"Major Problems with Mormonism"

[Atheist Mormon]

No, this not a title I created, it is one of the books Sandra Tanner wrote.Frankly after publishing "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" almost every book she wrote was a repetition of the first one. I was fascinated with the information of "Shadow & Reality", So much so I felt a measure of reverence toward her (that was in 1984's). Then I got into RFM, started reading their mostly caustic posts and unavoidably met Steve Benson there. No matter what you might think of the guy he spreads his venom equally to all faiths, I don't think he reserves most of it for Mormonism. Anyway soon after his journey out of his faith his sojourn takes him to the Lighthouse ministry (I read all this stuff in RFM), of course Sandra knows Steve but instinctively she is guarded in their conversations as if she knew what was coming next when Steve asks her; (I am paraphrasing here) "Sandra you wrote all these solid informations about Mormonism, but you still steadfastly holding on Mormonism, don't you think Christianity has some problems too?" Sandra's demeanor instantly changes, a domineering chillness invades her face; "I don't think so The Gospels and Christian History is on a very solid ground, there's no doubt about it".

This story of Steve's encounter forced me to embark on a years long study of Christianity, which unraveled as fast as Mormon history for me. The rest of history of Anti_Mormonism was a huge disappointment for me. People like Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer, however brilliant writers and researchers they were basically fell back into their Faith trap inevitably. Because you cannot declare Mormonism false and turn around & write "Major problems with Mormonism" or "Incomparable Jesus".

This is why Sandra Tanner never achieved a fame of Bart Ehrman as Grant palmer. I think they should start comparing the evidence of Christianity first.....

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said:

No, this not a title I created, it is one of the books Sandra Tanner wrote.Frankly after publishing "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" almost every book she wrote was a repetition of the first one. I was fascinated with the information of "Shadow & Reality", So much so I felt a measure of reverence toward her (that was in 1984's). Then I got into RFM, started reading their mostly caustic posts and unavoidably met Steve Benson there. No matter what you might think of the guy he spreads his venom equally to all faiths, I don't think he reserves most of it for Mormonism. Anyway soon after his journey out of his faith his sojourn takes him to the Lighthouse ministry (I read all this stuff in RFM), of course Sandra knows Steve but instinctively she is guarded in their conversations as if she knew what was coming next when Steve asks her; (I am paraphrasing here) "Sandra you wrote all these solid informations about Mormonism, but you still steadfastly holding on Mormonism, don't you think Christianity has some problems too?" Sandra's demeanor instantly changes, a domineering chillness invades her face; "I don't think so The Gospels and Christian History is on a very solid ground, there's no doubt about it".

This story of Steve's encounter forced me to embark on a years long study of Christianity, which unraveled as fast as Mormon history for me. The rest of history of Anti_Mormonism was a huge disappointment for me. People like Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer, however brilliant writers and researchers they were basically fell back into their Faith trap inevitably. Because you cannot declare Mormonism false and turn around & write "Major problems with Mormonism" or "Incomparable Jesus".

This is why Sandra Tanner never achieved a fame of Bart Ehrman as Grant palmer. I think they should start comparing the evidence of Christianity first.....

Traditionally, religious faith is not based on material fact, so when one attacks a religious faith by judging it against "facts," it holds up only so long as one is unwilling to judge one's own faith by the same standard. As far as I know, no religion has the "facts" on its side. That's as it should be. 

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

No, this not a title I created, it is one of the books Sandra Tanner wrote.Frankly after publishing "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" almost every book she wrote was a repetition of the first one. I was fascinated with the information of "Shadow & Reality", So much so I felt a measure of reverence toward her (that was in 1984's). Then I got into RFM, started reading their mostly caustic posts and unavoidably met Steve Benson there. No matter what you might think of the guy he spreads his venom equally to all faiths, I don't think he reserves most of it for Mormonism. Anyway soon after his journey out of his faith his sojourn takes him to the Lighthouse ministry (I read all this stuff in RFM), of course Sandra knows Steve but instinctively she is guarded in their conversations as if she knew what was coming next when Steve asks her; (I am paraphrasing here) "Sandra you wrote all these solid informations about Mormonism, but you still steadfastly holding on Mormonism, don't you think Christianity has some problems too?" Sandra's demeanor instantly changes, a domineering chillness invades her face; "I don't think so The Gospels and Christian History is on a very solid ground, there's no doubt about it".

