CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Markk]

Kish wrote to Shades....Are you saying that if they are in Mormonism, they must be sought elsewhere because Mormonism is unacceptable as a phenomenon? I am trying to work out your thought process there.

LOL....Why should he give you his "Articles of Faith" for your satisfaction....classic kish, just classic! Gotta love it.

[Kishkumen]

LOL....Why should he give you his "Articles of Faith" for your satisfaction....classic kish, just classic! Gotta love it.

I see you are laughing, but you really shouldn't be. There is a difference between a thought process and an article of faith.

[Markk]

Then don't criticize others opinions Kish. You want to say others are wrong and then don't present your own opinions, like I wrote I believe that is weak. I am not asking you for a creed, I am asking you if you believe Joseph was a true prophet or not, which seems to be the case, I see no other option given you cryptic and scattered responses.

Markk, you may want to put words in other people's mouths so that you feel better, but I don't have to play along. I reject your assumptions, and I think you are behaving in a rude, obtuse, and bullying fashion by attributing thoughts and words to me that I have not consented to.

Moreover, I can certainly say that I don't agree with something in a measured tone on the channel. I am allowed to express opinions in my own forum: the channel.

LOL come on, you started it. And Kish, I keep trying to get to the questions and topics, to as you wrote to Shades, to understand your thought process.

And yes you can talk about anything you like on your podcast and rant all you want, and call folks names...go for it, but don't expect folks to comment and opine back and correct you, as I did.

How on earth am I bullying you...LoL, If you were clear and concise, I would not have to guess what your thought process is. Are you bullying me when you tell me what I believe without my consent....again classic!

[Kishkumen]

LOL come on, you started it. And Kish, I keep trying to get to the questions and topics, to as you wrote to Shades, to understand your thought process.

And yes you can talk about anything you like on your podcast and rant all you want, and call folks names...go for it, but don't expect folks to comment and opine back and correct you, as I did.

How on earth am I bullying you...LoL, If you were clear and concise, I would not have to guess what your thought process is. Are you bullying me when you tell me what I believe without my consent....again classic!

No, Markk, we are not three year old siblings in the back of mom and dad's Chevy. "You did it first." Grow up, man. You don't like my answers, but they are not going to change because they reflect what I actually think. If you don't understand that, cool. But just leave it alone after I have given you the same answer a couple of times. It is not a good look to hound people for a long time.

And, now that I know that you don't want to be mentioned on the channel, even without any mention of your name, because you can't handle that, or tough language like "smart aleck," I will be sure not to mention you at all. You have certainly wasted a lot of my good time in payment for the "grievous sins" I have committed.

I am clear and concise. What I am not is what you want. Simple.

[Markk]

LOL come on, you started it. And Kish, I keep trying to get to the questions and topics, to as you wrote to Shades, to understand your thought process.

And yes you can talk about anything you like on your podcast and rant all you want, and call folks names...go for it, but don't expect folks to comment and opine back and correct you, as I did.

How on earth am I bullying you...LoL, If you were clear and concise, I would not have to guess what your thought process is. Are you bullying me when you tell me what I believe without my consent....again classic!

No, Markk, we are not three year old siblings in the back of mom and dad's Chevy. "You did it first." Grow up, man. You don't like my answers, but they are not going to change because they reflect what I actually think. If you don't understand that, cool. But just leave it alone after I have given you the same answer a couple of times. It is not a good look to hound people for a long time.

And, now that I know that you don't want to be mentioned on the channel, even without any mention of your name, because you can't handle that, or tough language like "smart aleck," I will be sure not to mention you at all. You have certainly wasted a lot of my good time in payment for the "grievous sins" I have committed.

I am clear and concise. What I am not is what you want. Simple.

Kish you accused me of being rude, when in fact you started being rude with me almost out of the gate....go back and read.

You can mention me all you want on your podcast and by my online name if you want, it would be less cryptic I suppose. And you can call me names, that is fine also, but don't get butthurt when I opine back is all I ask.

You are not clear and concise, which is why Shades and I are asking you the questions we are. If you believe you are clear on your reluctance to back up your assertions towards others, yes, I concede you are crystal clear in that regard.

My question have been fair, very fair, and polite.

[Kishkumen]

Kish you accused me of being rude, when in fact you started being rude with me almost out of the gate....go back and read.

You can mention me all you want on your podcast and by my online name if you want, it would be less cryptic I suppose. And you can call me names, that is fine also, but don't get butthurt when I opine back is all I ask.

You are not clear and concise, which is why Shades and I are asking you the questions we are. If you believe you are clear on your reluctance to back up your assertions towards others, yes, I concede you are crystal clear in that regard.

My question have been fair, very fair, and polite.

Oh, sure, falsely accusing me of calling the lovely woman Sandra Tanner a cow, that was so fair and polite. You're just an innocent angel, aren't you?

[Markk]

Kish you accused me of being rude, when in fact you started being rude with me almost out of the gate....go back and read.

You can mention me all you want on your podcast and by my online name if you want, it would be less cryptic I suppose. And you can call me names, that is fine also, but don't get butthurt when I opine back is all I ask.

You are not clear and concise, which is why Shades and I are asking you the questions we are. If you believe you are clear on your reluctance to back up your assertions towards others, yes, I concede you are crystal clear in that regard.

My question have been fair, very fair, and polite.

Oh, sure, falsely accusing me of calling the lovely woman Sandra Tanner a cow, that was so fair and polite. You're just an innocent angel, aren't you?

This what you wrote, that started it, in regard to me reading Mormonism, Shadow and Reality, as one of my main sources of deconstruction after I a disagreed with you said..."If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period."
then later you wrote in context with my defense of the Tanners "research", and I quote.....

"You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows"

Anyone can go back and follow the conversation. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

[Kishkumen]

This what you wrote, that started it, in regard to me reading Mormonism, Shadow and Reality, as one of my main sources of deconstruction after I a disagreed with you said..."If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period."
then later you wrote in context with my defense of the Tanners "research", and I quote.....

"You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows"

Anyone can go back and follow the conversation. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Yeah, I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism. I have a hard time seeing what could be offensive about that. It is polemical by design. They intend to attack Mormonism. That is what polemics are.

And, yes, you hold the Tanners’ research as a sacred cow because it “saved” you from Mormonism.

Sometimes I think you either can’t read very well, or you are deliberately misconstruing everything others write and just hope no one catches you in your lies. It is as though you imagine merely repeating a transparently false charge will magically turn it into a true one.

[I Have Questions]

For what it’s worth, Markk, suggesting someone is a sacred cow is not the same as calling somebody a cow. A sacred cow is an idiom (a figurative label) for something or someone that a person holds as immune from criticism, often unreasonably so. For example, according to Church Leaders, Church Leaders are sacred cows.

[Kishkumen]

For what it’s worth, Markk, suggesting someone is a sacred cow is not the same as calling somebody a cow. A sacred cow is an idiom (a figurative label) for something or someone that a person holds as immune from criticism, often unreasonably so. For example, according to Church Leaders, Church Leaders are sacred cows.

Thank you, but it is also the case that I was not making specific reference to Sandra when I used that expression.