Sandra Tanner Is A Member Of Mormonstories

[readstoomuch]

So, I have been on MS more because of my discussion here.  Things never really change.  There is some comment about Joseph Smith, which is automatically followed by comments about polyandry/polygamy and invariably about  bedding any 14 year old that was available.  "Thank goodness he isn`t around my daughter" is something I have read a bunch of times.  I have tried to make some comments.  One time I brought up facts about Helen Mar Kimball, the wife most are usually alluding to the most, and her devout history within Mormonism.  Orson F Whitney`s mother, defender of the Church with many devout writings.  Does any of it do any good?  Nope, just a bunch of piranha`s on a feeding frenzy.  No moderators to keep things balanced.  More disingenuous trash talk and jabs than a pie-eating contest.  When something is brought up that is truly legitimate or worthy of discussion, it still ends up degenerating into a church-bashing contest.  Today Rollo Tomasi posted on the MS group.  I thought you were supposed to use your real name on MormonStories.  Is Rollo Tomasi really his name?  No wonder Sandra has found a new home of friends.  Maybe they can charter a bus to go out and talk to audiences about the Church. Incredible, just incredible.  

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Actually, although it was the clear intention of Sandra and her late husband to destroy the LDS Church, it is the opinion of Professor Larry Foster of Georgia Tech that they strengthened the LDS Church.  He is a non-Mormon who specializes in Mormon history.  You might want to read his article "Career Apostates: Reflections on the [Life and] Work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue, 17/2 (Summer 1984):35-60 (the complete title is Foster’s), published in revised form as “Apostate Believers: Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Encounter with Mormon History,” in R. Launius and L. Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (1994), 343-365.   See it online at https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_37.pdf .

 

I share Professor Foster's view that by reprinting and discussing early LDS documents and history, the Tanners inadvertantly created great interest in the dynamism and power of early Mormonism.  The result has been that, for every person leaving the Church, hundreds of others have gained deeper faith and understanding of the Restoration -- providing great impetus for strong LDS Church growth precisely in the decades when the Tanners were most active.

 

You mustn't fear the anti-Mormons.  What they do only increases interest in the Church and increases the rate of baptisms.

[strappinglad]

Brian 2.0 , what , short of a personal visit from Christ, would it take for you to reconsider your position? And if only a personal visit will suffice, what are a couple of questions that you would need answered before you had a rethink?

[Robert F. Smith]

So, I have been on MS more because of my discussion here.  Things never really change.  There is some comment about Joseph Smith, which is automatically followed by comments about polyandry/polygamy and invariably about  bedding any 14 year old that was available.  "Thank goodness he isn`t around my daughter" is something I have read a bunch of times.  I have tried to make some comments.  One time I brought up facts about Helen Mar Kimball, the wife most are usually alluding to the most, and her devout history within Mormonism.  Orson F Whitney`s mother, defender of the Church with many devout writings.  Does any of it do any good?  Nope, just a bunch of piranha`s on a feeding frenzy.  No moderators to keep things balanced.  More disingenuous trash talk and jabs than a pie-eating contest.  When something is brought up that is truly legitimate or worthy of discussion, it still ends up degenerating into a church-bashing contest.  Today Rollo Tomasi posted on the MS group.  I thought you were supposed to use your real name on MormonStories.  Is Rollo Tomasi really his name?  No wonder Sandra has found a new home of friends.  Maybe they can charter a bus to go out and talk to audiences about the Church. Incredible, just incredible.  

"piranha`s on a feeding frenzy."?  Yes, but you must avoid the urge to do likewise in return.  A lot of these people are quite nice in their own bailiwick and apart from their anti-Mormon crusades.  I have been to church with Sandra and her family (Christian & Missionary Alliance Church) and found it delightful.  Sandra even sang a solo there.  I have never had a cross word with her.

