Jim Bennett: Standing My Ground

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

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

Come on Calm, you are putting words in his mouth (and your own interpretation).  Of course concessions can be made during an interview or discussion without officially calling something a "debate".  Bill even admits to making a few concessions too.

Have you listened to any of the podcasts yet?

(I'm still trying to find the time!!)

Edited February 25, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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

In one of his posts on here?  Or where?

Do you have the source or a link?  I agree that's extreme.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Now, it's good to hear more on this from Jim, but that does not make Bill's claim a lie or not accurate.

I am not saying DBM is lying about Bennett's comments.  I have never come close to making that claim.  If my writing has implied it, please let me know where so I can better express myself.

What my issue has always been is DBM has presented Bennett's positions in a simplistic, black and white framing.  Knowing Bennett is a thoughtful thinker, that was a red flag for me right there.

That DBM continues to seem to think his paraphrases are almost equivalent when Bennett obviously feels differently and demonstrates this by adding essential context emphasizes to me I don't want to read DB's interpretations, but Bennett's.

I have got to go eat and do real life things.  Be back later.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[DBMormon]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

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

those weren't my words.  I was clear they were the words of a listener.  Can people report what others say without it being assumed its their words.  Surely we are better than that.  But yes I did says concessions but that is separate from the words i said came from a listener.  Can someone not in a debate make concessions?

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by DBMormon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

.  I think it's a bit over the top to ask for timestamps on each of the concessions that took place, 

If someone makes claims about someone else's comments, they should be obligated to back them up.  I am not asking for all the alleged concessions, but rather the ones promoted by Reel.  If he can take the time to write them up, he should be able to take the time to find them.  Or he can just wait around for someone else to provide them for him as appears to have happened from Tacenda...points to her for doing what Reel should have automatically included (given how the forum works, if he wasn't expecting a CFR for time stamps, he hasn't been paying attention).

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[DBMormon]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone makes claims about someone else, they should be obligated to back them up.  I am not asking for all the alleged concessions, but rather the ones promoted by Reel.  If he can take the time to write them up, he should be able to take the time to find them.  Or he can just wait around for someone else to provide them for him as appears to have happened from Tacenda...points to her for doing what Reel should have automatically included (given how the forum works, if he wasn't expecting a CFR for time stamps, he hasn't been paying attention).

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.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone makes claims about someone else, they should be obligated to back them up. 

You didn't include the rest of my sentence "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!"  So yes, I would like to see his responses as well, but give him some time here.

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Or he can just wait around for someone else to provide them for him as appears to have happened from Tacenda

Wasn't Tacenda doing that in response to your request directed at her (you asked her for the timestamp)?  Here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71610-bill-reel-vs-jim-bennett/?do=findComment&comment=1209889578

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

those weren't my words.  I was clear they were the words of a listener.  Can people report what others say without it being assumed its their words.  Surely we are better than that.  But yes I did says concessions but that is separate from the words i said came from a listener.  Can someone not in a debate make concessions?

 

I didn't assume they were your words, just that you approved of them.

Are you now saying you don't agree with them...even though you posted them without criticism as your first post on the topic and then in your next post put up the top "concessions" the "listener" talks about?

Don't suppose you could drop the "listener" tack, it just looks silly for you to label your co-host, RFM as if he is a random listener who just happens to give a raving review.

When concessions become the primary talking point about a 'conversation', it is being framed as a debate, imo.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You didn't include the rest of my sentence "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!"

Wasn't she doing that on your request (you asked her for the timestamp)?

I am going to go eat and then read both threads trying not to respond, so hopefully we will be more or less on the same page when I show up again.  I should have done it that way first.

I have got to go exercise too or I will forget that again, so may be a couple of hours.

Btw, the point for me is I want to hear how Bennett frames his comments whether or not there is disagreement with what DBM has claimed.  Bennett says things in a thoughtful, nuanced way.  I just don't see DBM's paraphrasing coming close to expressing those thoughts and the emotions attached to them.

It is not for me about challenging DBM's interpretation (though that may come with some or all...or none if I think Bennett's own response is sufficient), but preferring Bennett's own words to any paraphrase, no matter who is doing it. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am going to go eat and then read both threads trying not to respond, so hopefully we will be more or less on the same page when I show up again.  I should have done it that way first.

I have got to go exercise too or I will forget that again, so may be a couple of hours.

Btw, the point for me is I want to hear how Bennett frames his comments whether or not there is disagreement with what DBM has claimed.  Bennett says things in a thoughtful, nuanced way.  I just don't see DBM's paraphrasing coming close to expressing those thoughts and the emotions attached to them.

It is not for me about challenging DBM's interpretation (though that may come with some or all...or none if I think Bennett's own response is sufficient), but preferring Bennett's own words to any paraphrase, no matter who is doing it.

Well, the initial comments were specifically regarding what was stated in the podcasts.  Have you listened to them?

