Sandra Tanner Is A Member Of Mormonstories

[readstoomuch]

So the conversation has not been mean about John, but pointed and frank the last page or so. I will try to continue that tone. John has an advertisement for his Marriage and Faith Transition Workshop. The cost is $300 per couple for a day seminar. There are a few spaces left he says.

I was tempted to not say anything else, but I just can`t. Create the market and then service it. This is just wrong. He makes some money for the podcasts associated with The Open Stories Foundation, but I will leave out the amount I have heard. With this twist it is time for John to get out of the MormonStories business. There must be some ethical dilemma for a counselor in this situation. If you`re going to criticize the Church about their dealings, have some introspection.

[rockpond]

So the conversation has not been mean about John, but pointed and frank the last page or so. I will try to continue that tone. John has an advertisement for his Marriage and Faith Transition Workshop. The cost is $300 per couple for a day seminar. There are a few spaces left he says.

I was tempted to not say anything else, but I just can`t. Create the market and then service it. This is just wrong. He makes some money for the podcasts associated with The Open Stories Foundation, but I will leave out the amount I have heard. With this twist it is time for John to get out of the MormonStories business. There must be some ethical dilemma for a counselor in this situation. If you`re going to criticize the Church about their dealings, have some introspection.

How did Dehlin "create the market"?

And assuming John has criticized the church, what does that have to do with married couples navigating faith transitions?

For many of us, his MS work is already part of his counseling work. But if you haven't personally been through such a situation, I think it would be tough to understand.

p.s. The financials for the Open Stories Foundation are published to all who donate. What Dehlin is paid is not a secret. Which is, of course, more than we can say for other organizations.

[readstoomuch]

My experience with several people in my stake and family (including my oldest son) is that MS started their path into inactivity/exiting from the Church. I am trying to help a brother now who is galvanized in his feelings against the Church. He quotes John and uses the MS lingo.

I have been through a faith crisis. It forced me to do serious research and questioning. There are really balanced books about the Church. Almost anything from Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens would give you that balance. John could provide that balance and as the last page or so discuss, he really doesn`t take that opportunity. His mission really isn`t to keep people in the Church. I could give you many quotes from John that are so obvious in attempting to push people away from the Church.

Maybe I`m wrong. I`ll read other comments and try to learn. MormonStories had so much potential to start a rational/faithful path in

staying in the Church. This career of counseling people in a faith crisis is really the last straw for me in my obvious opinion about MS.Of course this is all my opinion.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So the conversation has not been mean about John, but pointed and frank the last page or so. I will try to continue that tone. John has an advertisement for his Marriage and Faith Transition Workshop. The cost is $300 per couple for a day seminar. There are a few spaces left he says.

I was tempted to not say anything else, but I just can`t. Create the market and then service it. This is just wrong. He makes some money for the podcasts associated with The Open Stories Foundation, but I will leave out the amount I have heard. With this twist it is time for John to get out of the MormonStories business. There must be some ethical dilemma for a counselor in this situation. If you`re going to criticize the Church about their dealings, have some introspection.

 

First, John's salary from Mormon Stories is not a secret. John's Salary with Open Stories for the past two years has been about $55,000 dollars per year. In addition last year he got a an additional $33k by drawing down funds that had previously been held in reserve. So close to $90k last year, which is not too shabby for a graduate student.  That said John provides all of his podcasts for free. No one is coerced into donating anything. John puts a lot of effort into his work. I think that if you are willing to criticize John here, then you have to be open to criticizing a lot of other people as well including many leaders of the church. What's good for the goose is good for the gander no?

 

Second, John did not create the market. People have been having crises of faith since religion began. You are an example of someone who went through a faith crisis and came out faithful. My father-in-law is an example of someone who went through a faith crisis pre-internet and left the church. The internet has certainly changed the equation now. People are one click away from finding out all types of true things about the church that could potentially rock their faith. I had my first experience with anti-mormon literature on the web back in mid 90's as a Freshman at BYU. People can find any and all types of information. You have utlm, mormonthink, FairMormon, lds.org, and any number of pro and anit sources. You have the "blogernaccle." John Dehlin is not the only voice out their doing podcasts, but one of many. FairMormon has a podcast, Bill Reel has a podcast, John Larson has a podcast. The church puts out podcast type material. You have discussion forums that run the gammit. The information is out there and there is no shortage of places to find it. John Dehlin didn't create the market, but what he says resonates with a sizable portion of those going through faith crises. That should tell us something. People gravitate to John, because he gives them a voice for how they are feeling and what they are experiencing. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My experience with several people in my stake and family (including my oldest son) is that MS started their path into inactivity/exiting from the Church. I am trying to help a brother now who is galvanized in his feelings against the Church. He quotes John and uses the MS lingo.

