Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Markk]

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.

LOL, how on earth can you make such a statement like I did not understand that the Book of Abraham was a mess? You get PO'd when I tell you your responses are like the mopolgists, yet you keep doing it. Yeah sure me telling folks like Kevin Graham and Paul Osborn, that The Book of Abraham facsimiles were standard funeral texts, and they coming back with pure BS that they were not...sure thing Kish. Classic.

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.

LOL...I'll just say, you are correct.

Only a couple of people try to make a big deal out of it.

Out of what?

This would not be the first time we have clashed.

And?

Other people have very little trouble understanding me.

Okay, but understanding and disagreeing are separate things. You would even answer basic simple question, that are fair, like whether or not you believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet.....which makes it equally hard to understand you or disagree with you. You are very scattered and cryptic in my opinion. Take of your mask and be real.

The day Dean Robbers has a problem with me is the day I know that I have explaining to do.

If he is your benchmark and baseline for clarity, he isn't doing a very good job. I have not idea what your believe and why you believe it, after several requests. Are you a atheist, agnostic, Mormon, ....all the above, I have no idea. If you don't believe you don't need to reveal what you are fine....but don't criticize others who do, for what they believe....that is just weak in my opinion.

[Kishkumen]

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

OK. Thanks. I don't follow Neil. I can understand why he wisely chooses not to jump down these rabbit holes with every person who demands answers from him. It's not like they are entitled to those answers, just as Markk is not entitled to every answer he wants. I mean, I have given him an answer, but he won't accept it as an answer. He wants to me answer in simple binaries, which seems to be the level he is operating on, when I don't look at the world like that.

Shrug.

[Markk]

That’s not even my claim, Markk.

LOL...this is what you wrote and emphasized it with a "period."

KIsh wrote: If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period.

You need to understand that what you write here, is still here, it does not go away or are you allowed to edit it Kish.

What threat?

Auto correct, it should have read "thread." Most my posts are written in my shop, I am making cabinets for my bathroom remodel, and watching footbal...sorry. I was simply asking RFM to read the threads in context, nothing more, and certainly no threat. I am good, and whether you believe it or not good with you, you just need to own what you said. All these rabbit trail excuses are catching up with you.

[Kishkumen]

LOL, how on earth can you make such a statement like I did not understand that the Book of Abraham was a mess? You get PO'd when I tell you your responses are like the mopolgists, yet you keep doing it. Yeah sure me telling folks like Kevin Graham and Paul Osborn, that The Book of Abraham facsimiles were standard funeral texts, and they coming back with pure BS that they were not...sure thing Kish. Classic.

What is "classic" is your freeform interpretations of what people write. You just kinda say whatever you want about what others have written. And that leads me to suspect, and I am pretty confident about this, that you didn't actually understand what other people engaging with you were arguing. I have yet to see you get much of anything right in our current "discussion."

Let's face it. First, you don't even understand what my channel is about. You just think it should be about what you want it to be about. Then you want to argue about my opinion, and you try to make a whole lotta something out of a whole lotta nothing but your feeble imagination there.

I mean, I am sure you remember all of your "great victories" in past discussions, but they are probably a lot of generous self-back pats as you continually perform for our amusement here. What you are is tedious, querulous, pugnacious, and dim. It has gotten plenty old, and I am about done with it. Of course, you will confuse my boredom with your repetitive misreadings and self-congratulations as yet another one of your great debate victories.

Okay, but understanding and disagreeing are separate things. You would even answer basic simple question, that are fair, like whether or not you believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet.....which makes it equally hard to understand you or disagree with you. You are very scattered and cryptic in my opinion. Take of your mask and be real.

Markk, other people, the ones with whom I enjoy having exchanges, come here to think. They don't want simple, black and white answers to questions. My guess is that you will get along really well with the people who want what you want. I don't want what you want. I am not here to know whether Dean Robbers "really thinks Joseph Smith is not a true prophet." Yawn. Who cares? OK, you care. Let me correct myself before I give you another reason to post another twenty times, peppered with LOLs and "Classic."

I am very real, Markk. I am exactly me at all times, doing what I want to do. If you don't like that or can't understand it, that's OK. Spend your time elsewhere. I don't think we have much to say to each other, to be frank. Not anything that will be useful to either one of us. Except, perhaps, in those passages where you tell your personal story, which I find completely fascinating. Great stuff. Your arguments with me? Boring.

If he is your benchmark and baseline for clarity, he isn't doing a very good job. I have not idea what your believe and why you believe it, after several requests. Are you an atheist, agnostic, Mormon, ....all the above, I have no idea. If you don't believe you don't need to reveal what you are fine....but don't criticize others who do, for what they believe....that is just weak in my opinion.

He is my baseline for excellent writers and readers with brilliant minds who are always worth engaging with, and one who does not shrink from telling you when he disagrees with you. There is nothing weak about criticizing tearing other religions down in the name of religion. I think it is perfectly fair, and I have explained why. If you approve of hypocrisy and bigotry, that's your problem, not mine.

[Markk]

Kish wrote, What is "classic" is your freeform interpretations of what people write. You just kinda say whatever you want about what others have written. And that leads me to suspect, and I am pretty confident about this, that you didn't actually understand what other people engaging with you were arguing. I have yet to see you get much of anything right in our current "discussion."

Such as? If you believe I did not understand it, who, back that up please. What did I say about what others have here, in this discussion? Please back up your assertions.