This story of Steve's encounter forced me to embark on a years long study of Christianity, which unraveled as fast as Mormon history for me. The rest of history of Anti_Mormonism was a huge disappointment for me. People like Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer, however brilliant writers and researchers they were basically fell back into their Faith trap inevitably. Because you cannot declare Mormonism false and turn around & write "Major problems with Mormonism" or "Incomparable Jesus".

This is why Sandra Tanner never achieved a fame of Bart Ehrman as Grant palmer. I think they should start comparing the evidence of Christianity first.....

I agree, from what I've seen, Sandra's position seems pretty inconsistent.  I haven't paid that much attention to Steve Benson, but I'm guessing he's got some inconsistency going on as well.  Don't we all?  I know a gripe about Mormonism is that members get overburdened with guilt or members are overwhelmed with a standard of perfection.  There's something to that complaint, I'd say.  But to be so critical of everyone else, as it seems Mr. Benson can be, feels to me like setting a standard of perfection that no one will achieve too.  We're all fighting uphill battles in a sense I guess.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, from what I've seen, Sandra's position seems pretty inconsistent.  I haven't paid that much attention to Steve Benson, but I'm guessing he's got some inconsistency going on as well.  Don't we all?  I know a gripe about Mormonism is that members get overburdened with guilt or members are overwhelmed with a standard of perfection.  There's something to that complaint, I'd say.  But to be so critical of everyone else, as it seems Mr. Benson can be, feels to me like setting a standard of perfection that no one will achieve too.  We're all fighting uphill battles in a sense I guess.

I don't think any system of belief can long withstand a determined faultfinder.  That includes atheism and agnosticism, both of which have some rather significant philosophical/logical drawbacks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm going to count the seconds until this thread is closed... 1,2,3...

 

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Traditionally, religious faith is not based on material fact, so when one attacks a religious faith by judging it against "facts," it holds up only so long as one is unwilling to judge one's own faith by the same standard. As far as I know, no religion has the "facts" on its side. That's as it should be. 

I disagree. There is plenty of "fact" surrounding the old and new testaments. We have literally thousands of new testament manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the Bible.  Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). So if the writings of the apostles and witnesses were erroneous they could have been challenged at that time. Compare the evidence to any other ancient book.  Also, there are hundreds of places we can identify from the Bible along with other archeological evidences.  One does not have to look far to see that there is plenty of evidence outside of "faith" that support the book. The gospels are on extremely firm ground!

 

Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, snowflake said:

I disagree. There is plenty of "fact" surrounding the old and new testaments. We have literally thousands of new testament manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the Bible.  Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). So if the writings of the apostles and witnesses were erroneous they could have been challenged at that time. Compare the evidence to any other ancient book.  Also, there are hundreds of places we can identify from the Bible along with other archeological evidences.  One does not have to look far to see that there is plenty of evidence outside of "faith" that support the book. The gospels are on extremely firm ground!

Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology.

Do you honestly believe in the Bible because it's ancient? There are many religious books that can be shown to have ancient origins, many even having manuscripts. By your logic, we should believe in the Bhagavad Gita and the Popol Vuh because they are demonstrably of ancient origin. 

I don't know anyone whose religious faith rests on there being ancient New Testament manuscripts. People believe in the scriptures because of the stories and teachings contained therein, not because they are verifiably old.

[mnn727]

There is a reason its called "Faith" I submit that even Atheism requires Faith as the facts are just not there either. Atheism has many glaring holes in it also.

As far as Mormonism goes, the absolute worst thing that can be said about it is, that I am a far better man here and now for following it that I was prior to joining (I was an adult convert). That's not a bad condemnation in my view.

Edited June 9, 2016 by mnn727

[Kevin Christensen]

Actually the Tanner's major problems with Mormonism neatly fall from their expectations of Mormonism.  It's a neat demonstration of N. R. Hanson's observation that "All data is theory-laden" and Kuhn's observation that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  If you demand that Mormon claims should be perfect, complete, exclusive and unchanging, and Mormon leaders and members should follow suit, then of course, you can spend decades easily finding evidence that Mormons and leaders are imperfect, non-exclusive, incomplete and changing.  And in all that time and effort they ignore the formal definition of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1 that bluntly provides a very different background expectation that Mormonism and Members is expressly imperfect, incomplete, non-exclusive with respect to truth and inspiration, and subject to ongoing change based seeking and revelation from time to time.

