readstoomuch Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I have it on good authority that Sandra Tanner takes part in the MormonStories FB group. Talk about a lady that caused problems for me on my mission. I can`t tell you how many times her stuff got quoted to me. Now she looks like a grandma and comes across as sweet and nice. I think her venom came out of her evangelical style beliefs she picked up after being LDS. I also know that she reproduced legitimate hard to find documents, but also always maligned and sensationalized their writings about the Church. She would never put her own style of Christianity to the tests that she asked of the LDS Church. I have had my mind blown a lot over the last week. Now Sandra Tanner is doing podcasts and taking part in FB discussion on MormonStories. Unbelievable! Truly times are changing-seems like a merry-go-round.
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I have it on good authority that Sandra Tanner takes part in the MormonStories FB group. Talk about a lady that caused problems for me on my mission. I can`t tell you how many times her stuff got quoted to me. Now she looks like a grandma and comes across as sweet and nice. I think her venom came out of her evangelical style beliefs she picked up after being LDS. I also know that she reproduced legitimate hard to find documents, but also always maligned and sensationalized their writings about the Church. She would never put her own style of Christianity to the tests that she asked of the LDS Church. I have had my mind blown a lot over the last week. Now Sandra Tanner is doing podcasts and taking part in FB discussion on MormonStories. Unbelievable! Truly times are changing-seems like a merry-go-round.Did you watch her MS podcast? That was pretty mind blowing.
readstoomuch Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 I could only watch a little bit. I just couldn`t take the fact that this lady that had led thousands of people away from the Church was beng validated in some way by Mormons. IMO of course.
Storm Rider Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 The more some people think they are blazing new trails the more we learn that things stay the same, but come in different wrappings. Never listen to what someone says; focus on their actions and what fruit they bear. This enables each of us to beware of those who smile, appear as angels of light, but are full of darkness. 3
sunstoned Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 The more some people think they are blazing new trails the more we learn that things stay the same, but come in different wrappings. Never listen to what someone says; focus on their actions and what fruit they bear. This enables each of us to beware of those who smile, appear as angels of light, but are full of darkness. Never listen to what someone says? Well I guess that is one way to keep your testimony safe.
Helen47 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 There book Mormonism Shadow or Reality was the book that started my exit. I saw Dialogue quoted a lot and then subscribed. Thats the way my husband started letter exchange with Wes Walters and the rest is history. I found MS of her interesting but lost interest in last one as I noticed she was too fundamentalist for me.Once we could purchase early copies of newspapers now we have Signature books producing for 100 dollarsall the papers and interesting diaries, journals etc.
volgadon Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Sandra Tanner also posts in other facebook groups on Mormon history, so? 1
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted July 6, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Never listen to what someone says? Well I guess that is one way to keep your testimony safe. That is a rather narrow approach to understanding my comment; worse it rips my statement out of context. Now go back and read it in context and drop to stupid comments. If you want to dialog I am more than happy to do so, but if this is a time for you to demonstrate silliness, I will pass. Edited July 6, 2014 by Storm Rider 5
Storm Rider Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Sandra Tanner also posts in other facebook groups on Mormon history, so? I agree completely with this. Identifying individual members of a blog, forum, etc. is not a valid method to evaluate a group. It may be one of a wide range of methods IF the proverbial birds of a feather flock together holds water. 1
readstoomuch Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 The queen mother of anti-mormon literature for decades now is being treated as an unbiased source of mormon history and doctrine by several groups. Read non-mormon Lawrence Foster's review of their career and the anonymous Church historian response to Shadow or Reality. Both are still relevant in these strange days of Mormon Discussion Groups
Pahoran Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Sandra Tanner, doyenne and Queen Regnant of the anti-Mormon demimonde, a member of MormonStories? Say it ain't so! What could possibly attract her to such an unashamedly pro-Mormon activity? Of course, I'm aware of a truly absurd theory that might explain it, but it's just too unbelievable for words... Regards, Pahoran 2
Storm Rider Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Sandra Tanner, doyenne and Queen Regnant of the anti-Mormon demimonde, a member of MormonStories? Say it ain't so! What could possibly attract her to such an unashamedly pro-Mormon activity?Of course, I'm aware of a truly absurd theory that might explain it, but it's just too unbelievable for words...Regards,Pahoran When I think of absurd theories you are the first purveyor that I think of.
