JLHPROF Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: Not even where they contradict? "Contradict" implies perfect knowledge in the beginning vs perfect knowledge at the end. I allow for the fact that Joseph was learning as the gospel was restored.
consiglieri Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Just now, JLHPROF said: "Contradict" implies perfect knowledge in the beginning vs perfect knowledge at the end. I allow for the fact that Joseph was learning as the gospel was restored. I will take that as a tacit admission. No further questions, your honor.
Sanpitch Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 10 hours ago, why me said: I don't believe that the tanners were historians. However, history is made up of interpretations of facts. The critics were masters at interpreting church history in a negative way. They offered the facts and gave their interpretations of aspects of it. However, as I just pointed out to tacenda, if members would have read church history books publsihed by deseret, they would have learned much. Especially by reading the biography of hyrum smith by O'driscoll. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith And here is a review of the book: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/7151/6800 The fact seems to be that members do not read books about mormon history written by faithful members who have scholars etc. Tanners interpreted in a negative way the church or pro church writers interpreted in a positive way. So we still have to decide on our own, which is the most accurate after reading available sources. 2
Derl Sanderson Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 On 12/31/2015 at 6:03 PM, 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. The above in answer to Sanpitch's question: " I have read [the Tanners'] 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 major errors on the Tanner's part." Yup. So far, no takers: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=17 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=18 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=19 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1427&index=25 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=17 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1432&index=13 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1432&index=14 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1439&index=13 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1441&index=14 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1445&index=3 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1445&index=8 There are probably many more such "takers." Finding these sucked up 10 minutes of my time, after which my left-click finger cramped up and I had to quit. My own take on the Tanners' activities varies a little. I think that for years they got a pass. They strutted their stuff basically unopposed, not because the Church cowered in the corner as the result of Gerald's erudition and Sandra's generations-old carrots in orange jello recipe (she is, after all, a direct descendant of Brigham Young). Instead, they operated in a relatively safe haven because the Church was occupied wasting its resources trying to bring the doctrines and ordinances of salvation to the peoples of the world rather than making the obviously more important effort to answer the Tanners (demonstrating yet again the shallow short-sightedness of "prophets" who can't seem to get their priorities straight). So the Tanners soldiered on, puffed up like mid-summer Georgia roadkill, portraying their work as unassailable because the Church didn't answer. And the fact it didn't answer made it rather obvious that it couldn't (that follows, right?). But then LDS scholars began to take notice of their work. Men and women actually credentialed in fields the Tanners wanted everyone to believe were exclusively their own bailiwick. And the result was predictable. I've followed the Salt Lake City Messenger newsletters for years and have seen a shift from haughty chest-thumping and goading Church officials for a response to a more defensive, complaining, sometimes outright whining when they have to deal with the push-back of the scholars who disembowel their stuff. But it doesn't really matter. The Tanners will eventually wind up on the ash heap of history along with their fellow travelers from E. D. Howe to Shawn McCraney, and the Church will continue to focus on its divine mission. And I still gotta wonder: What are all these things the Church now admits to that the Tanners "said half a century ago?" And when exactly is "way back when?" And what specifically comprised the Church's "best efforts" to keep all us orthodox troglodytes from finding out these ominous things? I looked through all the past Ensign issues and found nothing written by Elder Goebbels. 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 30 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said: The above in answer to Sanpitch's question: " I have read [the Tanners'] 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 major errors on the Tanner's part." Yup. So far, no takers: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=17 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=18 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=19 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1427&index=25 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=17 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1432&index=13 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1432&index=14 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1439&index=13 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1441&index=14 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1445&index=3 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1445&index=8 There are probably many more such "takers." Finding these sucked up 10 minutes of my time, after which my left-click finger cramped up and I had to quit. My own take on the Tanners' activities varies a little. I think that for years they got a pass. They strutted their stuff basically unopposed, not because the Church cowered in the corner as the result of Gerald's erudition and Sandra's generations-old carrots in orange jello recipe (she is, after all, a direct descendant of Brigham Young). Instead, they operated in a relatively safe haven because the Church was occupied wasting its resources trying to bring the doctrines and ordinances of salvation to the peoples of the world rather than making the obviously more important effort to answer the Tanners (demonstrating yet again the shallow short-sightedness of "prophets" who can't seem to get their priorities straight). So the Tanners soldiered on, puffed up like mid-summer Georgia roadkill, portraying their work as unassailable because the Church didn't answer. And the fact it didn't answer made it rather obvious that it couldn't (that follows, right?). But then LDS scholars began to take notice of their work. Men and women actually credentialed in fields the Tanners wanted everyone to believe were exclusively their own bailiwick. And the result was predictable. I've followed the Salt Lake City Messenger newsletters for years and have seen a shift from haughty chest-thumping and goading Church officials for a response to a more defensive, complaining, sometimes outright whining when they have to deal with the push-back of the scholars who disembowel their stuff. But it doesn't really matter. The Tanners will eventually wind up on the ash heap of history along with their fellow travelers from E. D. Howe to Shawn McCraney, and the Church will continue to focus on its divine mission. And I still gotta wonder: What are all these things the Church now admits to that the Tanners "said half a century ago?" And when exactly is "way back when?" And what specifically comprised the Church's "best efforts" to keep all us orthodox troglodytes from finding out these ominous things? I looked through all the past Ensign issues and found nothing written by Elder Goebbels. It's amusing to watch people act as though something that was answered decades ago is unassailable.
