CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Markk]

Kish wrote...Derp. It really isn't just like saying Kurt Warner should be excluded from the Hall of Fame because he thanks Jesus. It's actually nothing like that at all.

As I wrote, "in sort" it is. You are saying that anyone, and specifically me, would have a skewed view or Mormonism* because of the Tanner's Christian faith, despite what they achieve beyond their personal beliefs and presented. So if your were to deny Kurt, the Hall of fame because of his Christian faith, it is "to some extent" the same. I certainly see it that way, and if you do not, you are missing my point.

As I said, and I repeat, I do not agree with people running down/attacking one religion in the name of another religion.

I get that, but your okay attacking the same religion for reason other than religion. Which has been one of points here that you seem to not beable to deal with.

RFM, Vogel, you, Gad, and most the folks here can "rundown" a religion because why? Please answer that question. Again, my hypocrisy only goes so far.

[Markk]

Nice deflection, there, Marcus. I already said what I said, and if you want to pretend like I didn't answer the question to deflect, that is of course your prerogative.

Sigh.

You're absolutely right, Kishkumen. Your assumption that I am pretending is absolutely the right position for you to take. You are absolutely correct to tell me that I have a prerogative to do something that you assume I am doing, regardless of what I am actually doing. No one can or should stop you when you make personal assumptions about the character of people who disagree with you. You have every right to never answer questions, and you obviously can and should talk about anyone you want to on your solo podcasts.

LOL...Simply Classic.

[Kishkumen]

As I wrote, "in sort" it is. You are saying that anyone, and specifically me, would have a skewed view or Mormonism* because of the Tanner's Christian faith, despite what they achieve beyond their personal beliefs and presented. So if your were to deny Kurt, the Hall of fame because of his Christian faith, it is "to some extent" the same. I certainly see it that way, and if you do not, you are missing my point.

What does thanking Jesus for football success have to do with anything here? I should hope no one would deny him entrance to the Hall of Fame on that basis. That would be something like the Tanners attacking Mormonism out of religious bigotry.

I get that, but your okay attacking the same religion for reason other than religion. Which has been one of points here that you seem to not beable to deal with.

I deal with it just fine.

RFM, Vogel, you, Gad, and most the folks here can "rundown" a religion because why? Please answer that question. Again, my hypocrisy only goes so far.

Which church do they belong to again? To what are they seeking to convert anyone? Gad, as far as I am aware, restricts his activities to this board. RFM is a member of the LDS Church. I am very in favor of members of the LDS Church being able to criticize their own church. And, Dan Vogel is a historian, who presents a version of the LDS Church's history that contradicts the Church's narrative. I don't see anything particularly problematic about that either.

[Markk]

Certainly, I think every religious group should make its own best case for its value. It should administer its teachings to its own members so that they understand them well. It should proselyte enthusiastically to share its message with the world. But, my opinion (as I have repeatedly stated), is that religious groups should not attack each other. No member of a religious group represents their faith positively when that member tears down other groups

But you believe that secular folks can attack any religion they want, and that is Okay? An atheist, like yourself (I assume)....can in your opinion attack religion then?

The Tanners sometimes portrayed things in the worst possible light, speculated that LDS leaders had the worst motives for doing what they did. They openly expressed their desire, in the midst of these negative portrayals, that Mormons leave the LDS Church and join their faith.

And RFM does not...and Reel does not, and Mormons join their non faith, and that is okay....Again, my hypocrisy only goes so far is this topic.

# tag Ram's, just won in Over Time.....!!!!!

[Dr. Shades]

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?

If it can improve and become better, I have no problem with any positive aspect of Mormonism prospering, perpetuating, and thriving. I don’t wish any religious groups to do worse if they can improve and do better, be healthier for their members.

So you only hope the positive aspects of Mormonism perpetuate, prosper, and thrive. . . not Mormonism as a whole. That makes a bit more sense, but it's not what you originally said.

What do you consider to be the positive aspects of Mormonism?

