CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Markk]

Kish Wrote>>>Yeah, I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism. I have a hard time seeing what could be offensive about that. It is polemical by design. They intend to attack Mormonism. That is what polemics are.

And you don't, Vogel, RFM....LOL. In a recent post of yours you wrote....

I Have Questions wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 11:15 am
How do we find out the details of what is going on in Mormonism these days? (And by details I mean the stuff the Church doesn’t want us to know).

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:28 pm
Look at your smartphone, guy.

But seriously, there has always been an underground of Mormon documents being circulated around. My dad's spouse was formerly married to a fellow who got his hands on a lot of those documents. When he passed away, she let me and Don look at a bunch of them. So, it is not like Jerald and Sandra were the sole source of juicy forbidden documents out there.

You are comparing yourself to what she did...again my hypocrisy only goes so far...Yours seem to have a lower thresh hold.

What is the difference in attacking Mormonism, or intending to attack Mormonism? Are you saying you can actually attack Mormonism without intention, and that does not count? Are you implying you attack Mormonism without intention.....Truly classic, your logic is certainly interesting.

[Dr. Shades]

Perhaps that's why we're not understanding each other. I guess you believe Mormonism can exist as an idea or set of ideas, independent of any organization.

If so, what constitutes "Mormonism" to you, specifically the parts that aren't to be had anywhere else? And of all the parts that aren't found anywhere else, which parts are true and not false, and thus assumedly deserve to prosper, perpetuate, and thrive?

As I will discuss in my next episode, for the purposes of the channel, Mormonism is everything that springs from Joseph Smith's religious activities.

Hmm. "Everything" that springs from Joseph Smith's religious activities includes the excesses of the Brighamite branch of the LDS church that you reject. So clearly you don't want ALL of Mormonism to prosper, perpetuate, and thrive, . . . right?

I don't think it matters whether things in Mormonism can be had elsewhere, so I am not sure why that is important to you. Are you saying that if they are in Mormonism, they must be sought elsewhere because Mormonism is unacceptable as a phenomenon?

No, I'm saying that it's not helpful to declare that you hope Mormonism "thrives" when you may be referring to things that aren't even "Mormon" to begin with. It'd be like me saying I hope Islam thrives when I'm only referring to Persian rugs.

I am trying to work out your thought process there.

That's my thought process. So, in light of the above, which UNIQUE aspects of Mormonism do you hope perpetuate, prosper, and thrive?

I think, while guessing, that [Kiskumen] believes Joseph Smith had a real vision and meeting with God, and was more or less commissioned to build some kind of dynastic utopia, sealing everyone with everyone. Whoever he took it too far with polygamy.

Okay, thanks. Kishkumen, does this accurately represent your viewpoint?

[Marcus]

This what you wrote, that started it, in regard to me reading Mormonism, Shadow and Reality, as one of my main sources of deconstruction after I a disagreed with you said..."If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period."
then later you wrote in context with my defense of the Tanners "research", and I quote.....

Anyone can go back and follow the conversation. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Yeah, I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism. I have a hard time seeing what could be offensive about that. It is polemical by design. They intend to attack Mormonism. That is what polemics are.

And, yes, you hold the Tanners’ research as a sacred cow because it “saved” you from Mormonism.

Sometimes I think you either can’t read very well, or you are deliberately misconstruing everything others write and just hope no one catches you in your lies. It is as though you imagine merely repeating a transparently false charge will magically turn it into a true one.

Speaking of deliberately misconstruing, you say "...I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism..." Then you explain how use of the word "polemic" can't possibly be offensive, completely leaving out the adjective that changes the meaning of the phrase significantly. This technique is not helpful to your argument, especially followed by the phrase, "[you] just hope no one catches you in your lies..."

[drumdude]

A polemic is a written or spoken attack that strongly defends or opposes a set of beliefs, idea, person, or opinion. It's a type of contentious rhetoric that uses forthright claims to support a specific position while undermining the opposing position.

The word polemic comes from the Greek word polemos, which means "war". A person who writes or speaks polemically is called a polemicist.

It’s hard for me to see Sandra as at war with the LDS church. Unless everyone who rejects the LDS truth claims is at war.

Did she and Gerald tract around General Conference and debate missionaries like some of the more aggressive evangelicals like James White did?

[Rivendale]

For those interested in Dan Vogel's motivation for studying Mormomon history here is a short clip of him from his Mormon stories interview. https://www.mormonstories.org/dan-vogel/ . Tldw? His main motivation was to help himself deconstruct Mormon truth claims. He describes his inner self being composed of Mormon layers he was trying to untangle. Much like putting a puzzle together. This and therapy helped understand himself in an analytical way. He also expressed no intent to purposely target people and try to make them lose their faith. In essence, I don't see him as attacking Mormonism by exposing it's flaws.

[Kishkumen]

Speaking of deliberately misconstruing, you say "...I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism..." Then you explain how use of the word "polemic" can't possibly be offensive, completely leaving out the adjective that changes the meaning of the phrase significantly. This technique is not helpful to your argument, especially followed by the phrase, "[you] just hope no one catches you in your lies..."

It is possible for their take to be both skewed and polemical. And it is a fact that a polemic is an attack on an opposing view. Markk has lied in this argument. One of these three positions is my opinion (skewed) and two are simple facts. I can see you disagreeing with the opinion, but I can’t help it if you don’t like the facts. Your dislike of them doesn’t change them.

[I Have Questions]

For those interested in Dan Vogel's motivation for studying Mormomon history here is a short clip of him from his Mormon stories interview. https://www.mormonstories.org/dan-vogel/ . Tldw? His main motivation was to help himself deconstruct Mormon truth claims. He describes his inner self being composed of Mormon layers he was trying to untangle. Much like putting a puzzle together. This and therapy helped understand himself in an analytical way. He also expressed no intent to purposely target people and try to make them lose their faith. In essence, I don't see him as attacking Mormonism by exposing it's flaws.

Thank you Rivendale, much appreciated

[Marcus]

Speaking of deliberately misconstruing, you say "...I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism..." Then you explain how use of the word "polemic" can't possibly be offensive, completely leaving out the adjective that changes the meaning of the phrase significantly. This technique is not helpful to your argument, especially followed by the phrase, "[you] just hope no one catches you in your lies..."

It is possible for their take to be both skewed and polemical. And it is a fact that a polemic is an attack on an opposing view. Markk has lied in this argument. One of these three positions is my opinion (skewed) and two are simple facts. I can see you disagreeing with the opinion, but I can’t help it if you don’t like the facts. Your dislike of them doesn’t change them.

Nice deflection! What are the two facts you are presenting?

[Kishkumen]

Nice deflection! What are the two facts you are presenting?

Nice deflection!

[Marcus]

Nice deflection! What are the two facts you are presenting?

Nice deflection!

So, you were not presenting any facts. Gotcha.