Sanpitch Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 I know some critics of the church are fanatical and blowhards but I think there are some that are honest and have validity. I'm thinking of the Tanners, Jerald and Sandra. I have read their publications in the past and I think they have been quite accurate, at least more accurate in the church history claims than the church has. Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence of majors errors on the Tanner's part. Fawn Brodie also comes to mind but her book, "No Man Knows my History" is far back in my memory, I think that was fairly accurate. She was excommunicated for publishing it.
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 The Tanners sure called the whole Hoffman deal before anyone else. 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 I think Brodie was a terrible writer and her attempted mind-reading of Joseph Smith is an affront to biographers everywhere. I don't read much by the Tanners but from those I have talked to who do know them they sound like deeply unhappy people. 3
Tacenda Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Critics don't cause the harm, usually they are easy to see through. It's when the church history itself is anti Mormon. FairMormon did as much to make me go "what!" then the anti sites. I know some on here dislike Grant Palmer, but it doesn't seem that the apologists were able to say what was untrue in his "Mormonism Unveiled" book. I believe he said they never showed him where it was false information. Except for some of the places where Grant may have said upfront that it was a an opinion. Edited December 31, 2015 by Tacenda 2
Jeanne Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 It really isn't necessary to have critics anymore, During the past decade or two, the church has become its own worse enemy, 4
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: It really isn't necessary to have critics anymore, During the past decade or two, the church has become its own worse enemy, Only in the sense that we are all our own worst enemy. 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Just now, Jeanne said: It really isn't necessary to have critics anymore, During the past decade or two, the church has become its own worse enemy, Wait, so that whole bit about opening up more about Church History being a good thing...... Oh, and I disagree completely. 2
Jeanne Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Only in the sense that we are all our own worst enemy. Good Point!! 1
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) It doesn't matter if it's the Tanners, Brodie, Snuffer, even the Church itself or anyone else - the problem with "Critics" and "Criticism" is that it usually all boils down to this: Anti: "Hey here is a piece of information about Mormonism that you probably don't know and I am going to use it to shock and dismay you when I reveal it." That's it. That's all. They have nothing else. The problem comes from those of us who: Already knew that. Are not bothered by that in the least. Nothing an anti hates worse that someone who isn't offended by their "shocking reveals". For example: Anti: Hey did you know Joseph had two 14 year old wives? Me: Yes. And? Edited December 31, 2015 by JLHPROF 4
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It doesn't matter if it's the Tanners, Brodie, Snuffer, even the Church itself or anyone else - the problem with "Critics" and "Criticism" is that it usually all boils down to this: Anti: "Hey here is a piece of information about Mormonism that you probably don't know and I am going to use it to shock and dismay you when I reveal it." That's it. That's all. They have nothing else. The problem comes from those of us who: Already knew that. Are not bothered by that in the least. Nothing an anti hates worse that someone who isn't offended by their "shocking reveals". For example: Anti: Hey did you know Joseph had two 14 year old wives? Me: Yes. And? That belief probably sooths your feeling but I think there is very little truth in it. Maybe occasionally happens. 2
carbon dioxide Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 48 minutes ago, Sanpitch said: I know some critics of the church are fanatical and blowhards but I think there are some that are honest and have validity. I'm thinking of the Tanners, Jerald and Sandra. I have read their publications in the past and I think they have been quite accurate, at least more accurate in the church history claims than the church has. Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence of majors errors on the Tanner's part. The Tanners are pretty good at presenting a version of LDS history (generally negative) and putting enough information to support that negative viewpoint. So yes one might consider them to be accurate if they trust the Tanners are giving them the whole story. They can be useful however. They can raise issues that one may have never heard or considered and if one uses them as a starting point to research the issue more completely, they will come away better informed on things and perhaps come to a vast different conclusion than what the Tanners presented. It is not what the present but what they don't present that is often the problem. Of course its always good to go to the original source that they quote because they have a habit of editing original sources in a way that leave out important information. 3
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 56 minutes ago, salgare said: The Tanners sure called the whole Hoffman deal before anyone else. Technically, I think it was Gerald who called it. Sandra argued with him about it. But as it turned out, Gerald concluded it was a forgery long before Church leaders did. Does that count for anything?
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) The term critic is abused about as often as the term doctrine. The former seems to be a label used to describe people who disagree with a proponent's personal view of the latter. Edited December 31, 2015 by CA Steve 3
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, Sanpitch said: I know some critics of the church are fanatical and blowhards but I think there are some that are honest and have validity. I'm thinking of the Tanners, Jerald and Sandra. I have read their publications in the past and I think they have been quite accurate, at least more accurate in the church history claims than the church has. Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence of majors errors on the Tanner's part. So far, I don't see any takers. I think the bottom line is that the Tanners were producing correct information in the 60's that the Church didn't want anybody to read. Now that the cat is out of the bag with the information explosion of recent years, the Church has admitted to most of what the Tanners said a half-century ago. Not because it was the right thing to do. The Church could have admitted to it way back when and it would have been the right thing to do. Rather, the Church has had to admit to it because everybody was finding out about it anyway. In spite of the Church's best efforts to keep the members from finding out. 3
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The Tanners are pretty good at presenting a version of LDS history (generally negative) and putting enough information to support that negative viewpoint. So yes one might consider them to be accurate if they trust the Tanners are giving them the whole story. They can be useful however. They can raise issues that one may have never heard or considered and if one uses them as a starting point to research the issue more completely, they will come away better informed on things and perhaps come to a vast different conclusion than what the Tanners presented. It is not what the present but what they don't present that is often the problem. Of course its always good to go to the original source that they quote because they have a habit of editing original sources in a way that leave out important information. Possibly, I do have my doubts, but would you claim the church is free from the methods of not revealing the whole story, especially about the polygamy issue?
carbon dioxide Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 minutes ago, Sanpitch said: Possibly, I do have my doubts, but would you claim the church is free from the methods of not revealing the whole story, especially about the polygamy issue? No. The Church obviously puts everything into a positive light and sometimes neglects issues that makes things not a simple as it suggests. The best approach is look at both positive and negative. Look at everything before making conclusions. Simply from my personal experience, the Tanners distorts LDS history and the Church dumbs it down to make sterile of any messy problems that might exist.
