Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Markk]

Markk, thinking back some six months (perhaps more)the only LDS believers posting here are MG and Ajax. There a few Protestants of some variety, Msnobody, Jersey Girl, Physics Guy and Huckelberry. I think Ceeboo but I do not remember him discussing religious belief much. Other people are a variety of skeptical and probably do not wish to put themselves into a specific category.

Okay...great comment, thanks.

But, isn't that Kish's complaint, and my counter argument? He wants to, and does, criticize others. Specifically in this case the Tanner's and myself for our faiths and journey as being skewed, yet won't state what his beliefs are, while in my opinion clearly defending Mormonism and Joseph Smith, and while hinting, I think, that he is a closet Mormon?

According to Kish's standards and thought....you, me, Msn, Physics Guy, and Ceeboo....have no right to criticize Mormonism because we are Christians. Yet if you are not a Christian, even as in my case born and raised in the church and with the opinion I was lied too just like say a Paul O, a RFM, or a Shades....they have a right to criticize the LDS faith because they are not Christians (they can correct me if I am wrong and they are Christians).

I mean come on Huck. I am at a loss of a word that describes just how hypocritical that kind of logic is. Lol, I mean the Tanners are skewed in their scholarship, and have no right in his mind to criticize the LDS church????

The Tanner's papers are archived at the U of U, I think their scholarship and research, even if they were not Bonafede scholars, will be of the highest regard for a very long time.

Were you LDS? Just curious.

Thanks

[MG 2.0]

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Church of the Devil is the Abdominal church…

Really?

Regards,
MG

[Markk]

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Church of the Devil is the Abdominal church…

Really?

Regards,
MG

Yes....

1 Nephi 13:6
Book of Mormon

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

[MG 2.0]

Really?

Regards,
MG

Yes....

1 Nephi 13:6
Book of Mormon

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

Go back and look at my post. I thought the misspelling was kind of funny.

Regards,
MG

[Markk]

Yes....

1 Nephi 13:6
Book of Mormon

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

Go back and look at my post. I thought the misspelling was kind of funny.

Regards,
MG

LOL okay...I am open season on spelling. I suck for sure. "Two shay" (incorrect spelling on purpose, I think, actually I have no idea.)


Honestly, what sucks about auto spelling is that I don't even try anymore, and I don't really even care. When I draft a legal letter or something important, I send it to my project engineer (PE)and he cleans it up for me.

I struggle with slight Dyslexia, mostly words and not so much numbers. A funny true story. I was in a presentation for a large construction project with some architects and engineers, and presented our using paint from Sherwin Edwards. I knew them well and had relationships with them...and they were laughing at me knowing my personality; I had mixed up Sherwin Williams with Dunn Edwards paint. Lol I was laughing looking at them shrugging saying what??? They had to explain it to me.

While I am laughing at myself. I told my (PE) when we first hired him that his main job was to make sure I did not have blue cheese dressing on my beard (a goat) and to make sure that my zipper was always up. Again true story, during another presentation with the same architects and engineers a few weeks later, I was giving a value engineering option on a white board, and I got a text from my PE, telling me my zipper was open....LoL, again I created a good laugh at my expense.

[Kishkumen]

the "Church" is Christ, the body of believers in Christ are the Church,

I'll stop you right there, where we are in agreement. The rest of it is a bunch of sectarian and bigoted hooey that may be fine for you, but does not accord with my view of the reach and scope of Christianity. There is no "Protestant Church." There is a Church of Christ, made up of all people of all denominations who believe in and follow Christ.

[Markk]

the "Church" is Christ, the body of believers in Christ are the Church,

I'll stop you right there, where we are in agreement. The rest of it is a bunch of sectarian and bigoted hooey that may be fine for you, but does not accord with my view of the reach and scope of Christianity. There is no "Protestant Church." There is a Church of Christ, made up of all people of all denominations who believe in and follow Christ.

LOL, says who? Focus, I disagree with your view, firstly because I have no idea what your view even is? Are you a Christian? Which Christ do you follow? Paul made it clear there are different Christ's and different gospels, right? Kish at some point if you want to have some sort of credibility here on your position, you will need to basically state what your faith is, because obviously you have one, or you would not be dogmatic in your assertion about what you think the Church of Christ is. We can certainly disagree, but not logically until you tell me what you believe. Again, you are very cryptic in your ideology.

It's funny how you call me a bigot....lol have you read your posts across the board? So to be clear I believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God, a womanizer, a thief, adulterer, a con man, and certainly a Charlatan... among other things.....am I wrong? Am I a bigot for believing that? If so, this is surely a forum full of bigots.

[huckelberry]

Markk, thinking back some six months (perhaps more)the only LDS believers posting here are MG and Ajax. There a few Protestants of some variety, Msnobody, Jersey Girl, Physics Guy and Huckelberry. I think Ceeboo but I do not remember him discussing religious belief much. Other people are a variety of skeptical and probably do not wish to put themselves into a specific category.

