CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Markk
God
Posts: 1525
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Markk »

Rivendale wrote, in regard to Vogel:...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.
What I am about to write is my opinion and not worth more than that....

Well, I am a huge fan of Vogel, and RFM, and as a interviewer John Dehlin. And because of my commute listen to them often, I genuinely enjoy their platforms. I really can't say enough about the Ritner, RFM, Dehlin's.... 13 hours on the Book of Abraham, with JD being the layman asking the questions that folks like me want to hear, and Ritner being the expert answering the questions and RFM dumbing it down in a logical way with his sense of humor....in my opinion it is priceless and one could almost throw away any books or papers on the subject and still have a more than balanced understanding of the history and issues with the Book of Abraham.

What you wrote about Vogel is true, I have heard his disclaimer several times, and with RFM (and Reel) also, and in almost every podcast of JD's, after he does the opposite and feels bad. They say they are not there to lead people out of the church but to give them the truth so they can make informed decisions and that is partly true....I guess.

Then they go on and laugh, make fun of, put members down just about everything Mormon at the expense of the LDS church leaders and believing membership. I do the same thing without a platform, as do most folks here. Heck RFM and Reel now party and get buzzed doing so in MLAD.

Sandra, will tell you the same thing, I have heard here say so, that she wants members to be informed of the truth, so they can make an informed decision. She still believes in agency, she is not these folks HS. Does she laugh and joke at the leaders and members expense, sure, but hardly as deep as RFM, Reel, and others....and her quick wit is very common sense based and almost impossible to argue with. I love it, she is very funny and a icon.

Vogel is much more reserved, but none the less has his moments, his remark recently about Joseph Smith running with the heavy plates in the most recent DCP movie, was actually DCP's lunch, was classic, and very funny. But...Lol, with Vogel, I have to be careful when I listen to him when I drive, his monotone voice puts me to sleep sometimes. Coffee and Vogel go well together, and well worth it. He is a champion in my opinion for putting his reference books free online (Internet Archive),they are invaluable when doing a deep dive on a subject. I would love to sit down and have a beer with him and just pick his brain.

My point in all this is that it is human nature, we are bias based creatures, and that we who spend so much time looking at, learning, debating and arguing about it, in my opinion we need to take a step back and understand our hypocrisy's, and raise our right hand and say....guilty. Then carry on .

Kish picking out the Tanners over the others is not working, nor will it ever. It is in sorts, like saying NFL quarter back Kurt Warner should not be in the Hall of Fame because he gave public thanks after every game to his "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8868
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:05 am
So, you were not presenting any facts. Gotcha.
I don’t intend to repeat myself. I already pointed them out. But, nice deflection again!
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8868
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2024 10:26 am
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.

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 hope my answer above helps you understand better. My posts are mostly in connection with CWK, which is not aiming to offer some kind of “official statement” on the value 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?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8868
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Markk wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:51 pm
Sandra, will tell you the same thing, I have heard here say so, that she wants members to be informed of the truth, so they can make an informed decision. She still believes in agency, she is not these folks HS. Does she laugh and joke at the leaders and members expense, sure, but hardly as deep as RFM, Reel, and others....and her quick wit is very common sense based and almost impossible to argue with. I love it, she is very funny and a icon.

****

Kish picking out the Tanners over the others is not working, nor will it ever. It is in sorts, like saying NFL quarter back Kurt Warner should not be in the Hall of Fame because he gave public thanks after every game to his "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
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 said, and I repeat, I do not agree with people running down/attacking one religion in the name of another religion. 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. 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.

That's not really how you portray their activities. Laughing and joking at the leaders' and members' expense? LOL. Yeah. OK. Yes, she may have done that, but she did much more than that.

You know, I do like the David and Goliath aspect of the John Dehlin story, and that of some other critics out there. The little ex-Mormon who speaks truth to power, so to speak, and presses the multi-billion-dollar corporation to do better, to be better. That metaphor and that reality does not work so well for the person who throws stones from a glass house, and who represents the dominant religious position in the country, one that has pushed the Mormons around since the beginning of Mormonism. The Tanners may present as Davids, but they have Goliath backing them up. The Goliath of Protestant Christianity, which has a really bad record when it comes to persecuting other religious groups in this country, including Catholics (the single largest Christian denomination in the world, but still a culturally marginal group compared to the Protestant Mainstream).
Last edited by Kishkumen on Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failed Prophecy
Star B
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:14 pm

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Failed Prophecy »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:21 pm
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?
Seriously? You start a new discussion for every damn video you post and then assert that your YouTube channel has dick to do with anything? You are the one making the association pervasive and constant. If you don't want people's opinions here, confine yourself to YouTube comments and stop dragging your video content over here.

Also, you stuff isn't neutral. You have just as much of an axe to grind as you think Sandra Tanner does. You have no moral high ground here, not can you claim a blessed view from nowhere.

Also, how the hell is Shades, or anyone else on God's green earth, influencing your channel?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8868
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Failed Prophecy wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2024 11:40 pm
Seriously? You start a new discussion for every damn video you post and then assert that your YouTube channel has dick to do with anything?
It didn't take you very long to misconstrue my words. Wow. Pretty amazing.
You are the one making the association pervasive and constant. If you don't want people's opinions here, confine yourself to YouTube comments and stop dragging your video content over here.
What association? I am happy to have other people's opinions about the actual video. Markk can't seem to understand what the videos are about in the first place. He wants to make them about his own axes to grind. That's fine for a bit, but it gets old after about ten exchanges on the same issue in which he refuses to accept my answers, mischaracterizes what I have said, and twists my words.

Honestly, it gets boring. Fortunately, there are only a handful of you who can't manage to do anything other than pick a fight or continue some longstanding beef.
Also, you stuff isn't neutral. You have just as much of an axe to grind as you think Sandra Tanner does. You have no moral high ground here, not can you claim a blessed view from nowhere.
Oh really? And what axe to grind is that? I should think not trying to talk anyone into or out of a religious group is being true to the purpose of the channel, which I do think is morally superior to a Christian attacking Mormonism. Yep.
Marcus
God
Posts: 6542
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Marcus »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:01 pm
Marcus wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:05 am
So, you were not presenting any facts. Gotcha.
I don’t intend to repeat myself. I already pointed them out. But, nice deflection again!
Not to me, but no worries. Also not sure how I am deflecting when I'm asking you the question which you refuse to answer, but, nicely deflected! Again!!
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8868
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:03 am
Not to me, but no worries. Also not sure how I am deflecting when I'm asking you the question which you refuse to answer, but, nicely deflected! Again!!
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.
Marcus
God
Posts: 6542
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Marcus »

Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:10 am
Marcus wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:03 am
Not to me, but no worries. Also not sure how I am deflecting when I'm asking you the question which you refuse to answer, but, nicely deflected! Again!!
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.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8868
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:30 am
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.
Why type so much? I provided the information. You say I didn't. Well, that's just not true, so I don't know what to do with that.

ETA: By the way, I am bored with this exchange, so, as far as I am concerned, it's done.
Post Reply