CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[I Have Questions]

Why are you answering a question with a question?

Because I am inviting you to think things through a little more.

How very condescending of you.
I’ll resist trying to engage with you going forward.

[Marcus]

...(I feel like there's a sequel to the movie Idiocracy in here somewhere.
"All facts debunking non-facts are no longer allowed, on the grounds that they constitute an attack on the people who believe the non-facts!" )

Lol, I think there's a story in here. I don't want to derail, so I'll do a separate thread. The movie Idiocracy seems particularly pertinent, today (post-election day) of all days.

[Markk]

As I have said numerous times on this board, I am not an atheist. I think everyone has a right to free speech for the time being. I take less issue with ex-LDS agnostics and atheists criticizing Mormonism because I think it's their prerogative to work through their separation from Mormonism and religion. Those folks who have found a new faith home ought to enjoy their new faith and leave their old one alone. After all, Mormons are Christians, and anyone is free to share their religion with others, to spread the good word, if you will. Stoking hatred for another branch of Christianity is hypocritical and detrimental.

But, listen, I fully support the Tanners' right to do and say things I do not agree with. It is not like I have any desire to curtail their rights. I just don't agree with what they are doing/did.

Well, if you are not atheist, what are you? This is why I asked you whether or not you believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and asserted you posts are cryptic.

Your comment to me was not a free speech thing, and I am not sure why you are going down that rabbit trail. What you wrote was that my view of Mormonism, even after my lifetime as being a TBM, and now a cultural Mormon, that I have a skew view of Mormonism because I deconstructed partly from reading Mormonism Shadow or Reality, and you added a "period" if I remember correctly.

Accusing Sandra as stroking hatred and giving folks like RFM, Vogel, and numerous others a free ride....and, and this is a huge "and" in my opinion, you post much hatred her personally, and I will hold myself back from adding a "period." I need to probably create a signature reading "my hypocrisy only goes so far."

And.... as an institution Mormonism in it's soul, attack's the Christianity of the early 19th century...and still does, my current faith, in their cannon. So I am not sure what you expect with those Christians that the church teaches are corrupt and that what they believe is an abomination, and have 65k or more missionaries out knocking on doors preaching it in their cannon. Condemning and accusing the Tanners as stoking hatred and being hypocritical is really hard to put words to, especially when you do the same thing as they do but from a different tribe, and cryptically always wiggling your position and words.

I have to run to work, I see you respond to some of my other posts. More later.

[Kishkumen]

How very condescending of you.
I’ll resist trying to engage with you going forward.

Shrug. If you can't be bothered with answering questions, why should I answer yours?

[Kishkumen]

Well, if you are not atheist, what are you? This is why I asked you whether or not you believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and asserted you posts are cryptic.

Your comment to me was not a free speech thing, and I am not sure why you are going down that rabbit trail. What you wrote was that my view of Mormonism, even after my lifetime as being a TBM, and now a cultural Mormon, that I have a skew view of Mormonism because I deconstructed partly from reading Mormonism Shadow or Reality, and you added a "period" if I remember correctly.

Accusing Sandra as stroking hatred and giving folks like RFM, Vogel, and numerous others a free ride....and, and this is a huge "and" in my opinion, you post much hatred her personally, and I will hold myself back from adding a "period." I need to probably create a signature reading "my hypocrisy only goes so far."

And.... as an institution Mormonism in it's soul, attack's the Christianity of the early 19th century...and still does, my current faith, in their cannon. So I am not sure what you expect with those Christians that the church teaches are corrupt and that what they believe is an abomination, and have 65k or more missionaries out knocking on doors preaching it in their cannon. Condemning and accusing the Tanners as stoking hatred and being hypocritical is really hard to put words to, especially when you do the same thing as they do but from a different tribe, and cryptically always wiggling your position and words.

I have to run to work, I see you respond to some of my other posts. More later.

