Sunday?

[clarkgoble]

I don't understand why people do these sorts of debates. First off they almost always depend upon memory of facts or the like rather than being able to look things up to better ensure correctness. Second the sophistry model of how to deal with such debates rarely leads to good faith discussions particularly when one side (or both) are angry. There's standard methods to be unfair and people don't even need to be conscious of doing it since they see these techniques so often in the media. Also, people rarely grapple with the foundational issues which are where the disagreements almost always really are arising out of.  

Edited February 25, 2019 by clarkgoble

[DBMormon]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

The promised new thread, but with a new blog (Bennett took some of his response and added specific rebuttals to claims being made).  I encourage reading the entire blog, but will post the claims of Reel and others about alleged concessions to provide Bennett's view of the post podcast narrative spin (my word, not his) by Reel and others.

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/02/24/jim-bennett-standing-my-ground

 

It seems he agrees each time except with caveats.  Not sure why I still need to provide CFR's.  It seems he agrees he said it but that His view requires more context and understanding to get at the heart of it.   If you see a absolute contradiction please let me know!

Edited February 25, 2019 by DBMormon

[Wiki Wonka]

 

29 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

It seems he agrees each time except with caveats.  Not sure why I still need to provide CFR's.  It seems he agrees he said it but that His view requires more context and understanding to get at the heart of it.   If you see a absolute contradiction please let me know!

Bill: 2. They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue

Jim: They are not completely wrong on the LGBT issue...

 

 

[DBMormon]

2 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

 

Bill: 2. They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue

Jim: They are not completely wrong on the LGBT issue...

 

 

Depends on what I meant by issue.  By Issue, That the position that Homosexuality is Sin and a LDS member who is gay must live a life of celibacy.  
It should also be noted that science and data have compelled them to correct their once false doctrine that Gay was a choice to where it is today in not being a choice.
Thank You

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

 

Bill: 2. They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue

Jim: They are not completely wrong on the LGBT issue...

 

 

I think that is such a broad topic.  Were they both referring to the new policy?

Or prop 8?  (Jim is quoted as saying “you got me there” or something similar (I’ll try to find it) about prop 8).

I think each issue listed could be dissected and consessions were made (sometimes by both at times).  I just felt it’ is a great discussion, but so far I’ve seen Jim concede more than Bill (still listening though).  Both impress me and are great guys, IMO.

Edited February 25, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

It seems he agrees each time except with caveats.  Not sure why I still need to provide CFR's.  It seems he agrees he said it but that His view requires more context and understanding to get at the heart of it.   If you see a absolute contradiction please let me know!

CFR stands because I want the quotes because I don't trust your interpretation, like here where you say he "agrees each time".  You saying he thinks leaders are completely wrong while he is saying they are not completely wrong is not agreement.  That you interpret it as that and only when it is an "absolute contradictions" as if significant differences are not enough is highly problematic in my view.

So CFRs stand, time stamps absolutely, quotes would be nice but not essential.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that is such a broad topic.  Were they both referring to the new policy?

Or prop 8?  (Jim is quoted as saying “you got me” or something similar (I’ll try to find it) about prop 8).

I think each issue listed could be dissected and consessions were made (sometimes by both at times).  I just felt it’ is a great discussion, but so far I’ve seen Jim concede more than Bill (still listening though).  Both impress me and are great guys, IMO.

I really don't care about who concedes more.  That you are asking these questions indicates you need more information to be able to evaluate what has been said here, info that could come from listening to the actual conversation.

And I want to know what Bennett actually said and from Bennett's reaction and DBMormon's explanation here it is clear to me that I shouldn't trust DB's paraphrases if I want to understand the context and nuances of Bennett's views.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I really don't care about who concedes more.  I want to know what Bennett actually said and from Bennett's reaction and DBMormon's explanation here it is clear to me that I shouldn't trust DB's paraphrases if I want to understand the context and nuances of Bennett's views.

Listen to the Timestamps perhaps?