I agree that we should read Bennett's response and take that into account now.....but what was initially posted was before his response.  We can't really expect Bill to know what Jim was going to write up.  I think it's great he did (respond) as it clarifies some of what he stated and gives more insight and detail.

It's also good you posted it in a separate thread, but agree that the two may be getting confused!

Edited February 25, 2019 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

2 hours 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!

It is because you distort his position on each and every issue!  Why? Why not tell the truth?  Why deceive people even knowing that your deceit will easily be discovered?  What makes people act this way?  I just don't get it. It gives the impression that individuals become enthralled with lies and lying becomes their pursuit rather than anything else. 

It is one of the first evidences of a heart gone black. 

[DBMormon]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is because you distort his position on each and every issue!  Why? Why not tell the truth?  Why deceive people even knowing that your deceit will easily be discovered?  What makes people act this way?  I just don't get it. It gives the impression that individuals become enthralled with lies and lying becomes their pursuit rather than anything else. 

It is one of the first evidences of a heart gone black. 

I see through a heart less darkly..... People see what they want to see.  My cold dark heart sees that much.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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).  

 

Oi vey!

Fine, maybe he didn't anticipate a debate but he might have figured that out by hour 3 or 4, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, or 12. He's a smart guy. You're making Jim out to be a victim here. I don't think he's a victim because I don't feel he was victimized. He did a good job. He held his own. It didn't appear he was suckered into anything and I don't think he lost anything. Do you?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

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

You don't like Bill's hyperbole? Big deal.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of angst and vitriol that pours out when Bill becomes part of the story. By the level of offence people seem to take you'd think he was a sitting Bishop caught in a human trafficking and prostitution sting. But no, that was an actual sitting bishop.

Why can't everyone take a breath and realize that yes, Bill has an agenda. Yes, he speaks with hyperbole. But like I said, Big deal. Getting so offended and attacking him so adamantly only makes me think people are afraid of him for some reason. It's super weird.

[cdowis]

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 mistake.
Yawn

Why God calls prophets in our day
https://youtu.be/5MMfh-0XzqQ
2. They are completely wrong on the LGBT issue
See above

 

3. He wouldn’t let his daughter work in the Smith Home knowing what he does
OK.  I have four daughters, and would have no problem, knowing what I know.

4. The Book of Abraham in a vacuum is deeply in favor of the critics conclusion
Just curious, how many of the critics have a {hD in Egyptology from UCLA.  Please share with us their credentials by name.

Anyway ==>>

Kerry Muhlestein,. PhD in Egyptology at UCLA talks about recent research on the Book of Abraham.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzU6C5Wb8U
https://youtu.be/gCH529IgDrY
https://youtu.be/6EHKY1NUmcg?t=1m10s
He has a playlist of 15 videos on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzU6C5Wb8U

Dr. Muhlestein's credentials == 
PhD in Egyptology at UCLA
Chairman of a national committee for the American Research Center in Egypt and serves on their Research Supporting Member Council.
He has also served on a committee for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, and currently serves on their Board of Trustees and as a Vice President of the organization.

Senior Fellow of the William F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research.

Participating with the International Association of Egyptologists, and has worked with Educational Testing Services on their AP World History test. He gave a presentation at the international Egyptological conference in Moscow held in the fall of 2009.

Published articles in professional journals including the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. 
A sampling of Dr. Muhlestein’s other Egyptological work includes: “Binding with Heraldic Plants,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, 2 vols., ed. Jean-Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse Studies, 2007), 1335–41; “Empty Threats? How Egyptians’ Self-Ontology Affect the Way We Read Many Texts,” JSSEA 34 (2007): 115–30; “Execration Ritual,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich (Los Angeles, Cali.: UCLA, 2008), online athttp://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000s3mqr (Accessed February 27, 2013); “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” in The Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 51/2 (2008): 181–208; “Teaching Egyptian History: Some Discipline-Specific Pedagogical Notes,” in The Journal of Egyptian History, 2/1–2 (2009): 173–231.

5. Priesthood blessings to an outside observer have no more power to heal than the healing rituals of any other system
I am waiting to hear your point.

6. Joseph lacked integrity and fidelity with Emma
I would agree that she had an issue with polygamy and he felt it best to avoid detailed discussions of this subject for the sake of marital harmony.  She was knowledgeable of the practice.  I disagree with your description of his character we each will be held accountable before the bar of God on our relationship with the Prophets called by God.

7. The Church teaches us to harm others at times (prop 8, miracle of forgiveness, LGBT policies)
May I suggest that you become closely acquainted with the scriptures.  They can indeed be painful those who are deeply involved in sin.

 

 

 

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't like Bill's hyperbole? Big deal.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of angst and vitriol that pours out when Bill becomes part of the story. By the level of offence people seem to take you'd think he was a sitting Bishop caught in a human trafficking and prostitution sting. But no, that was an actual sitting bishop.

