Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Kishkumen]

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, I can see that these videos continue to confuse you. You absolutely insist on reading my videos as advocacy. If I discuss the issue of authority in a way that reflects the difference between LDS, Catholic, and Protestant approaches, then you see that as me saying you and the Tanners believe in a Christianity without authority, whereas what I said is that Protestants believe in a priesthood of all believers. Whether I am right or not about that, it was clearly not a slam on Protestantism. But you insist on reading it that way, and there is little I can do to help you when you insist on reading things opposite to the way they were expressed and intended.

[Markk]

Markk, I can see that these videos continue to confuse you.

Focus, what videos? I am responding what you wrote here, that my understanding of Mormonism is skewed, because I read works from the Tanners? The confusion is you are not following the story line here.

Kish wrote...
You absolutely insist on reading my videos as advocacy. If I discuss the issue of authority in a way that reflects the difference between LDS, Catholic, and Protestant approaches, then you see that as me saying you and the Tanners believe in a Christianity without authority, whereas what I said is that Protestants believe in a priesthood of all believers. Whether I am right or not about that, it was clearly not a slam on Protestantism. But you insist on reading it that way, and there is little I can do to help you when you insist on reading things opposite to the way they were expressed and intended.

Kish this is what you wrote in a post, nothing you said in a video, about authority.

...

"Where to begin, eh? I mean, they apply criticism to Mormonism that they do not apply to their own faith, for one thing. I have heard Sandra speak to this issue, but I didn’t think much of her answer. From the position of one following a flawed religion, she takes it upon herself to attack the religion of others, as though her faith were inherently superior. I don’t think it is any solider in historical terms than Mormonism. If anything, Protestantism, having abandoned much of Christian tradition and lacking authority, arguably, is on perhaps even shakier ground. I don’t begrudge her finding a new faith to her liking. I don’t agree with the lifetime pursuit of tearing the religion of others down. Re: CWK: Becoming a god: deification in Mormonism and Orthodox theosis
Post by Kishkumen » Sun Oct 27, 2024 3:57 pm

You seem to not even remember what you wrote. I really do not have to say much here, other than just read what you wrote, you are cleary contradicting your self. And one more time, nothing here about what you may have said about authority on a video, has to do with what you wrote in the quote above.

Here you speak as a believer of some faith, yet won't say what it is, and are putting down someone else's faith...right?

[Kishkumen]

Focus, what videos? I am responding what you wrote here, that my understanding of Mormonism is skewed, because I read works from the Tanners? The confusion is you are not following the story line here.

Dude, I posted this OP. The OP is about my video content. If you want to go off topic, do not get cross with me when I don't follow you off topic.

Kish this is what you wrote in a post, nothing you said in a video, about authority.

...

"Where to begin, eh? I mean, they apply criticism to Mormonism that they do not apply to their own faith, for one thing. I have heard Sandra speak to this issue, but I didn’t think much of her answer. From the position of one following a flawed religion, she takes it upon herself to attack the religion of others, as though her faith were inherently superior. I don’t think it is any solider in historical terms than Mormonism. If anything, Protestantism, having abandoned much of Christian tradition and lacking authority, arguably, is on perhaps even shakier ground. I don’t begrudge her finding a new faith to her liking. I don’t agree with the lifetime pursuit of tearing the religion of others down. Re: CWK: Becoming a god: deification in Mormonism and Orthodox theosis
Post by Kishkumen » Sun Oct 27, 2024 3:57 pm

You seem to not even remember what you wrote. I really do not have to say much here, other than just read what you wrote, you are cleary contradicting your self. And one more time, nothing here about what you may have said about authority on a video, has to do with what you wrote in the quote above.

Here you speak as a believer of some faith, yet won't say what it is, and are putting down someone else's faith...right?