[JulieM]

I think much of this will just come down to interpretation and opinion.

Like Jim does say he wouldn’t want his daughter to be around Joseph Smith (or work in his home, along those lines).  But now he’s clarified that he didn’t mean Joseph was dangerous or a pedophile.  Just that he wouldn’t have wanted his daughter to enter into polygamy or marry Joseph.

So both men are reporting what was stated just with different interpretations (that’s what I’m seeing so far).

Even with the exact quotes, I think that’s going to happen.

Edited February 25, 2019 by JulieM

[DBMormon]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR stands because I want the quotes because I don't trust your interpretation, like here where you say he "agrees each time".  You saying he thinks leaders are completely wrong while he is saying they are not completely wrong is not agreement.  That you interpret it as that and only when it is an "absolute contradictions" as if significant differences are not enough is highly problematic in my view.

So CFRs stand, time stamps absolutely, quotes would be nice but not essential.

trust his own interpretation!  

Tacenda met the time stamps and Jim himself has confirmed what he said but wishing to add clarification.  This seems petty at this point.  but by all means list which speicifc one you want met.  My guess is I have 4 or 5 more comments left today!

Edited February 25, 2019 by DBMormon

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think much of this will just come down to interpretation and opinion.

Like Jim does say he wouldn’t want his daughter to be around Joseph Smith (or work in his home, along those lines).  But now he’s clarified that he didn’t mean Joseph was dangerous or a pedophile.  Just that he wouldn’t have wanted his daughter to enter into polygamy or marry Joseph.

So both men are reporting what was stated just with different interpretations (that’s what I’m seeing so far).

Even with the exact quotes, I think that’s going to happen.

Here is what Bill stated (regarding what Jim stated in the interview):

Quote

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

It seems to me that even with Jim's clarification, that Bill's statement above is the truth.  Now, it's good to hear more on this from Jim, but that does not make Bill's claim a lie or not accurate.

Jim's reply:

Quote

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

I agree that as each statement is picked apart, this is what is going to happen here.  I'm glad to read through Jim's comments though as it's great to hear both of their views after the interviews were over.  I think it's a bit over the top to ask for timestamps on each of the concessions that took place, but if Bill can be given ample time to comb through all 12 hours and find them, it sounds like he will try to do that.  I'd love to see a written transcript myself!

I just don't think it's unusual for both of them to feel that they won the debate (came off as more favorably in the discussions) or maybe did better than the other one with making their points and getting concessions.  Once again, that's up for us to interpret after we listen to the podcasts and I'm hearing very positive things said about both of them.  It's human nature to remember when we got someone to back down or agree with us, but then to be kind of foggy about anything that WE conceded  

But, it is good to see more clarification from each of them.

Edited February 25, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't understand why people do these sorts of debates. First off they almost always depend upon memory of facts or the like rather than being able to look things up to better ensure correctness. Second the sophistry model of how to deal with such debates rarely leads to good faith discussions particularly when one side (or both) are angry. There's standard methods to be unfair and people don't even need to be conscious of doing it since they see these techniques so often in the media. Also, people rarely grapple with the foundational issues which are where the disagreements almost always really are arising out of.  

Bennett obviously didn't anticipate that it was to be a debate.  He specified he didn't want to debate.  He was trusting enough even though he felt Reel was pressuring him into say things a certain way, he still thought Reel was sincere about conversing as opposed to debating (see his two blogs).  

Quote

My reply, perhaps naively, was that I was happy to speak to anyone about it, but I wasn’t interested in a debate so much as a discussion. Bill agreed to that...

From the above blog.

From the previous one:

Quote

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.... 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.

And Reel's gleeful reaction when someone expressed disappointment in the tameness of the first two podcasts plus his framing of the talks as a competition ("a tie") from almost the beginning shows, imo, his intent had been a debate from the start....after Bennett expressly stated he would not participate in a debate.

Quote

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.