I have been through a faith crisis. It forced me to do serious research and questioning. There are really balanced books about the Church. Almost anything from Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens would give you that balance. John could provide that balance and as the last page or so discuss, he really doesn`t take that opportunity. His mission really isn`t to keep people in the Church. I could give you many quotes from John that are so obvious in attempting to push people away from the Church.

Maybe I`m wrong. I`ll read other comments and try to learn. MormonStories had so much potential to start a rational/faithful path in

staying in the Church. This career of counseling people in a faith crisis is really the last straw for me in my obvious opinion about MS.Of course this is all my opinion.

 

President Uchtdorf recently said:

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.

Do you think that an honest truth seeker can be convinced that the church is not true? Can a non-believer give a balanced view of Joseph Smith or the church's truth claims? Can a believer? Is it possible to come to an informed decision without considering your opponents point of view, and really considering the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens are wonderful. They are nuanced, they present the truth as they see it and do not shy away from hard issues in the historical record. Describing them as "balanced" is tough though. Richard Bushman said "A believing historian like myself cannot hope to rise above these battles [speaking of the difficulty of coming to consensus about Joseph's character and life] or pretend nothing personal is at stake. For a character as controversial as Smith, pure objectivity is impossible." I really don't think balance is possible with any one person. For balance you have to take Richard Bushman's work and weigh it against a similarly situated person with an opposing point of view before.

 

What John provides is access to people like Richard Bushman, Daniel Peterson, Terryl Givens, Brian Hales, Grant Hardy, Brant Gardner, Edward Kimball and others who are complete believers. He also gives access to people who are unorthodox in their belief, such as Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, Dan Wotherspoon, Joanna Brooks and Micheal Quinn. He gives voice to people who are gay and lets them tell their story of what they experienced in the church - both current believers and non-believers. He lets people tell stories as they struggle in a mixed faith marriage - people from both sides of the equation. In addition he has interviewed many people who have openly left the church and are quite hostile to it. 

 

John himself has openly admitted that he doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church and this comes across clearly on his website and his interviews. At the same time, John finds value in the community of saints and continues to attend on his own terms. None of this is secret. While John at first encouraged people to stay in the church, he now encourages people to go where they find the most happiness and peace. 

 

Saying that people are leaving because of John is a cop-out. People leave because they look at the information and conclude (perhaps wrongly) that the church is not what it claims to be. That people like John find such followers should be a clue that these issues need to be better addressed by the church and we certainly see that happening. People like John are a symptom not a cause. We see gospel topic essays coming out. We see a new curriculum for the youth. (Please note I don't view these things as a response to John Dehlin per se, but a response to the realities of the internet age).

 

I will add that John has helped me continue my activity in the church. I have found his interviews with faithful members of the church to be extremely helpful in reconstructing my faith (such as it is). I believe that Rockpond is in the same boat, but I could be thinking of someone else. 

[rockpond]

I could give you many quotes from John that are so obvious in attempting to push people away from the Church.

 

I'm curious how a person who seems desperate to maintain his own membership in the church, even given his own challenges, could be "so obvious in attempting to push people away from the Church."

[rockpond]

President Uchtdorf recently said:

 

Do you think that an honest truth seeker can be convinced that the church is not true? Can a non-believer give a balanced view of Joseph Smith or the church's truth claims? Can a believer? Is it possible to come to an informed decision without considering your opponents point of view, and really considering the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens are wonderful. They are nuanced, they present the truth as they see it and do not shy away from hard issues in the historical record. Describing them as "balanced" is tough though. Richard Bushman said "A believing historian like myself cannot hope to rise above these battles [speaking of the difficulty of coming to consensus about Joseph's character and life] or pretend nothing personal is at stake. For a character as controversial as Smith, pure objectivity is impossible." I really don't think balance is possible with any one person. For balance you have to take Richard Bushman's work and weigh it against a similarly situated person with an opposing point of view before.

 

What John provides is access to people like Richard Bushman, Daniel Peterson, Terryl Givens, Brian Hales, Grant Hardy, Brant Gardner, Edward Kimball and others who are complete believers. He also gives access to people who are unorthodox in their belief, such as Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, Dan Wotherspoon, Joanna Brooks and Micheal Quinn. He gives voice to people who are gay and lets them tell their story of what they experienced in the church - both current believers and non-believers. He lets people tell stories as they struggle in a mixed faith marriage - people from both sides of the equation. In addition he has interviewed many people who have openly left the church and are quite hostile to it. 

