Robert F. Smith Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: I have no academic training in history, but I can still identify baloney. Can you point to a situation where their key assumptions were fallacious or inimical to evangelical belief? Okay. I am simply saying that the polemic sword is two-edged and cuts both ways, Jim. Non-Mormon Professor Lawrence Foster of Georgia Tech documented the double-standard so wantonly applied by Jerald & Sandra Tanner – whose efforts are really no different than the self-contradictory and self-defeating efforts by some apologists to direct their flock into the banal and mediocre safety of self-engulfing naiveté. The suicidal, polemical techniques and image-consciousness characteristic of the one side are no better than the narrow, ranting vitriol and smugness of the other. Scientism, Evangelicalism, Mormonism, et alii, are subject to the same two-edged sword. With everyone in the branches of the tree, hacking at the roots can be a very precarious endeavor! See Larry Foster, "Career Apostates: Reflections on the [Life and] Work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue, 17/2 (Summer 1984):35-60 (the complete title is Foster’s), published in revised form as “Apostate Believers: Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Encounter with Mormon History,” in R. Launius and L. Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (1994), 343-365. Non-Mormon scholar Tobin Siebers has pointed out that Quote in the heat of conflict . . . religious elements in competition often demystify each other as part of a strategy to overcome opponents. Once one side demystifies the other side's beliefs, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain its own system of beliefs. The fatal embrace of mimetic rivalry. In other words, one demythologizes (euhemerizes) someone else's worldview at peril to one’s own. Siebers, Mirror of Medusa, 156, n. 35 (cf. 25); cf. Ed Ashment, “A Précis: My Position on Anti-Mormonism,” June 19, 2002, available online at http://www.lds-mormon.com/ precis.shtml . . A prime example of this in the Tanner repertoire has been the focus on Joseph Smith and magic. The problem with that is, not only failure to understand that Christianity and magic are powerfully intertwined, but failure to be aware of the strong critique of Jesus as a magician: Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (Harper & Row, 1978/ reprint Group West, 1998); Pieter F. Craffert, The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective (Wipf & Stock/ Cascade Books, 2008). Edited May 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The Tanners were polemical from the start, and their interest in researching and publishing was never academic. Their selective quoting and overuse of all caps and italics (often both at the same time) drives me crazy. That said, while their stuff is sensationalistic, they did a great service in reprinting early documents and opening avenues of discussion. The old guard at FARMS was certainly more academically skilled, but no less polemical. As part of that fabled "old guard" at FARMS, I take exception to that, John. We were very even-handed (kind even), reprinted a lot of non-Mormon articles, and the only publication which could conceivably be termed "polemical" was FARMS Review, which constituted only a small part of FARMS production. However, by its nature, a review journal can be somewhat abrasive, and this is true of all academic reviews across the spectrum. One of my pieces in that journal was necessarily negative in taking an author to task for not doing his homework and getting nearly everything wrong, but I don't believe that I was polemical. See for yourself: Smith, Robert F., “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010), 125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807. Moreover, we never used caps and sensationalism. We soft-peddled nearly everything. There is no valid comparison with the Tanner materials, which I always carefully read. Indeed, I made certain that a full collection of Tanner material was available in a major research library. Also, I never had a cross word with Sandra. I always enjoyed meeting and talking with her. I even accompanied her family to their Missionary Alliance Church in SLC, and was intimately familiar with the Church she and Jerald had been baptized in back in Independence, Missouri, where I spent many years. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: As part of that fabled "old guard" at FARMS, I take exception to that, John. We were very even-handed (kind even), reprinted a lot of non-Mormon articles, and the only publication which could conceivably be termed "polemical" was FARMS Review, which constituted only a small part of FARMS production. However, by its nature, a review journal can be somewhat abrasive, and this is true of all academic reviews across the spectrum. One of my pieces in that journal was necessarily negative in taking an author to task for not doing his homework and getting nearly everything wrong, but I don't believe that I was polemical. See for yourself: Smith, Robert F., “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010), 125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807. Moreover, we never used caps and sensationalism. We soft-peddled nearly everything. There is no valid comparison with the Tanner materials, which I always carefully read. Indeed, I made certain that a full collection of Tanner material was available in a major research library. Also, I never had a cross word with Sandra. I always enjoyed meeting and talking with her. I even accompanied her family to their Missionary Alliance Church in SLC, and was intimately familiar with the Church she and Jerald had been baptized in back in Independence, Missouri, where I spent many years. I wasn't saying FARMS was the same as the Tanners. I do think there was way too much polemicism in the old guard's stuff.