Seriously, what has gotten into you guys? I start a YouTube channel that has dick to do with anything but talking casually about my views in a neutral way, in which I was also, for the record, very appreciative of you, and you turn around to interrogate me about what I “really think” about Mormonism? I mean, I have been posting here for years, Shades. What gives? Why won’t you just let me run my channel as I intended, which was neither to advocate for nor against Mormonism, without giving me a hard time, as though I owed it to you or anyone else to affirm my bonafides?

None of my comments or questions stem from anything you've said on your podcast. Every last post from me concerned what you typed here, nothing else.

[Markk]

What does thanking Jesus for football success have to do with anything here? I should hope no one would deny him entrance to the Hall of Fame on that basis. That would be something like the Tanners attacking Mormonism out of religious bigotry.

What it reflects is negating Kurt's Football achievements, because of his faith. Which in sort, reflects your assertion that one should negate the Tanners achievements, because of their faith. It is a example of your prejudice.

Which church do they belong to again? To what are they seeking to convert anyone? Gad, as far as I am aware, restricts his activities to this board. RFM is a member of the LDS Church. I am very in favor of members of the LDS Church being able to criticize their own church. And, Dan Vogel is a historian, who presents a version of the LDS Church's history that contradicts the Church's narrative. I don't see anything particularly problematic about that either.

None that I know of, which is my point. They are seeking to convert folks to their animus of thought about and for the LDS church.

Lol, I am fairly sure RFM wants to be excommunicated from what I have seen, it is a badge, he needs to catch up with JD and Nemo. He stated he would not resign in one of his episodes and that would need to ex him. Dan Vogel is a humanist according to him on a podcast I watched.

So let me get this right, it is okay for members of the church that make a living denouncing the LDS church. Calling their leaders liars. Making fun of the TBM members calling them names. But it is not okay for Sandra to, as a ex-member (she resigned) and because she has another faith that Mormonism teaches is wrong, corrupt, and an abomination.

By your logic, you have no right to criticize any other religion you are not a member of, or any group or organization you are not a member of. Do you ever criticize Evangelicals, not being a member...are you consistent with what you preach of others. Do folks have a right to persuade and seek folks to change one political party to another, not being a member of the other?

I was listening to RFM this morning on a podcast called something like the "Stick of Abraham"... and he made a comment that one of two brothers that were faithful LDS members defending the church the best they could, that he looked like a "psychopathic Ken doll ." I may have butchered it a little but I am close. Are you okay with that? Is that kind of redoric and humor okay of you are a member, but to a Ex-member it is off limits.

I am try to find the rules to you rather narrow logic here.

[Gadianton]

As I wrote, "in sort" it is. You are saying that anyone, and specifically me, would have a skewed view or Mormonism* because of the Tanner's Christian faith, despite what they achieve beyond their personal beliefs and presented. So if your were to deny Kurt, the Hall of fame because of his Christian faith, it is "to some extent" the same. I certainly see it that way, and if you do not, you are missing my point.

I think you know your sources well enough that I'd personally be careful debating Mormon history with you, but this is absurd. And for many reasons. First of all, the comparison suggests that the Tanners are superstars of some sort. Your Kurt guy proving himself in some of the highest competition out there is far different than the Tanners capitalizing on an information vacuum with factual but 'nothing special' scholarship; ultimately as propaganda for their own faith. It's not like they were on the verge of winning a Pulitzer prize. It's more like, a guy who wins an MVP trophy from his High School but he'd repeated his senior year a couple of times. Sure, he's good at football; can't say he isn't.

And absolutely people will have a skewed view of Mormonism because of the Tanner's Christian Faith (provided the people are easy targets of propaganda). Here's a review of "Shadow and Reality" by an ex-Mormon who hosts an ex-Mormon website and definitely considered an anti-Mormon by apologists:

https://LDS-Mormon.com/sor-shtml/

(it's an old site, forgive the formatting glitches)

This is perhaps the most slanted, biased, and down right mean representation of the Mormon church there is. However, most of the stuff is true (although some of the conclusions and interpretations are a stretch). A more appropriate title for this book would be �Mormonism: Here are the Shadows�. Your average, active Mormon does not know about many (if any) of the things that are contained in this book even though they happen to be true for the most part. This probably isn�t the first book you want an active member to read to find out their church isn�t �true�. Most will probably throw it quickly into a fire thinking that Satan himself must have written it.