Um, no. I know that the Protestant argument, as I understand it, is a priesthood of all believers. I acknowledge that some feel it is "arguably" a shakier argument than some kind of priesthood lineage, and certainly it does lead to less of a concern with priesthood altogether. And, that may be a good thing for you, unless you care about priesthood authority. So, it is entirely a matter of perspective. Keep a tryin' to insist that I am doing what I am not doing. We'll get nowhere doing that, but I guess you find it satisfying to put words in others' mouths.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...Dude, I posted this OP. The OP is about my video content. If you want to go off topic, do not get cross with me when I don't follow you off topic.

LOL...I am hardly cross, I am pointing you back to what you wrote about authority and the protestant faith, in your opinion, at least in the post that started the "Tanner Kerfuffle."

Your retort in the video contradicts what you wrote about the Tanners to me. You asserted that Protestantism lacked authority, which hinted to me you are a believer of something "Christian." Which in turn begged questions from me like "do you believe Joseph was a true prophet of God." Honestly I kind off think you do, because of your reluctance to engage, but I admit it is only a feeling and guess.

Kish wrote...Um, no. I know that the Protestant argument, as I understand it, is a priesthood of all believers. I acknowledge that some feel it is "arguably" a shakier argument than some kind of priesthood lineage, and certainly it does lead to less of a concern with priesthood altogether. And, that may be a good thing for you, unless you care about priesthood authority. So, it is entirely a matter of perspective. Keep a tryin' to insist that I am doing what I am not doing. We'll get nowhere doing that, but I guess you find it satisfying to put words in others' mouths.

Well the context of what you wrote disagrees with that. The context is about Sandra attacking other religions and her belief her faith is superior (roughly true). You then stated that it was not that way in that IYO her faith lacked authority. That is the context I am address because again it hints you believe in some sort of faith that demands some sort of authority that is perhaps institutional, and not the authority that the New Testament reads that Christ gives to those that believe.

FYI, and we can take this to the Celestial forum if you like, we can discuss the Royal PH of believers that the typical Evangelical would hold to. Let me know.

[Kishkumen]

Your retort in the video contradicts what you wrote about the Tanners to me. You asserted that Protestantism lacked authority, which hinted to me you are a believer of something "Christian." Which in turn begged questions from me like "do you believe Joseph was a true prophet of God." Honestly I kind of think you do, because of your reluctance to engage, but I admit it is only a feeling and guess.

From the LDS perspective, Protestantism obviously does lack authority. But, from the Protestant perspective, believers all share in the priesthood. I don't know why you find this so complicated. I am capable of presenting material from a variety of perspectives because my presentation is descriptive, not advocacy.

Well the context of what you wrote disagrees with that. The context is about Sandra attacking other religions and her belief her faith is superior (roughly true). You then stated that it was not that way in that IYO her faith lacked authority. That is the context I am address because again it hints you believe in some sort of faith that demands some sort of authority that is perhaps institutional, and not the authority that the New Testament reads that Christ gives to those that believe.

I am saying that, depending on your point of view, her position is not unassailable, or without its own problems. I don't think the idea that the New Testament is a handbook for Christian ecclesiology has much going for it. Early Christians seem to have agreed, and that is why someone wrote a Didache, which is the earliest of Christian church handbook around, dating to the late first or early second century AD. But interpretation plays a huge role, in any case. I don't by any means think your interpretation of the Bible is an automatic slam dunk.

FYI, and we can take this to the Celestial forum if you like, we can discuss the Royal PH of believers that the typical Evangelical would hold to. Let me know.

I would love to learn more about the royal priesthood of believers in the future. Sounds great. As you can see, I know a tiny bit about the topic, but I could always learn more.

[Markk]

Kish...From the LDS perspective, Protestantism obviously does lack authority. But, from the Protestant perspective, believers all share in the priesthood. I don't know why you find this so complicated. I am capable of presenting material from a variety of perspectives because my presentation is descriptive, not advocacy.

Sure, Mormonism teaches that protestants are apostates from the original church. The Book of Mormon teaches they are the church of the devil. It teaches our doctrines are an abomination before God and we are corrupted. Their is not argument their. It is why Sandra defends her faith. I never questioned that.