You write as if you were actually in 1840's Nauvoo, and know what happened without reading what someone else has written? Kish focus, all history unless you do some sort of actual archelogy, is based on what someone else has written, unless it happened during your life time and you are a witness.

Give some example, with cf, that I did not understand what these folks were saying....we have the band with here thanks to Shades, use it.

[Markk]

KIsh wrote...Let's face it. First, you don't even understand what my channel is about. You just think it should be about what you want it to be about. Then you want to argue about my opinion, and you try to make a whole lotta something out of a whole lotta nothing but your feeble imagination there.

Well, it is what you talk about. And in the three episodes I listened to, two are basically solo rants about me because I dared to disagree with you, and personal retort, based on scattered thoughts that are shallow and cryptic...., in other words boring and hard to follow. I listened to part of another on a title that sounded interesting, which I can't recall, but skimming through it you were saying that one should not look down on the scholarship of those that do not hold degrees and are not part of the academy. It did not lock me in.

But what we are discussing is what you stated about my position of Joseph Smith and his production of the N&ELC, along with your assertion that if you learn Mormon truth claims and false history from the Tanners, it is skewed because of their religious bias, and that only folks with no faith, can objectively attack the Mormon church such as RFM and Vogel, as I asserted.

It seems to me, and please correct me, that you seem to think that you know more what is written about LDS history and truth claims than is out there. Which is okay, I guess, but you don't want to share that information with others and that those that read and agree with the available history, are simpletons. And those that dare question you, are not equipped to understand you, and only Dean Robbers is your benchmark that you are clear and concise.

So, maybe I don't understand your channel, and frankly it is not on my radar....but from what I have seen of it is that it is just about you and your philosophy of Mormonism, and far too many me's and I's.

But good luck with it.

If you want to see a channel that really interests me, it is this. He received a masters at BYU in his field. Notice his garment line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbpJG8cDpg

[Markk]

..."It's not like they are entitled to those answers, just as Markk is not entitled to every answer he wants. I mean, I have given him an answer, but he won't accept it as an answer. He wants to me answer in simple binaries, which seems to be the level he is operating on, when I don't look at the world like that. ..."

Kish, If you criticize the Tanner's for having a skewed view of Mormonism and they shouldn't "attack" the LDS church. But, given you attack the church and support others like RFM and Vogel that attack the church, I believe it is a fair question to ask you if your believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the church is at least....somewhat true. At times I gather you are an atheist, at other times agnostic, and some times a reluctant Mormon. In one of your recent posts to me you asserted what I (or the Tanners) believe does not have authority, which is fine, but it assumes you believe there is some sort of Christian authority out there, we are lacking.

If you are just mixed up and don't know, fine, but you probably should be less critical of those that know what they believe.

[Markk]

Markk, other people, the ones with whom I enjoy having exchanges, come here to think. They don't want simple, black and white answers to questions. My guess is that you will get along really well with the people who want what you want. I don't want what you want. I am not here to know whether Dean Robbers "really thinks Joseph Smith is not a true prophet." Yawn. Who cares? OK, you care. Let me correct myself before I give you another reason to post another twenty times, peppered with LOLs and "Classic."

Kish, well here is a lol for you. You criticize folks and what they believe here, and things here. Go on rants. And then when questioned or asked to articulate your positions you talk in circles.

You passively assert that you're more intelligent than others, and that they are just simpletons and boring.

But again you should not criticize others here, then whine, dodge, and duck...when confronted. The two roots of our discussion or bickering with each other is that you disagreed with by assertion that the roots of the N&ELC was for sex, and a mustache, and that my view of Mormonism is skewed because Mormonism Shadow or Reality was the first source for my reconstruction. What do you expect on a forum like this, for me to do...."just bow and say thank you for clearing that up for me?"

Again you want to passively say people that disagree with you are less intelligent, because you are far more intelligent....and we bore you with our simple minds. One suggestion is to change your avatar in that I believe you see yourself as someone you are not. After seeing your podcast and what you look like, and personality, I believe this one might fit you better.

[Kishkumen]

Such as? If you believe I did not understand it, who, back that up please. What did I say about what others have here, in this discussion? Please back up your assertions.

You write as if you were actually in 1840's Nauvoo, and know what happened without reading what someone else has written? Kish focus, all history unless you do some sort of actual archelogy, is based on what someone else has written, unless it happened during your life time and you are a witness.

Give some example, with cf, that I did not understand what these folks were saying....we have the band with here thanks to Shades, use it.

I was referring to your lack of understanding of what I had written here. Your repeated misconstrual of what I have said. The above is yet another fine example of your inability to understand what I have written. I really doubt that I am an outlier in this regard. You probably struggle to understand a lot of writing.

[Kishkumen]

Well, it is what you talk about. And in the three episodes I listened to, two are basically solo rants about me because I dared to disagree with you, and personal retort, based on scattered thoughts that are shallow and cryptic...., in other words boring and hard to follow.

Obviously, not a channel for you, and not one that you understand. So, if I want to appeal to you, I will have to do things differently. As it stands, if I talk about anything that relates to our discussion here, then, in your mind, I am making an episode about you personally. If I casually talk about stuff, I am being "shallow" and "cryptic." Clearly, you are not my target audience, and that is OK. There are other channels out there. And, listen, you may be right about some of this stuff. I know it would help if I scripted these things and followed a clear outline. Problem is, I really have a lot of stuff on my plate now. Maybe when both kids are in college I will have the time to make this more appealing to you and others like you. For the time being, I am somewhat stuck with what I am doing. I have received more helpful feedback than I have time to incorporate.