Avatar4321 Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, Sanpitch said: I know some critics of the church are fanatical and blowhards but I think there are some that are honest and have validity. I'm thinking of the Tanners, Jerald and Sandra. I have read their publications in the past and I think they have been quite accurate, at least more accurate in the church history claims than the church has. Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence of majors errors on the Tanner's part. Fawn Brodie also comes to mind but her book, "No Man Knows my History" is far back in my memory, I think that was fairly accurate. She was excommunicated for publishing it. I stopped believing they were honest when I saw how they butchered quotes to say something wrong
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said: I stopped believing they were honest when I saw how they butchered quotes to say something wrong But you probably don't have the evidence on hand to indicate your belief. Their history is way back so I don't expect you to have the evidence but I tend to probably not agree with you.
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, Sanpitch said: I know some critics of the church are fanatical and blowhards but I think there are some that are honest and have validity. I'm thinking of the Tanners, Jerald and Sandra. I have read their publications in the past and I think they have been quite accurate, at least more accurate in the church history claims than the church has. Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence of majors errors on the Tanner's part. Fawn Brodie also comes to mind but her book, "No Man Knows my History" is far back in my memory, I think that was fairly accurate. She was excommunicated for publishing it. Of course they were pre-internet and my feel is you are right about them having accurate documentation/claims. Being pre-internet it was pretty easy to keep this suppressed as anti-mormon lies. They surely have cloven feet and horns. Nehor mentioned something about their happiness which I have not heard. I'd be interested in hearing more. I did enjoy listening to her interview out their somewhere or other. I got the impression they were also active in other Christian endeavors and actually might have been sporting some halos verses those cloven hoofs. One man's heaven another man's hell I suppose
bluebell Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 36 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So far, I don't see any takers. I think the bottom line is that the Tanners were producing correct information in the 60's that the Church didn't want anybody to read. Now that the cat is out of the bag with the information explosion of recent years, the Church has admitted to most of what the Tanners said a half-century ago. Not because it was the right thing to do. The Church could have admitted to it way back when and it would have been the right thing to do. Rather, the Church has had to admit to it because everybody was finding out about it anyway. In spite of the Church's best efforts to keep the members from finding out. I know i haven't been a taker on the OP question because i've never read anything by the Tanners so i have no way to judge how accurate they are.
Tacenda Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: I stopped believing they were honest when I saw how they butchered quotes to say something wrong I've seen that, and am leery about what they have to say. ETA: Wait, not the Tanners, but some other critics. Edited December 31, 2015 by Tacenda
carbon dioxide Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 15 minutes ago, salgare said: Of course they were pre-internet and my feel is you are right about them having accurate documentation/claims. Being pre-internet it was pretty easy to keep this suppressed as anti-mormon lies. That of course cuts both ways. With the internet, it is also easier to look up the documentation that they use to see how they are using the material. Now its easier to know for example that when the Tanners use an (...) we can search to see if they are abusing the documents in a way to arrive at conclusions that the original does not suggest. I know of one example where they remove 239 words from a quote, connect the ends with their ellipsis of ... claim the person did not say X when he clearly said X in the omitted 239 words. I would give the source to you but I am 800 miles from my house on vacation and I don't have it with me. Edited December 31, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: That of course cuts both ways. With the internet, it is also easier to look up the documentation that they use to see how they are using the material. Now its easier to know for example that when the Tanners use an (...) we can search to see if they are abusing the documents in a way to arrive at conclusions that the original does not suggest. I know of one example where they remove 239 words from a quote, connect the ends with their ellipsis of ... claim the person did not say X when he clearly said X in the omitted 239 words. I would give the source to you but I am 800 miles from my house on vacation and I don't have it with me. However there was many publications put out by the Tanners, one major work was, "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" from my memory. I had one once but it's been decades. Possibly there were some incomplete quotes but overall I think they were honest and as thorough as they could be without trying to mislead anyone.
carbon dioxide Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, Sanpitch said: However there was many publications put out by the Tanners, one major work was, "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" from my memory. I had one once but it's been decades. Possibly there were some incomplete quotes but overall I think they were honest and as thorough as they could be without trying to mislead anyone. One can assume they are honest but for one to truly say that they have to look beyond it and the issues they present in order to really know how honest they are. I don't think they are completely dishonest but they can be sloppy. I downloaded their "Changing World of Mormonism" book which I guess is a reduced version of the Shadow or Reality and what I saw in the chapters was pretty bad. I could not go a couple of paragraphs without seeing issues. The whole tone was in the first chapter. They introduce the Church, get into all the finances of the Church at the time with the impression left on me that they did not see the Church as a serious church or faith but simply a business or scheme to make money and everything about it is a joke. One was not going to get a serious, objective analysis of issues but simply get a presentation that follows that tone throughout.
Recommended Posts