Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Markk]

What is funny and not boring is watching you implode. I can't tell you how much your posting reminds me of the old days telling the Mopologists about the failed truth claims and history of the church, that ironically the church now admits as true.

"your boring"....or "you don't understand" or "I already told you" .....all the while ducking a open two way conversation about their assertions about others.

As far as Moksha, I could not disagree more and stand by what I wrote, lets see if he can actually enter into a conversation and back up what he wrote.

If not, you two can tell each other cleaver jokes, because neither of you want to expound on or back up any or your assertions. Or maybe invite him on Whine with Kish, that would be a hoot. You can put on tweed jackets with elbow patches, break out your pipes, and have the discussion of "Tapir, horse or myth." But I do give credit to Moksha, he does not pretend to know everything, and does not think he is the final word on all things Mormon.

I have never... and I mean NEVER seen or heard Kishkumen even hint of this, let alone say this. Your hyperbole is getting away from you.

Then read the thread.

I am not sure if you are following of not, but what started our conversation is that he asserted that my deconstruction from Mormonism was skewed, because one of the first books I read, after 33 years as a member was Mormonism Shadow or Reality. His assertion is basically that I and Sandra Tanner do not have the right to criticize Mormonism because we are fellow Christians with Mormons.

If someone is going to make such a claim, which is okay, and welcomed on a forum like this, don't you think they should at the least share their belief in return and why they can criticize Mormonism but we can't? Do you know what Kish believes in this regard?

Kerry, I can remember on the old boards telling you about the nonsense of things such as the Book of Abraham, much of it based on what I read from the Tanners, and you defending the very LDS truth claims you laugh at and criticize today. I also assume even making, or trying make, a little beer money criticizing the church and their claims.

But anyways, do you agree with Kish that my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read research by the Tanners? Do you have equal disrespect for their research?

[huckelberry]

... I can see why you left Mormonism. You needed something a lot less mentally demanding...

Seriously, on this board you're going to try that???
That's a complete and utter fail as an insult.

I fear both of these posters have been carried away to the point of becoming an embarrassment to themselves. Perhaps both could stop and realize their concerns and views simply do not match and they are not going to find any agreement.

[I Have Questions]

... I can see why you left Mormonism. You needed something a lot less mentally demanding...

Seriously, on this board you're going to try that???
That's a complete and utter fail as an insult.

It’s a bizarre comment. It’s akin to calling people that leave Mormonism “lazy learners”. The problem with it is that it is obviously much less mentally demanding to follow the Prophet than it is to do one’s own thinking and decision making. It’s a supercilious way of saying “I’m better than you”, “I’m smarter than you”. That poster seems to look down on all but his chosen few posters whom he deems sufficiently qualified to converse with his superior intellect. At least that’s how he comes across on this board, intentionally or otherwise.

[I Have Questions]

What is funny and not boring is watching you implode. I can't tell you how much your posting reminds me of the old days telling the Mopologists about the failed truth claims and history of the church, that ironically the church now admits as true.

"your boring"....or "you don't understand" or "I already told you" .....all the while ducking a open two way conversation about their assertions about others.

As far as Moksha, I could not disagree more and stand by what I wrote, lets see if he can actually enter into a conversation and back up what he wrote.

If not, you two can tell each other cleaver jokes, because neither of you want to expound on or back up any or your assertions. Or maybe invite him on Whine with Kish, that would be a hoot. You can put on tweed jackets with elbow patches, break out your pipes, and have the discussion of "Tapir, horse or myth." But I do give credit to Moksha, he does not pretend to know everything, and does not think he is the final word on all things Mormon.

I have never... and I mean NEVER seen or heard Kishkumen even hint of this, let alone say this. Your hyperbole is getting away from you.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

[Kishkumen]

So please Dr Peterson, dumb it down for me, given your superior intellect; why I am entitled?

You’re not dumb. You’re lazy. I am not repeating myself. You can take the time to read and think.

But yes I found something much less demanding, Grace. I can be who I am, and I no longer have to pretend to be something I know I can never be. And I can have Hope, without again, pretending to be something I am not. I have a hard enough time managing my family, home and Job, let along worlds with out end as you appear to still hang onto. Right or wrong, it is awesome, and I can tell you what I believe without having to hide my belief, as you are doing.

Do you have a “hard enough time,” Markk? I mean, you’re here, aren’t you? I am not hiding anything. Not giving in to the demands of an entitled a-hole is not the same as hiding. I am happy you found your comfort zone, Markk. Good for you! It is interesting how anti-Mormonism became part of your religious identity, but it is not for me to tell you how to live your faith.