The authors really need to be fairer in their presentation of the church in a book with a title like “Shadow or Reality”. They also should take a critical look at their own religion with the same amount of diligence they give to Mormonism. This book, although informative, ends on a far more sour note than it begins–with some Christian testimonials (even though they disregard Mormon testimonials). The last few chapters left a bad taste in my mouth. The Mormon church and its members aren�t nearly as �evil� as the Tanners would have you believe. However, this book is worth the price for someone who isn’t already intimately familiar with the con-Mormon arguments. The book is also difficult to get through with all of the bolding, CAPITALIZATIONS, and italics. The problems with Mormonism are already painfully obvious just by reading the documents in context and don’t need to be overemphasized as the Tanners tend to do with their highlighting of the text.

If you are interested in giving a Mormon friend a book to “de-convert” them (attempting to de-convert them is something I don’t recommend if that person is happy with their faith and you value your friendship with them–I’m merely stating this since many people have asked me, “how do I de-convert a Mormon?”), I would not recommend this one. Try a fairer one, which lacks stretched conclusions and which doesn’t also attempt to convert the reader to another faith-based religion, like Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson�s Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon and/or Mormon Polygamy: A History.

[Marcus]

...And absolutely people will have a skewed view of Mormonism because of the Tanner's Christian Faith (provided the people are easy targets of propaganda)...

That's a reasonable take. And for those who are not easy targets, the Tanner's are a tremendous source of information. As I mentioned before, I'm having a difficult time understanding the position that fact-checking the truth claims of a religion is equivalent to "attacking" that religion, so for me, there is no reason to explore the Tanner's approach to their personal religion. I am more interested in the information they have provided, and its credibility. Yes, stating one's biases upfront is the right thing to do, but I have not run across any inaccuracies, as far as I know, engaged in by the Tanner's as a result of their "attacking" the LDS religion. If providing the information they have were somehow repressed in the name of avoiding "attacking" a religion, as it has been defined here, in my opinion that would result only in an unnecessary and inappropriate supression of research. It would be a shame if that mindset prevented people from doing and presenting their work.

[Gadianton]

And for those who are not easy targets, the Tanner's are a tremendous source of information

Really? I mean, I'm not saying they aren't a good source of information. Look at the first line of the review I quoted:

This is perhaps the most slanted, biased, and down right mean representation of the Mormon church there is. However, most of the stuff is true

Something strikes me as true about that assessment.

This ex/anti-Mormon reviewer agrees that they are a good source of information. But is it really that good? Like in what sense do you mean it's good? If I look at the reviews of Shadow and Reality on Amazon, I'm not finding much beyond born again Christians patting themselves on the back.

As an extreme example, which lines up with the reviewer I quoted: allow me to go back in time to when I was a teenager and for whatever reason, I delved into my father's gospel library. We had it all. Just take one piece of it, the Journal of Discourses. There's some crazy crazy stuff in there. Imagine, at sixteen, I lose myself in the JD, and when I come up for air, I'm like, "I've got to start a newsletter." And so every week, I find something shocking in the JD and copy it out, and I put my own commentary: "“F”! Check this crap out, it's nutz! Orson Pratt is fuckin' killing me! Dude, this is the weirdest crap I've ever read, I'm laughing my asszz off!"

Because of the quotations that I've provided that my friends otherwise never would have seen, it would probably qualify as one of the best sources of information about the Church that they've ever read. But is it really good in any reasonable sense beyond having penetrated the information vacuum of Mormon culture?

Let me point out that as I've said, I don't look at the Tanners as any less ethical than I look at the CES department. I saw Mormon kids and adults treat outsiders (and Mormons) terribly based on their "positively affirming" religious beliefs. I'll again note that I came to like Ed Decker's work more than FARMS work in many ways. A religion that knocks on doors and hard sells a faith, especially one with the demands of Mormonism, is asking for it.

If providing the information they have were somehow repressed in the name of avoiding "attacking" a religion, as it has been defined here, in my opinion that would result only in an unnecessary and inappropriate supression of research.

