Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Markk]

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 I disagree in context....you can say that about any anti-anything. I never took offense, I stated what after you said that...

Mark wrote...Well, given I was born and raised in the church 5th and 6th polygamous pioneer stock. Understanding LDS theology I couldn't disagree with you more. Exposing truths and putting them out there for folks to make discissions on in not polemical to me. Their journey out of Mormonism was hardly abrupt. It was a step by step journey out uncovering truth after truth that was hidden or forgotten.

My view was and is then, that I was fully aware o LDS doctrines and what I was taught....and that reading MSoR....brought to me truths that I had no idea about. At the time I looked into Jehovah Witness, SDA, and even Swedenborg-ism...while learning the truth about my faith.

The Tanners did not just leave the church for Christianity....they went to a LDS offshoot and rejected the Utah sect while stll holding onto the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith (to a degree).

What you said to me was not offense, I just believed you were wrong. me finding out Elijah Ables, or that Joseph Smith had a pistol at the jail, or their was not PH before Rigdon according to my wife....had nothing to do with Christianity or my future ideology and faith (what I believe and why).

You attack Mormonism, I attack Mormonism, RFM attacks Mormonism, Vogel does, even Bushman does....all in different ways, The common denominator is they all expose/ed truth claims. And if this was say the NFL, NBA, or MLBB, the Tanner's would be a first ballet Hall or Fame inductees. The Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, or Tom Brady of LDS counter apologetics, which we are all doing here. They would be on the Mount Rushmore, along with John Dehlin for sure, then the debate starts. Vogel would have my vote, along with William Law. Honorable mentions Jeremy Runnells, RFM, Metcalf for sure.

From a evangelical position of anti's for me it is Walter Martin, Carma Naylor....and mostly Ron Rhodes....these are the ones for me that lead the way out of Mormonism to my current protestant faith. But there are many more.

Point being have all have skewed personal views. Are you saying you have it all figured out and you are some how beyond reproach? Your posts reflect that you do.

More later.

[Moksha]

I actually think that there is, in a way, a good service that's performed there because Mormon ideas wouldn't be the foundation of a different religion, or a different Christianity, if they were the same old thing as the regular Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Christianity.

A Jesus of limited compassion and abridged love, who influences the Salt Lake Brethren regarding issues of race, civil rights, gender, and whether white salamanders are in or out.

[Markk]

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

LOL where did I say that? You are just making stuff up now. This is what you wrote..." You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows ..." How is that "Tanners Research?" Again the cover up is worse that the crime.

You called Sandra a cow, a sacred one. I can take it further that you called her/Jerald a pagan idol and me a idol worshipper....right?

KIsh wrote...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.

Now I am a liar Hmmm....what did I lie about Kish? Kish, It appears you can't control your tongue. Oh well, carry on.

[Kishkumen]

At the end of the day, I feel comfortable in my disagreement with attacks on one religion in the name of another religion. I like Sandra Tanner. It is possible for me to like her and disagree with her. It is also possible for me to appreciate that there were good outcomes from her crusade to convert Mormons away from Mormonism and make the LDS Church look bad. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t attacking Mormonism as a Christian. If you don’t like the fact that I don’t approve of this goal, please just accept that we will not agree and move on. I have not read anything here that has in any way changed my opinion. It has been heartwarming, still, to see such an outpouring of appreciation of the Tanners.

[Kishkumen]

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

LOL where did I say that? You are just making stuff up now. This is what you wrote..." You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows ..." How is that "Tanners Research?" Again the cover up is worse that the crime.

You called Sandra a cow, a sacred one. I can take it further that you called her/Jerald a pagan idol and me a idol worshipper....right?

KIsh wrote...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.

Now I am a liar Hmmm....what did I lie about Kish? Kish, It appears you can't control your tongue. Oh well, carry on.

You lied when you accused me of calling Sandra Tanner a cow. It was a vicious lie, and you can’t accept that you did it. Instead you want me to bear the taint of your false accusation. I find that despicable and hateful.

[Markk]

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

LOL where did I say that? You are just making stuff up now. This is what you wrote..." You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows ..." How is that "Tanners Research?" Again the cover up is worse that the crime.

You called Sandra a cow, a sacred one. I can take it further that you called her/Jerald a pagan idol and me a idol worshipper....right?



Now I am a liar Hmmm....what did I lie about Kish? Kish, It appears you can't control your tongue. Oh well, carry on.

You lied when you accused me of calling Sandra Tanner a cow. It was a vicious lie, and you can’t accept that you did it. Instead you want me to bear the taint of your false accusation. I find that despicable and hateful.

You said she was a sacred cow... I certainly did not say it, go back and read what you wrote.... "You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows..."

Again the cover up is worse that the crime, almost always in these type of things.

