CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8029
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Rivendale wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:56 am
Lol. Okay
You think the motivations don’t differ? You think they are all the same thing?
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6968
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Moksha »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:00 am
Rivendale wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:56 am
Lol. Okay
You think the motivations don’t differ? You think they are all the same thing?
Dan Vogel would point out that we are pious!!!
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8029
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Markk wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am
LOL, you are the sensitive one and rather up and down. You made some very direct assertions about me and when I question you about them, you call me names, and then do a podcast about our conversation, without ever address my questions and point of view.

Kish just answer my questions, then you can ask me questions and we can discuss the issues that you disagreed with is all I ask, I could care less if we agree or disagree, but if you are going to assert I am wrong, at least opine your position.

You weren't lightly teasing me...LOL are you kidding me, you had a melt down and did a podcast to vent, where I could not defend my position, which is weak.
Ah, I get it. You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows and now this has become a “big man” issue for you. This is your version of challenging me to a fight after school. If I refer to our conversation on YouTube, then in your mind I am not “being a man” and “saying it to your face.”

Wow. :lol:

Let me just say that I left middle school years ago, and my mind left with me. I don’t feel the need to play overgrown boy masculinity games.
A few of my questions so far you ducked...

Do you believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God? Why is that so hard to answer?
Because it is a meaningless question to me, as I have already explained.
And, after you negative words toward the Tanners, and my using their ministry to get the truth of a church that lied to me for 33 years....
There we have it. The source of the butt hurt, and why you have been so touchy, rude, and hostile. Dude. Get a grip. I just said that I don’t agree with what they do. I don’t like the anti-other religion cottage industry model. Sorry, not sorry! You are thankful they helped you. That’s great for you. I don’t have to share your view. I agree that they are nice, well-meaning, decent folk.
"what is the difference between the Tanners, and RFM and Vogel"....and please see the context as to why I asked you that question.
Um, RFM and Vogel are not attacking fellow Christians to get them to leave their church, while not seeing the beam in their own eye, and making their livelihood by doing so. I think my view on that is easy to understand. Pretty straightforward.
If you do not believe that Joseph used the new and everlasting covenant for sexual satisfaction, what did he use it for?
I think he was trying to take care of a lot of issues at once. He was trying to build a loyal core of connected families in a dynastic arrangement. He was trying to find a way to satisfy his sexual desires in what he saw as a divinely sanctioned arrangement with biblical precedents. I think he believed God instructed him to do it. We don’t have to believe that, of course. Simplistic explanations don’t reflect the complexity of the phenomenon itself.
And why didn't he canonize it?, is a question I ask myself if he truly believed it was from God, why did he keep it secret and only shared it with his inner trusts?
He didn’t canonize it because the revelation came so late and it was a bombshell. It cost him his life. I don’t see what is so mysterious about this. Clearly he was developing a system of higher ordinances in secret before he rolled it all out before the entire church.
Do you believe that Joseph actually believed he could offer salvation (deification) to these women if they married him, and I guess that he was doing them an eternal favor so to speak, if they agreed to marry him?
I believe that he felt he received his exaltation during the first vision along with the sealing power described in the Book of Mormon. He also believed he had the priesthood by birthright. He was just trying to develop a system whereby he could transmit the blessings to others. One mechanism was polygamy. I think it was a very bad decision. A flop. And a hurtful one.
Markk
Prophet
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Markk »

Ah, I get it. You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows and now this has become a “big man” issue for you. This is your version of challenging me to a fight after school. If I refer to our conversation on YouTube, then in your mind I am not “being a man” and “saying it to your face.”

Wow. :lol:
LOL, no you don't get it. I am not pissed off at all. I am actually amazed seeing you go up and down contradicting yourself over and over. Maybe you have a issues with highs and lows and can't control your self, I don't know, but it appears you do.

You accuse Sandra (& Jerald) of not being a good source to learn about Mormonism, then you retract it and say you love her, now you are calling her a sacred cow....

I think it was and weak of you to make assertions about me or a subject we are discussing, and then run away from answering pertinent questions I ask, and then rant about them on a podcast.

As far as saying to my face....just answer the questions. But again maybe you can't, and that is not a challenge but a observation. It appears that you can't help yourself from just lashing out, like calling Sandra a cow. But your MO appears to be you feel bad when you lash out and try to talk it down, however Kish, the cover up is always worse than the crime. "lightly critical" Kish you were upset and whining, just admit it.