By me, they wasted their lives on a faulty starting ideology.

Regarding "Verification" and "Falsification", both have limits, which ought to be acknowledge up front.

Quote

 

Issues for Paradigm Verification

Paradigms cannot be verified for two reasons:

1. Future discoveries may conflict with present theory. For example, in her essay in New Approaches, Melodie Moench Charles comments that “the Qumran documents . . . show no evidence of detailed prophesies [sic] mentioning Jesus or matching his life or mission” (p. 93 n. 22). I suspect that Ms. Charles completed her essay before the release of the latest Qumran fragments that John Tvedtnes refers to as “recently released fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls” that “support the view of the Book of Mormon that a knowledge of a savior-messiah was had in ancient Israel.”²¹ This example supports some specific claims of the Book of Mormon, but we should acknowledge that sometimes the turn of circumstance has obliged defenders of the faith to change their arguments. Even so, such examples as the Aston’s In the Footsteps of Lehi²² and John Sorenson’s work on the Mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon provide examples to show that such updating can be enlightening rather than disillusioning.

2. Another theory may explain present evidence equally well. Consider the implications of the famous drawing of the Old/ Young woman in figure 1. Because the artist creates unresolvable ambiguities, we can interpret the drawing in two very different ways. The drawing compels us to awaken to the possibility that anything that we observe can be understood in a different way. My choice of title for this essay provides another example; in this case, two words, Paradigms Crossed, suggest multiple meanings that complement, rather than contradict, one another. That is not to say that any interpretation is equally valid, either for the picture or for my title—each consists of specific evidence that must be explained. But more than one interpretation may account for the same evidence. In the case of the picture, an observer who sees only one possibility demonstrates either perceptual or imaginative blindness. Some critics may denigrate the more attractive possibility, perhaps because they have been disappointed in the past, or perhaps because lasting beauty is too much to hope for. But by doing so, they demonstrate ideology rather than perception.

Quote

Issues for Paradigm Falsification

If paradigms cannot be verified, can they be falsified?

In practice, as Ian Barbour observes, paradigms resist falsification because “a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.”²³ Some adjustments to such auxiliary hypotheses strengthen the overall paradigm. For example, Kepler adjusted the assumptions of the Copernican theory of planetary motion by arguing for elliptical orbits rather than circular orbits. The rival Ptolemaic theory explained otherwise anomalous planetary motions by surmising epicycles. While the assumption of epicycles preserved the usefulness of the Ptolemaic theory for several generations, comparison with Kepler’s assumptions makes it plain that not all adjustments are created equal. Whereas Kepler’s adjustments led to his generally applicable laws of motion, the ad hoc notion of epicycles applied only to particular problems and had little justification other than necessity. The course of the Copernican Revolution shows that the “accumulation of anomalies” or of “ad hoc modifications having no independent theoretical basis cannot be tolerated indefinitely. An accepted theory is overthrown not primarily by discordant data but by an alternative theory.”²⁴

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

While Verification and Falsification have limits (and studiously ignoring those limits is a defining attribute of Positivism), Mormonism can be tested and assessed in a variety of ways. 

Quote

1. Theory influences observation with the result that all data are to some degree theory-laden. Although proponents of rival theories inevitably talk through each other to a degree, adherents “of rival theories can seek a common core of overlap . . . to which both can retreat.”
2. Comprehensive theories are highly resistant to falsification, but observation does exert some control over theories.
3. There are no rules for choice between paradigms but there are criteria of assessment independent of particular paradigms.⁶²

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

And of course, Kuhn observes that paradigm choice always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved" inevitably an ideological decision with subjective elements, factors that are always conspicuously displayed by all and sundry and obvious to those who care to look and consider and weigh their presence and implications.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I disagree. There is plenty of "fact" surrounding the old and new testaments. We have literally thousands of new testament manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the Bible.  Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). So if the writings of the apostles and witnesses were erroneous they could have been challenged at that time. Compare the evidence to any other ancient book.  Also, there are hundreds of places we can identify from the Bible along with other archeological evidences.  One does not have to look far to see that there is plenty of evidence outside of "faith" that support the book. The gospels are on extremely firm ground!

 

Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology.

This is a silly argument.  