I partially agree but I think we need to be careful. Let me step it up a notch here. Suppose there were somewhere in the world, a smart Trump supporter. You don't need to lie about the Haitians and say they're eating cats and dogs. You can meticulously study the Haitian culture in Springville, carefully cull through newspapers, carefully look over court records, and you can write a book documenting the crimes of Haitians, the negative ways in which Haitians have impacted Springville, no need to lie about anything, and produce a truly horrifying book that at the same time, is 100% true in a very shallow sense of the word true.

[Markk]

As I wrote, "in sort" it is. You are saying that anyone, and specifically me, would have a skewed view or Mormonism* because of the Tanner's Christian faith, despite what they achieve beyond their personal beliefs and presented. So if your were to deny Kurt, the Hall of fame because of his Christian faith, it is "to some extent" the same. I certainly see it that way, and if you do not, you are missing my point.

I think you know your sources well enough that I'd personally be careful debating Mormon history with you, but this is absurd. And for many reasons. First of all, the comparison suggests that the Tanners are superstars of some sort. Your Kurt guy proving himself in some of the highest competition out there is far different than the Tanners capitalizing on an information vacuum with factual but 'nothing special' scholarship; ultimately as propaganda for their own faith. It's not like they were on the verge of winning a Pulitzer prize. It's more like, a guy who wins an MVP trophy from his High School but he'd repeated his senior year a couple of times. Sure, he's good at football; can't say he isn't.

And absolutely people will have a skewed view of Mormonism because of the Tanner's Christian Faith (provided the people are easy targets of propaganda). Here's a review of "Shadow and Reality" by an ex-Mormon who hosts an ex-Mormon website and definitely considered an anti-Mormon by apologists:

https://LDS-Mormon.com/sor-shtml/

(it's an old site, forgive the formatting glitches)

This is perhaps the most slanted, biased, and down right mean representation of the Mormon church there is. However, most of the stuff is true (although some of the conclusions and interpretations are a stretch). A more appropriate title for this book would be �Mormonism: Here are the Shadows�. Your average, active Mormon does not know about many (if any) of the things that are contained in this book even though they happen to be true for the most part. This probably isn�t the first book you want an active member to read to find out their church isn�t �true�. Most will probably throw it quickly into a fire thinking that Satan himself must have written it.

The authors really need to be fairer in their presentation of the church in a book with a title like “Shadow or Reality”. They also should take a critical look at their own religion with the same amount of diligence they give to Mormonism. This book, although informative, ends on a far more sour note than it begins–with some Christian testimonials (even though they disregard Mormon testimonials). The last few chapters left a bad taste in my mouth. The Mormon church and its members aren�t nearly as �evil� as the Tanners would have you believe. However, this book is worth the price for someone who isn’t already intimately familiar with the con-Mormon arguments. The book is also difficult to get through with all of the bolding, CAPITALIZATIONS, and italics. The problems with Mormonism are already painfully obvious just by reading the documents in context and don’t need to be overemphasized as the Tanners tend to do with their highlighting of the text.

If you are interested in giving a Mormon friend a book to “de-convert” them (attempting to de-convert them is something I don’t recommend if that person is happy with their faith and you value your friendship with them–I’m merely stating this since many people have asked me, “how do I de-convert a Mormon?”), I would not recommend this one. Try a fairer one, which lacks stretched conclusions and which doesn’t also attempt to convert the reader to another faith-based religion, like Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson�s Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon and/or Mormon Polygamy: A History.

I responded to this once and for what ever reason, it did not post...bummer. All 116 pages. I'll try again, abridged.

As far as Warner goes....he was famous or infamous for giving all credit and Glory to Christ. It had nothing to with his talent and career. He was a Hall of Fame Super Bowl champion and league and Super Bowl MVP. And Yes the Tanners, are "super stars" so to speak in the Golden age of LDS apologetics and exposing LDS truth claims, it is really not debatable.

Who is the author of your review, I looked and could not find their name?

There is a online version of MSoR on UTLM...I would love to go through it with you and we can test just how skewed it is, if you are up to it.

Who would you consider more of a "super star" than the Tanners, from a historical point of view in regard to research and apologetics?

And I have to ask, have you read MSoR?

Edit: "super" not "sue"