Why can't everyone take a breath and realize that yes, Bill has an agenda. Yes, he speaks with hyperbole. But like I said, Big deal. Getting so offended and attacking him so adamantly only makes me think people are afraid of him for some reason. It's super weird.

I agree and it's amazing to watch.  No one here really wants to discuss the ACTUAL PODCASTS (that I can tell).  But just mention Bill Reel's name and that seems to trigger a lot of anger and hate (ok....strong dislike  ).  Is there a history here that I'm not aware of?  Just wondering.....

I do have to say that I'm impressed with Jim Bennett for at least agreeing to discuss these topics with Bill.  I am wondering if he spoke too plainly though and is now worried about church leaders hearing some of what he believes or feels.  I really don't blame him for at least trying to clarify a few things.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by ALarson

[JulieM]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't like Bill's hyperbole? Big deal.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of angst and vitriol that pours out when Bill becomes part of the story. By the level of offence people seem to take you'd think he was a sitting Bishop caught in a human trafficking and prostitution sting. But no, that was an actual sitting bishop.

Right?  That barely caused a ripple here.  Of course, everyone knew this guy was doing something very wrong, but I didn’t see the outrage that I’m seeing against Bill Reel.  Very odd!!

Plus, almost all who are the most upset and going after him won’t or at least haven’t even listened to the interviews!

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't like Bill's hyperbole? Big deal.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of angst and vitriol that pours out when Bill becomes part of the story. By the level of offence people seem to take you'd think he was a sitting Bishop caught in a human trafficking and prostitution sting. But no, that was an actual sitting bishop.

Why can't everyone take a breath and realize that yes, Bill has an agenda. Yes, he speaks with hyperbole. But like I said, Big deal. Getting so offended and attacking him so adamantly only makes me think people are afraid of him for some reason. It's super weird.

angst, vitriol, offended, attacking, afraid? Nah. I'll always consider Bill a friend. I just didn't like how that played out with the interview being congenial but then the aftermath like a sucker punch. 

[Teancum]

15 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

 

Ah well so Bennett is like most apologists.  No real surprise here. 

I have not listened to the podcast but I think I might given the differing views of what Reel vs Bennett is saying. 

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

😂😂

[Navidad]

6 hours 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. 

The tragedy doesn't come from trying to "score points." It comes in trying to "score converts" - on both sides.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why can't everyone take a breath and realize that yes, Bill has an agenda. Yes, he speaks with hyperbole. But like I said, Big deal. Getting so offended and attacking him so adamantly only makes me think people are afraid of him for some reason. It's super weird.

Pointing out that someone is attempting to 'score points' using cheap rhetorical sleights and high school-level debate tactics is not the same thing, at all, as getting offended or adamantly attacking someone. It's super weird to me that you choose to see it that way.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The tragedy doesn't come from trying to "score points." It comes in trying to "score converts" - on both sides.

You find the Great Commission tragic?

[Navidad]

I hope for a very different sort of inter-faith dialogue. No debating, no winning, no points, no converts, very few "you" statements. I would hope for an exchange of thoughts, candid feelings, and removing blindfolds to reveal how the other faith makes me feel, how it comes across to me, how I feel when I leave a service or read a talk - all of this on  a personal level with me initiating or responding with "I" statements. 

It seems that the rules, boundaries, expectations, purposes, etc. all go afoul when they are hidden or betrayed by one or both. That is what makes God Cry. I think that sharing is so much better than preaching, debating, or polemics. I have certainly not always been a good model of this; you all know that. I am sorry for that. I have offended some of you and have in turn been offended by some of you. None of that honors our Lord and Savior, our respective faiths, nor is it healing. When we approach MMM or Hawn's Mill from the purpose of finding fault, all we find is bias confirmation. When we share how each impacts us as a person of faith even some 180 years or so later, that is ground for mutual understanding. If I understand how I and my beliefs make you feel, I can respond to you as a person, not an enemy, one who is present to compete with you for the scarce resources of the "truth."

Yesterday at the ward was very hard for me. I wish I could share that with one or more of you without being Mormonsplained. It was hard, ok? I struggle with coming home from church feeling less than when I went. Some of that comes from within me; some of it comes from the teachings, and some come from the kind faces of those who know I am uncomfortable, but don't know how to help. I believe we are where God wants us to be right now so that we will be taught something we need to be taught. That isn't Mormon doctrine by the way. It is more likely something along the lines of me learning to be kinder, gentler, longsuffering (this long?), less apt to talk, less judgmental, and less stereotypical. You all probably won't convert me; but you are certainly helping me be a better man and a better Mennonite, and more sensitive to the Holy Spirit who already dwells in my being, His temple. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Navidad

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You find the Great Commission tragic?

Yes I do my friend - when used to convert someone who already holds the atonement in his heart, along side of the Holy Spirit, and the Prince of Peace as his savior.