I just described why I disagree with what the Tanners do/have done. You are the one being hyperbolic and dramatic about it. It is quite a spectacle to behold, but evidently a lot of people around here support your views in this regard.

[huckelberry]

Well, if you are not atheist, what are you? This is why I asked you whether or not you believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and asserted you posts are cryptic.

Your comment to me was not a free speech thing, and I am not sure why you are going down that rabbit trail. What you wrote was that my view of Mormonism, even after my lifetime as being a TBM, and now a cultural Mormon, that I have a skew view of Mormonism because I deconstructed partly from reading Mormonism Shadow or Reality, and you added a "period" if I remember correctly.

Accusing Sandra as stroking hatred and giving folks like RFM, Vogel, and numerous others a free ride....and, and this is a huge "and" in my opinion, you post much hatred her personally, and I will hold myself back from adding a "period." I need to probably create a signature reading "my hypocrisy only goes so far."

And.... as an institution Mormonism in it's soul, attack's the Christianity of the early 19th century...and still does, my current faith, in their cannon. So I am not sure what you expect with those Christians that the church teaches are corrupt and that what they believe is an abomination, and have 65k or more missionaries out knocking on doors preaching it in their cannon. Condemning and accusing the Tanners as stoking hatred and being hypocritical is really hard to put words to, especially when you do the same thing as they do but from a different tribe, and cryptically always wiggling your position and words.

I have to run to work, I see you respond to some of my other posts. More later.

I just described why I disagree with what the Tanners do/have done. You are the one being hyperbolic and dramatic about it. It is quite a spectacle to behold, but evidently a lot of people around here support your views in this regard.

Kishkumen I doubt everybody or most everybody is in any agreement here. I think it is unfortuanate that the disagreement with Markk has been so emotionally overheated and extended. I probably have views rather in the middle of the two of you. I have some sympathy for Markks view of the Tanners but do not know why he is so heated about it.

I have found myself puzzling about a general but decided division in how different people react to religious claims. Some people feel and are probably unable to unfeel an existential crisis involved. Others perhaps in different ways take a cooler approach.

I will risk stating my sense that you take a step back from crisis and look at the whole social context, how does it work, how does it fit human history and its ongoing exploration of ideas. You probably sympathize with the anthropologists principal of studying different cultures by considering how its values have worked for its survival and should be understood in those survival terms.

I do not think the Tanners make any attempt at dealing with those questions. There is no history of Mormonism there. There is no full picture of Mormon experience there. It is just a pile of stuff left out of the rose colored picture. From a crisis point of view that is what somebody might seek and feel grateful for. From a different point of view there work is problematic. I certainly would not tell a nonMormon to use their material to really understand Mormonism. It is only useful to those well familiar with Mormonism, preferably from the inside.

There is a clumsiness in the big Tanner book , a pile of any sort of everthing which might be uncomfortable to belief. Most of it I forget. I remember beer at Mossiers because it is a bit comic. I find BY sermons interesting riffs on Mormon thought. For truth claims I was impressed by the changes in Book of Commandments, DC reading priesthood restoration back into earlier sections suggesting the opposite. The presentation is so clumsy that it is hard to see but worth while.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen I doubt everybody or most everybody is in any agreement here. I think it is unfortuanate that the disagreement with Markk has been so emotionally overheated and extended. I probably have views rather in the middle of the two of you. I have some sympathy for Markks view of the Tanners but do not know why he is so heated about it.

I have some sympathy for Markk's view of the Tanners, inasmuch as I completely understand why the Tanners mean a lot to him. What continues to baffle me is that my disagreement with their goals is met with so much childish hostility. Indeed, that is how I view Markk's reaction to my channel in general. He is not interested in what I am doing, even if it is not particularly provocative in either direction; he is upset that I am not doing what he thinks I ought to be doing

I have found myself puzzling about a general but decided division in how different people react to religious claims. Some people feel and are probably unable to unfeel an existential crisis involved. Others perhaps in different ways take a cooler approach.