Then you made it worse by trying to push off what you said, that it was her research that you called a sacred cow which is just a sad dodge in my opinion, it does in no way fit the context of your post. Especially in that her research holds a bench mark in Mormon apologetics and history.

I have to add that your argument is that the intend to attack Mormonism. I was on driving this morning and I streamed a episode of Mormonism Live that aired about a month ago called "Laughing at the Ridiculousness of Mormonism." In the episode RFM was busting a gut, as was I. It was very very funny and it would be very offensive to a TBM or even one struggling, for sure, no doubt. Yet when I ask you what the difference is between Sandra, RFM, and Vogel....you just double down on Sandra and say that RMF is the greatest.

I would think that Sandra offering hope against the lies of Mormonism would be at least equal to RFM LHAO at a members expense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20jWMF4M8fo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mprhB-U6osE

[Kishkumen]

You said she was a sacred cow... I certainly did not say it, go back and read what you wrote.... "You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows..."

Again the cover up is worse that the crime, almost always in these type of things.

Good Lord you are dishonest. I never said that. Not once. I never called Sandra any kind of cow. What a troll.

I have to add that your argument is that the intend to attack Mormonism. I was on driving this morning and I streamed a episode of Mormonism Live that aired about a month ago called "Laughing at the Ridiculousness of Mormonism." In the episode RFM was busting a gut, as was I. It was very very funny and it would be very offensive to a TBM or even one struggling, for sure, no doubt. Yet when I ask you what the difference is between Sandra, RFM, and Vogel....you just double down on Sandra and say that RMF is the greatest.

Yeah, I found it very funny too! I think you simply don’t understand why I differ in opinion from you. So? Yeah, we have differing opinions. I don’t really care, nor do I feel the need to try to change your opinion. It would be pointless, since you can’t seem to understand the distinction between people in glass houses throwing stones and people having a laugh about their former faith. That’s because you have drunk your group’s Kool Aid. Far be it from me to spoil your simple pleasures in your faith. Enjoy them.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...Good Lord you are dishonest. I never said that. Not once. I never called Sandra any kind of cow. What a troll.

Well, You certainly, anyone can read what you wrote...here it is again...."You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows..."

Go back and read the context. Look Kish we all screw up and say things we might not mean. you should have just said you got sloppy and screwed up and say "my bad, and it would have been the end of it. This happens when you can't control you words toward those you might disagree with and habitually call them names, just like you did here calling me now a troll.

Kish wrote...Yeah, I found it very funny too! I think you simply don’t understand why I differ in opinion from you. So? Yeah, we have differing opinions. I don’t really care, nor do I feel the need to try to change your opinion. It would be pointless, since you can’t seem to understand the distinction between people in glass houses throwing stones and people having a laugh about their former faith. That’s because you have drunk your group’s Kool Aid. Far be it from me to spoil your simple pleasures in your faith. Enjoy them.

Well, at who's expense were the laughs at? That in my opinion is a pretty cavalier approach. I find it ironic that every time someone disagrees with you you throw out the "you don't understand me card. It reminds me of the mopologists when I was telling them thing 25 years ago like the Book of Abraham was not what the church stated, ad they would say that I just did not understand it.

Kish, you can't win the agreement that some how what RFM and Vogel do, and their approach to condemning the LDS faith is Okay, and what the Tanners did is akin to Canaanite Idolatry and horrible and what RFM does is great. .

[Markk]

At the end of the day, I feel comfortable in my disagreement with attacks on one religion in the name of another religion. I like Sandra Tanner. It is possible for me to like her and disagree with her. It is also possible for me to appreciate that there were good outcomes from her crusade to convert Mormons away from Mormonism and make the LDS Church look bad. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t attacking Mormonism as a Christian. If you don’t like the fact that I don’t approve of this goal, please just accept that we will not agree and move on. I have not read anything here that has in any way changed my opinion. It has been heartwarming, still, to see such an outpouring of appreciation of the Tanners.

Well I have to say that yes she was and does attack Mormonism as a Christian, as do I. And RFM attacks Mormonism as what ever he is....agnostic? And Vogel attacks it as a Humanist (I think that what he said he was).....and BYP as a atheist, if that is what he is, Shades does and he has to be something. Point being an attack is an attack.

Go back and read what I wrote in the beginning here, that you seem to be down on the Tanners approach only because they are Christians, am I wrong?

You attack Mormonism, what religion are you; are you an atheist, agnostic, kind of Mormon....what? Right or wrong, I am a evangelical Christian, what is your ideology here....If you are going to be critical of others in their ideology, at least do so in a clear and transparent way of yours.

One more time, or me my hypocrisy only goes so far here.

[Rivendale]

I can't speak for Kish but it seems to parallel Neil deGrasse Tyson's approach regarding labels. But a non answer is telling.