I commented..."Again...I couldn't disagree more. What did they frame in a prejudicial light and the percentages of doing so would be my question. They wrote so much."

You wrote..." "Where to begin, eh? I mean, they apply criticism to Mormonism that they do not apply to their own faith, for one thing. I have heard Sandra speak to this issue, but I didn’t think much of her answer. From the position of one following a flawed religion, she takes it upon herself to attack the religion of others, as though her faith were inherently superior. I don’t think it is any solider in historical terms than Mormonism. If anything, Protestantism, having abandoned much of Christian tradition and lacking authority, arguably, is on perhaps even shakier ground. I don’t begrudge her finding a new faith to her liking. I don’t agree with the lifetime pursuit of tearing the religion of others down. "

You stated here, not from a LDS perspective but a personal one; even based on your hearing her speak on the subject. And.... which as I wrote, begs the question of "what do you believe?"

I am well aware of what the LDS church teaches about Sandra's faith, I taught it and believed it for 33 years, it was and is in their Cannon. I am addressing what you wrote, in your opinion. You assert her religion is flawed, abandoned Christian tradition, and that it lacks authority, and yet you admit you do not know much about what she actually believes on the subject.

I get that you may not want to share your faith (what you believe and why), but I find it odd that you slam Sandra and Jerald for criticizing others of faith (what they believe and why) and yet you won't state what yours is, while criticizing them.

[Kishkumen]

Sure, Mormonism teaches that protestants are apostates from the original church. The Book of Mormon teaches they are the church of the devil. It teaches our doctrines are an abomination before God and we are corrupted. There is not argument there. It is why Sandra defends her faith. I never questioned that.

Mormonism in the 1820s-1830s was a Christian reaction to fellow Christians, and it shared with other Christians, such as Campbellites, some of the same harsh language about the creeds and Catholicism. What happened subsequently is that the majority of Christians were successful in marginalizing Mormonism and treating it as non-Christian. It's basically a numbers game. Since the majority of Christians reject Mormonism, they are able to claim that Mormons aren't Christian. In historical terms, however, Mormonism is entirely Christian. It is just not small "o" orthodox Christian, and on purpose. It rejected orthodoxy just as other 19th century Christians rejected the same.

You wrote..." "Where to begin, eh? I mean, they apply criticism to Mormonism that they do not apply to their own faith, for one thing. I have heard Sandra speak to this issue, but I didn’t think much of her answer. From the position of one following a flawed religion, she takes it upon herself to attack the religion of others, as though her faith were inherently superior. I don’t think it is any solider in historical terms than Mormonism. If anything, Protestantism, having abandoned much of Christian tradition and lacking authority, arguably, is on perhaps even shakier ground. I don’t begrudge her finding a new faith to her liking. I don’t agree with the lifetime pursuit of tearing the religion of others down. "

You stated here, not from a LDS perspective but a personal one; even based on your hearing her speak on the subject. And.... which as I wrote, begs the question of "what do you believe?"

Yeah, I am representing the two sides to the debate. I explained that, from another perspective, Sandra's views are not unassailable. They are just very popular, as they are the majority Protestant perspective. It is true that, in my personal view, the Protestant argument is not very convincing at all. That's because it is, by and large, an artificial and relatively arbitrary jettisoning of a lot of Christian history and tradition. If I were to decide to join a church today, perhaps the most attractive prospect would be Greek Orthodoxy, which admittedly treats Protestantism as somewhat heretical. Catholicism would be more congenial to my Roman soul in some ways, but I am really not a fan of unmarried clergy and the institution of the papacy. I think that Christianity was better off with conciliar government instead of having an emperor-like leader at its head.

I am well aware of what the LDS church teaches about Sandra's faith, I taught it and believed it for 33 years, it was and is in their Cannon. I am addressing what you wrote, in your opinion. You assert her religion is flawed, abandoned Christian tradition, and that it lacks authority, and yet you admit you do not know much about what she actually believes on the subject.

