gmormon Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 The same could be said about many historical "bad guys" as long as you didn't push their 'hot button'I was thinking that too, but I didn't want to be accused a comparing Mrs Tanner to _______.
cdowis Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Ah man I don't like Hank. I called in his show once to challenge something he had said and he just used typical radio tactics to get me off the air and change the subject. He talked talked talked talked leaving no room for me to respond and slowly but surely changed the subject, then suddenly it was commercial time. That is exactly why I do not call radio shows. I send them an email to join us here for a "civil discussion", but no takers so far. They cannot dominate the discussion on a forum as they can do on radio.
urroner Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I was thinking that too, but I didn't want to be accused a comparing Mrs Tanner to _______.to ?...to the Great Donut Tyrant?...to Tom Cruise?...to one of my great-great grandpa's best friend, Butch Cassidy?...to Hillary Clinton?Don't leave us hanging!!!
gmormon Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 to ?...to the Great Donut Tyrant?...to Tom Cruise?...to one of my great-great grandpa's best friend, Butch Cassidy?...to Hillary Clinton?Don't leave us hanging!!!My dad claims to have met Butch Cassidy as a kid supposely after he was killed in South America or is that at...? (Sorry wrong op !)http://www.quia.com/hm/83830.html
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 The whole thing, to me, centers on the belief LDS have that God and Jesus appeared to JS in the flesh and blood and bones. Jesus never declared God as such, and in fact said if you had seen Him you had seen the Father, but that no man had seen the Father. So was Jesus calling Job a liar? Or was Jesus stating fact? If God is flesh and bones as LDS believe, then why the need for the Son to be manifest in the flesh??? Enough on that. Read your own Gospel Principles. I don't think she made anything up, but pretty much told the truth.trueActually, blood has no part of it at all. You may think it's a minor discrepancy, but it's not. You are incorrect.3. Mormon's believe that God was actually a "human" that lived on another "Earth". Ever sing the song "If You Could Hie to Kolob"? Since we know Kolob is not a biblical word and that it is a peculiar LDS word, we know where it came from and what that book plainly says as what JS plainly said on the topic.trueYou clearly don't know what Kolob is according to LDS theology.
mnn727 Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I was thinking that too, but I didn't want to be accused a comparing Mrs Tanner to _______.I was very very careful not to mention that name that kills threads and bans posters, and truthfully, the same thing really could be said of anyone if you "push their hot button"
Confidential Informant Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I bet she did not talk about her ill-conceived lawsuit against FAIR and how badly, and embarrassingly, she lost it.C.I.
William the Conqueror Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I sincerely have come to believe that the 'common' EV doctrine of salvation is iniquity/lawlessness in that they despise the commandments of God and reject them."Come quickly Lord Jesus" I'll put my trust in the fact that God is coming to judge the earth with justice and equity.Many Reformed churches including John McArthur believe in Lordship salvation. I don't think that common EV doctrine despises the commandments of God. Most Dispensational theologians will say the Ten Commandments are no longer a rule of life (meaning required for salvation) under the New Covenant. The whole Mosaic Code which includes the Ten commandments was "...nailed to the Cross..." (Colossian 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross). However, Romans 3:31 "Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law." So the Ten Commandments are a rule of life for sanctification but not for salvation. Romans 13:9ff: "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."
Dale Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 To bad we can't link to a transcript of the show for discussion. I don't see much in the original summary that look's like a falsehood. She seem's to have mostly presented legitimate objection's coming from her different religious perspective. Though if she can't learn to say anything nice I prefer her not to say anything at all. The charge of brainwashing if those were her words is a bit much.