But again in this last post of yours you seem to be defending Mormonism once again? Another cryptic hint. Why did you leave Mormonism, or have you?

Damn you are thick.

[Markk]

Kish wrote- You’re not dumb. You’re lazy. I am not repeating myself. You can take the time to read and think.

Lol...Again a true mopoligentic type response.

Your non articulated cryptic "answers" are dodges, ducks, and weaves, something Iron Mike did pretty good for a 58 year old last night. I am not alone in seeing this. At this point I am almost fascinated to know what your position is on Joseph Smith and whether you believe he was truly inspired by God, and whether or not you are a closet believer. Does it matter, no, but it would be interesting and shed light on the bias of your accusations about myself and the Tanners.

But hey at least I am no longer dumb, just lazy, we are getting somewhere I suppose.

Kish wrote- Do you have a “hard enough time,” Markk? I mean, you’re here, aren’t you? I am not hiding anything. Not giving in to the demands of an entitled a-hole is not the same as hiding. I am happy you found your comfort zone, Markk. Good for you! It is interesting how anti-Mormonism became part of your religious identity, but it is not for me to tell you how to live your faith.

LOL, LOL,...huh? I get the whole a-hole thing, everyone here is that at times....but moving back from being lazy to being dumb, the entitled thing cracks me up. By that logic everyone with a outspoke opinion is a entitled a-hole. Are you an entitled a-hole for your rants about our political leaders. I can apply the same arguments you claim why I am entitled, to your polemic views of the politicians you despise and hate. Your view of politics is skewed and you can't possible make an informed opinion based on your reading. (careful)

I don't think my asking you whether or not you believe Joseph Smith was an inspired or not, is a "demand," this in not a hostage situation, it is a discussion forum and you are very outspoken with your criticisms of others and things, to boot with your pod cast a public figure, or at the least a wanna be one. So, your dramatic assertion that my asking you questions about what you believe after you criticize and question my beliefs...is hardly a demand let alone a entitled one. It is basically at this point two things, one, showing your hypocrisy and or ignorance, and two....I am really really curious .

Kish wrote -Damn you are thick.

Honestly you must not realize that you are defending Mormonism/Joseph in your overall retort against me. Granted they are passive and cryptic, but it does show.

Love ya.

[Kishkumen]

I fear both of these posters have been carried away to the point of becoming an embarrassment to themselves. Perhaps both could stop and realize their concerns and views simply do not match and they are not going to find any agreement.

Oh no, I think it is perfectly possible for someone to opt out of Mormonism because it’s too complicated for them. If people can’t tell the difference between that and a compliment to Mormonism, that’s on them. The problem here is that people bring their narcissistic and narrow minds to threads and then lazily emote over things that trigger them. If they took the time to think and really read, they would save us all a lot of grief.

[Kishkumen]

Your non articulated cryptic "answers" are dodges, ducks, and weaves, something Iron Mike did pretty good for a 58 year old last night. I am not alone in seeing this. At this point I am almost fascinated to know what your position is on Joseph Smith and whether you believe he was truly inspired by God, and whether or not you are a closet believer. Does it matter, no, but it would be interesting and shed light on the bias of your accusations about myself and the Tanners.

But hey at least I am no longer dumb, just lazy, we are getting somewhere I suppose.

If you find support from the people I ordinarily clash with, that’s not exactly a victory. At least not in my mind.

LOL, LOL,...huh? I get the whole a-hole thing, everyone here is that at times....but moving back from being lazy to being dumb, the entitled thing cracks me up. By that logic everyone with a outspoke opinion is an entitled a-hole. Are you an entitled a-hole for your rants about our political leaders. I can apply the same arguments you claim why I am entitled, to your polemic views of the politicians you despise and hate. Your view of politics is skewed and you can't possible make an informed opinion based on your reading. (careful)

My view of politics is biased, and I stand by it. I can see you still haven’t bothered to figure out why I call you entitled. Oh well.

I don't think my asking you whether or not you believe Joseph Smith was an inspired or not, is a "demand," this in not a hostage situation, it is a discussion forum and you are very outspoken with your criticisms of others and things, to boot with your pod cast a public figure, or at the least a wanna be one. So, your dramatic assertion that my asking you questions about what you believe after you criticize and question my beliefs...is hardly a demand let alone a entitled one. It is basically at this point two things, one, showing your hypocrisy and or ignorance, and two....I am really really curious .