Listerners interpreting it that way mainly due, imo, to Reel setting up that interpretation...contrary to his commitment to Bennett to have a conversation, not a debate.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listen to the Timestamps perhaps?

Yes, .I am.  I wouldn't ask for a reference if I had no intent on using it.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bennett obviously didn't anticipate that it was to be a debate.  He specified he didn't want to debate.  He was trusting enough even though he felt Reel was pressuring him into say things a certain way, he still thought Reel was sincere about conversing as opposed to debating (see his two blogs).  

From the above blog.

From the previous one:

And Reel's gleeful reaction when someone expressed disappointment in the tameness of the first two podcasts plus his framing of the talks as a competition ("a tie") from almost the beginning shows, imo, his intent had been a debate from the start....after Bennett expressly stated he would not participate in a debate.

Listerners interpreting it that way mainly due, imo, to Reel setting up that interpretation...contrary to his commitment to Bennett to have a conversation, not a debate.

From what I heard there was absolutely no debate. But I'd sure like to know why Calm, you haven't listened to the Timestamps that you said you would listen to. Makes all of the difference IMO. ETA: oops, you answered this. But did want to emphasize that Jim may have re-thunk what he told Bill. He had a chance to write down more of what he meant. Or perhaps, felt that his words didn't appear the most positive about the leaders. And I understand him doing that. But I also, think his words are telling because they came from the heart without scrutinizing them. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

think much of this will just come down to interpretation and opinion.

Which is why time stamps are needed rather than .DB's continued agendaed paraphrases.

I haven't read any other thread yet, Tacenda has provided them?

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

From what I heard there was absolutely no debate.

Then why is DB framing the narrative as a debate?

[DBMormon]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

From what I heard there was absolutely no debate. But I'd sure like to know why Calm, you haven't listened to the Timestamps that you said you would listen to. Makes all of the difference IMO.

I never said it was a debate either.  I simply said Jim's Mormonism required Mormonism and his articulation of said Mormonism to give a lot of ground.  Jim's Mormonism is 100 fold better than the correlated version members are asked to believe.  Mormonism only holds up if on every issue you conced two things
#1 that the tenable Mormonism is something different than correlated or Institutional Mormonism
#2 You create a circumstance that needs extra allowances over the critics conclusions.  (extra steps or needed layers of allowances) hence making the tenable mormonism less rational than then the critics.

Edited February 25, 2019 by DBMormon

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

you haven't listened to the Timestamps that you said you would listen to.

If you mean the ones you gave me last night, I am in the process.  If there are more, I haven't seen them yet as this is the only thread I have read today (just woke up prior to posting in fact...need to go it breakfast).

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why is DB framing the narrative as a debate?

Has he called it a debate?   (sincere question)

Maybe we should just allow people to have time to actually listen to the podcasts, read both of these men's responses and opinions after the interviews were over, and then come to their own conclusions regarding what took place.  I think even if you get the timestamps (and actual quotes such as the one where Jim does state he would not want his daughter working for Joseph.....Bill's claim and then Jim agrees that he did say that.....but then clarifies which is good for listeners to read), listeners should be allowed to form their own opinions.  

Either way, Bill needs to given some time to come up with what you are asking.  He seems willing to try and meet the CFR.

Edited February 25, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If you mean the ones you gave me last night, I am in the process.  If there are more, I haven't seen them yet as this is the only thread I have read today (just woke up prior to posting in fact...need to go it breakfast).

No, just those from the other thread. I am heading back to work, can't wait to hear what you think. Take care Calm!

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I never said it was a debate either.  I simply said Jim Mormonism required Mormonism and his articulation of said Mormonism to give a lot of ground.  Jim's Mormonism is 100 fold better than the correlated version members are asked to believe.

And yet the 'review' you promoted certainly framed it that way.

Quote

Overthe 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.

You don't set out to get concessions in a friendly conversation about personal views.  You use the word "concessions" yourself, iirc.

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why is DB framing the narrative as a debate?

That's what I was disappointed by. Bill using words like "eviscerated" to describe the interview.