Sentinus Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Many Reformed churches including John McArthur believe in Lordship salvation. I don't think that common EV doctrine despises the commandments of God. Most Dispensational theologians will say the Ten Commandments are no longer a rule of life (meaning required for salvation) under the New Covenant. The whole Mosaic Code which includes the Ten commandments was "...nailed to the Cross..." (Colossian 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross). However, Romans 3:31 "Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law." So the Ten Commandments are a rule of life for sanctification but not for salvation. Romans 13:9ff: "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." GREAT POST! Thank you I really enjoyed the content. Regards,Sentinus
jadams_4242 Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Sandra Tanner was a guest for the last two days (16th and 17th) on Hank Hanegraff's Bible Answer Man and did her usual best to disparage the Mormons and the church. In the first 15 minutes she was able to get out several falsehoods about Mormon philosophy. One is that Mormons use "their" terminology as if they owned copyright on it. While Mormons use such terminology we really mean something else. She also stated that we believe that God, Jesus, the angels and Satan are all the same "species", whatever that means. My favorite is Tanner's assertion that Mormon's believe that God was actually a "human" that lived on another "Earth". Hank goes further and states that S. Tanner knows more about Mormonism than anyone else. cough...cough...Other highlights includes her assertions that Mormons brainwash our young, condemn those who read materials outside Mormonism, etc. While I usually shun decrying the EV's take on Mormonism I couldn't help but feel this women is loopy and really pathetic. Has anyone had any experiences with the Tanner's on a one-to-one basis? No but i would really "love" to get one of her kids a B.O.M to take home and ask mom if they could read it! I wonder if she would let them?
mpschmitt Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 There was discussion toward the end of the show the first day about Grace vs. Works (the old standby to accuse Mormons of believing they are saved by their own righteousness because they believe being a true Christian requires obedience to living the gospel ~ Matthew 25 anyone?). What is astounding to me is that CRI can know so much and yet still know so little about what LDS folks are really all about. They ignore much of what I regard as beautiful and noble in the faith and string together the stuff that would cast a negative light in questionable ways to make their "iron clad" case against Mormonism. Because I know the actual facts and can recognize her blatant misrepresentations, I find it all very unpersuasive and disappointing.One very telling thing about CRI's methods is that you won't generally find books by actual historians like Robert V. Remini, Jan Shipp, Richard Bushman, being touted by Hank. Only books by pseudo historian polemecists like Richard Abanes and the Tanners, whose methods are routinely questioned by LDS and Non-LDS historians.Here's one historian's take on Sandra Tanner's questionable methods:http://www.lightplanet.com/response/shadow.htmAnd here's a quote from a Non-LDS Historian named Lawrence Foster"The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writing, and beliefs. . . The Tanners seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same--negative. (Foster 1984, 45-46, 49)" (From http://www.lightplanet.com/response/tanners.htm)
Sentinus Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 GREAT POST! Thank you I really enjoyed the content. Regards,SentinusPS, I find that the Tanners were modern pioneers who opened the eyes of Thousands to the "Meat" of Mormonism. I for one am thankful for their efforts. While I may not agree with ALL of what they have written. Most of their research has been impecable. As has been demonstrated by numerous other posters in this thread. I am sure Brigham is proud to see his teachings brought back to prominent light by one of his predecessors in there original form. I am also glad to see a thread formed where she can be seen in her true light. As for the whole Mormons and copyright words issue. Don't LDS believe they have the divinely "restored" meanings? This implies that everyone else has got it wrong, AND since it was "restored" it is also implied that you had it first. I think it is blatently clear that LDS claim "authority" in interpreting the words and phrases above all the rest of the world and it's many religions. Additionally I find it quite revealing that this of all the amazingly "absurd" statements she supposedly made, some have chosen to debate this?
Ron Beron Posted October 20, 2007 Author Posted October 20, 2007 To bad we can't link to a transcript of the show for discussion. I don't see much in the original summary that look's like a falsehood. She seem's to have mostly presented legitimate objection's coming from her different religious perspective. Though if she can't learn to say anything nice I prefer her not to say anything at all. The charge of brainwashing if those were her words is a bit much. You can check out Google for the Bible Answer Man website and hear the entire two day affair. I didn't want to link it because why give them anymore ammo than they think they already have. Aside from the many inaccuracies I heard I came away from the discussion that they were really quite smug in their belief that the LDS are completely in error and because of were leading to people to hell. In fact, Tanner even said that Mormons don't believe in hell except for those who actively pursue the destruction of the church of which Tanner feels she falls under. To that, at least, I agree.
MormonMason Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 I have been in to her store a time or two and spoken with her. As long as she isn't talking about Mormonism, FARMS or Louis Midgley, she is a pleasant woman. But as soon as she begins speaking about anyof those things, her demeanor changes and becomes instantly bitter, her tone changes, and becomes nasty. I am amazed at the change every time I see it. But like I said, when she isn't speaking about those things, she is a really nice lady.I agree with that assessment 100%. She is really pleasant when discussing anything but Mormonism.
