KIsh wrote...Yeah, the usual suspects saying the usual things. Yawn. I like to think about Mormonism, and I pay attention to others who have interesting things to say about Mormonism. I look forward to interacting with those people. You aren’t one of those people by your own choice.
LOl sure their inferior intellect bore you superior intellect. So I choose not to meet your standards? Classic.
KIsh wrote...I love how some unfortunate souls mistake disagreement for being told they have no right to have their own opinion. Does this actually work? You have a right to say things. I have a right to disagree with them. Is that so difficult to grasp?
I think those who pay attention can see why I said you were behaving like an entitled a-hole. Maybe you could join them in paying attention to what I already wrote.
HuH???? Focus, the issue is you don't back up your scattered assertions. Remember we, the unfortunate souls, are all to boring to talk to.
Kish wrote..This is really a hash, man. Would you mind editing your writing into something coherent? I get you are upset, but, please, make your messages into something resembling correct English. Yes, I have read Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, the book with the title that lays bare exactly how unbiased its creators were in producing it.
So what else did I read and study to form my opinions Kish? After all you should know to make such a statement, right?
In your reading of MSoR ....what chapters are skewed? What chapters are polemic?
Kish wrote...No, you seem to think you are entitled to have me approach everything about Mormonism through your binary framework. You come here itching for a fight because I didn’t approach the doctrine of deification in the way you felt would prove it to be some horrible thing. My frame of reference was much broader, and my purpose was entirely different, but you refuse to accept that. In your view, I just did it wrong by doing it differently. I am completely uninterested in your approach to Mormonism. You are an anti- Mormon, and I have no interest in what you have to say about the topic. I am interested in what the qualified historians and other scholars have to say. I am interested in what thoughtful people without some axe to grind have to say. I want to be in conversation with those people.
Dean Robbers is someone I respect because he often makes thought provoking observations. Sorry, but I haven’t seen anything like that from you. Ever. You behave like some 12-year-old kid with a chip on his shoulder. I have found this entire exchange to be a real drag and waste of my time.
LOL, LOL asking you to support your accusations about myself and the Tanners make me entitled? How did I itch for a fight when you stated my view of Joseph Smith is skewed?
If your are uninterested at my approach to Mormonism, then why on earth are you critical of my approach, what a tool. You are a poser in my opinion.
Again I see that I am just boring and a waste of time from a person that thinks they are a gift to LDS apologetics and a elite member of this board, as if that would even mean anything, but in reality has been side stepped and ignored, with no relevant contribution.
Just a little advice, if you want to build a following in post Mormonism, don't slam the Tanners, the Babe Ruth of post Mormonism and de-construction. Know your audience.