 

You can learn a lot from such people, as long as you don't automatically accept that everything they believe is necessarily true.  Be kind and considerate, but study the issues for yourself from a wide array of sources.  And pray about it.  The Holy Ghost will not lead you astray.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

However, just for the sake of perspective, Brian, recall that Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Thomas Marsh, and other highly placed members, were so sure that Joseph was wrong or that the LDS faith was wrong.  And so they left.  Yet, years later, they came back.   They returned in humility.  Why?

 

Are you at the end of a journey, or merely in the midst of a process?  You won't know where your road has led you until more time has gone by.

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

Be kind, Tacenda.  She never had the advantage of higher education, and does not understand the historico-critical method.  She is trying to save Mormons from what she sees as false religion.  She is on a lifelong mission.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Correct, Buzzard.  See my post #27 on this thread.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian 2.0 , what , short of a personal visit from Christ, would it take for you to reconsider your position? And if only a personal visit will suffice, what are a couple of questions that you would need answered before you had a rethink?

I think telling your own story or navel gazing or something like this is not allowed on the board but I'll answer and see if I'm crossing the line.

I guess I would say I am always reconsidering my position and welcome new evidences and ways of looking at things (which is why I'm still here!).

The meat of my questions go beyond Mormonism into belief if God etc. i have a difficult time seeing an intervening God in the world. It seems more like a bunch of people (most good) trying to make sense of it all and creating meaning from it (not a bad thing). And I see the church being led by men (most good) doing their best, but don't see a divine hand beyond that.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, Brian, but the problem with the atheists is that they are tone-deaf to the powerful similarities between their own humanist beliefs and the humanism of Mormonism.

[Brian 2.0]

However, just for the sake of perspective, Brian, recall that Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Thomas Marsh, and other highly placed members, were so sure that Joseph was wrong or that the LDS faith was wrong. And so they left. Yet, years later, they came back. They returned in humility. Why?

Are you at the end of a journey, or merely in the midst of a process? You won't know where your road has led you until more time has gone by.

By no means am I at the end. Who is? And I don't know where I will end up... I never would have believed 10 years ago I'd believe how I believe now, so I can't say I know how I'll believe 10 years from now.

I like discussion/debate on these things, and this has been a great place for it because of different perspectives and such. I'm not a big fan of echo chambers... so while I probably share more in common belief-wise with some other boards or forums, I don't find posting there stimulating.

[Tacenda]

Be kind, Tacenda. She never had the advantage of higher education, and does not understand the historico-critical method. She is trying to save Mormons from what she sees as false religion. She is on a lifelong mission.

I never said she turned me off, just the segment turned me off. She had a tender moment when discussing her late husband's Alzheimer's disease and I related because my mom had it. You really saw her in a different light. Maybe not to some or many, but she didn't come off as an evil anti, just an anti.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

That is the truth.   I find I get along with atheist critics in Christian chat rooms much more than fundamentalist Christians.  They annoy me with their hypocrisy.   A while back I read an article " "How does one become a Biblical Archaeologist?" and it contained a few quotes that blew me away.  One was this statement:

 

"There are a number of secular universities that offer Ph.D. degrees in Near Eastern Studies, with a major in Palestinian archaeology, which is what you want if you are interested in Biblical archaeology. The problem with secular schools is that a lot of their teaching is negative toward the Bible, and you may find that discouraging. I would recommend a Christian school."

 

Now if a Mormon was to say a similar thing about the  Book of Mormon and suggest an LDS school, you could just imagine the ridicule.  Even worse was this gem.

 

"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible." --Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research

 

Imagine what they if some LDS person was to say:

 

"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Book of Mormon record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Book of Mormon, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Book of Mormon."

[carbon dioxide]

Actually, although it was the clear intention of Sandra and her late husband to destroy the LDS Church, it is the opinion of Professor Larry Foster of Georgia Tech that they strengthened the LDS Church.  He is a non-Mormon who specializes in Mormon history.  You might want to read his article "Career Apostates: Reflections on the [Life and] Work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue, 17/2 (Summer 1984):35-60 (the complete title is Foster’s), published in revised form as “Apostate Believers: Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Encounter with Mormon History,” in R. Launius and L. Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (1994), 343-365.   See it online at https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_37.pdf .