Derl Sanderson Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 On 12/31/2015 at 9:45 AM, consiglieri said: I am not positive if it was the Salamander Letter or another one that Hofmann produced around the same time. Brent Metcalfe was a close friend of Mark Hofmann at the time and he gives the following account on his interview on Mormon Stories: Gordon B. Hinckley bought the letter and "donated" it to the Church. The Church promptly squirreled it away. But Hofmann, anticipating the Church would do just that, leaked a copy of the letter to the Los Angeles Times. The reporter called the Church and asked whether they had acquired the letter. The Church denied it. The reporter said that he was going to run with the story. It was at that point that all the alarms went off at the COB trying to figure out a way to release the letter to the public in advance of the newspaper story. Actually, the so-called Salamander letter was purchased by Steven F. Christensen, who donated it to the Church. President Hinckley was initially approached by Lyn Jacobs about purchasing the letter. He wanted Pres. Hinckley to authorize a trade that would give Jacobs (who was Hofmann's associate) a rare ten-dollar Mormon gold piece (a very coveted item among collectors of Mormon money valued at between $60,000 and $100,000) in exchange for the letter. But the asking price was too high and Pres. Hinckley turned it down. Jacobs then offered to trade for a copy of A Book of Commandments (valued at $30,000 - $40,000). President Hinckley considered the offer briefly, then said of the letter, "I don't know if we really want it." That's when Hofmann proceeded to sell the letter to Steve Christensen. Metcalfe, along with Dean Jessee and Ron Walker, were hired by Christensen to study the historical aspects of the letter as part of the authentication process. Metcalfe's work on the project eroded his faith in the foundational claims of the Church. Metcalfe also planned on publishing a book on early Mormonism, and Christensen, a faithful Latter-day Saint, became concerned that he would be in a position of essentially having underwritten a book that in his view had the potential of doing more harm than good. So it was at that point that Christensen terminated his working relationship with Metcalfe. After the authentication process concluded (which involved other types of analysis beyond just the historical that Jesse, Walker, and Metcalfe provided), Christensen publicly donated the letter to the Church on April 12, 1985. Later that month, the complete text of the letter was published in the weekly Church News (or in Consiglieri parlance "squirreled it away"). I think Consiglieri and Sanpitch have conflated the Salamander events with those surrounding the Josiah Stowell letter and the McLellin collection, two other "projects" of Hofmann. Gordon B. Hinckley didn't buy those, either. 2
why me Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Sanpitch said: Tanners interpreted in a negative way the church or pro church writers interpreted in a positive way. So we still have to decide on our own, which is the most accurate after reading available sources. True. However, in the past, it were the critics who gave facts and interpreted these facts in a negative way. FAIR came along with their own interpretations and now the lds church has begun to give the lds interpretation. The problem in the past was when members went to the web, found facts that they did not know from the critics and looked to FAIR to refute the facts. And when FAIR could only offer an alternative interpretation, the members became disappointed. This happened quite often. Now, however, times have changed. Members are discovering the facts and are open to lds interpretions. The tanners were the head honchos of the critics back in the day. But what did they accomplish? Not much. Some members left the fold but the church is still standing and it certainly is not weaker. Sometimes critics just need to get a new life and move on. I do think that john is reaching the point of being obsessed with the lds church. If so, I would feel pity for him. Much better to move on and get a new life and a new interest. Unless of course, it is a financial benefit to stick with it and if then, can one be a professional critic who makes their living with negative views of mormonism? Edited January 6, 2016 by why me
Sanpitch Posted January 6, 2016 Author Posted January 6, 2016 11 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said: There are probably many more such "takers." Finding these sucked up 10 minutes of my time, after which my left-click finger cramped up and I had to quit. My own take on the Tanners' activities varies a little. I think that for years they got a pass. They strutted their stuff basically unopposed, not because the Church cowered in the corner as the result of Gerald's erudition and Sandra's generations-old carrots in orange jello recipe (she is, after all, a direct descendant of Brigham Young). Instead, they operated in a relatively safe haven because the Church was occupied wasting its resources trying to bring the doctrines and ordinances of salvation to the peoples of the world rather than making the obviously more important effort