Okay...great comment, thanks.

But, isn't that Kish's complaint, and my counter argument? He wants to, and does, criticize others. Specifically in this case the Tanner's and myself for our faiths and journey as being skewed, yet won't state what his beliefs are, while in my opinion clearly defending Mormonism and Joseph Smith, and while hinting, I think, that he is a closet Mormon?

According to Kish's standards and thought....you, me, Msn, Physics Guy, and Ceeboo....have no right to criticize Mormonism because we are Christians. Yet if you are not a Christian, even as in my case born and raised in the church and with the opinion I was lied too just like say a Paul O, a RFM, or a Shades....they have a right to criticize the LDS faith because they are not Christians (they can correct me if I am wrong and they are Christians).

I mean come on Huck. I am at a loss of a word that describes just how hypocritical that kind of logic is. Lol, I mean the Tanners are skewed in their scholarship, and have no right in his mind to criticize the LDS church????

The Tanner's papers are archived at the U of U, I think their scholarship and research, even if they were not Bonafede scholars, will be of the highest regard for a very long time.

Were you LDS? Just curious.

Thanks

Markk, I was raised LDS have active family members. I quit believing in my senior year high school, went off to college never to attend LDS services again. I found the transition emotionally painful confusing and an adventure to get the hell out.I did not encounter Tanner material and did not know some of the more problematic parts of Mormon history. The Book of Mormon was for me the clear reason that over came uncertainties and confusion about rigid thinking puzzling theology and segregation.

After being out some 15 years I did find myself curious to reconsider and understand more. I then read Tanner material as well as Brodies history of Joseph Smith. I found Brodies book more brutal than the Tanner material but I am glad it was done. I have sent modest amounts of money to the Tanners over a number of years. I have no problem with what they are doing. over

[Markk]

Okay...great comment, thanks.

But, isn't that Kish's complaint, and my counter argument? He wants to, and does, criticize others. Specifically in this case the Tanner's and myself for our faiths and journey as being skewed, yet won't state what his beliefs are, while in my opinion clearly defending Mormonism and Joseph Smith, and while hinting, I think, that he is a closet Mormon?

According to Kish's standards and thought....you, me, Msn, Physics Guy, and Ceeboo....have no right to criticize Mormonism because we are Christians. Yet if you are not a Christian, even as in my case born and raised in the church and with the opinion I was lied too just like say a Paul O, a RFM, or a Shades....they have a right to criticize the LDS faith because they are not Christians (they can correct me if I am wrong and they are Christians).

I mean come on Huck. I am at a loss of a word that describes just how hypocritical that kind of logic is. Lol, I mean the Tanners are skewed in their scholarship, and have no right in his mind to criticize the LDS church????

The Tanner's papers are archived at the U of U, I think their scholarship and research, even if they were not Bonafede scholars, will be of the highest regard for a very long time.

Were you LDS? Just curious.

Thanks

Markk, I was raised LDS have active family members. I quit believing in my senior year high school, went off to college never to attend LDS services again. I found the transition emotionally painful confusing and an adventure to get the hell out.I did not encounter Tanner material and did not know some of the more problematic parts of Mormon history. The Book of Mormon was for me the clear reason that over came uncertainties and confusion about rigid thinking puzzling theology and segregation.

After being out some 15 years I did find myself curious to reconsider and understand more. I then read Tanner material as well as Brodies history of Joseph Smith. I found Brodies book more brutal than the Tanner material but I am glad it was done. I have sent modest amounts of money to the Tanners over a number of years. I have no problem with what they are doing. over

Hey Huck,

It is funny how we see things. For me Brodies book was kind of "sympathetic" of Joseph. Kind of. I think she was giving him the benefit of the doubt, when she could. One huge thing I did get out of it, big time, even if it was not her intention was how he manipulated revelations for his favor. To either get something, or to get out of trouble. For me that showed the charlatan side of him.

The Tanner's, especially Mormonism Shadow or Reality, was more of a black and white reference book, maybe a dictionary of sorts for LDS truth claims gone bad. And honestly even today I might be looking for a quote or false claim by the GA, and I can't find it, then I think of the Tanners and I go to UTLM and find it and much more. What they did, in my opinion, is truly the datum point for counter LDS apologetics.

Thank you for sharing.

[huckelberry]

Markk, some continuing thought. I have had a good friend I first met in LDS scouting. Our paths out of the church were not exactly parallel but we ended up sharing a lot. He remained a good friend for many years and we shared interests and conversation about a variety of things. Ever so often the subject of Mormonism would be visited and we both could share a rant, let the anger out. Most of the time I do not follow that anger. In fact it is interesting and worth while to see the church in a variety of ways. If I think of what good qualities it has I find value in that. It does not erase the negative and I am capable of an anti Mormon rant. But, well, I am growing old and there has been a lot more to life than the LDS church.