I get that you may not want to share your faith (what you believe and why), but I find it odd that you slam Sandra and Jerald for criticizing others of faith (what they believe and why) and yet you won't state what yours is, while criticizing them.

I think that what I am doing is pointing out that the Protestant argument is just as flawed as other arguments. That is why I don't think very highly of Protestants going around attacking other Christian groups. If I were really looking to join a Christian church right now, and I wanted one with a very solid historical argument for being the original Christian church, I would definitely join the Orthodox Church, which has a much better argument than, "I don't like Catholicism anymore, so I will make up something else according to my own relatively arbitrary principles and judgment." Mormonism is interesting because it decided to cobble together a bunch of esoteric stuff to try to recover what Protestantism had jettisoned, and it ended up with a strange Esoteric-Masonic-Catholic-Protestant brew, which, had it not been turned into a socially catastrophic tyranny, might have been kinda fun.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...Mormonism in the 1820s-1830s was a Christian reaction to fellow Christians, and it shared with other Christians, such as Campbellites, some of the same harsh language about the creeds and Catholicism. What happened subsequently is that the majority of Christians were successful in marginalizing Mormonism and treating it as non-Christian. It's basically a numbers game. Since the majority of Christians reject Mormonism, they are able to claim that Mormons aren't Christian. In historical terms, however, Mormonism is entirely Christian. It is just not small "o" orthodox Christian, and on purpose. It rejected orthodoxy just as other 19th century Christians rejected the same.

I am not sure what that has to with what you originally wrote and asserted. However, It is just a general statement that is lacking history an nuances. For one, Mormonism at it's inception attacked Christianity, and still does. Christianity fought back against "Mormonism" for many many reasons, to say it was just a numbers games is just not close to looking at or addressing the history of the birth of Mormonism. I also disagree with Mormon's being entirely Christian, and that we could discuss another day, but in fact, their cannon teaches that they are the ONLY true Christian church or body of believers, so your argument misses the very premise of Mormonism, that God came to Joseph and gave him the authority to restore the Christian church that basically an abomination to Him, because of what they taught an believed.

Kish wrote...Yeah, I am representing the two sides to the debate. I explained that, from another perspective, Sandra's views are not unassailable. They are just very popular, as they are the majority Protestant perspective. It is true that, in my personal view, the Protestant argument is not very convincing at all. That's because it is, by and large, an artificial and relatively arbitrary jettisoning of a lot of Christian history and tradition. If I were to decide to join a church today, perhaps the most attractive prospect would be Greek Orthodoxy, which admittedly treats Protestantism as somewhat heretical. Catholicism would be more congenial to my Roman soul in some ways, but I am really not a fan of unmarried clergy and the institution of the papacy. I think that Christianity was better off with conciliar government instead of having an emperor-like leader at its head.

I disagree on several levels. One being that your claim was, that my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read a publication by the Tanners, while completely ignoring I was born an raised in the LDS church, of deep pioneer stock, with a fairly exhaustive LDS library (with notes) at my finger tips to cross check and test what I read in what were referred to as "anti" books. And which I have never mentioned here to my knowledge, years of study of religion, including attending Bible college courses and a year long layman's seminary, for a total of around three years of night classes by "mostly" very qualified teachers, including some with PHD's in theology, which in my opinion allows me to see both sides of the coin rather objectively.

Another is that you just generalized the assertion that the Tanners material is skewed in a short sentence, with no real backup. I get you are not impressed with the Tanners research, and you believe that they have no right to criticize Mormonism, while you do, but in my opinion that you have some deeper issues here that you are reluctant to reveal. You are a member of a community that exists to criticize Mormonism, an yet you want to exclude the community that Mormonism attacks from having a public opinion of it.

Another is that somehow, because Jerald and Sandra's faith, evolved to Protestantism in the years they were questioning Mormonism, that their research is skewed and unreliable.

