VideoGameJunkie Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Critics spend an awful lot of time trying to discredit Joseph Smith mainly.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sanpitch said: That belief probably sooths your feeling but I think there is very little truth in it. Maybe occasionally happens. Not at all. It is always the method used. In fact, I'll issue a CFR - any "criticism" aimed at Mormonism by a critic where the goal wasn't to discredit Mormonism and at the same time cause members to question. I'll say it again. Critics almost always use the "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" method. It may not always be done as a surprise, but I can't think of any criticism that doesn't employ this goal. Politicians use the same method to discredit those with opposing views. Edited December 31, 2015 by JLHPROF 1
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 13 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Critics spend an awful lot of time trying to discredit Joseph Smith mainly. And failing miserably. What a waste of a life goal. 1
rodheadlee Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours 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. Who are the Tanners that I should spend my valuable time reading their stuff? If I didn't think the Church was lead by Jesus Christ I would simply pull up my anchor and leave. 1
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 13 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Who are the Tanners that I should spend my valuable time reading their stuff? If I didn't think the Church was lead by Jesus Christ I would simply pull up my anchor and leave. Well anything they had to offer * 100 is now freely available to all ... Those poor defenders spend an awful lot of time trying to discredit what Al has provided us all. Kind of a shame really ... all that wasted life goal .. Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours ago, Sanpitch said: That belief probably sooths your feeling but I think there is very little truth in it. Maybe occasionally happens. It happens quite frequently, and it is very upsetting to the anti-Mormon crowd. Mormons are supposed to roll over and play dead. They just don't play fair. 2
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 7 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Who are the Tanners that I should spend my valuable time reading their stuff? If I didn't think the Church was lead by Jesus Christ I would simply pull up my anchor and leave. You probably shouldn't spend your valuable time reading their stuff you seem satisfied where you are now. They have spent decades researching church history and probably know many times more about it than you do. I think Sandra is a granddaughter of Brigham Young and Gerald is related to the Tanner who was in the leadership of the church. They started out as church members and started studying church history which didn't seem to go well with them, or rather the history didn't seem to match what they had learned as church members. Gerald died a few years ago, Sandra is still living in SLC as far as I know and running a book store of mostly Mormon history items. Ed: Sandra is probably a great-grand daughter of BY, not granddaughter, looking at it time wise. Edited December 31, 2015 by Sanpitch correction
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours ago, salgare said: The Tanners sure called the whole Hoffman deal before anyone else. No they didn't. In fact, Jerald and Sandra could not agree on whether he was a forger or not.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: 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. Grant Palmer may be a very likeable fellow who taught seminary and institute classes as a career, but his historical appraisal of Mormonism is atrocious and filled with error. His book has been well reviewed in a number of publications and he fails on all serious counts. I even reviewed his work before he published it, while he was working under a pseudonym. 1
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said: You probably shouldn't spend your valuable time reading their stuff you seem satisfied where you are now. They have spent decades researching church history and probably know many times more about it than you do. I think Sandra is a granddaughter of Brigham Young and Gerald is related to the Tanner who was in the leadership of the church. They started out as church members and started studying church history which didn't seem to go well with them, or rather the history didn't seem to match what they had learned as church members. Gerald died a few years ago, Sandra is still living in SLC as far as I know and running a book store of mostly Mormon history items. as previously noted a fairly recent 4 or so hour interview was enlightening and recommended for those that may wish to judge the tanners, without really knowing anything about them other than growing up with them being the devil incarnate.
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: No they didn't. In fact, Jerald and Sandra could not agree on whether he was a forger or not. Consig pointed that out earlier, so in restating Jerald saw it long before anyone in the Church and Sandra did. oh and Merry Christmas and a Happy New year to you Brother Smith. Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare
sunstoned Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: 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? Inspiration?
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I'll say it again. Critics almost always use the "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" method. It may not always be done as a surprise, but I can't think of any criticism that doesn't employ this goal. Where are they using this at JLHPROF? i.e. Church? Here? Blogs? the 3 or 4 home boards? I'm not seeing it in most of those arenas.
