Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Markk]

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.

For sure. But culturally, I am, and will always be Mormon in many ways. When I get in conversations about life with people, in a real sense, my being raised Mormon always is one of the first tings I speak of. How can one erase 33 years of being a Mormon and remain honest with who I am? You tell me?

Honestly I do not have anger, other than when I talk to my nephews and nieces, who want a open relationship with my sister that is so TBM she can't talk to them about their beliefs and spiritually needs. And even that it is not really anger, but more of helpless feeling that I understand both emotions , but I am not in the position to get involved. I hope that makes sense because it is really hard for me to put it into words, and it took me 5 minutes with a lot of back space edits to write this, after several deletes, trying to find the right words..

[Kishkumen]

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.

I said your views included bigotry, not that you are a bigot. I don’t think it is necessary for me to believe anything in order for us to disagree. I gave you my definition of Christian and Church of Christ. I don’t care what Paul says about false Christs because he was speaking of circumstances in his day, and, honestly, he was just one Christian teacher who ended up having an outsized influence in the formation of proto-orthodoxy. As I said, I don’t care what your views on Joseph Smith are. They don’t matter to me, and you don’t know enough about him to understand him anyway.

I know it is important for you to feel like you are backed up by the right group of fellow travelers who can point to your book and list of beliefs to feel mutually reinforced and satisfied, but your propositions are nothing but empty whistling in the dark to me. If they work for you, cool, but I am not impressed or persuaded.

[Moksha]

I disagree with your view, firstly because I have no idea what your view even is?

It is a big responsibility to feel you need to argue about everything.

[Markk]

I disagree with your view, firstly because I have no idea what your view even is?

It is a big responsibility to feel you need to argue about everything.

It is even a larger responsibility existence to just type drive by snarky insults about folks as a yes man for your tribe, without the ability and/or compacity to back up your ignorant accusations and comments....or offer original thought on a discussion forum largely designed for arguments by critics of.... faith, politics, religion, sex, gender, and generally, opposing interests of life.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...I don’t think it is necessary for me to believe anything in order for us to disagree

Well, when you accuse others of having a skewed view of something based on their belief of something, I believe you should at the very least be open and transparent enough to offer your "belief" up.

I gave you my definition of Christian and Church of Christ. I don’t care what Paul says about false Christs because he was speaking of circumstances in his day, and, honestly, he was just one Christian teacher who ended up having an outsized influence in the formation of proto-orthodoxy. As I said, I don’t care what your views on Joseph Smith are. They don’t matter to me, and you don’t know enough about him to understand him anyway.

LoL...okay, you don't care. Are you saying you know so much about Joseph Smith that you understand him? Again another hint that you believe he was a inspired prophet of sorts.

I know it is important for you to feel like you are backed up by the right group of fellow travelers who can point to your book and list of beliefs to feel mutually reinforced and satisfied, but your propositions are nothing but empty whistling in the dark to me. If they work for you, cool, but I am not impressed or persuaded.

Okay, but focus, I am not asking you for any approvals Kish, far from it. I am asking you to simply tell me what you believe, given you continually criticize my open beliefs and others, like the Tanner's, without being open and honest with your own beliefs. Again, you are very cryptic in your retort and rants of others, and their beliefs, and again.... being silent on yours.

But I have to laugh at your statement...." I don’t think it is necessary for me to believe anything in order for us to disagree"..., You have apparently mastered that ability. That would make a great signature.

[Kishkumen]

Well, when you accuse others of having a skewed view of something based on their belief of something, I believe you should at the very least be open and transparent enough to offer your "belief" up.

It is perfectly clear why you have a skewed view. It is because you approach the topic with a bias in favor of something else and cannot any longer appreciate the subject on its own terms. You are complaining that chocolate is not vanilla because you like vanilla better.

LoL...okay, you don't care. Are you saying you know so much about Joseph Smith that you understand him? Again another hint that you believe he was an inspired prophet of sorts.

No, I am saying that a polemical view of Smith falls far short of a historical view of him, and that the latter still requires a lot more work to comprehend adequately, effort you have no intention to invest.