 

I share Professor Foster's view that by reprinting and discussing early LDS documents and history, the Tanners inadvertantly created great interest in the dynamism and power of early Mormonism.  The result has been that, for every person leaving the Church, hundreds of others have gained deeper faith and understanding of the Restoration -- providing great impetus for strong LDS Church growth precisely in the decades when the Tanners were most active.

 

You mustn't fear the anti-Mormons.  What they do only increases interest in the Church and increases the rate of baptisms.

I don't know if if this is true at all.  A lot of people are lazy and will not dig through the material to find out how much truth people like the Tanners are giving.  I think many just look for an excuse to find something wrong about the Church and the Tanners give them enough material to satisify their need.  For me personally however anti stuff has only increased my faith in the Church.  I have a fairly boring life so I have time to read the stuff and research their points.  I learn stuff I never would have learned if it was not for people like the Tanners.  Sometimes it opens doors into unrelated areas that I am researching and I learn stuff from that as well.

 

I sort of liken anti-Mormon material to an antibiodic and the members being bacteria.  Either the material will weaken and "kill off" the member or make the member stronger and resistant.  I personally consider myself as muti-resistant.  I have seen so many problems with the work of say the Tanners that it hard for me to take them seriously on any issue. 

Edited July 7, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[BCSpace]

There book Mormonism Shadow or Reality was the book that started my exit.

 

 

Why would anyone exit on false and poorly researched information?

[Tacenda]

I don't know if if this is true at all. A lot of people are lazy and will not dig through the material to find out how much truth people like the Tanners are giving. I think many just look for an excuse to find something wrong about the Church and the Tanners give them enough material to satisify their need. For me personally however anti stuff has only increased my faith in the Church. I have a fairly boring life so I have time to read the stuff and research their points. I learn stuff I never would have learned if it was not for people like the Tanners. Sometimes it opens doors into unrelated areas that I am researching and I learn stuff from that as well.

I sort of liken anti-Mormon material to an antibiodic and the members being bacteria. Either the material will weaken and "kill off" the member or make the member stronger and resistant. I personally consider myself as muti-resistant. I have seen so many problems with the work of say the Tanners that it hard for me to take them seriously on any issue.

Care to elaborate on what problems they have? They seem to back up what they print with factual info. Of course they don't relay it in a faith promoting way at all.

[readstoomuch]

Robert, I have read Dr Fosters article. It is well worn and sitting by my bed, I am not being led away by anti stuff. My oldest children are wrestling with OW and secularism. I had dozens of investigators given the Tanners stuff. John Dehlin had alot to do with my oldest son going inactive. I hear what you are saying and I try to be kind. OW, MS and people like the Tanners are driving me crazy. I really can't do anything. Even being nice you don't get to do much cleaning with all the mud on the MS board.

[Tacenda]

Robert, I have read Dr Fosters article. It is well worn and sitting by my bed, I am not being led away by anti stuff. My oldest children are wrestling with OW and secularism. I had dozens of investigators given the Tanners stuff. John Dehlin had alot to do with my oldest son going inactive. I hear what you are saying and I try to be kind. OW, MS and people like the Tanners are driving me crazy. I really can't do anything. Even being nice you don't get to do much cleaning with all the mud on the MS board.

Sorry you have children that are struggling. I don't know that it's all of JD's, the Tanners or the MS's group that should take total blame. I think the church belongs in there somewhere because it didn't give a clear picture of our history. Almost as if it didn't trust it's members with some subjects. I think my faith crisis helped me handle my own children's inactivty in the church. If I was like I was before, ultra TBM, I'd be a basket case right now.

[Glenn101]

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.

 

Brian, You still have chosen your path. You have been led away by your internal processes. (I am not condemning your process, although I obviously do not agree with your conclusions.) That is the point I was making. The Tanners did not lead anyone away from the church. There are those who read or listened to them and accepted what they said and let that help. They are choosing their paths. The same for the Ordain Women organization. People are choosing their paths.