Calm Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: 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. There were several articles dealing with Palmer in FARMS. Did you read them? There was plenty said about stuff he got wrong, sources he ignored, etc. I would suggestreading these before accepting his claim. Summary and names provide here: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/a-summary-of-five-reviews-of-grant-palmers-an-insiders-view-of-mormon-origins Edited December 31, 2015 by Calm 1
Calm Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2000-fair-conference/2000-mormonism-shadow-or-reality-history-or-propaganda-joseph-smith-as-a-case-study "These are just a few of the propagandistic techniques and instances of egregious misuse of documentary evidence that I found in reviewing Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s chapter on Joseph Smith. If we were to do an exhaustive study of the thousands of quotations in Shadow or Reality? we would find hundreds if not thousands of similar misuses of the documents. I have demonstrated that “William,” a would-be-promoter of Shadow or Reality?, is in error when he says the Tanners do not take their quotations out of context. He simply did not do the work he claimed he did or if he did he made a poor job of it. Professor Jennings Olson, boldly challenged “But if Dr. Nibley or anyone else decides to ‘answer’ the Tanner’s [sic] book point for point I certainly promise to study that book carefully and review it in public.” I invite Professor Olson or anyone else who has placed their confidence and trust in the work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, especiallyMormonism–Shadow or Reality?, to come and take a new look. It cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny its authors and supporters demand it be given. To paraphrase others who have looked closely at their work, the Tanner opus turns out to be more “shadow” than “reality” in that it is more propaganda than history or biography"
readstoomuch Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Repeat topic. Tanners don`t offer balanced perspective and have heavy-handed editing style. I like Career Apostates by Lawrence Foster In Dialogue 1984(?86) or Response to Mormonism Shadow Reality by an Anonymous Latter-day Saint Historian. Robert Smith knew them and he gives some interesting insights, even if he does`t agree with their tone and substance. 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 5 hours 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. Consig: Hey everyone, please write a refutation discrediting what two people who have been writing and publishing for decades have done. (A few hours later) Consig: Well, no one on a message board people post on for fun decided to take on work-intensive challenge so I think we can safely conclude that the task is impossible and the Tanners stand undefeated. Hail Satan! 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 6 hours ago, salgare said: The Tanners sure called the whole Hoffman deal before anyone else. They were the first to loudly declare it. They were not the first or the only ones to suspect a forgery and they certainly did not prove it. I am not sure what "credit" this earns them.
Tacenda Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 hours ago, Calm said: There were several articles dealing with Palmer in FARMS. Did you read them? There was plenty said about stuff he got wrong, sources he ignored, etc. I would suggestreading these before accepting his claim. Summary and names provide here: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/a-summary-of-five-reviews-of-grant-palmers-an-insiders-view-of-mormon-origins I guess I said the wrong book. Not Mormonism Unveiled.
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: They were the first to loudly declare it. They were not the first or the only ones to suspect a forgery and they certainly did not prove it. I am not sure what "credit" this earns them. was just an observation on my part, Consig called for the credit. I really know little about the whole deal other than listening to the widow Sandra recently.
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Not at all. It is always the method used. In fact, I'll issue a CFR - any "criticism" aimed at Mormonism by a critic where the goal wasn't to discredit Mormonism and at the same time cause members to question. I'll say it again. Critics almost always use the "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" method. It may not always be done as a surprise, but I can't think of any criticism that doesn't employ this goal. Politicians use the same method to discredit those with opposing views. Is there any chance that apologists and other church defenders use the same method as far as attacking and discrediting critics? In fact as far as critics and defenders are concerned I believe that you find what you're looking for. Critics find much to criticize in the church and defenders find much to criticize in the critics because that is what they are looking for. I feel the apologists in the past, as far as the Tanners are concerned, have criticized every incorrect punctuation and any minor incorrect detail they can find in Tanner's writings. We all want to establish our view point as being the correct one. And I'll repeat, we find what we are looking for.
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: And failing miserably. What a waste of a life goal. I don't think they failed from their view point, they helped a lot of people out of the church. Edited December 31, 2015 by Sanpitch
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: Consig: Hey everyone, please write a refutation discrediting what two people who have been writing and publishing for decades have done. (A few hours later) Consig: Well, no one on a message board people post on for fun decided to take on work-intensive challenge so I think we can safely conclude that the task is impossible and the Tanners stand undefeated. Hail Satan! The original question was just a simple "Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence of majors errors on the Tanner's part." That doesn't require a major study of the Tanner's work. If no one remembers right off then they don't have to post such.
Sanpitch Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 18 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Who are the Tanners that I should spend my valuable time reading their stuff? If I didn't think the Church was lead by Jesus Christ I would simply pull up my anchor and leave. And if the "violent" Muslim didn't believe that Allah was behind them they would put away their sword and automatic rifles and go home. Comparing a poster to terrorists is out of line.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 13 hours ago, bluebell said: 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. The Tanners were generally considered to be more methodical and accurate in their presentation of their criticisms. It was Ed Decker who was the whack-job. And the Tanners and Ed Decker came to blows over it. The Tanners felt that Decker's crazy allegations impugned the Tanner's integrity. And again, it was Gerald Tanner, a true gentleman from my brief experience with him, who never believed the Salamander Letter was authentic. He wasn't an expert in handwriting analysis. His reasoning was much more simple. How could one guy possibly keep finding all this stuff?
Recommended Posts