Personally I have a lot of respect for Jerald and Sandra Tanner, but for the record you clearly don't. To you she is just a cow to people who respect and appreciate her work.
Kish wrote...Because it is a meaningless question to me, as I have already explained.
Kish, I am trying to figure out what you believe, you are so all over the place and scattered. If you don't want to open up fine, but you probably should not criticize others when they do. Conversations work best when both open up and have a two way discussion, I guess you are not built that way. I think Joseph as a false prophet and a very bad man....don't criticize it if you won't tell me your view on it, in my view.
There we have it. The source of the butt hurt, and why you have been so touchy, rude, and hostile. Dude. Get a grip. I just said that I don’t agree with what they do. I don’t like the anti-other religion cottage industry model. Sorry, not sorry! You are thankful they helped you. That’s great for you. I don’t have to share your view. I agree that they are nice, well-meaning, decent folk.
You started it Kish, read you posts. I am not asking you to share my view, I get we are different. My question was and is what is the difference between her, than RFM and Vogel, in that it appeared to me it was because she is a Christian. You can simple go back and read our exchange and see that is one of my questions that you are upset about. But thanks for answering this, even if your answer was not very well thought out.
Um, RFM and Vogel are not attacking fellow Christians to get them to leave their church, while not seeing the beam in their own eye, and making their livelihood by doing so. I think my view on that is easy to understand. Pretty straightforward.
RFM/Reel...."Holland is a liar...but hey I am not trying to affect your testimony".....Vogel...."Joseph Smith is a pious fraud, but hey all you saints, stay in the church."

LOL, are you kidding me, they attack Mormons all day long, the very ones you claimed here where your people. This is a classic one. Do you honestly believe what they say and write is a positive to strengthen the Membership? Again my hypocrisy only goes so far, yours seems to have no bounds. LOL simply classic. Sandra is a Cow, and these guys are are what....the best as you said? Who do you think have lead more Mormons out of the church. Vogel and RFM....or Sandra and Jerald?

There is a great quote from the Out Law Josey Wales,
"Don't piss on my back and tell me it is raining."
I have to run to work, I'll finish this up later. But thanks for answering some of the questions.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Marcus »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2024 11:33 pm
Why so sensitive, Markk? I don’t really think of these things as direct responses to you so much as thoughts generated by our discussion. I am puzzled as to why you are so pushy about all of this. I haven’t seen or interacted with you in ages, and suddenly you are here pestering me about my YouTube channel. I felt like I was pretty measured and lighthearted in the video references to our disagreement. I didn’t seek to hurt your feelings or insult you. At best, I would say I lightly teased you by calling you a smart aleck. I have partially answered you, and I may answer you further, but you have not ceased being rude, entitled, and strident the entire time. Not exactly endearing or persuasive.
You take disagreements you have with people here onto your personal podcast, and talk about them?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8029
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:13 pm
You take disagreements you have with people here onto your personal podcast, and talk about them?
I think "alluded to it" would be more accurate.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8029
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Markk wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:11 pm
LOL, no you don't get it. I am not pissed off at all. I am actually amazed seeing you go up and down contradicting yourself over and over. Maybe you have an issues with highs and lows and can't control your self, I don't know, but it appears you do.
Sure, Markk. :roll:
You accuse Sandra (& Jerald) of not being a good source to learn about Mormonism, then you retract it and say you love her, now you are calling her a sacred cow....
Um, no, there is no contradiction. Maybe you don't understand what I am saying. That's different. I don't agree with her ethical position. We can disagree and I can still genuinely like her as a person. I don't see why that is so difficult for you to get.
I think it was and weak of you to make assertions about me or a subject we are discussing, and then run away from answering pertinent questions I ask, and then rant about them on a podcast.

As far as saying to my face....just answer the questions. But again maybe you can't, and that is not a challenge but an observation. It appears that you can't help yourself from just lashing out, like calling Sandra a cow. But your MO appears to be you feel bad when you lash out and try to talk it down, however Kish, the cover up is always worse than the crime. "lightly critical" Kish you were upset and whining, just admit it.
What actually happened was that I used our discussion as a jumping off point for my own video. I alluded to our conversation in the course of that. You are misconstruing it and blowing it totally out of proportion. And, I did answer your questions, Markk. You know I did, and now you just want to repeat your BS for rhetorical effect, which is what most of your aggressive posturing is about.
Personally I have a lot of respect for Jerald and Sandra Tanner, but for the record you clearly don't. To you she is just a cow to people who respect and appreciate her work.
Ha! Wow. So predictable. I never called Sandra Tanner a cow. Wow, so it goes to dishonesty. Please do not pretend that you aren't pissed off. Don't lie dude. It is clear how upset you are, because you are either too upset to read what I wrote, or you are angry enough to misrepresent it.