The bible can't be verified with manuscripts or archaeology either.  Just because biblical places have been proven to exist, that means nothing.  If the mere presence of those things meant anything, then you would be arguing that Zeus is an actual god because of all the "facts" surrounding ancient Greek and Roman religious beliefs.  There are plenty of manuscripts speaking about the greek and roman pantheon, after all.  And all of the places that such manuscripts mention (such as Troy, or Athens, or Rome) have been proven to actually exist.  Is that enough evidence to convince you that Zeus is a fact?

I'm guessing not.

 

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology.

Bluebell is exactly right.  Depending on which "scholars" of the moment you believe, neither can the existence of Christ, the flood, the Exodus, or a lot of the Biblical stories.

Basically, you are saying that because the Bible stories have ancient texts that can be studied we can accept those stories as true without evidence but because the only text of Mormonism is a modern publication of an absent ancient manuscript we can't.
The ancient Bible manuscripts could be just as fictional as you claim the Book of Mormon to be.

Ridiculous attempt to show Mormonism false.

Edited June 9, 2016 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

 

50 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I disagree. There is plenty of "fact" surrounding the old and new testaments. We have literally thousands of new testament manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the Bible.  Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). So if the writings of the apostles and witnesses were erroneous they could have been challenged at that time. Compare the evidence to any other ancient book.  Also, there are hundreds of places we can identify from the Bible along with other archeological evidences.  One does not have to look far to see that there is plenty of evidence outside of "faith" that support the book. The gospels are on extremely firm ground!

 

Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology.

What is القُدس ?  No peeking.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

 "Sandra you wrote all these solid informations about Mormonism, but you still steadfastly holding on Mormonism, don't you think Christianity has some problems too?" Sandra's demeanor instantly changes, a domineering chillness invades her face; "I don't think so The Gospels and Christian History is on a very solid ground, there's no doubt about it".

That's alright.  At 75 she'll find out what her husband already knows soon enough.

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, from what I've seen, Sandra's position seems pretty inconsistent.  I haven't paid that much attention to Steve Benson, but I'm guessing he's got some inconsistency going on as well.  Don't we all?  I know a gripe about Mormonism is that members get overburdened with guilt or members are overwhelmed with a standard of perfection.  There's something to that complaint, I'd say.  But to be so critical of everyone else, as it seems Mr. Benson can be, feels to me like setting a standard of perfection that no one will achieve too.  We're all fighting uphill battles in a sense I guess.

Benson is certifiable. There are very few evils he will not impute to religions even with no evidence. His faith in the evilness of religion is impressive.

I really wish someone would let me in on our world domination schemes I am assured by our enemies that we have brewing. I feel out of the loop.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As far as I know, no religion has the "facts" on its side. That's as it should be. 

While on my mission in Peru back in the 1980's, I happened across a Jehovah's Witness pamphlet that had some anti-mormon information in it. Some of it was blatantly false and some of it was a distorted presentation of what might have been true. Soon after reading the information, some JW's approached us and started a conversation. I told them that the pamphlet they had been distributing had some misinformation about the mormons and asked why it was ok for them to print such false information. "Because we have the truth!" was the reply.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

There is a reason its called "Faith" I submit that even Atheism requires Faith as the facts are just not there either. Atheism has many glaring holes in it also.

As far as Mormonism goes, the absolute worst thing that can be said about it is, that I am a far better man here and now for following it that I was prior to joining (I was an adult convert). That's not a bad condemnation in my view.

I'm not sure the problem with atheism is logical or factual problems. The problem with atheism is the rejection of spirituality. As you say, Mormonism makes you a better man. Ergo it is a rational for you to be a Mormon, independent of all the truth claims stuff. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

While on my mission in Peru back in the 1980's, I happened across a Jehovah's Witness pamphlet that had some anti-mormon information in it. Some of it was blatantly false and some of it was a distorted presentation of what might have been true. Soon after reading the information, some JW's approached us and started a conversation. I told them that the pamphlet they had been distributing had some misinformation about the mormons and asked why it was ok for them to print such false information. "Because we have the truth!" was the reply.