 

John himself has openly admitted that he doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church and this comes across clearly on his website and his interviews. At the same time, John finds value in the community of saints and continues to attend on his own terms. None of this is secret. While John at first encouraged people to stay in the church, he now encourages people to go where they find the most happiness and peace. 

 

Saying that people are leaving because of John is a cop-out. People leave because they look at the information and conclude (perhaps wrongly) that the church is not what it claims to be. That people like John find such followers should be a clue that these issues need to be better addressed by the church and we certainly see that happening. People like John are a symptom not a cause. We see gospel topic essays coming out. We see a new curriculum for the youth. (Please note I don't view these things as a response to John Dehlin per se, but a response to the realities of the internet age).

 

I will add that John has helped me continue my activity in the church. I have found his interviews with faithful members of the church to be extremely helpful in reconstructing my faith (such as it is). I believe that Rockpond is in the same boat, but I could be thinking of someone else. 

 

Yes, you are correct about me... Dehlin and MS definitely helped me reconstruct my faith and maintain my activity in the church (and I didn't come across MS until AFTER my faith crisis).  I agree with both your posts here (#154, #155) and you've said it better than I have.  Dehlin/MS introduced me to Givens, Bushman, Hardy, Quinn and others who helped me rebuild/maintain my faith (yes, I include Quinn in that list).

[Tacenda]

"He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members"

I see a significant problem though considering he has been looking at this stuff for years and has supposedly been learning from the experts. In my experience, an active church member who has that level of exposure over a decade or more even if all they do is listen, they have become quite knowledgeable.

Sometimes I think he plays dumb, sort of like he's hearing something for the first time right?  I guess this is supposed to give it more drama or something, there's a better word for it, I'm drawing a blank.  I do think he knows a little more than he gives out. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm curious how a person who seems desperate to maintain his own membership in the church, even given his own challenges, could be "so obvious in attempting to push people away from the Church."

The narrative is easy enough to paint. John is in it for the money. He plans a career post graduation in counseling members with faith crises. He needs his membership to maintain his credibility and his ability to get clients. This same technique is applied to church leaders by some of those out of the church. The Qof12 really don't believe, they just get a really sweet deal from the church/"corporation". Everything they do is about securing more tithing funds to keep the "corporation" going. Etc. Etc.

[Tacenda]

Yes, you are correct about me... Dehlin and MS definitely helped me reconstruct my faith and maintain my activity in the church (and I didn't come across MS until AFTER my faith crisis).  I agree with both your posts here (#154, #155) and you've said it better than I have.  Dehlin/MS introduced me to Givens, Bushman, Hardy, Quinn and others who helped me rebuild/maintain my faith (yes, I include Quinn in that list).

That is faith building that someone like Quinn still believes in the historical BoM and in JS restoring the church, yet knows probably more warts than most.  So in a way, you're right, they can and do help some rebuild or maintain their faith.  I hope John has more faithful interviewees in the future.  But maybe he's alienated most of them.  I turn to Mormon Matters for that now.  I did listen to Richard Bushman the other day and it helped somewhat.  I'm making a quilt and it helps to listen to something!  I know it sounds like I sit around all day and listen to all these podcasts! 

 

Edit to add:  Just came across this introduction from someone joining NOM.  In it describes precisely what readstoomuch is talking about.  There is a part 1 & 2 to the introduction, I'm only pasting the 1st part.  Notice the bold, quite telling.  John needs to get back to having more faithful interviews or skip saying he wants to help people stay in the church.

 

Here is the c/p of the intro: 

 

Hello--I've been visiting here on occasion for the last little while, getting a feel for what it's like. I sense a respectful tone in general, coupled with authenticity, which I appreciate.

This may be a bit lengthy and rambling; if it is, I apologize for it in advance. I was born in the church, to an agnostic father and an LDS (BIC) mother who was nevertheless pretty passive about family prayer, scripture study, FHE, etc. I always had a sense of not fitting in (I have Asperger's, which I think may have quite a bit to do with it). I only really got interested in LDS topics when in my teens. I did the usual--graduated from Seminary, went on a mission (which I sometimes refer to as my two-year nervous breakdown; not a very good experience), went to Ricks College and BYU, married in the temple, served in various callings, etc.,etc. (I am currently EQ President in my ward.) One good thing about the mission is that I really got into the scriptures, and toward the end got interested in Church history and Mormon Studies in general. For several years I devoured the publications of FARMS, FAIR, Hugh Nibley, etc.--all the esoteric stuff. Strangely, though, I read very little of the scriptures.