 

I did not start out choosing to believe in the LDS church. I started out choosing to believe in God. I was semi raised in the Church but went inactive for many years. I did not think my way back. I prayed my way back. And those prayers were answered. I chose to believe the answers I have received.

 

I, up to this time, have not been tempted to follow any of those paths. I don't have a testimony of Church History. I do have a testimony of God, the Father, His Son Jesus the Christ, the Holy Ghost, the restoration of the Gospel, and of Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration. That testimony has been sealed upon my by the Holy Ghost. Whenever I am faced with any anomalies that I do not understand, I always have that as my rock.

 

Sometimes we do not have enough empirical information to find the truth for ourselves. We cannot see the past and nothing of the future. As Paul said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly."

 

Glenn

Edited July 7, 2014 by Glenn101

[Senator]

Thank you for agreeing that the bar for qualifying as a "Mormon story" is vanishingly low.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

No, I don't.

 

Next time ask me if I agree with your differing statement.

[Pahoran]

No, I don't.

 

Next time ask me if I agree with your differing statement.

 

If Sandra Tanner's apostate exit narrative is a "Mormon story" then it inevitably follows that the bar for qualifying as a "Mormon story" is vanishingly low.

 

And your admission of that fact is all the more satisfying for being given unwittingly.

 

It also means that just because Dehlin's project is called "Mormon stories," doesn't mean that it has any connection with the stories of believing Latter-day Saints.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[boblloyd91]

If Sandra Tanner's apostate exit narrative is a "Mormon story" then it inevitably follows that the bar for qualifying as a "Mormon story" is vanishingly low.

 

And your admission of that fact is all the more satisfying for being given unwittingly.

 

It also means that just because Dehlin's project is called "Mormon stories," doesn't mean that it has any connection with the stories of believing Latter-day Saints.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Let's not forget that Shawn McCraney and even Ed Decker were on the show. I agree and am not too shocked she is on there.

[stemelbow]

Let's not forget that Shawn McCraney and even Ed Decker were on the show. I agree and am not too shocked she is on there.

Doesn't matter. Isn't Mormonstories all about giving people who feel they have a story that relates to Mormonism a platform to tell it? Listen if ya want. Its not like we have anything to fear no? We act appalled that other humans are saying things we don't like. Seems like a silly reaction to me. Who cares? Listen to them or don't. Even if ya listen it's not like they are devils. Just people living their own fractured existence.

[readstoomuch]

Fine, there aren`t just intellectuals, semi-active and active Mormons on Podcasts. We have down right anti-Mormons on our podcast. In fact we have a ratio of 10:1 people with a beef about the Church vs faithful members. We`ll give the faithful Mormons a much harder time in their interview. After all, we can`t sound too faithful on Mormon Stories. We couldn`t really try to keep some body active in the Church. No, just like our Facebook group, it needs to be downright nasty to any one who actually believes all of this stuff.

If John Dehlin and MS could be as honest about what seems to happen, then by golly have Satan on himself if you can get him out of Hell this time of year.

[Brian 2.0]

Fine, there aren`t just intellectuals, semi-active and active Mormons on Podcasts. We have down right anti-Mormons on our podcast. In fact we have a ratio of 10:1 people with a beef about the Church vs faithful members. We`ll give the faithful Mormons a much harder time in their interview. After all, we can`t sound too faithful on Mormon Stories. We couldn`t really try to keep some body active in the Church. No, just like our Facebook group, it needs to be downright nasty to any one who actually believes all of this stuff.

If John Dehlin and MS could be as honest about what seems to happen, then by golly have Satan on himself if you can get him out of Hell this time of year.

I would love an interview with Satan.

And he was "in" at one point to technically he has a "Mormon Story" and his exit narrative all about the war in heaven would be fascinating from his perspective.

First question, "what do you say to the 100s and 1000s of those out there that say you don't actually exist?"

[rodheadlee]

I would love an interview with Satan.

 

Be Careful of what you ask for.