Well, at least they were honest about lying.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

I disagree. There is plenty of "fact" surrounding the old and new testaments. We have literally thousands of new testament manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the Bible.  Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). So if the writings of the apostles and witnesses were erroneous they could have been challenged at that time. Compare the evidence to any other ancient book.  Also, there are hundreds of places we can identify from the Bible along with other archeological evidences.  One does not have to look far to see that there is plenty of evidence outside of "faith" that support the book. The gospels are on extremely firm ground!

Now the book of Mormon on the other hand cannot be verified with manuscripts, or archeology.

Snowflake, when I read posts like yours it is evident that you have not studied Biblical history much or at least only have a shallow degree of understanding it.  That is okay, but before you begin throwing stones get out of that glass house in which you are living.  

Edited June 9, 2016 by Storm Rider

[snowflake]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Basically, you are saying that because the Bible stories have ancient texts that can be studied we can accept those stories as true without evidence but because the only text of Mormonism is a modern publication of an absent ancient manuscript we can't.
The ancient Bible manuscripts could be just as fictional as you claim the Book of Mormon to be.

Ridiculous attempt to show Mormonism false.

I am not saying that because manuscripts are old, they are true, not at all. What I am saying is that we can compare the thousands of ancient New Testament texts to see IF they have been changed or altered....are they consistent with what they are saying.  If they are consistent then that should be considered "evidence" that the people who wrote the manuscripts down believed them. We are able to compare today's N.T. with those ancient manuscripts and they do not appear to have been altered. I agree that it does not "prove" the stories true.  But it does give "evidence" for the historicity of the stories and the people and places described.  

Do we have any B.O.M. texts?......no we don't.   

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I am not saying that because manuscripts are old, they are true, not at all. What I am saying is that we can compare the thousands of ancient New Testament texts to see IF they have been changed or altered....are they consistent with what they are saying.  If they are consistent then that should be considered "evidence" that the people who wrote the manuscripts down believed them. We are able to compare today's N.T. with those ancient manuscripts and they do not appear to have been altered. I agree that it does not "prove" the stories true.  But it does give "evidence" for the historicity of the stories and the people and places described.  

Do we have any B.O.M. texts?......no we don't.   

What manuscripts are you speaking of, and in what way can they be shown not to have been altered? Not meaning to argue, just don't know where you're coming from.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The bible can't be verified with manuscripts or archaeology either.  Just because biblical places have been proven to exist, that means nothing.  If the mere presence of those things meant anything, then you would be arguing that Zeus is an actual god because of all the "facts" surrounding ancient Greek and Roman religious beliefs.  There are plenty of manuscripts speaking about the greek and roman pantheon, after all.  And all of the places that such manuscripts mention (such as Troy, or Athens, or Rome) have been proven to actually exist.  Is that enough evidence to convince you that Zeus is a fact?

Wow, archeology and manuscripts mean nothing? Manuscripts describing people, timelines, genealogies, places.....these mean nothing?  If you are willing to dismiss the N.T. texts as nothing then you must also dismiss all other ancient records as nothing. The manuscript evidence for the N.T. is far greater than any other ancient book in the world.  There is superior criteria for affirming this than any other book.  But to you bluebell that means nothing............

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, snowflake said:

Wow, archeology and manuscripts mean nothing? Manuscripts describing people, timelines, genealogies, places.....these mean nothing?  If you are willing to dismiss the N.T. texts as nothing then you must also dismiss all other ancient records as nothing. The manuscript evidence for the N.T. is far greater than any other ancient book in the world.  There is superior criteria for affirming this than any other book.  But to you bluebell that means nothing............

They mean nothing in terms of faith, IMO. And again, what do you mean when you're talking about manuscript evidence, let alone "greater than any other ancient book in the world"? I find that a very strange assertion.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's alright.  At 75 she'll find out what her husband already knows soon enough.

 

 

AWWWWWWWW!!!!!

Edited June 9, 2016 by ERMD

[snowflake]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What manuscripts are you speaking of, and in what way can they be shown not to have been altered? Not meaning to argue, just don't know where you're coming from.

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript

 

Here is a link to the Center for the Study of New Testament manuscripts.  One of many places worldwide that protect and preserve ancient NT papyri.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure the problem with atheism is logical or factual problems. The problem with atheism is the rejection of spirituality. As you say, Mormonism makes you a better man. Ergo it is a rational for you to be a Mormon, independent of all the truth claims stuff. 

The problem of Atheism is that is based on the same faith claims as Theism. IE; I believe in one less god than you.