Flash forward to 5 years ago. After going through a series of personal crises in quick succession, I returned to the Book of Mormon after many years of not reading it, and was floored by the impact of the book. I knew the arguments against it, and at times was a bit concerned (finding the magic stone in the hat just kooky), but I just pushed that aside and relied on the spiritual strength that I felt while reading it, and its literary cohesiveness and structural sophistication. The fact that it was dictated made it even more astounding.

Things started unraveling a couple of years ago when I came across an interview John Dehlin did for the Mormon Stories podcast with an individual who talked at length about psychology and religion--how the brain can play tricks on us, how we deceive ourselves, give in to confirmation bias, wish fulfillment and social pressure, and so forth. That really got me questioning the spiritual experiences I had (which were never all that strong to begin with)--could it all be reduced to mental phenomena?

Then, over the last year or so, I found myself thinking about things about the Church that bothered me: the building of mega-billion dollar shopping malls, lavish living on the part of top general authorities, the corporatist nature of the Church, etc.--mostly concerns of business-related stuff. Also, there was the fact that for several general conferences, "prophet, seer, and revelator" Monson delivered sermons that were all fluff--very little substance, but filled with heartwarming and amusing stories (I did enjoy the one where he started the fire), Hallmark sentiments, and trite platitudes. I started asking myself more frequently, "We need a prophet for THIS?" Also, I noticed some of the church leaders warning against looking outside the church for answers and advice--I found that very narrow and going against the counsel to seek greater light and knowledge, and to embrace truth wherever it may be found.

One other experience that troubled me was a few months ago in Elders Quorum, when I made the statement that everything that makes the Church what it is rests on Joseph Smith. After saying that I gasped to myself and thought, "Everything? It all rests on one man's revelations? That's a pretty audacious statement to make, and not necessarily the sturdiest foundation." I felt rattled, but knew that it fit the facts.

And now the current round of topical essays on lds.org, I find, raise more questions than they answer. I did a double-take when the one on blacks and the priesthood refuted the theological explanations previously given, stating that they were opinions informed by the prevailing culture (I'm heavily paraphrasing here). The problem, which the essay never addresses, is that it was Brigham Young, the prophet, who stated these views as revelation, and as comprising a divine decree which was unalterable and permanent. So, was he a prophet or wasn't he? I'm not familiar with most of the others, though I have read the recent one on the Book of Abraham, which basically states that translation really isn't translation, and that although Joseph Smith translated the B of A, he really didn't, and we don't know how it was revealed to him, but we really don't need to know anyway, since the Spirit will testify that it's true. I find it hard to believe that God would expect us to accept everything based on a feeling which, again, could just be the mind playing tricks on us.

But at least I had the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

 

That is faith building that someone like Quinn still believes in the historical BoM and in JS restoring the church, yet knows probably more warts than most.  So in a way, you're right, they can and do help some rebuild or maintain their faith.  I hope John has more faithful interviewees in the future.  But maybe he's alienated most of them.  I turn to Mormon Matters for that now.  I did listen to Richard Bushman the other day and it helped somewhat.  I'm making a quilt and it helps to listen to something!  I know it sounds like I sit around all day and listen to all these podcasts! 

 

Edit to add:  Just came across this introduction from someone joining NOM.  In it describes precisely what readstoomuch is talking about.  There is a part 1 & 2 to the introduction, I'm only pasting the 1st part.  Noticed the bold, quite telling.  John needs to get back to having more faithful interviews or skip saying he wants to help people stay in the church.

 

Here is the c/p of the intro: 

 

Hello--I've been visiting here on occasion for the last little while, getting a feel for what it's like. I sense a respectful tone in general, coupled with authenticity, which I appreciate.

This may be a bit lengthy and rambling; if it is, I apologize for it in advance. I was born in the church, to an agnostic father and an LDS (BIC) mother who was nevertheless pretty passive about family prayer, scripture study, FHE, etc. I always had a sense of not fitting in (I have Asperger's, which I think may have quite a bit to do with it). I only really got interested in LDS topics when in my teens. I did the usual--graduated from Seminary, went on a mission (which I sometimes refer to as my two-year nervous breakdown; not a very good experience), went to Ricks College and BYU, married in the temple, served in various callings, etc.,etc. (I am currently EQ President in my ward.) One good thing about the mission is that I really got into the scriptures, and toward the end got interested in Church history and Mormon Studies in general. For several years I devoured the publications of FARMS, FAIR, Hugh Nibley, etc.--all the esoteric stuff. Strangely, though, I read very little of the scriptures.

Flash forward to 5 years ago. After going through a series of personal crises in quick succession, I returned to the Book of Mormon after many years of not reading it, and was floored by the impact of the book. I knew the arguments against it, and at times was a bit concerned (finding the magic stone in the hat just kooky), but I just pushed that aside and relied on the spiritual strength that I felt while reading it, and its literary cohesiveness and structural sophistication. The fact that it was dictated made it even more astounding.