I would like to hear more from you about this topic. I feel like you are adumbrating something that is important, and I would like to get more on this, if you would.

I will risk stating my sense that you take a step back from crisis and look at the whole social context, how does it work, how does it fit human history and its ongoing exploration of ideas. You probably sympathize with the anthropologists principal of studying different cultures by considering how its values have worked for its survival and should be understood in those survival terms.

Yes, it is true that I like and identify with the anthropological approach.

I do not think the Tanners make any attempt at dealing with those questions. There is no history of Mormonism there. There is no full picture of Mormon experience there. It is just a pile of stuff left out of the rose colored picture. From a crisis point of view that is what somebody might seek and feel grateful for. From a different point of view their work is problematic. I certainly would not tell a nonMormon to use their material to really understand Mormonism. It is only useful to those well familiar with Mormonism, preferably from the inside.

All true. I think it is important to understand what one is looking at. What the Tanners do is look at what is on the cutting room floor of the LDS narrative, and then call it a deception that this material is not in the narrative. I think there are points at which that is true, but then there are a lot of places where it is representative of the narrative-formation process any group goes through. For me, understanding the difference is important.

There is a clumsiness in the big Tanner book , a pile of any sort of everthing which might be uncomfortable to belief.

Agreed. Very insightful.

Most of it I forget. I remember beer at Mossiers because it is a bit comic. I find BY sermons interesting riffs on Mormon thought. For truth claims I was impressed by the changes in Book of Commandments, DC reading priesthood restoration back into earlier sections suggesting the opposite. The presentation is so clumsy that it is hard to see but worth while.

Yeah. I like a lot of the data. I love the revelation changes. I just don't find them particularly concerning. Because, you know, continuing revelation can't include editing past revelations? Shrug. Yeah, it is a poorly edited data dump. And the idea, which did prove to be true, that merely putting the data out there and allowing people to draw the worst conclusions with consistent small doses of prejudicial commentary was very effective in driving some people out of Mormonism.

I just want to say, huckelberry, a big thank you for always being a reasonable person who comes from a very different perspective from mine in some respects but engages constructively, maturely, and thoughtfully. Most of the people who have been at me throughout these "Markky Markk and the Funky Bunch" threads have failed consistently to exhibit any of those virtues.

[Markk]

Hi Huckleberry,

Posts on forums like this are wooden, and emotion is sometimes hard to perceive. I assure you I am not at all heated, and very far from it....in fact I try to add as many lol's as I can without coming off like an ass. It takes a lot fore me to get heated by other folks words. I wish we could all sit down and have a beer and understand our personalities. I am enjoying the conversation and I think maybe the best way to describe my view of this, is I am kind of amazed at the hypocrisy, and I am trying different approaches to understand what he believes, lol, with zero luck.

[Markk]

Hunter Biden wrote...There is a clumsiness in the big Tanner book, a pile of any sort of everything which might be uncomfortable to belief. Most of it I forget. I remember beer at Mossiers because it is a bit comic. I find BY sermons interesting riffs on Mormon thought. For truth claims I was impressed by the changes in Book of Commandments, DC reading priesthood restoration back into earlier sections suggesting the opposite. The presentation is so clumsy that it is hard to see but worth while.

I agree it is clumsy. The best way I have found to read it, is think of who they were. They were basically kids out of high school, and processing and writing this all at the same times, read time. It's awesome that she would navigate herself within the church archives, talk with the church historians and GA's and find thinks no one had a clue was out there. They had BYU professors coming into their store getting information they could not get from the church....just so much.

Things like tracking down Elijah Abel's family, finding microfilm evidences like diary's that contradicted LDS truth claims....it was a awesome time and in my opinion priceless and we would not know what we know about the church today, if it was not for their early work.

For anyone that has not read it, here is the first go at it, and basically an abridged version.....have fun with it.

https://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm

[huckelberry]

Hunter Biden wrote...There is a clumsiness in the big Tanner book,

Is this a psychological compulsion to offend people?