Ron Beron Posted October 20, 2007 Author Posted October 20, 2007 I agree with that assessment 100%. She is really pleasant when discussing anything but Mormonism. People with axes to grind generally are congenial until you bring up the sensitive subject and then they become irrational and angry to the point of zealotry. Scary.
Dale Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 You can check out Google for the Bible Answer Man website and hear the entire two day affair. I didn't want to link it because why give them anymore ammo than they think they already have. Aside from the many inaccuracies I heard I came away from the discussion that they were really quite smug in their belief that the LDS are completely in error and because of were leading to people to hell. In fact, Tanner even said that Mormons don't believe in hell except for those who actively pursue the destruction of the church of which Tanner feels she falls under. To that, at least, I agree.They have to believe LDS are leading people to hell. That would make them unsaved false teachers with false ministries if they didn't hold that belief. Sandra Tanner had better hope she doesn't end up in outer-darkness.
Ron Beron Posted October 20, 2007 Author Posted October 20, 2007 They have to believe LDS are leading people to hell. That would make them unsaved false teachers with false ministries if they didn't hold that belief. Sandra Tanner had better hope she doesn't end up in outer-darkness. She essentially stated that is where she is destined in the Mormon POV. I can understand feeling antagonistic towards a church that you feel misled you, but to spend a lifetime trying to bring it down is simply psychotic.
Trencher7 Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 I used to listen to Hank's show all the time. He is like a broken record. I called in once when he had Sir James White on as they were reviewing the absolutely abominable (if you were to believe them) "How Wide the Divide". I told James that "How Wide" was what his book "Letters to a Mormon Elder" should have been since you actually had an LDS representative speak for himself instead of having James play chess with himself to determine the winner. Anyway, on most days when bashing Mormonism, Hank would constantly repeat how Mormons view heaven as having "endless Celestial sex" as if that were a bad thing. Yet he later had on his show the authors of a book called "Pure Sex" (which I understand has changed titles since). These authors along with Hank talked about how pure and holy sex is and how it was a gift from God. It's really too bad that when Evans have sex, it's a beautiful and sacred act, but when those Mormons have it, it's dirty and lustful. Oh well...
urroner Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 They have to believe LDS are leading people to hell. That would make them unsaved false teachers with false ministries if they didn't hold that belief. Sandra Tanner had better hope she doesn't end up in outer-darkness.Do they believe that an LDSer is more powerful than God? If God allows an LDSer to lead somebody to Hell, then wouldn't a typical Mainstreamer believe that it was God's will for that to happen?
Dale Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 The only type of church where people can get saved in their mind teach their gospel. Sandra Tanner has overly been indoctrinated with trivia. She may feel mislead, but that's her problem. I left the LDS Church for the Community of Christ/RLDS. But I don't run around testifying to how mislead I was. I frankly don't feel mislead. I read through the Tanner materials and don't feel mislead. Any concerns I had via reading their stuff has been resolved to my satisfaction.
Neighbor Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Many Reformed churches including John McArthur believe in Lordship salvation. I don't think that common EV doctrine despises the commandments of God. Most Dispensational theologians will say the Ten Commandments are no longer a rule of life (meaning required for salvation) under the New Covenant. The whole Mosaic Code which includes the Ten commandments was "...nailed to the Cross..." (Colossian 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross). However, Romans 3:31 "Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law." So the Ten Commandments are a rule of life for sanctification but not for salvation. Romans 13:9ff: "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." Don't forget what Jesus said in 'the sermon on the mount'. Not one law of God is changed in any way. They are all still valid.
MormonMason Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Don't forget what Jesus said in 'the sermon on the mount'. Not one law of God is changed in any way. They are all still valid.Fascinating. So, when is the next time you are going to observe Pesach? Yom Kippur? Rosh Hashshanah? Sukkoth? Do you know the difference between a heave offering and a wave offering? Do you do them? They were all part of the Law of God, and, by your argument, still valid.
Dale Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 The problem with Sandra Tanner is she is locked into a position on Mormonism. She has never sought the ability the skill to resolve concerns.
juliann Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 One is that Mormons use "their" terminology as if they owned copyright on it. Heh...she thinks she has a copyright on internet parody, too.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.