Okay, but focus, I am not asking you for any approvals Kish, far from it. I am asking you to simply tell me what you believe, given you continually criticize my open beliefs and others, like the Tanner's, without being open and honest with your own beliefs. Again, you are very cryptic in your retort and rants of others, and their beliefs, and again.... being silent on yours.

But I have to laugh at your statement...." I don’t think it is necessary for me to believe anything in order for us to disagree"..., You have apparently mastered that ability. That would make a great signature.

Yeah, I see it is hilarious to you when you feel entitled to something and someone curiously refuses to give it to you. My observations about your bias have nothing to do with "beliefs" I may or may not possess. My observation of your bias is descriptive. I see that, as someone who oddly believes that his religious position is simply the only divine truth out there, you will not fairly assess or judge other religious perspectives. Worse yet, for you, being Christian requires that you define the term Christian so narrowly that hundreds of millions of people living and dead do not qualify as Christians because reasons . . . .

[Markk]

Kish wrote: It is perfectly clear why you have a skewed view. It is because you approach the topic with a bias in favor of something else and cannot any longer appreciate the subject on its own terms. You are complaining that chocolate is not vanilla because you like vanilla better.

Or, we can objectively see what he did, that forms our opinions of "who he was."

Start here.....Did he commit adultery?

Kish wrote: No, I am saying that a polemical view of Smith falls far short of a historical view of him, and that the latter still requires a lot more work to comprehend adequately, effort you have no intention to invest.

Well, again we can certainly look at the historical view of him. My view, again starting here is that he was an adulterer. My evidence in that he had sex with other women than his legal wife, with out her knowledge via signed affidavits and testimony by women he had sex with.

I have to ask again, what is your view of Joseph, in regard to having sex with women behind Emma's back?

Kish wrote: Yeah, I see it is hilarious to you when you feel entitled to something and someone curiously refuses to give it to you. My observations about your bias have nothing to do with "beliefs" I may or may not possess. My observation of your bias is descriptive. I see that, as someone who oddly believes that his religious position is simply the only divine truth out there, you will not fairly assess or judge other religious perspectives. Worse yet, for you, being Christian requires that you define the term Christian so narrowly that hundreds of millions of people living and dead do not qualify as Christians because reasons . . . .

What is your definition of a Christian?

It is a bit funny to me, that you are criticizing me for my views, yet you refuse to state your views. I just asked A.I. what it might call that....

A person who criticizes your views without expressing their own could be called a "nitpicker," "detractor," "carper," or "cynic"; essentially someone who focuses on finding flaws in your opinion without offering their own perspective or alternative viewpoint.

I had to look up the word "carper"....great word and fits some of your retorts.

[Kishkumen]

Start here.....Did he commit adultery?

Yes.

I have to ask again, what is your view of Joseph, in regard to having sex with women behind Emma's back?

Yes.

What is your definition of a Christian?

I already told you. Have you forgotten already?

A person who criticizes your views without expressing their own could be called a "nitpicker," "detractor," "carper," or "cynic"; essentially someone who focuses on finding flaws in your opinion without offering their own perspective or alternative viewpoint.

I had to look up the word "carper"....great word and fits some of your retorts.

Well, I have been providing my views all along. You just don't like the kinds of views I have shared, or you are not paying attention to them. Nitpicking and carping are acts of criticizing minor points. Our differences are so big that my criticism of them hardly constitutes criticizing minor points.

[toon]

I would love to see this crossover that moshka sees.

Mrakk, I also intended to note that Protestants are not a monolithic group and there is disagreement in the Body of Christ. I seem to remember an old religious joke punchline that went, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/ ... y.religion

Link to the joke.

One of his other religious jokes, from the link:

A Mormon told me that they don't drink coffee. I said, "A cup of coffee every day gives you wonderful benefits." He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, it keeps you from being Mormon ..."

[Marcus]

... I am saying that a polemical view of Smith falls far short of a historical view of him, and that the latter still requires a lot more work to comprehend adequately, effort you have no intention to invest...

Hmm. I don't think so. If you mean a view of him where one first requires acceptance of the esoteric nature (as defined by you) of his supernatural offerings? Maybe. But historically? No. Many here have invested considerably in those studies, and do not agree with your assessments. It would be interesting to hear of your beliefs, absent the unrelenting disparagement of those you continually tell us are less erudite than yourself.