Senator Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I could only watch a little bit. I just couldn`t take the fact that this lady that had led thousands of people away from the Church was beng validated in some way by Mormons. IMO of course. Was she a Mormon? If she was, then we have a Mormon story, whether you like the story or not.
Teancum Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I have it on good authority that Sandra Tanner takes part in the MormonStories FB group. Talk about a lady that caused problems for me on my mission. I can`t tell you how many times her stuff got quoted to me. Now she looks like a grandma and comes across as sweet and nice. I think her venom came out of her evangelical style beliefs she picked up after being LDS. I also know that she reproduced legitimate hard to find documents, but also always maligned and sensationalized their writings about the Church. She would never put her own style of Christianity to the tests that she asked of the LDS Church. I have had my mind blown a lot over the last week. Now Sandra Tanner is doing podcasts and taking part in FB discussion on MormonStories. Unbelievable! Truly times are changing-seems like a merry-go-round.I don't think she is a member of the group. If she is I have never seen her post there.
readstoomuch Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 She was Mormon and I saw a post on the MormonStories FB group last. Yes, I am a member, but the group has changed markedly over the last four years. I have tried to be a voice of intelligent, faithful discussion on the board. It is an impossible task. There is mostly vitriol these days and then Sandra Tanner. When I was a missionary, she came to a church 2 blocks from where I lived. It made the work very hard after her lecture. So when I saw her podcast and then post on the discussion group, it really did blow my mind. I am not sure that she has changed as much as an aspect of us Mormons.
AndyDnom Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 you don't need it on good authority, you can just look on youtube
Brian 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 She's not a part of the Mormon Stories podcast team or Open Stories foundation is she? If she's just a member of of the FB group I don't see this is much of anything about anything. 2
Buzzard Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) I could only watch a little bit. I just couldn`t take the fact that this lady that had led thousands of people away from the Church was beng validated in some way by Mormons. IMO of course.I didn't hear her podcast. Not to interested in Dehlin and what he is selling. It's hard to know, but I have heard that the Tanners have probably led more people TO the gospel than they have led away. Anti literature probably piques more interest in the church than it leads away. And then they start reading the BOM, and searching out objective information, next thing you know they are on their knees, and we all know the rest of the story. Edited July 6, 2014 by Buzzard 1
readstoomuch Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 No, but she was invited to do a podcast. Maybe it's just me, but there is not nearly enough faithful people on MS podcasts to critics. Sandra as a case in point. If she is trying to change her ways and be more balanced and put her own faith to the same standards-fine by me. If it is more if the same from the 70's, then wow are things changing.
Brian 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 No, but she was invited to do a podcast. Maybe it's just me, but there is not nearly enough faithful people on MS podcasts to critics. Sandra as a case in point. If she is trying to change her ways and be more balanced and put her own faith to the same standards-fine by me. If it is more if the same from the 70's, then wow are things changing.I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but critics that hold the LDS church to one standard but don't apply it to their own religion is a big pet peeve of mine. I prefer an atheist critic every time. 1
Glenn101 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 No, but she was invited to do a podcast. Maybe it's just me, but there is not nearly enough faithful people on MS podcasts to critics. Sandra as a case in point. If she is trying to change her ways and be more balanced and put her own faith to the same standards-fine by me. If it is more if the same from the 70's, then wow are things changing. I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but critics that hold the LDS church to one standard but don't apply it to their own religion is a big pet peeve of mine. I prefer an atheist critic every time. This is something that I do not worry about. No one can be led away from the church that does not choose to be led, whether it is John Dehlin, Kat Kelly/Ordain Women, Sandra Tanner, or anyone else. Maybe they are unwittingly helping to prune the Lord's vineyard. I don't know. However, if a person looks to a human being for their source of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, then their own wisdom, knowledge, and understanding will be limited to the extent that their "guru" actually understands anything. I do not know of any who have fallen away from the church because they prayed a bout it and received an answer that "No it is not true". Rather, from all those I have read, doubts began to filter in because of science, anti literature, etc and those doubts grew to the point that they overpowered their spiritual sources of wisdom. Glenn 1
readstoomuch Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 It just isn't members. The Tanners made regular trips through evangelical churches to warn them about the church.