Things started unraveling a couple of years ago when I came across an interview John Dehlin did for the Mormon Stories podcast with an individual who talked at length about psychology and religion--how the brain can play tricks on us, how we deceive ourselves, give in to confirmation bias, wish fulfillment and social pressure, and so forth. That really got me questioning the spiritual experiences I had (which were never all that strong to begin with)--could it all be reduced to mental phenomena?

Then, over the last year or so, I found myself thinking about things about the Church that bothered me: the building of mega-billion dollar shopping malls, lavish living on the part of top general authorities, the corporatist nature of the Church, etc.--mostly concerns of business-related stuff. Also, there was the fact that for several general conferences, "prophet, seer, and revelator" Monson delivered sermons that were all fluff--very little substance, but filled with heartwarming and amusing stories (I did enjoy the one where he started the fire), Hallmark sentiments, and trite platitudes. I started asking myself more frequently, "We need a prophet for THIS?" Also, I noticed some of the church leaders warning against looking outside the church for answers and advice--I found that very narrow and going against the counsel to seek greater light and knowledge, and to embrace truth wherever it may be found.

One other experience that troubled me was a few months ago in Elders Quorum, when I made the statement that everything that makes the Church what it is rests on Joseph Smith. After saying that I gasped to myself and thought, "Everything? It all rests on one man's revelations? That's a pretty audacious statement to make, and not necessarily the sturdiest foundation." I felt rattled, but knew that it fit the facts.

And now the current round of topical essays on lds.org, I find, raise more questions than they answer. I did a double-take when the one on blacks and the priesthood refuted the theological explanations previously given, stating that they were opinions informed by the prevailing culture (I'm heavily paraphrasing here). The problem, which the essay never addresses, is that it was Brigham Young, the prophet, who stated these views as revelation, and as comprising a divine decree which was unalterable and permanent. So, was he a prophet or wasn't he? I'm not familiar with most of the others, though I have read the recent one on the Book of Abraham, which basically states that translation really isn't translation, and that although Joseph Smith translated the B of A, he really didn't, and we don't know how it was revealed to him, but we really don't need to know anyway, since the Spirit will testify that it's true. I find it hard to believe that God would expect us to accept everything based on a feeling which, again, could just be the mind playing tricks on us.

But at least I had the Book of Mormon.

 

 

 

So in that example an MS podcast was a factor.  But so were the actions of church leaders.  And the articles on LDS.org also played a part.  So what's really at the root of faith crises?

 

Dehlin is still doing faith promoting interviews.  If you haven't listened to them already, you could try the recent ones:  Adam Miller - Letters to a Young Mormon and Brad Kramer on Faith Paradigms.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................................................................

That said, part of John's appeal is that most members of the church (and most people in general) have difficultly getting through academic material. In my experience, John's level of church knowledge is not off base for a seminary teacher and John's representation of the LDS Church (history, tradition, and Scriptures) is certainly representative of many peoples experience in the church. While John does not prepare adequately for his interviews (on this I whole heartedly agree), It is unfair to say "He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members. The ideas that John puts forth about the LDS Church are things that I have heard at Church all my life. This is part of John's appeal. John speaks to average, non acedemic, church members experiences in the church.

If the church wants to lesson the effect of people like John Dehlin, it needs to present a more nuanced view of itself and its history. The gospel topic essays are a good start, but until people start hearing about these things in gospel doctrine, in seminary, and other official church venues, people like John Dehlin will continue to have appeal to people who feel misled. (Please note I do not necessarily advocate for doing this as I think it could be traumatizing for many members. That said, the tradeoff is having a small percentage of members feeling betrayed and finding people like John Dehlin very appealing).

I can agree that the ordinary, everyday Mormon knows little of the academic end of things, and that this makes him vulnerable to those who are prepared to ambush the innocent and unwary.  This is true for all religions and ideologies.  However, I agree with you that the solution is not to present the uninformed with a massive blitz of "truth," but rather to approach such matters with baby steps first (milk before meat).  Yet, the very people who are to do the teaching are not deeply informed or academically prepared to present the "truth" in properly nuanced fashion -- they are themselves ordinary, everyday Mormons who have the same lack of preparation as those they are to teach.  It can be a vicious cycle.

