Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[consiglieri]

I thought everyone knew “sacred cow” was an expression.

Are you just pretending to be this stupid, markk?

Jesus damned Christ!

[Morley]

I thought everyone knew “sacred cow” was an expression.

Are you just pretending to be this stupid, markk?

Jesus damned Christ!

Not stupid. Just flagrantly, transparently disingenuous.

[Markk]

I thought everyone knew “sacred cow” was an expression.

Are you just pretending to be this stupid, markk?

Jesus damned Christ!

Well I would think that someone asserting that I have a skewed view of Mormonism, especially after being born and raised in the church, pioneer stock all four sides....because Mormonism Shadow or Reality was my first primary source for finding out the truth claims. I would think that would deserve a double "Jesus damned Christ!"

Do you agree with Kish that Sandra's work can't be trusted?

A little context....I know you are a busy man.

Markk wrote...I am a carpenter and do not know more than I know as the saying goes. Most of my early understanding of Mormon apologetics come from the Tanners, "the big blue book". These days from podcasters like RFM, Reel, and selected guests on Mormon stories. I particularly enjoy "Mike" from LDS discussions and his series on truth claims on Mormon stories. These guys do their homework and research and are more than prepared, RFM's memory blows me away. I am blessed with a 3 hour commute these days and when not burned out on this stuff, or LOL...listening to Fantasy Football Happy Hour or the Dan Patrick Show, I listen to these guys on topics that interest me.

Kish replied...

If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period. They are sharp researchers who did the valuable service of publicizing documents the LDS Church sought to hide. They also have great intuition on some things. They have been right on things like the Salamander Letter where others were wrong.

But their agenda gets in the way. I refuse to give that agenda support. But I really liked both of the Tanners as decent, nice people. Sandra still is. RIP Jerald.

RFM is simply the best. I stan RFM.

It is a interesting threat on how it went from my understanding of Mormonism is skewed, to my assertion he called Sandra a cow.

Anyways I appreciate and support your "ministry" and really appreciate your humor and knowledge of pop culture of the 50s, 60s, and 70s...and for what it is worth, anyone that looks like Bob Hope and laughs like Phyllis Diller can't be all that bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjfO68Cvmxc

[Kishkumen]

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.

The context is your touchy reaction to my video about Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and their friends. That’s the context. It has nothing to do with identifying a particular person as a cow, as any reasonable person would understand.

Well, at whose 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.

No offense, Markk, but you probably didn’t understand, not that understanding would make the Book of Abraham an authentic ancient text, because it isn’t. Yeah, I don’t think most people here are on the same wavelength as me or care to be, which is just fine with me. Only a couple of people try to make a big deal out of it. This would not be the first time we have clashed. Other people have very little trouble understanding me. The day Dean Robbers has a problem with me is the day I know that I have explaining to do.

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. .

Canaanite idolatry? LOL!!! Why so dramatic? I am not looking for you to agree with me Markk. I would settle for you leaving me alone and allowing for the possibility that people can have differing opinions without needing to hound each other. So you think that all criticism of the LDS Church is the same. I do not, and I feel no need to convince you otherwise.

[Kishkumen]

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

What non-answer? Non-answer to what question?

[Kishkumen]

Well I would think that someone asserting that I have a skewed view of Mormonism, especially after being born and raised in the church, pioneer stock all four sides....because Mormonism Shadow or Reality was my first primary source for finding out the truth claims. I would think that would deserve a double "Jesus damned Christ!"

Do you agree with Kish that Sandra's work can't be trusted?

That’s not even my claim, Markk.

It is an interesting threat on how it went from my understanding of Mormonism is skewed, to my assertion he called Sandra a cow.

What threat?

[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.

What non-answer? Non-answer to what question?

The thread was a while back. Markk kept asking if you felt Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

[Kishkumen]

The thread was a while back. Markk kept asking if you felt Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Well, as I said to him, my channel is not about what I believe. Since he has attacked my channel, I answered in reference to the aims of the channel, which does not include either attacking or advocating for the LDS Church. Given that this is the case, what is the purpose of the question? Basically to manipulate me out of my stated purpose, as far as I can see. Why should I play along with a deliberate spoiler? Someone who doesn't understand what the channel is about and demands that I do things as he thinks they should be done.

[Rivendale]

The thread was a while back. Markk kept asking if you felt Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Well, as I said to him, my channel is not about what I believe. Since he has attacked my channel, I answered in reference to the aims of the channel, which does not include either attacking or advocating for the LDS Church. Given that this is the case, what is the purpose of the question? Basically to manipulate me out of my stated purpose, as far as I can see. Why should I play along with a deliberate spoiler? Someone who doesn't understand what the channel is about and demands that I do things as he thinks they should be done.

Yes. Which is exactly why Neil refuses to answer it. That was my point.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...The context is your touchy reaction to my video about Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and their friends. That’s the context. It has nothing to do with identifying a particular person as a cow, as any reasonable person would understand.

Focus, the context is about your stating that my understand of post Mormonism, after 33 years in the church, born and raised, is skewed.... because the first major publication I de-programmed with ,was Mormonism Shadow or Reality. I don't recall saying any thing about "their friends" (CFR), I said, and I quote...."the big blue book." You did however say something to the affect that the approached you to write something about magic, and you declined because they were ....I guess, also skewed in their approach to Mormonism....you can elaborate more on that if you like.

You got butt hurt and over reacted and stated that she was basically my idol, and as a idol, a sacred cow. Shall I take back my staement and just say you think she is a idol? Does that change anything? When in fact, and you did not even bother to ask, she (and Jerald) had nothing to do with my current faith. My wife, her grandmother, a friend named Dwight, and a few others patiently lead me to my current faith. Out side influences were a pastor named John Miller, Packer, and Ron Rhodes....Again you could have asked.

And taking this a bit forward, what view of Mormonism I hold is skewed....is it because I believe that Joseph Smith was a womanizer first and a prophet second? Do the Tanners even teach it like I believe? Well I know plenty of atheists that hold the same view, that did not read the Tanners as I did, at least specifically, so how that is the Tanners fault, maybe you can explain.

But anyways .... the context is, I sated my first real publication I read to understand Mormon truth claims, was, Mormonism Shadow or Reality, the big blue book.