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but critics that hold the LDS church to one standard but don't apply it to their own religion is a big pet peeve of mine. I prefer an atheist critic every time.Agree and as has been mentioned, the last segment of the podcasts, she doesn't apply the same standard to her own religion. It turned me off completely.
Pahoran Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Was she a Mormon? If she was, then we have a Mormon story, whether you like the story or not. Thank you for agreeing that the bar for qualifying as a "Mormon story" is vanishingly low. Regards,Pahoran 3
Brian 2.0 Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) This is something that I do not worry about. No one can be led away from the church that does not choose to be led, whether it is John Dehlin, Kat Kelly/Ordain Women, Sandra Tanner, or anyone else. Maybe they are unwittingly helping to prune the Lord's vineyard. I don't know. However, if a person looks to a human being for their source of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, then their own wisdom, knowledge, and understanding will be limited to the extent that their "guru" actually understands anything. I do not know of any who have fallen away from the church because they prayed a bout it and received an answer that "No it is not true". Rather, from all those I have read, doubts began to filter in because of science, anti literature, etc and those doubts grew to the point that they overpowered their spiritual sources of wisdom. Glenn The idea of choice in matters of faith is interesting to me, and a lot more complicated than people like to make out. When people talk so black and white about choice and faith with sayings like "faith it a choice, you either choose to believe, or choose to disbelieve." It's almost akin to me when people say things like "being gay is a choice." It obviously has a LOT of differences, but there are some things that are similar. I was a fully-active member but now I no longer believe in the truth claims of the church. There are family consequences, social consequences, even business consequences for my lack of belief. If it was as simple as "making a choice" to be a full believer as I was before I would just do that. But it's not that simple. We all have our own very complicated and very personal way of evaluating all evidences, spiritual and otherwise, in helping us determine what we believe to be true/false/right/wrong. And simply saying that "we choose to believe or disbelieve" sort of downplays that whole internal process that happens in each of us and makes it seem it's as easy as choosing vanilla or chocolate ice cream. It's not that I didn't use reason/logic/science when I was a believer and in the process of de-conversion I put aside spiritual things and took up reason/science/logic. Those same tools of reason/science/logic have been with me the whole time. And as I learned new things about certain aspects of church history or doctrine or theology... my beliefs started to changes as I filtered everything through that same complicated internal process of determining truth for myself. So yes, there is choice involved. And I guess you can say that people choose to believe or disbelieve the truth claims of the church. But you'd also have to say that people also choose to believe or disbelieve the healing power of crystals... or the benefit/harm of vaccinations... or that the earth revolves around the sun... or that posting in online forums make any difference. Just because we make millions of choices in determining truth, doesn't mean you can just easily choose to change your beliefs. If it's simply a choice to believe of disbelieve.... then next week, or just for the next hour... "choose" to believe in the religion of Islam or any other religion. Choose to believe it whole heartedly to the same extent that you currently believe in the truthfulness of the LDS church. Can you? I know you weren't making it out to be simple, but more of a process... but as someone who has gone from believer to disbeliever... I don't look at my process as a series of bad choices. Edited July 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0 1
Recommended Posts