 

At the same time, it may not necessarily be a bad thing for some of us to have a crisis of faith now and then, and to come to terms with reality, and to find ourselves dependent upon the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Revelation comes only when necessary anyhow, right?  We need to take challenges in stride.  We need to be more relaxed about all this stuff, more accepting of the less than perfect narrative that is the modern Gospel message.  We need to take time to accommodate ourselves to the seemingly incompatible aspects of it all.  Otherwise, we will find ourselves on the outside looking in, and (like Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris) returning to the Church shame-faced for the silly reasons we abandoned it all.  That is not the lesson John Dehlin is providing.

[rockpond]

At the same time, it may not necessarily be a bad thing for some of us to have a crisis of faith now and then, and to come to terms with reality, and to find ourselves dependent upon the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Revelation comes only when necessary anyhow, right?  We need to take challenges in stride.  We need to be more relaxed about all this stuff, more accepting of the less than perfect narrative that is the modern Gospel message.  We need to take time to accommodate ourselves to the seemingly incompatible aspects of it all.  Otherwise, we will find ourselves on the outside looking in, and (like Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris) returning to the Church shame-faced for the silly reasons we abandoned it all.  That is not the lesson John Dehlin is providing.

 

Interesting that you say that because, for me, that IS precisely the lesson I learned from listening to Dehlin's MS podcasts and then moving on to read articles/books published by those he interviewed.  So other than your final sentence there - I completely agree (and I think you said it very well).

[Pahoran]

drop to stupid comments

this is a time for you to demonstrate silliness

Sandra Tanner, doyenne and Queen Regnant of the anti-Mormon demimonde

When I think of absurd theories you are the first purveyor that I think of.  

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. 

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. 

we should fear some old lady.

He has done a great deal of damage to members' testimonies. And he continues to not believe in the church and to do his own evangelizing. I believe that many would equate john not getting disciplined and Kate being disciplined as a gender problem: Women should have no voice but men can have a voice.

I like my anti-mormons straight up. No ice, foo foo, flavoring or anything to make it taste better going down. No pretended objectivity.

No. She most certainly does not.

She has an exit narrative to tell. That's not a "Mormon story" in any meaningful way.

If "Ex" is a "flavor" of "Mormons," then Salmonella is a "flavor" of chicken.

Ex-Mormons are not Mormons. An "ex" is a has-been.

Ms Tanner is a professional anti-Mormon propagandist. Whatever she chooses to say (or not say) about her failure to live the Gospel, it is at all times driven by her agenda.

Her exit narrative is entirely agenda-driven, and those who call it a "Mormon story" are admitting that Mister Dehlin's "Mormon Stories" project is an anti-Mormon propaganda mill.

Whatever "Mormon story" she ever had is a dim and distant memory! The only story she can tell now is an "apostate story!"

I will readily admit that the decades-old exit narrative (or "perversion story," the opposite of a conversion story) of a decrepit apostate is certainly good enough of a "Mormon story" for Mister Dehlin's project!

That old lady has destroyed many peoples testimony of the Gospel.  Understand, we aren't talking about "views", people simply sharing "views" of things, we are talking about bearing false witness.

Those who engage in anti-mormonism are nothing more than bigots, because almost everything they say about their target is a lie, a perversion of truth and fact.

And that makes her the worst kind of liar.

Sandra as hyena. I like it! 

I started this thread and I don't know that it oozes with hate.

Nor do I.

Some of that handful of cherries were mine. I don't hate Mrs Tanner. It's simply a fact that she's a high profile anti-Mormon; for years, she and her husband were the go-to people, and the most prolific publishers of anti-Mormon screeds; that's how they made their living. Yes, she is an "ex-Mormon," i.e. an apostate.

None of those facts show "hate." They're just facts. Pure, objective, straight-up facts.

It is my firm opinion that if something calling itself "Mormon stories" has such loose standards for what constitutes a "Mormon story" as to include the decades-old exit narrative of an apostate who has lived the rest of her life in a continuous, obsessive attack upon the Church of Jesus Christ, then its use of "Mormon" is mere marketing spin at best.

That's my opinion for sure, but it's not "hate" either. It's just a reasonable expectation that something calling itself "Mormon" ought to make some sort of good-faith effort to be so.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 29, 2014 by Pahoran

[rockpond]

Nor do I.

Some of that handful of cherries were mine. I don't hate Mrs Tanner. It's simply a fact that she's a high profile anti-Mormon; for years, she and her husband were the go-to people, and the most prolific publishers of anti-Mormon screeds; that's how they made their living. Yes, she is an "ex-Mormon," i.e. an apostate.

None of those facts show "hate." They're just facts. Pure, objective, straight-up facts.

It is my firm opinion that if something calling itself "Mormon stories" has such loose standards for what constitutes a "Mormon story" as to include the decades-old exit narrative of an apostate who has lived the rest of her life in a continuous, obsessive attack upon the Church of Jesus Christ, then its use of "Mormon" is mere marketing spin at best.