An finally you do all this while refusing to reveal what you believe about Joseph Smith an "what you believe, and why."

The rest of what you wrote in the quote here has nothing to do with what you claimed about me, and the Tanners. However your writing ..." They are just very popular, as they are the majority Protestant perspective. ..." makes me believe you are ignorant of their research an work as a whole, have you read "Mormonism Shadow, and Reality?"

I think that what I am doing is pointing out that the Protestant argument is just as flawed as other arguments. That is why I don't think very highly of Protestants going around attacking other Christian groups. If I were really looking to join a Christian church right now, and I wanted one with a very solid historical argument for being the original Christian church, I would definitely join the Orthodox Church, which has a much better argument than, "I don't like Catholicism anymore, so I will make up something else according to my own relatively arbitrary principles and judgment." Mormonism is interesting because it decided to cobble together a bunch of esoteric stuff to try to recover what Protestantism had jettisoned, and it ended up with a strange Esoteric-Masonic-Catholic-Protestant brew, which, had it not been turned into a socially catastrophic tyranny, might have been kinda fun.

Your assertion was and remains, that you claimed my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read Mormonism Shadow and Reality, and that basically the Tanners view of Mormonism can't be trusted, which is unsustainable in my opinion.

I get you believe that Evangelicals should not be able to criticize Mormonism, which is fine, but I disagree that Evangelicals can't rightly understand the very same truth claims that you and others that are not Evangelicals freely criticize all day long, including RFM and Vogel with was my original assertion....again my hypocrisy does not go that far.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, I was reflecting on a couple of your comments and though you may not wish argument about them this is a discussion board so I will add my thought.

I can understand affinity with Orthodox Christianity. It is reasonably seen as the oldest organization. It has thought which is a valuable part of Christian thinking. I do not see your dismissal of Protestant tradition. It is clearly built upon the preceding tradition of Christianity. It discarded a few items and kept the body of essentials.You mentioned the Didache as showing the need for further material than the New Testament itself. Of course you realize the reformers study patristic thought and the tradition of Christianity has been important. Scripture only means it has first authority. Nobody has thought it means you could think about nothing else. You said something like Didache is needed for understanding church order. I thought to review the Didache. It has basic teachings from the gospels. I hardly see the book as foreign to Protestants. It does have an interesting statement about church order.

quote Didache: Of Local Officials.
You must choose for yourselves overseers and assistants who are worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not eager for money , but sincere and approved for the are carrying out the ministry of of the charismatists and teacher for you. Do not esteem them lightly for they take an honorable rank among you along with the charismatists and catechists

This fits Protestant church authority for which priesthood of all believers is a part but only a part.
There are ordained ministers who lead churches. Their authority is a combination of learning, commitment, a sense of being called of God, but also selected by the group and organization of believers together in a church.

hmm, For all it would not hurt if that little comment about eager for money was not forgotten.

[Markk]

H-B wrote....
This fits Protestant church authority for which priesthood of all believers is a part but only a part.
There are ordained ministers who lead churches. Their authority is a combination of learning, commitment, a sense of being called of God, but also selected by the group and organization of believers together in a church.

It is really not my intent to get into a huge discussion on this, but I think it is important to understand that authority to a Evangelical/protestant is a personal thing. In John, I believe either verse 12 or 13, or both, it reads that to as many that believe in Christ to them He gave them the "Right" (literally power an authority) to become a child of God (by sonship and adoption), not by a genealogy or by man's authority, but by God. Paul in Roman's, around chapter 8 teaches that because of this adoption, we can call God father, literally in the sense as calling or father papa or daddy. And in Corinthians or Colossians, Paul teaches that the believer is adopted into the body of Christ (the church) by the agency of the HS (literally emersed/baptized). This is basically the priesthood of believers, who offer up living sacrifices. No longer needing dead ones via the Law. This compliments Christs statement that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

Authority for being a pastor is a different thing all together and subjective for sure, and I believe "ordained" and "set apart" is a better term in regarding a protestant pastor.