canard78 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Documentary evidence that the Tanners were indeed duped by Hoffman. The same Hoffman who duped the LDS leaders. Umm... So when I said "British sarcasm" I was probably not clear enough. I was saying that too. They weren't duped by Hoffman, that was the point I was making... but doing it using sarcasm. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I wasn't saying FARMS was the same as the Tanners. I do think there was way too much polemicism in the old guard's stuff. Maybe you could provide some concrete examples, John. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Maybe you could provide some concrete examples, John. Sorry for the sarcasm, Robert. I didn't have you in mind. Edited May 29, 2016 by jkwilliams
Jim Stiles Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: ... A prime example of this in the Tanner repertoire has been the focus on Joseph Smith and magic. The problem with that is, not only failure to understand that Christianity and magic are powerfully intertwined, but failure to be aware of the strong critique of Jesus as a magician: Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (Harper & Row, 1978/ reprint Group West, 1998); Pieter F. Craffert, The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective (Wipf & Stock/ Cascade Books, 2008). Um, Christianity and magic are not intertwined. Sure there are miracles in the New Testament, but Jesus' earthly ministry was not primarily devoted towards healing the sick and injured. The New Testament does not contain a list of recipes for spells. You are confusing it with D&D. The epistle to the Romans was not a first attempt at a Dungeonmaster's Manual.
Jim Stiles Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 I think that the important takeaway is that Holy Scripture is inerrant and infallible, not the Tanners.
juliann Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 26 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: I think that the important takeaway is that Holy Scripture is inerrant and infallible, Sorry to say this does belong in a myth thread. Fortunately, it is not one of ours. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 5 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Sorry for the sarcasm, Robert. I didn't have you in mind. I didn't think you were being sarcastic, John, and didn't think you had me in mind. But I did think that you might have some actual examples of the horrible or not so horrible polemics of the FARMS crew back in the day. I just didn't see any of it, but maybe I was too close to it. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Um, Christianity and magic are not intertwined. Sure there are miracles in the New Testament, but Jesus' earthly ministry was not primarily devoted towards healing the sick and injured. The New Testament does not contain a list of recipes for spells. You are confusing it with D&D. The epistle to the Romans was not a first attempt at a Dungeonmaster's Manual. I'm too old to have ever encountered D&D or a Dungeonmaster's Manual, but am well familiar with the common view of scholars that Jesus must be seen as a Galilean Hasid or Wunderrebbe, very much like his contemporary Honi ha-Meʿaggel and his descendants.* Moreover, scholars of religion do not distinguish magic from ordinary religion. You (like the Tanners) are clearly unfamiliar with that field of study. One of Honi's grandsons was Hanan the Rain-Maker (= Abba Hanan/ Hanin), who flourished at nearly the same time that Jesus’ brother James the Just was stoned (A.D. 62); the other grandson was Abba Hilkiah, also a rain-maker and a legendary “Rip van Winkle” figure.** You appear to be as naive as were the Tanners, which was their primary downfall. It doesn't make them bad people -- just ignorant and uninformed. * Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (1983), 5-28, 49 (see esp. nn. 61-62 and 45); Robert Eisenman in JNES, 49/2 (1990):173-184. Honi the "Circle-Drawer" (Honyo/ Onias the Righteous) was stoned to death by his fellow Jews (Cf. Talmud Babli Ta`anit 22b-23a [3:8]), Talmud Jerushalmi Ta`anit 66b [3:9/8], Josephus, Antiquities, XIV, 2, 1 §§22-24. ** Talmud Babli Ta`anit 22a-23a (3:8), Jerushalmi Ta`anit 66b (3:9/8). 2
Atheist Mormon Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 On 5/27/2016 at 3:08 PM, Doctrine 612 said: what do you find weird? They are pretty good about the accuracy of their claims, which is one side of the whole story. When I stat to ask equally hard questions about their side of belief they either get angry or choose to terminate the conversation.