I called Protestant theology heterodox from an Orthodox Christian perspective. I called your view of Mormonism skewed because it comes from a polemical discourse. Both of those statements are descriptive and quite fair.

Honestly you must not realize that you are defending Mormonism/Joseph in your overall retort against me. Granted they are passive and cryptic, but it does show.

You are caught in the binary. You can’t see my to escape it and keep trying to drag me into it. All you have on your side is your tenacity.

[huckelberry]

My persona is not at all cryptic to those who have paid attention. You have not paid attention. I will happily share my personal views with people who pay attention, behave politely, and approach me with a modicum of courtesy. You entered this conversation behaving like a rude teenager, and so you get what you get. Don't throw a fit.

LOL...So do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? You just wrote, "My persona is not at all cryptic to those who have paid attention." that is a admission of sorts to being cryptic...my questions are rather easy and simple...."do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?" Why can't you answer the question, it is really not that hard.

So I promise you I am paying attention, do you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?

A post from polygamy and sex thread:

Markk,

I believe this disagreement started with Kishkumen rejecting your view that it was just sex and nothing more. It was as if mutual offense was almost immediate. Beyond that I really have to note that you are speaking as if you have been selected the official inquisitor. Msnobody is right; Kishkumen may have multiple reasons for not answering all of which would entitle him to not respond to your question.

I think with polygamy you are both interested in completely different questions. You are concerned with whether Josephs claims of authority are valid and should be accepted by you. I think you ask yourself what is the most basic core of what is happening with polygamy and Joseph. Kishkumen is interested in the idea system it is a part of and how that fits into developing social meaning and thus what it might mean to Mormons now. He might even wonder how the background of polygamy is part of ongoing cultural patterns still effecting America as a whole.

His interest does not necessarily mean Joseph is taken to be a true prophet. Kishkumen may prefer questions and inquiry that simply leave that as open. It is also at least possible that his ideas of the meaning of "God" and "true prophet" do not match yours. It is also possible the answer is simple but he is put off by demands.

Markk, it is possible that you both do not realize, perhaps did not intend it, but your posts with disagreement have come across as angry and demanding? It appears to start with you magnifying disagreement and slights from Kishkumen until he obliged by giving you the insults.

[Markk]

LOL...So do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? You just wrote, "My persona is not at all cryptic to those who have paid attention." that is a admission of sorts to being cryptic...my questions are rather easy and simple...."do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?" Why can't you answer the question, it is really not that hard.

So I promise you I am paying attention, do you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?

A post from polygamy and sex thread:

Markk,

I believe this disagreement started with Kishkumen rejecting your view that it was just sex and nothing more. It was as if mutual offense was almost immediate. Beyond that I really have to note that you are speaking as if you have been selected the official inquisitor. Msnobody is right; Kishkumen may have multiple reasons for not answering all of which would entitle him to not respond to your question.

I think with polygamy you are both interested in completely different questions. You are concerned with whether Josephs claims of authority are valid and should be accepted by you. I think you ask yourself what is the most basic core of what is happening with polygamy and Joseph. Kishkumen is interested in the idea system it is a part of and how that fits into developing social meaning and thus what it might mean to Mormons now. He might even wonder how the background of polygamy is part of ongoing cultural patterns still effecting America as a whole.

His interest does not necessarily mean Joseph is taken to be a true prophet. Kishkumen may prefer questions and inquiry that simply leave that as open. It is also at least possible that his ideas of the meaning of "God" and "true prophet" do not match yours. It is also possible the answer is simple but he is put off by demands.

Markk, it is possible that you both do not realize, perhaps did not intend it, but your posts with disagreement have come across as angry and demanding? It appears to start with you magnifying disagreement and slights from Kishkumen until he obliged by giving you the insults.

Actually he stated my view of Mormonism (Joseph's polygamy and sex) is skewed because of my faith because I initially read a book by the Tanners, even as a member of the church, a few year before I became a Christian. He has no idea what I have read and researched on Joseph Smith beyond my reconstruction. All I am doing is asking for a conversation, H-B. There is a good chance I have read more on the life of Joseph Smith than he has over the past 30 plus years, a very good chance.

I mean here you are trying to explain his view, when he won't. Buy I appreciate it. I am not the least bit angry H-B, far from it. I am actually enjoying the "conversation," if you can call it that. I am so curious to figure out whether he is a closet Mormon of sorts, it is like playing 20 questions on steroids.