Latest RFM Podcast Second Best in History?

[consiglieri]

Bill Reel forwarded me the link to Ryan McKnight's FB page in which Ryan states his belief the latest Radio Free Mormon Podcast is the second best in history for those interested in Mormonism.

https://www.facebook.com/FearlessFixxer

My only question is, "What's all this crap about second best?!"

*Shameless plug over*

[Corsair]

I may have some PTSD upon seeing a picture of DCP. Be sure to warn us next time!

Also, that was a very good episode dismantling those apologetic arguments.

[Red Ryder]

Who's the first best?

[consiglieri]

If you click the link, you will see that Ryan McKnight rates John Larsen's, "How to Build a Transoceanic Vessel" as number one of all time.

[consiglieri]

I may have some PTSD upon seeing a picture of DCP. Be sure to warn us next time!

Also, that was a very good episode dismantling those apologetic arguments.

Although I may not have made the point too clearly, what I learned was that the anti-Mormon tactics are pretty similar to the pro-Mormon tactics.

[Reuben]

If you click the link, you will see that Ryan McKnight rates John Larsen's, "How to Build a Transoceanic Vessel" as number one of all time.

That's a really good one. I'll definitely have to check yours out, then!

[Hagoth]

Bill Reel forwarded me the link to Ryan McKnight's FB page in which Ryan states his belief the latest Radio Free Mormon Podcast is the second best in history for those interested in Mormonism.

https://www.facebook.com/FearlessFixxer

My only question is, "What's all this crap about second best?!"

*Shameless plug over*

For what it's worth, Consig, I thought it was better than ME's transoceanic vessel episode. You have a better grasp on logic and rhetoric than those guys had on nautical engineering.

Please keep up the good work. I hope to hear more about the BYU police and freedom of information.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the kind words, Hagoth!

I really need to do a brief update on the whole police report thing.

I have heard back from the Utah Records Commission and have a hearing scheduled for July 12th.

Sounds like I'm not the only person wanting those records on for hearing that day . . .

[Mormorrisey]

It really was a well-done podcast - I'm a big fan of the Larsen article you referenced, it's a great read. Well done!

[moksha]

Who's the first best?

I think it may have been when that puppet dragon visited Brigham Young's outhouse. Not many such podcasts go on location. Talk about creating an authentic atmosphere for the viewers!

[jfro18]

So is Bill Reel a believing Mormon in any way, or does he just position himself to be?

I am sincerely wondering - when I listen to him, he doesn't seem to believe any of it... but then he did the Mormon Primer thing to try and give an apologetic way to digest some of the insane issues with the church... so I thought maybe he was sincerely trying to help people stay in the church.

[Corsair]

So is Bill Reel a believing Mormon in any way, or does he just position himself to be?

I am sincerely wondering - when I listen to him, he doesn't seem to believe any of it... but then he did the Mormon Primer thing to try and give an apologetic way to digest some of the insane issues with the church... so I thought maybe he was sincerely trying to help people stay in the church.

He was trying to help people stay in the church in his earlier material. His explanations were strained, but earnest and he genuinely wanted to help people. But the institutional LDS church just does not fit the philosophy of a man who wants to deeply study the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and not worry about all of the 19th century trappings that are awkwardly added to it. Bill would not stay within the bounds that the institutional church had set. The correlation department carefully presents their authorized structure of LDS teachings. But Bill kept studying deeply and following the evidence and spiritual promptings as best as he could.

For a long time, Bill had been wrestling with the contradictions in how to be Mormon and also be LGBT. Obviously, Bill is not gay as evidenced by his wife and children he loves dearly. But he recognized the deep conflict and wondered how this universalizing LDS gospel could somehow apply. If the LDS church is the one, true church then it must be true for everyone, including LGBT people. Should LGBT people be restricted from the most transcendent relationships in mortality in pursuit of the spiritual path marked by Joseph Smith? Obviously, this is a long discussion no matter where you stand on the matter.

I think Bill's breaking point was the November 2015 policy. He was deeply hurt by it. As for myself, I was deeply amused by this astonishingly tone deaf, legalistic policy knowing that all I had to do was nothing and just let it run its course. Bill is striving to be a good person (unlike myself) and felt a deep betrayal by this policy. After all the support and help that he had given to the church helping people deal with these issues, the church just turned the problems up to 11.