I have plenty of respect for many things about the Tanners. I do not agree with attacks on one religion in the name of another religion. Is that helping you understand? Simple enough?
Kish, I am trying to figure out what you believe, you are so all over the place and scattered. If you don't want to open up fine, but you probably should not criticize others when they do. Conversations work best when both open up and have a two way discussion, I guess you are not built that way. I think Joseph as a false prophet and a very bad man....don't criticize it if you won't tell me your view on it, in my view.
I don't think my personal beliefs are material to the discussion. You want to make something out of it because this is what it is ALL about for you. I don't have to occupy that space with you, man. I really don't care what you believe about Joseph Smith.
You started it Kish, read you posts. I am not asking you to share my view, I get we are different. My question was and is what is the difference between her, than RFM and Vogel, in that it appeared to me it was because she is a Christian. You can simple go back and read our exchange and see that is one of my questions that you are upset about. But thanks for answering this, even if your answer was not very well thought out.
I do not agree with attacks on one religion in the name of another religion.
RFM/Reel...."Holland is a liar...but hey I am not trying to affect your testimony".....Vogel...."Joseph Smith is a pious fraud, but hey all you saints, stay in the church."

LOL, are you kidding me, they attack Mormons all day long, the very ones you claimed here where your people. This is a classic one. Do you honestly believe what they say and write is a positive to strengthen the Membership? Again my hypocrisy only goes so far, yours seems to have no bounds. LOL simply classic. Sandra is a Cow, and these guys are are what....the best as you said? Who do you think have lead more Mormons out of the church. Vogel and RFM....or Sandra and Jerald?

There is a great quote from the Out Law Josey Wales,
"Don't piss on my back and tell me it is raining."
I have to run to work, I'll finish this up later. But thanks for answering some of the questions.
I do not agree with attacks on one religion in the name of another religion. We can keep going if you like.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 3063
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by huckelberry »

It is too bad that personal hostility or perhaps momentary anger has figured so largely in this discussion. There are ways it touches on sensitive personal points so it is difficult. I imagined saying something to bring peace, It is not likely to succeed.

I am old enough that while in Jr hi, about 1962 I discovered in the public library some interesting books on Mormonism. There was a book by Bennett on Nauvoo spiritual wifery and an book by Howe that had a lot strange Smith and gold hunting stories. Being a curious kid I read them both but was well enough prepared by the church that I thought it amazing what falsehoods antimormon folks could come up. Those neighbors must have really hated on Mormons to tell such tales about Joseph. And Bennett , my my what a wicked man he was.

I do not remember the church addressing any of the specifics of these two strange books but the idea of evil antimormon folks was clearly presented. I remember vague but frightening allusions to some bad bookstore in SL. Occasionally perhaps later identified with Tanners. They were bad people doing bad things. If you are young the church self protective hate campaign against bad sources can screw deep into one's emotions. It was over twenty years after I left the church that I had occasion to visit the Tanner store. I felt some strange trepidation though I survived without incident and met with no devils.

Somewhere I read that the church supported a campaign to remove books like Bennett's from public libraries. No hating on religions. I do not know if the report is accurate but such books are no longer available here in the public library. It is perhaps ok that they are not. Or perhaps it is not.

I watched the discussion between John Dehlin and Sandra Tanner linked on first page of this thread. I found enjoyment in hearing it. I respect Sandra but lacks expertise and would not expect her to be a good source of analysis of Bible problems and trustworthiness. There are multitudes of books on that from all sorts of views from people with focused expertise. It is clear Sandra has thought about those questions but it is ok if she lets the details mostly be her private thoughts.

Her responses about problems in traditional Christianity were to the problems John thought to ask her about. I thought her responses were at least reasonably thoughtful. Somebody might think that Christianity's biggest problem is not some Bible tangle but the degree to which there is a legacy of violence abuse and lust for dictatorial power. More difficult a problem but John did not ask that.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8029
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Thanks for sharing that, huckelberry. I watched the interview, and I enjoyed it. I was not upset with Sandra. I have never been upset with her. I don’t have anything against her. I simply do not agree with attacking one religion in the name of another religion. I don’t see why it is so difficult for people to understand that I can like a person and not agree with certain choices they have made. I feel the same toward our friend ceeboo, who will cast his vote for Trump. If I can manage that, surely I can manage accepting this situation with equanimity.
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Rivendale »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:00 am
Rivendale wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:56 am
Lol. Okay
You think the motivations don’t differ? You think they are all the same thing?
Of course they differ. Speaking of bizarre, this hill you apparently want to die on in the infancy of your podcast is bizarre on steroids. Quit targeting people on a relatively obscure blog that disagree with you.Target the idea not the person. Not a good look . For those following, Sandra Tanner when asked why she dosen't turn this critical eye to her own faith she simply said it dosen't excuse the problems in Mormonism. I get why that can be interpreted as evangelical attacks. I get why this is genre of religion against religion is unsavory and I agree. Vogel, Bill, and Rfm are doing the same thing. They just do it with a curtsey and others do it with Michael Flatley style.
Post Reply