That's my opinion for sure, but it's not "hate" either. It's just a reasonable expectation that something calling itself "Mormon" ought to make some sort of good-faith effort to be so.

Regards,

Pahoran

Meaning that it should make a good faith effort to fit within your definition of which Mormon stories should be told. Right?

I've read most of this thread and I listened to Sandra Tanner's MS interview. She was far kinder to the church than many here are being to her.

[Helen47]

I am thankful for the Tanners as that is how we came to have a long communication with  Wesley P Walters. I personally feel neither Sorenson, Gee, Welsh and Bushman have been able to counter the Tanners. You see they quote a lot from other books and journals. Thats when I started subscribing to Dialogue and Sunstone. Backman never mentioned in his book on the FV any reference to Walter's Dialogue article. Many people like Quinn and Vogel paid him a vist where he shared the fruits of his research. Not bad for someone who never made much money out of it, and used his vacation time for search the various archives around New York.

[readstoomuch]

This is the Wesley Walter who stole important documents about Joseph Smith from the Palmyra library, denied it and then only returned them after he was threatened with a civil suit and charges or theft. This is the Wesley Walters whose argument hinged on their being no proof in local newspapers that there was a revival that fit into the timeframe of the First Vision. Despite the fact that many revivals are not advertised. They are by word of mouth or flyer. Did he stimulate research about the First Vision and early Mormon history? Sure. Did he produce a slam dunk case or is his reputation pristine? No way.

Sandra came across as a nice old lady. Robert F. Smith has some posts on this thread that say nice things about them. They could also be rabid anti-mormons. When they spoke at the Baptist Church two blocks from my missionary apartment they were used the term "of the Devil." The literature turned up daily out tracting and tracting is what we did every day. They were evangelical anti-mormons, much like Wesley Walters. I don`t think John Dehlin buys into their view of religion any more than he does Mormonism. It sounds like Kate Kelly is pretty much on the same as JD. It sounds like if religions become progressive then JD and KK think that they are just fine. If they accept LGBT, SSM, ordaining women, etc. then all is hunky dory to them. JD and KK are secular/agnostic Mormons/anti-Mormons if you will and it is a sort of weird stew to bring the secular and evangelical anti-mormons together to further fight the Church. Strange bedfellows.

[Pahoran]

Meaning that it should make a good faith effort to fit within your definition of which Mormon stories should be told. Right?

Wrong.

But thanks for playing.

I've read most of this thread and I listened to Sandra Tanner's MS interview. She was far kinder to the church than many here are being to her.

Mrs Tanner has single-mindedly and relentlessly dedicated her life to destroying the Church. That doesn't fit any definition of "kindness" that I'm aware of.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

This is the Wesley Walter who stole important documents about Joseph Smith from the Palmyra library, denied it and then only returned them after he was threatened with a civil suit and charges or theft. This is the Wesley Walters whose argument hinged on their being no proof in local newspapers that there was a revival that fit into the timeframe of the First Vision. Despite the fact that many revivals are not advertised. They are by word of mouth or flyer. Did he stimulate research about the First Vision and early Mormon history? Sure. Did he produce a slam dunk case or is his reputation pristine? No way.

Sandra came across as a nice old lady. Robert F. Smith has some posts on this thread that say nice things about them. They could also be rabid anti-mormons. When they spoke at the Baptist Church two blocks from my missionary apartment they were used the term "of the Devil." The literature turned up daily out tracting and tracting is what we did every day. They were evangelical anti-mormons, much like Wesley Walters. I don`t think John Dehlin buys into their view of religion any more than he does Mormonism. It sounds like Kate Kelly is pretty much on the same as JD. It sounds like if religions become progressive then JD and KK think that they are just fine. If they accept LGBT, SSM, ordaining women, etc. then all is hunky dory to them. JD and KK are secular/agnostic Mormons/anti-Mormons if you will and it is a sort of weird stew to bring the secular and evangelical anti-mormons together to further fight the Church. Strange bedfellows.

 

If you think that Kelly is "pretty much the same" as Dehlin with respect to their view of Mormonism, then you don't really know their positions very well.  Dehlin doubts most (if not all) of the truth claims of the Church.  Kelly believes in most (if not all) of the truth claims.  I don't think that Kelly would consider herself a secular/agnostic Mormon.  And she certainly doesn't consider herself an anti-Mormon.  Nor is the founder of Stay LDS an "anti-Mormon".

[rockpond]

Wrong.

But thanks for playing.