Bill knew he could no longer really be authentic and has been increasingly pulling back from the church. He and his family are on sabbatical and his podcasts should be taking on a more basic Christian flavor. I am watching his status with some interest. If Bill can't make Mormonism work, then it's becoming a narrow religion than fewer can really tolerate.

[jfro18]

So is Bill Reel a believing Mormon in any way, or does he just position himself to be?

I am sincerely wondering - when I listen to him, he doesn't seem to believe any of it... but then he did the Mormon Primer thing to try and give an apologetic way to digest some of the insane issues with the church... so I thought maybe he was sincerely trying to help people stay in the church.

Bill knew he could no longer really be authentic and has been increasingly pulling back from the church. He and his family are on sabbatical and his podcasts should be taking on a more basic Christian flavor. I am watching his status with some interest. If Bill can't make Mormonism work, then it's becoming a narrow religion than fewer can really tolerate.

Thanks - I got that feeling at times listening, but then I also felt it was pretty clear he was not really trying to keep people in the church (the constant reference to Bring'em Young is a bit of a tip off)... I've been hopping around for specific subjects so I can see the difference but it also felt like he still tries to take an apologetic approach to subjects even if he ultimately concedes they are a mess (the JST one is a good example of that).

Thanks for the history - that actually helps quite a bit to understand where he's coming from.

[MoPag]

So is Bill Reel a believing Mormon in any way, or does he just position himself to be?

I am sincerely wondering - when I listen to him, he doesn't seem to believe any of it... but then he did the Mormon Primer thing to try and give an apologetic way to digest some of the insane issues with the church... so I thought maybe he was sincerely trying to help people stay in the church.

Bill knew he could no longer really be authentic and has been increasingly pulling back from the church. He and his family are on sabbatical and his podcasts should be taking on a more basic Christian flavor. I am watching his status with some interest. If Bill can't make Mormonism work, then it's becoming a narrow religion than fewer can really tolerate.

Thanks - I got that feeling at times listening, but then I also felt it was pretty clear he was not really trying to keep people in the church (the constant reference to Bring'em Young is a bit of a tip off)... I've been hopping around for specific subjects so I can see the difference but it also felt like he still tries to take an apologetic approach to subjects even if he ultimately concedes they are a mess (the JST one is a good example of that).

Thanks for the history - that actually helps quite a bit to understand where he's coming from.

I think I read this on here, but I forgot who said it:

As Bill Reel is, John Dehlin once was.
As John Dehlin is, Bill Reel may become.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

As Bill Reel is, John Dehlin once was.
As John Dehlin is, Bill Reel may become.

Brilliant!

[Arcturus]

As Bill Reel is, John Dehlin once was.
As John Dehlin is, Bill Reel may become.

Great podcast episode Consiglieri! It would be entertaining to see any apologists' retorts.

On another note, how are you doing with MormonCorp these days, if you don't mind sharing? I'm curious if the Strengthening the Members Committee has given the directive to your local leadership to give you the boot after your Joseph Bishop episodes.

[consiglieri]

I am still managing to fly under the radar.

I have heard nothing from local church leaders after I was invited in to see the stake president last fall.

[consiglieri]

As to any apologist responses, here is the half-baked response Daniel Peterson wrote in his blog at Sic et Non.

____________________________

A bit more on the variant accounts of the First Vision


 June 10, 2018 by Dan Peterson


One of the many great treats afforded by the recent tour of Egypt that my wife and I accompanied was having Steve Smoot and Steve Densley among the group.


Some of you will be interested in an interview with Stephen Smoot by Tarik La Cour that has just appeared.


***


I published a column regarding the First Vision a couple of weeks ago:

“The supposed scandal of multiple First Vision accounts”


That column has received a remarkably harsh and angry response in certain quarters. (Plainly, I touched a nerve.) Several critics have vocally claimed not only that I was wrong, but that I was being deliberate deceitful. I am, it’s said, being justly demolished for my lies

Now, as it happens, I’m back in Virginia right now spending time with family, including my toddler granddaughter. This has entailed a number of activities, ranging from shoveling mulch through visiting a farmers market to walking baby and dogs. I haven’t been paying much attention to the responses, which apparently include at least one (and possibly two) podcasts. When and if I do pay serious attention, I’ll probably respond in some fashion or other.

In the meantime, I plead innocent to the charge of being a deliberate liar. (Why do certain types of critics immediately resort, quite commonly from the safe retreat of anonymity, to the harshest possible construal of such disagreements?) I’m pretty confident that nobody out there will actually be able to prove me a liar, since, simply, I’m not a liar and I wasn’t lying. And surely there are other options. Maybe I’m just stupid, for example, or incompetent, or ignorant, or blind.

Moreover, I point out (a) that the article in question is less than 740 words long and that (b) it was never intended as my last word on the topic nor as an exhaustive treatment of the issues that have been raised with regard to the First Vision.

In other words, I stand by it.

Is there more to be said? Yes. Of course. And, sooner or later, I’m likely to say it. There are only so many things that can be covered, though, in individual instantiations of a column that invariably runs between 736 and 739 words.

Of course, I also received some positive responses to the column. (The consensus that I’m a mendacious and toxic hack has never quite been unanimous.) One of them came via email from my longtime colleague Kent Jackson, recently retired from Brigham Young University. Here is what he wrote:

I started teaching the Pearl of Great Price in the mid-80s. By actual account, I taught 59 sections. If we estimate 40 students in each, I taught 2360 students. In every class, the students were required to read the four accounts of the First Vision, and we spent three days talking about the accounts and what we learn from them. Never once did a student raise a concern about differences, though we discussed them openly. You are right, this scandal is one of the most artificial complaints possible.

When I replied, asking whether I could quote him on my blog, Professor Jackson answered as follows:

Sure, of course!

Also, I included the four accounts in my 1996 book, From Apostasy to Restoration (Deseret Book), which has sold over 13,000 copies. If we were supposed to keep them under wraps, why didn’t anyone tell me?

By the way, even if it’s true that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t want to make the 1832 account public, that ended in the 1960s, which was over half a century ago! That’s ancient history. Paul Cheesman (BYU religion professor) analyzed the accounts in his 1965 MA thesis at BYU, then Dean Jessee published them in 1969. Yeah, keeping it under wraps.

Posted from Richmond, Virginia

[consiglieri]

My take on Daniel Peterson's response is pretty simple.

He wrote in his original column that there has been "no suppression" of the 1832 First Vision account.

This is where I called him out for lying.

The only way he could escape the charge of lying is by claiming he did not know about the fact Joseph Fielding Smith in the 1930s cut the 1832 account out of Letterbook 1 with a penknife and hid it in his safe for three decades until its existence became public knowledge and he was forced to tape it back in the Letterbook and have it "discovered" by Paul Cheeseman who was writing his master's thesis for BYU.

But as I fully expected, Daniel Peterson does know about this.

And in his response column quoted above, he admits to knowing about the suppression of the 1832 account by Joseph Fielding Smith, even though he appears to put this knowledge in the mouth of Kent P. Jackson whose email Professor Peterson quotes.

Here is the last paragraph of the article:

By the way, even if it’s true that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t want to make the 1832 account public, that ended in the 1960s, which was over half a century ago! That’s ancient history. Paul Cheesman (BYU religion professor) analyzed the accounts in his 1965 MA thesis at BYU, then Dean Jessee published them in 1969. Yeah, keeping it under wraps.

Well, it is true that JFS did not want to make the 1832 account public, and it is true "that ended in the 1960's," and it is true that "was over half a century ago."

But it is also true that JFS hid the 1832 account in his safe for three decades.

And it is true that hiding it in his safe for three decades amounts to "suppression" of the document.

Finally, what this means is that when Professor Peterson wrote in his original column that there has been "no suppression," he is not telling the truth.

And he knows he is not telling the truth.

Which unfortunately, makes Professor Peterson a liar.

[IT_Veteran]

<SNIP>
I started teaching the Pearl of Great Price in the mid-80s. By actual account, I taught 59 sections. If we estimate 40 students in each, I taught 2360 students. In every class, the students were required to read the four accounts of the First Vision, and we spent three days talking about the accounts and what we learn from them. Never once did a student raise a concern about differences, though we discussed them openly. You are right, this scandal is one of the most artificial complaints possible.

<SNIP>

Also, I included the four accounts in my 1996 book, From Apostasy to Restoration (Deseret Book), which has sold over 13,000 copies. If we were supposed to keep them under wraps, why didn’t anyone tell me?

Well damn, if 15,000 Mormons knew about it, certainly it couldn't have been suppression! I mean, that's almost 0.15% of the Mormon population (assuming 10M members in 1996 when he published his book). Doesn't matter that every Primary or Sunday School class I ever sat in, from age 6 onward, taught one narrative about one particular version of the first vision. Only one was ever in the correlated curriculum, so far as I can tell.

But we didn't suppress it, right?