Gray Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 9:56 PM, Jim Stiles said: I think that the important takeaway is that Holy Scripture is inerrant and infallible, not the Tanners. This belongs in the Fundamentalist Christian Myths thread. 1
consiglieri Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 Elder Maynes provides the latest entry to the Mormon myths category in his recent Worldwide Devotional: Quote It is a blessing to have these accounts of Joseph’s First Vision. Like the individual New Testament Gospels that together more completely describe Christ’s life and ministry, each one of the accounts describing Joseph’s First Vision adds unique detail and perspective to the total experience. They together tell Joseph’s consistent, harmonious story. They all emphasize that there was confusion and strife among Christian churches, that Joseph desired to know which (if any) was right, that he searched the scriptures and prayed, that a light descended from heaven, and that divine beings appeared and answered his prayer. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/the-truth-restored?lang=eng
Jim Stiles Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 7 hours ago, Gray said: This belongs in the Fundamentalist Christian Myths thread. Well that explains who the LDS are able to bypass all of the racist content of the Book of Mormon.
ttribe Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Well that explains who the LDS are able to bypass all of the racist content of the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament. (bolded portion added by ttribe) Fixed it for you... 1
Gray Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 27 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Well that explains who the LDS are able to bypass all of the racist content of the Book of Mormon. There is a tendency toward a fundamentalist approach to scripture in LDS tradition as well, but thankfully we've avoided the presentist and unsupportable idea of Biblical inerrancy. How do you handle the pro-slavery and rape passages in the Old Testament? In those instances are you selectively nuanced?
Jim Stiles Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 20 minutes ago, ttribe said: Fixed it for you... Where does the Old Testament claim that dark people were evil in the pre-existence? I know the Book of Mormon does not say this, but other LDS scripture does.
Jim Stiles Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 21 minutes ago, ttribe said: Fixed it for you... Where does the Old Testament say that when people do evil deeds their skin will turn dark?
Jim Stiles Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: There is a tendency toward a fundamentalist approach to scripture in LDS tradition as well, but thankfully we've avoided the presentist and unsupportable idea of Biblical inerrancy. How do you handle the pro-slavery and rape passages in the Old Testament? In those instances are you selectively nuanced? During Biblical times the form of slavery that was practiced was debt bondage, which was completely different than antebellum US slavery of Negroes. Rape was a very difficult crime to prosecute in antiquity when there were no witnesses. Multiple witnesses to an act were required for a conviction.
UtahTexan Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Where does the Old Testament say that when people do evil deeds their skin will turn dark? I would take a look at the sons of Noah..... But, that dodges the question as it pertains to slavery, rape, murder, etc in the OT. Oh...there was also the forced circumcision of drunken folks, the killing of children who laughed at prophets, the incest, the lying by prophets..... Does any of that bother you?
Jim Stiles Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: I would take a look at the sons of Noah..... But, that dodges the question as it pertains to slavery, rape, murder, etc in the OT. Oh...there was also the forced circumcision of drunken folks, the killing of children who laughed at prophets, the incest, the lying by prophets..... Does any of that bother you? You will have to quote the relevant Bible passages, if you want me to respond.
UtahTexan Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: You will have to quote the relevant Bible passages, if you want me to respond. My apologies. I thought you had at least a modicum of Biblical Knowledge. I had no idea you did not know the Bible.
Gray Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 23 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: During Biblical times the form of slavery that was practiced was debt bondage, which was completely different than antebellum US slavery of Negroes. Rape was a very difficult crime to prosecute in antiquity when there were no witnesses. Multiple witnesses to an act were required for a conviction. The Old Testament supports the taking of slaves of conquered nations, and raping the women of those nations. That doesn't sound any better than antebellum US Slavery.
ttribe Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 37 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Where does the Old Testament claim that dark people were evil in the pre-existence? I know the Book of Mormon does not say this, but other LDS scripture does. I don't know your denominational leanings, but the LDS Church is hardly alone in the whole "Curse of Cain Doctrine" (which is really where the pre-existence conjecture stemmed from) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_Cain 36 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Where does the Old Testament say that when people do evil deeds their skin will turn dark? [eyeroll] The simple notion that the alleged racism in the two books is not the same kind of racism doesn't change the fact that it is racism.
Recommended Posts