Mrs Tanner has single-mindedly and relentlessly dedicated her life to destroying the Church. That doesn't fit any definition of "kindness" that I'm aware of.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

I haven't studied her entire life but it seems that she believes quite firmly that she's been on a mission of seeking & promoting truth.  I can't fault her for that anymore than I can fault you for doing the same even though you two hold deeply divided opinions of the Church.

 

What I was referring to was her MS podcast interview and this thread.  Put the transcript of the podcast up next to this thread and she comes off looking much nicer than many active, believing Mormons who are posting here.  There are numerous posts wherein she is attacked personally rather than engaging what she actually said in MS.

[Helen47]

I do not recall him being accused of that, but accused of stealing the docfroments relating to the 1826 trial .  He spread the information around before he returned them. I think because he could not get a copy they would be foregotten and lost. he provided me with information on church growthi in the area from 1819 to 1821 and it was not very impressive. It seems the description of the revival best fits 1823-24. When did Smith refuse to join the PC as a result of a revival. After his son, Alvin had died (1823).?Maybe they will fiind those records that have been missing since 1930 (centenary of LDS) of the West Palmyra PC? Maybe they are in the LDS vault? These would show when they joined the PC.

[readstoomuch]

If you think that Kelly is "pretty much the same" as Dehlin with respect to their view of Mormonism, then you don't really know their positions very well. Dehlin doubts most (if not all) of the truth claims of the Church. Kelly believes in most (if not all) of the truth claims. I don't think that Kelly would consider herself a secular/agnostic Mormon. And she certainly doesn't consider herself an anti-Mormon. Nor is the founder of Stay LDS an "anti-Mormon".

I have been gathering my opinions from KKs MS interview. At the very least I am gathering that all faith traditions will lead people to heaven and they all have the opportunity to do the right thing by being inclusive. Inclusive as in SSM, LGBT, ordaining women and pretty much every idea of progressivism. If you don't think that LGBT and SSM are part of the mix of their agenda, then listen to MS and do some googling about LGBT and their names. The inclusive issues come across way more important than the Church. In fact when KK says that the Church will do the right thing, I think she is saying that she knows her issues are right (as if she is the prophet) and the Church will recognize that.

Yes JD helped start StayLDS, but he does not do much himself personally. It is so obvious that JD is a secular/agnostic Mormon who tries to remain LDS while criticizing the Church over progressive issues and history/doctrine. He does this to the point of being anti-Mormon. He could choose to help steer people into the church. Much as Grant Palmer criticized the Church in his book and chose to not represent the apologetic arguments,many which are good, I see JD doing the same thing.

So JD is anti-mormon and KK is getting there as she pushes her agenda of progressivism over real belief in the Church. I am pretty sure she believes she knows what's best for The Church. LDS members drop like flies around them both. My opinion, but based in research and real world experience.

[rockpond]

I have been gathering my opinions from KKs MS interview. At the very least I am gathering that all faith traditions will lead people to heaven and they all have the opportunity to do the right thing by being inclusive. Inclusive as in SSM, LGBT, ordaining women and pretty much every idea of progressivism. If you don't think that LGBT and SSM are part of the mix of their agenda, then listen to MS and do some googling about LGBT and their names. The inclusive issues come across way more important than the Church. In fact when KK says that the Church will do the right thing, I think she is saying that she knows her issues are right (as if she is the prophet) and the Church will recognize that.

Yes JD helped start StayLDS, but he does not do much himself personally. It is so obvious that JD is a secular/agnostic Mormon who tries to remain LDS while criticizing the Church over progressive issues and history/doctrine. He does this to the point of being anti-Mormon. He could choose to help steer people into the church. Much as Grant Palmer criticized the Church in his book and chose to not represent the apologetic arguments,many which are good, I see JD doing the same thing.

So JD is anti-mormon and KK is getting there as she pushes her agenda of progressivism over real belief in the Church. I am pretty sure she believes she knows what's best for The Church. LDS members drop like flies around them both. My opinion, but based in research and real world experience.

Yes, Dehlin and Kelly overlap wen it comes to equality issues (LGBT, women) but their belief systems are very different as I noted in my previous reply.

I don't want to further derail the thread with a discussion of these two. You can send me a PM or invite me to one of the other threads of you want to continue the discussion.

I understand referring to Sandra Tanner as an anti-Mormon. But when you use it as a label for an active, temple recommend holding church member it starts to lose all significance.

[Calm]

But when you use it as a label for an active, temple recommend holding church member it starts to lose all significance. 

 

Who is the active temple recommend holder you are referring to?

[Tacenda]

Who is the active temple recommend holder you are referring to?

I wondered that too, but then the thought occurred it's probably Rockpond himself!!