to answer the Tanners (demonstrating yet again the shallow short-sightedness of "prophets" who can't seem to get their priorities straight). So the Tanners soldiered on, puffed up like mid-summer Georgia roadkill, portraying their work as unassailable because the Church didn't answer. And the fact it didn't answer made it rather obvious that it couldn't (that follows, right?). But then LDS scholars began to take notice of their work. Men and women actually credentialed in fields the Tanners wanted everyone to believe were exclusively their own bailiwick. And the result was predictable. I've followed the Salt Lake City Messenger newsletters for years and have seen a shift from haughty chest-thumping and goading Church officials for a response to a more defensive, complaining, sometimes outright whining when they have to deal with the push-back of the scholars who disembowel their stuff. But it doesn't really matter. The Tanners will eventually wind up on the ash heap of history along with their fellow travelers from E. D. Howe to Shawn McCraney, and the Church will continue to focus on its divine mission. And I still gotta wonder: What are all these things the Church now admits to that the Tanners "said half a century ago?" And when exactly is "way back when?" And what specifically comprised the Church's "best efforts" to keep all us orthodox troglodytes from finding out these ominous things? I looked through all the past Ensign issues and found nothing written by Elder Goebbels. Apparently the Tanners were just puffed up historian wannabes who gained some traction in the critical field in trying to destroy the church and people's belief because the righteous scholars were busy trying to save the worlds people, dead or alive. But now the righteous scholars have turned their attention to the critics and blasted them out of the water, at least in your opinion.
Tacenda Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said: The above in answer to Sanpitch's question: " I have read [the Tanners'] 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 major errors on the Tanner's part." Yup. So far, no takers: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=17 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=18 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1426&index=19 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1427&index=25 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=17 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1432&index=13 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1432&index=14 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1439&index=13 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1441&index=14 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1445&index=3 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1445&index=8 There are probably many more such "takers." Finding these sucked up 10 minutes of my time, after which my left-click finger cramped up and I had to quit. My own take on the Tanners' activities varies a little. I think that for years they got a pass. They strutted their stuff basically unopposed, not because the Church cowered in the corner as the result of Gerald's erudition and Sandra's generations-old carrots in orange jello recipe (she is, after all, a direct descendant of Brigham Young). Instead, they operated in a relatively safe haven because the Church was occupied wasting its resources trying to bring the doctrines and ordinances of salvation to the peoples of the world rather than making the obviously more important effort to answer the Tanners (demonstrating yet again the shallow short-sightedness of "prophets" who can't seem to get their priorities straight). So the Tanners soldiered on, puffed up like mid-summer Georgia roadkill, portraying their work as unassailable because the Church didn't answer. And the fact it didn't answer made it rather obvious that it couldn't (that follows, right?). But then LDS scholars began to take notice of their work. Men and women actually credentialed in fields the Tanners wanted everyone to believe were exclusively their own bailiwick. And the result was predictable. I've followed the Salt Lake City Messenger newsletters for years and have seen a shift from haughty chest-thumping and goading Church officials for a response to a more defensive, complaining, sometimes outright whining when they have to deal with the push-back of the scholars who disembowel their stuff. But it doesn't really matter. The Tanners will eventually wind up on the ash heap of history along with their fellow travelers from E. D. Howe to Shawn McCraney, and the Church will continue to focus on its divine mission. And I still gotta wonder: What are all these things the Church now admits to that the Tanners "said half a century ago?" And when exactly is "way back when?" And what specifically comprised the Church's "best efforts" to keep all us orthodox troglodytes from finding out these ominous things? I looked through all the past Ensign issues and found nothing written by Elder Goebbels. Ever read the church essays? Or Fair Mormon. There's a couple of things, not much but a few. Edited January 6, 2016 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts