Jump to content

Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism


Dale

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I am not impressed with the Tanners Mormonism: Shadow or Reality book. I feel it's riddled with problems on a variety of issues. Does anybody have any complaints about this book? Does anybody want to defend it? Myself & another guy started to get into the book on the FAIR Lawsuit thread which I feel should be devoted to another thread.

The book's size is like a tomb stone. Reading it about overwhelms you do to all the quotes they throw at you. I was first exposed to Mormon Claim's Answered by Marvin Cowan. This other book is a summary of the points made in this big book. The smaller Tanner Major Problems in Mormonism is a summary of what's in the big book. I am on my second copy & I think I got my first one in the early 1990's.

The problems with the Preface alone are many. Here's a few items from the book's preface & my responses. But let's keep the issues with the preface before getting into other chapters issues.

1826 trial-Dealt with by Richard Anderson in his FAIR talk & it's no big deal to me.

The 1831 Polygamy revelation-The item as remembered was interpreted as possibly meaning polygamy but it no-where say's married men must marry Lamanite women to cause them. The item more likelier refer to single elders as well. The items not deserving of being suppressed.

When the Tanners started writing there was a certain amount of hesitancy in allowing persons with activist anti-Mormon leanings, or liberal historians not to have everything they wanted to publish. But it's 2005 & the Tanners have everything they ever wanted. Shouldn't they admit nothing old is being suppressed these days? The 1831 Revelation is widely published today & it's 2005 & it's definitely not being suppressed these days.

Do LDS leaders need to do an official LDS Response? If they want to do it they can. LDS prefer to let it's scholars & apologists deal with the issues of the book. The Tanners although they emotionally hurt people arn't big enough they need official recognition. I understand that questions about Mormon history, doctrine & practice leads more people to damnation than salvation in the Mormon Puzzle film. The doubting leads to nothingism. I wonder how many people the book sent to Hell? If I were an Fundementalist Christian I would ask that question about the book not teaching the Gospel.

Were honest CIA methods adopted to spy on or rebut the Tanners stuff? I don't think the book is wrong for making the claim. Was it wrong? No. LDS leaders have the right to protect their people from it's critics. If private responses were made to them by some funding from the LDS Church then then that's ok with me. If the tract was paid for by LDS Church money then that's ok. The Southern Baptist Convention has officially spent funds on events against the LDS faith & if LDS did that privately it's no more wrong. FAIR would be bigger if funds were being channeled into it's bank account. But FAIR has limited resources so that's a sign to me if any LDS leaders contribute it's as a private individual.

Interesting infiltration of the KKK by a reporter & I agree with such method. Mr. Fields may have even done dumb things on his own & not at the private spying for leaders within the church. But the FBI may have thought the ministry needed to be covertly investigated which is right as long as the laws for such spying wern't abused. But whether that guy worked for the Mormons or FBI as an covert agent was not established.

Does anybody really believe that only private individuals & not major churches fund ULM type projects.

Did CIA or FBI persons have the Tanner Ministry watched at the request of the LDS Church? No. It's possible the CIA & FBI have kept of file on individuals they think need to be watched. If they had valid reasons for so doing & feel Stan Fields didn't do anything deceptive spying on them by getting a Post office Box if the FBI had told him to do it. The Tanners have never been accused of any crime since those incidents. Does anybody know about the FBI secret file on the Tanners? The file is non-existent.

But most of the ideas comparing Mormon tactics to CIA tactices, or watergate tactics was kind of unfair. A legitimate tactic is not even watergate like unless Nothing dishonest is done when a church has a leader who tries out covert ways of replying to specific books. CIA tactice are used in the defense of the nation & are not dishonest. All of the CIA & FBI conspiracy talk makes the preface alone sound like the exciting script for the X-Files series.

Sincerely,

Dale

PS-I doubt it will ever be published but Robert L. & Rosemary Brown have an unpublished expose on Utah Lighhouse Ministry. I also once heard from Robert Brown he had a whole cabinet of info on such ministries. But due to age of the authors the interest in the project may be over.

Link to comment

Dale, Grace?Peace to you. It was my understanding that someone else has taken over the reins of the last Brown volume, it may or may not come forth out of obscurity to be published, I do not know. I know Matt Roper [ And a couple others I think] has done some responses to the Tanners Book. Check out the "Critics Corner" from the F.A.I.R main Intro page and see if there are works on the Tanners there. In His Debt, Tanyan.

Link to comment

Hi,

Tanyan thanks for the info on the Brown book. If the persons qualified & has money it will get out. If the person believes in the project it will get out. I am atleast glad the project was passed on to someone else. On the ULM/FAIR Lawsuit thread someone suggested we debate the Tanner book & I thought that might be a good idea. I try & lesson my participation in endless debates but this is an interesting book that is the source for many anti-Restoration criticism writer. When the Tanners dare you to rebut them it's hard not to take them up on the offer.

The book's to long to respond to ever issue you almost have to be an expert on some issues. But i compare their case to a rusty bucket used to carry water. If I can only knock out a few arguments a leaky bucket's still a leaky bucket. The Tanners bucket(case) has many holes in it that I can see from others writings. It would take a powerful writer to hit every single issue. But the more I look at their case the less I am impressed with soundness of the book's criticisms.

Personally I would like a several volume set with essays responding to the book but things on my wish list arn't going to happen. So I have to deal with the scattered responses which are available.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Hi Dale,

I'm not sure I understand your 1st post, maybe you can be more specific. any way I'll start with page one in the chapter " A Marvelous Work"

This first page speaks of the following...

LDS Apostle L. Richards saying,..."There is not a honest man or woman in this world who loves the Lord who wouldn't join this Church if they knew what it was."

( as quoted in the desert news)

They talk about JS story and McConkie says that the Hill Cumorah was the area of the final fight of the Nephite and Jaradites, and he claims this Hill Cumorah was in New York. And that it was at this Hill where Moroni his the plates.

( as quoted from Mormon Doctrine)

He goes on to say that it was reported that BY said that there was a room in the Hill that contained many wagon loads of plates.

The Tanners go on to say that in B.H.Roberts History of the church that JS was digging a well for Clark Chase and found a choclate-colored-eggshaped stone which was Smiths Seer Stone.

The Tanners then go on to explain how JS got the Gold Plates and how the Apostle Richards explains that one can not get "everlasting Gospel" through reading the bible alone, and if they had no bible they would still have enough "direction and information" from revelations and prophets.

The Tanners then go on to tell of the LDS claims that the garden of eden was in Missiouri, and that Adam built a alter there and he found this alter and visited it many times.

And that Noah built the ark in or near "Carolina". note JS said they went east ward until they reached the atlantic coast.

Then the Tanners write that JS discoverd a skeleton of a man by the "Spirit of the almighty" and that the persons name was "Zelpha" a white laminite man and a "man of God" ( History of the Church)

These are what I would call the talking points of the first page, so far are the Tanners OK in what the write, are they deceiving or lying here Dale?

I kind of paraphrased to get to the point so please correct or add to anything I might have missed or misrepresented.

Take Care

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment

Hi,

Markk,

I found the Preface alone to be a strange way of presenting a case. I felt it was a very sensational presentation. What story do you like from the Preface?

The Tanners authority to be among the only true teachers comes from the Reformations claim's to having successfully reformed the Christian church. Only a partially in apostasy church is in need of no restoration. Perhaps the Church of Christ of Alexander Campbell were the true reformers. I really like David Bercot's book Will The Real Heretics Please Stand up availiable through order at http://www.scrollpublishing.com if anybody's interested. His main belief is that all early Christians believed salvation was a gift but that obedience was essential to salvation. This idea of grace & works was orthodoxy & well tolerated because one wasn't thought to be in conflict with the New Testament.

If the Catholics were right on grace & works then Mormonism is closer to the truth than the reformation.

The chapter entitled 1.A Marvelous Work doesn't make the work seem unmarvelous to me. They assume the claim's made were so bad anybody can see the claim's were made up. The restoration is quite exciting.

The Cumorah identified by McConkie is not the true Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. The real issue is which fits the Cumorah within the text of the Book of Mormon the original or one thought based on tradition as the Hill Cumorah. And how authoritative were the original starting points of the misidentification of the hill.

BY got his information on the room in the hill secondhand. And somebody seeing a room in vision they assumed was in the hill was no proof. There's no evidence of a room within the hill & it's possible

I don't have any problem with substitution seer stones in place of the interpreters. Using the U&T is still devining even if you tool the so-called magic rocks out & used them individually. Magic rocks & divination is still divination for revelation about the content of the plates. God says magic rocks are seer stones who am I to argue with God.

People assume the garden of eden had to be in the middle east. One explanation I heard was that middle east geography had been so radically altered so as to make poinpointing an exact spot difficult. Although supposedly everyone died before the flood who knew the original geography were here to confirm the Genisis account meant by places what we meant. I assume what happened is modern place names were assumed to be the exact as the old place names.

I also reject the notion the Bible is are final, all sufficient source for the Gospel.

Joseph may have guessed where the ark was built or travel routes. Although scientists dispute a world wide flood how do we know Noah set down in the same area he set off from? The place names would have been lost because the old cities were destroyed? How would Noah know where he was?

On the issue of Zelph the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies has had atleast one article on the story. I have to admit the real exprets are contributing FARMs scholars. That issue would along with some of the others make good FAIR articles some day.

Although I have seen others present better answers than I did the problem is not that the Tanners lied. They do raise some issues in that section I consider to be worthy of discussion. The moon man issue is another one. Maybe invisible beings live on the moon invisible like the angels. All Joseph Smith Jr. purportedly said is he believed he had been shown inhabitants of the moon & what they looked like. Jesus Christ obviously didn't need a space suit in order to travel through space. And Jesus to mortal eyes is invisible. The remarks about moonmen in blessings don't exactly state moon men were among the visible. I agree with them that Joseph Smith probably said there were moonmen.

Another possibility is like the Tronto prophecy Joseph was decieved either of the devil or of his own self. Since the Lord is higher than the law of Moses he no longer say's one prophecy & you are a false prophet.(Deut.18:21,22) The law & it's rules have been abolished. Joseph was told he had to test his prophecies like other mean & would not be cast off as a false prophet based on outdated tests. The laws no longer the law.

I have no objection to this chapter they raise issues I like to discuss. Pages 1-4,4A,4B that wins my heart against restoration belief. Mormonism does have miracelous claim's. There arn't many true churches Martin Luther's church has to be the reformed church, or they have no authority to claim LDS are false churches. A false church doesn't have the authority to tell another false church it's not the true church. I have the 1987 edition in paperback. I liked my hard bound copy of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? a bit better. My recently bought newer copy already has pages falling out. I guess printing costs forced a change in binding materials.

Scott Gordon had linked to FAIR articles showing issues with the book. The writers have issues & I feel their unwillingness to admit the LDS side makes them unbelieveable to me. I got the last Salt Lake City Messenger & instead of rebutting these FAIR articles they have an article on Temple endowment changes. They had a little notice on the suit against FAIR but nothing responding to FAIR's issues with their writing. I can't imagine the Tanners unless they are unwilling or unable to defend themselves that they havn't taken on FAIR. FAIR must be right or the ULM wouldn't be ignoring them. I suspect they know if they tried to rebut FAIR they would have to start all over. A section of a book couldn't remain the same if you had to revamp old commentary to keep up with FAIR. Worse yet imagine salvaging an unsalvageable section of your book.

How many people reading the Tanner book were so devestated they denied God? The book leads people into nothingism the Mormon Puzzle noticed the problem of conversion to nothignism problem but books like Mormonism Shadow or Reality? are the ones that caused it. Atleast LDS critics like Mark Cares has a Gospel message but whatever Gospel in the big book is overshadowed by unhealthy obsession with trivia. When people have doubts & questions it didn't make them feel good about Jesus. The book made them feel evil inside about all things holy. Why would Jesus want people to feel icky about the truths of the Gospel?

The conversion to nothingism is caused by out of control critical thinking that destroys the ability to think positively about any miracelous claims of any religion.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Hi Dale,

Then we can agree that what the Tanners wrote in Chapter one is the truth in that it is what was taught. In other words they didn't make this stuff up, it actually LDS teaching and history? It really doesn't matter if you agree or not, or I agree or not, the point of this study is to see how reliable the Tanners work is, be sure to tell me when they are lying or being dishonsest.

Chapter two,

(1)The first part is about change, it speaks of the change in views on dancing, is that wrong?

(2)The next section deals with changing doctrines, they quote Nibley, Young and Taylor, and show that the doctinr of polygamy has changed, is that wrong?

(3)This speaks of rebaptism, it gives LDS references that it occured, are the Tanners being deceiving here?

(4)This section deals with censorship, the tanners give examples how JS broke the words of wisdom and how the church censored this when they put in in the history of the church. They give photo copies of this censorship....Dale, is this deception by the Tanners?

(5)This section deal with the fact that the 4th article of faith was changed after Smiths death to include temple works, are the Tanners wrong here?

(6)This deals with Parley Pratts book, "Key to the science of Theology" and offer proof that this book was changed after Pratts death, are there any errors here?

(7)This talks about changes and censorship in the JOD, did the Tanners error here?

(8)This speaks of the changes in Lucy Smiths book, again are the tanners lying here, or did this actually take place.

(9)Book burning, is the evidence real or did the Tanners make this up?

(10) Suppressing the records (copies of letters)

(11) Nibley Refused (copy of letter)

(12) Threats by apostles, did they make this up and forge the letters signed by the apostles.

(13) members protest suppression, is this false?

These are the 13 subjects discussed in chapetr 2, so did the tanners deceive and cheat, make up, or lie in presented evidence for these claims?

Mark

John 1;12

Link to comment

Dale

I find you approach iand a Community of Christ member interesting. I have a Community of Christ friend who tells me the church accepts people who a wide range of views on the restorations, and do not accept the Book of Abraham or the polyhthiesm of the King Follett Discourse. What is your position on these two issues

I believe Louise Migley caused a disturbance in the Tanner's shop. The Tanners book was lent to me by a SDA friend and that started me off on my journey out. I was able eventually to make contact with Wes Walters who shared a lot of information with me about the revival question, the movements of the Smith Family and the 1826 trial.

I also found their long quotes a bit much, but I suppose not having any academic training in writing they did their best.

Link to comment

Hi,

Noel I am open to the Book of Abraham. I like FARMs recent Traditions About The Early Life of Abraham & Kerry Shirts work & Paul Osbournes, Michael Rhodes, and John Gee's better stuff. I am dissafected from people like Ed Ashment. I am open because of the better scholarship to Paul Osbournes catalyst idea & am a little open to the missing papyrus idea. The Tanner section on the Book of Abraham is not an area I fault them on much.

Unlike some like Richard Howard I don't believe the Book of Abraham can be just viewed as the speculative writing of Joseph Smith & the church survives. To me that's like saying it's ok to believe in Jesus if he was a crazy lunatic.

With the plurality of God's issue I prefer Trinitarianism. The church has had non-Trinitarian views also it's a non-creedal church. The Book of Abraham may be treated as apocrypha & may have interlopations by Joseph Smith or an ancient Egyptian who preserved the manuscript. I would be as surprised as anyone to hear the Book of Abraham is right on it's reference to God's & I am wrong. If God has a body I will be double shocked. But truths truth.

The Community of Christ has it's varying degree's of liberals & I am pretty conservative. But I am not total Fundementalist either. I am opposes to liberal approaches to down playing scripture as inspiring myth & homo-sexuality.

What do you think of Craig Ray's FAIR article on the First Vision? What about Anti-Mormons historical. or histerical.

-----------

Markk LDS have changed. It was dumb of anyone to say LDS were above making major or minor changes.

(5) I think FAIR has a brochure on theArticle of Faith changes. If the Tanners have been corrected then they need to update themselves.

John Tvedtbes The Mistakes of Men shows Bible changes. My link shows What The Inspired Version Is has research that documents accusation of Bible tampering was once rampant. http://angelmessage.org/care You would assume the early church writers had access to the Bibles & the originals before giving the many such examples

Most of the issues they raise has FAIR articles giving the LDS side to things like Joseph Smith breaking the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom was originally given without commandment or restraint. LDS changed how they viewed the document after they moved to Utah.

All this chapter shows is mistakes of LDS leaders.. I myself don't like the New Mormon History crowd & perhaps LDS over reacted to what these guys were writing at the time.

I hate to accuse the Tanners of being anything but suppressing the Truth by trying to overwhelm people with quotes & commentary. I am hoping Robert L. & Rosemary Brown's book on the Tanners will be out some day. I heard they handed over the book project to someone else. You were provided with links with FAIR articles that document problenms with the Tanners writing. I hear Jerald & Sandra Tanner are sincere. I have seen them abuse citations. FAIR documents that problem as has FARMS. But most of the time they turn mole hills into mountains. I don't have a problem with issues they make a big deal out of.

Before moving on to chapter 3 choose an item from chapter 2 & we can go back & forth on it. Does anything in particular from this chapter bother you?

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Dale

I am puzzled by what should be bleeding obvious as regards the Book of Abraham. Fac 1 and the Book of Breathings were once attached, the deceaseds name Hor appears on both, the fibres match up and the backking paper does also. Abraham 1:18 talks about the Fac "at the beginning" . The manuscripts of the BOA are in the handwriting of Smiths scribes with the symbols alongside the words. The contents of the BOA have nothing to do with the BOB. Interesting that the symbols which Egyptologists say are made up are from the similar V shape that appears in Fac 1. Scholars have said the Fac was restored incorrectly. Nibley attempted to show that the curnet scence was as it was when Smith first aquired it by using some pic of Mother Smith tin which a copy of the fac appeared on the wall showing he argues that the original was intact and the loss of papyri came later. Are there any fibres in the glue? Why was Ritner denied access to the papyri to see if there were any more mismounted parts? He mentions that in his paper in JNES.

If the papyri still existed why would the scribes use symbols from a piece that has nothing to do with Abraham? U need to use the catalyst theory to get out of that one. But then in Smith's history he talks about translating.

Errors? I am sure there are.

The Inspired Version is another interesting example. If you look at the photos in Howard's Restoration Scriptures, you find examples where he pronounces a whole book "correct" another example has many corrections. Is 29 has three extra verses. Do these appear in the DDS copy of the book of Is? The LDS escape is inspired midrash or commentary, but that is ridiculous when you look at the manuscripts. He was correcting , not making commentary.

The Tanners I agree do go on and on about some issues. I found them helpful as it made me aware of who Wes Walters was (I exchanged letters with him for a number of years), I was made aware of Dialogue and the articles on the First Vision, the Book of Abraham, 1826 trial.

Link to comment

Hi Dale,

The point of my post and this thread is to point out that the Tanners have not been deceivers and dishonest as you guys claim. I suggested this book being it is arguable their "standard". I have given rough talking points of the first two chapters. YOU need to show me how they have deceived and not been honest in these first few chapters. This thread is not about debate of the issues, but whether the data and evidence and claims for this book is real or made up garbage. You

Link to comment

Hi,

Mark the Tanners are not reasonable people. They throw everything at us in an attempt to overwhelm us. They try & walk over LDS people with Find one of the FAIR rebuttals to this big book & explain where you differ from it. I have no desire to accuse them of anything but failing to understand issues & using quotations out of context. The FAIR articles present the problems with certain major sections of the book.

Noel I have valid reasons for my belief in the Book of Abraham. If I am wrong I see no reason to argue with you about it. I understant Brent Metcalfe has a book coming out that's supposed to end the missing papyrus idea once & for all. Then I will wait & see what John Gee's response will be. That's the next steps in the Book of Abraham contravercy. I will leave the technical debates up to the scholars. I did have a private response to Ed Ashments Reducing Dissonance Essay that I thought was pretty good. But it wasn't copyrighted by FAIR & I was hoping they would do a formal review of the essay. Take up your issues by e-mail to FAIR. I saw the Lost Book of Abraham on DVD which I felt was as bad as other LDS type apologists felt it was.

If you are interested Kerry Shirts is doing 5 DVD's Answering Charles Larsons By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus chapter 10. Kerry Shirts & Paul Osbourne have been hanging out at http://bookofabraham.com defending their point of view.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment
Hi,

Noel I have valid reasons for my belief in the Book of Abraham. If I am wrong I see no reason to argue with you about it. I understant Brent Metcalfe has a book coming out that's supposed to end the missing papyrus idea once & for all. Then I will wait & see what John Gee's response will be. That's the next steps in the Book of Abraham contravercy. I will leave the technical debates up to the scholars. I did have a private response to Ed Ashments Reducing Dissonance Essay that I thought was pretty good. But it wasn't copyrighted by FAIR & I was hoping they would do a formal review of the essay. Take up your issues by e-mail to FAIR. I saw the Lost Book of Abraham on DVD which I felt was as bad as other LDS type apologists felt it was.

Sincerely,

Dale

Dale, you have avoided the question . What is the source of the Book of Abraham? Missing papyri? if so why did the scribes use the symbols from the BOB rather than the papyri that they must have been aware of?

Catalyst? If so why play around with manuscripts and alphabets and grammars?

He says in his history he was translating.

You avoided the questions regarding the Inspired Version. Restoration or inspired commentary in manuscripts that show someone was alleging to make corrections. Is there any evidence in the DSS Isaiah for the extra verses in Is 29 and of course the prophecy about himself. Gen 50:30-33:

"And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. "

Link to comment
Dale, you have avoided the question . What is the source of the Book of Abraham? Missing papyri? if so why did the scribes use the symbols from the BOB rather than the papyri that they must have been aware of?

Catalyst? If so why play around with manuscripts and alphabets and grammars?

He says in his history he was translating.

You avoided the questions regarding the Inspired Version. Restoration or inspired commentary in manuscripts that show someone was alleging to make corrections. Is there any evidence in the DSS Isaiah for the extra verses in Is 29 and of course the prophecy about himself. Gen 50:30-33:

"And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. "

Noel,

Why the big push for "What is the source of the Book of Abraham?" Who cares if it is missing scroll, pure revelation, or something in between? Why does the argument center on the production and not on the book itself? Have you kept up with the latest scholarship comparing the Book of Abraham with other ancient documents? The real question is how could a farm boy come up with things that are supported by the more recently discovered documents?

As for the references in the Book of Abraham, isn't it possible that Joseph Smith didn't only give "pure translations" as scholars do, but also included comments and commentary? We see the changes he made in the Book of Mormon that seem to support this viewpoint.

Scott

Link to comment

Notice he says..."Why the big push for "What is the source of the Book of Abraham?" Who cares if it is missing scroll, pure revelation, or something in between? Why does the argument center on the production and not on the book itself?"

I care, why? because those are facts that need to be understood in testing something to see if it is indeed the truth, give me a break.

So you want to focus on the process and not the product. You want to understand exactly how God accomplished something and not the end result.

Do I understand your point?

Would this mean we need to focus on exactly how Moses parted the red sea to see if it is real or not, or can we simply say that it happened?

Scott

Link to comment
You want to understand exactly how God accomplished something and not the end result.

Your question is valid only if you presume God played a role in the translation of the BoA.

I don't believe that the Tanners were writting based on that presumption.

Link to comment
You want to understand exactly how God accomplished something and not the end result.

Your question is valid only if you presume God played a role in the translation of the BoA.

I don't believe that the Tanners were writting based on that presumption.

I agree with you.

But you can't simply ignore the other scholarship related to the content of the Book of Abraham. That is my complaint.

Scott

Link to comment

Why the big push for "What is the source of the Book of Abraham?" Who cares if it is missing scroll, pure revelation, or something in between? Why does the argument center on the production and not on the book itself? Have you kept up with the latest scholarship comparing the Book of Abraham with other ancient documents? The real question is how could a farm boy come up with things that are supported by the more recently discovered documents?

So basically you are saying that we should accept the evidence that supports your case and ignore the evidence against it. You are trying to frame the argument in your favor. If the Book of Abraham was a fraud, how would we know? Would we simply read the book and accept the apologists conculsions? Of course not. Only an idiot would do that. You are asking us to buy a Ford by ignoring the poor Consumer Reports ratings, and the lousy test drive, while having faith in the Ford sales rep, and the Ford produced brochures.

Link to comment

So basically you are saying that we should accept the evidence that supports your case and ignore the evidence against it. You are trying to frame the argument in your favor. If the Book of Abraham was a fraud, how would we know? Would we simply read the book and accept the apologists conculsions? Of course not. Only an idiot would do that. You are asking us to buy a Ford by ignoring the poor Consumer Reports ratings, and the lousy test drive, and simply having faith in the Ford sales rep, and the Ford produced brochures.

Not at all. I'm afraid I have somehow given you the complete opposite idea. I am saying you can't simply look at evidence against it and ignore evidence in favor of it.

What I am saying is that you need to look at what the book actually says and compare it with other ancient documents. There are anti-Mormon apologists who focus completely on the translation process and don't do the scholarly comparison. I am asking the anti Mormons to read the consumer reports in addition to the Chevy brochures if they are looking at Fords.

I frequently see the argument, "We found the scrolls, my translation doesn't match, therefore Joseph Smith was wrong." There are way too many assumptiongs in that argument.

I could make an argument for the missing scroll theory, and I could make an argument for the devine revelation theory. As a Mormon, I really don't care HOW it happened. No matter which side of the argument we are on, we are only trying to reconstruct what happened anyway. But I am interested in the scholarly studies about the CONTENTS of the Book of Abraham.

While I am quite aware of the arguments against the Book of Abraham, I see one area of study completely ignored by the anti-Mormon apologists. Did Joseph Smith get things right? How did he do that?

Link to comment

Hi Scott,

So you want to focus on the process and not the product. You want to understand exactly how God accomplished something and not the end result.

Do I understand your point?

Would this mean we need to focus on exactly how Moses parted the red sea to see if it is real or not, or can we simply say that it happened?

No I do not believe you understand my point. We should focus and examine all the different points, test them, and then make a conclusion.

The Tanners (what this thread is about) have documented many inconsistencies with in the BOA story. They didn't make them up, they researched them and brought them to the table with back up for their data.

JS claimed to be a prophet, he said that the BOA came to be via a papyri he bought, evidence that is conclusive shows other wise....red flag...It's the old saying of " don't confuse me with the facts, I've already been told what to believe.

Younger makes a great point is his post about the Ford, in fact I have made bad decisions in buying consumer goods while failing to, or ignoring reports and have paid the price of being ripped off, I'm sure we all have at one point or another. I bought a Vega, Pinto and Gremlin...just kidding :P

About Moses and the red sea, it's clear it was by the power of God and I believe we both believe that, but if Moses said that God parted the sea one way, and then we found out later that was not the fact, then....red flag! And if Moses had problems everywhere he went and most everything he said and did contradicted the status quo standard, then he might not be who he claims.

Anyway this is getting off topic, would you be willing to go through the Tanners S&R point by point and tell me where they deceive?

Mark

John 1;12

Link to comment
Markk said: Anyway this is getting off topic, would you be willing to go through the Tanners S&R point by point and tell me where they deceive?

It may be beneficial, so that there is no misunderstanding or "wiggling" at a later time, if you would define exactly what you would accept as evidence of deception on the part of the Tanners. For instance, does deception, in your mind, speak more to intent or to results?

In other words, would we need to show that the Tanners intended to deceive in a part of their writings before you would accept such writings as actual deception? Or, for instance, would you accept misinterpretations by the Tanners as deception, since such misinterpretation has the result of deceiving readers, regardless of the Tanners' intention?

-Allen

Link to comment

Hi Wyatt,

First of all who are "we"?

As far as evidence? that is open. If you go point by point and chapter by chapter if there is a deception it will become clear. Intent is a hard thing to prove, if you could prove to me that the Tanners intended to deceive people in M&R, that would be OK, I will listen. As far as "misinterpretations by the Tanners as deception" sure, but you would have to prove that on a premeditated level and not on a subjective level just because we all have differing views. In other words can you prove that the Tanners purposely write what they write for personal gain of monies, power or what ever, or can you just prove that they do not believe the LDS faith that they were raised in and feel they were deceived and want others to know and consider it a ministry?

Take chapter two (chapter one is more or less a brief over view), the Tanners write about change, and use the example of "dance" , they quote LDS sourses and clearly show that the church has changes it tolorance of dance. Where is the deception here, how would you call this deception by the Tanners?

Don't make a big deal about dancing, who cares, the point is the church has changed it's view on that and the Tanner's reported that correctly and truthfully...But if they made this up, let me jnow?

Mark

John 1;12

Link to comment

Hi,

Mark the main text of the Book of Abraham does have internal evidences for the work from scholars. Those evideces are equal to som Bible reliability evidences I have seen. So I am open to some ancient Egyptian hiding for preservation a writing of Abraham. The stuff can have idolatry & an actual text attributed to Abraham. Another idea is the papyrus didn't literally relate to Abraham but were used as a catalyst to recieve a revelation about Abraham. I am only open to belief in the Book of Abraham because the evidences for the book are equal to evidences against the book. I could not honestly ignore evidences for the Book of Abraham the critic's wern't honestly admitting to themselves, or others.

Where do you think LDS scholars are making up evidences for the Book of Abraham? Did you buy a copy of The Traditions About The Early Life of Abraham? I may be wrong but I think the next scholarly volume in the series is out now.

FAIR & FARMs does need to defend Hugh Nibley & John Gee's points a little better. I also wisk Mike Ash & Kerry Shirts would co-author some two page brochures on the Book of Abraham issue. But technically they feel they have beat off some of the Tanners case. FAIR's links to the Book of Abraham Project is a good place to begin. Kerry Shirts DVD's on the Book of Abraham are cool & he would be happy if you bough them from him. His first set is responding to Charles Larsons ch. 10 of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus. I am hoping he will do a review defending LDS intellectual approaches to the papyrus. FAIR should have some more Book of Abraham stuff online countering the basic criticisms of it's pro-Book of Abraham scholars.

With the FAIR articles you arn't seeking to produce a rebuttal. Are you aware of a Tanner rebuttal to FAIR? Find one & pass the link along to us. I saw the FAIR responses better than the MSOR book. I just feel they shouldn't have revised the book in 1987 but dropped the book from circulation along with a statement of regret. My copy was revised in that year.

I got the recent Salt Lake City Messenger & they had an opportunity to rebut FAIR. Instead ther included brief information on the lawsuit against FAIR & rambled on about temple cremony changes. Where are they tackling the FAIR articles? Where are they tackling the new Book of Abraham scholarship? I see their choices of book projects as sensational not fair minded intellectual dialogue with LDS scholars & apologists. I hate to accuse them of being dishonest that's uncalled for from anyone. But they do need to get with the issues or stop presenting themselves as authorities.

Who called the ULM folks to do what they do man, or God? And when they bring up issues are they sincerely interested in finding answers or are they just like the Sadducees & Pharasees just trying to catch people in a snare? Test the Tanners by the Barean test for if they are blind guides then following them will only lead you to destruction.(Acts 17:11; Proverbs 14:12)

Just because the ULM people cite something & give commentary doesn't mean I feel a need to agree that things like pro-Book of Abraham answers & scholarship are bad. Though the Tanners would have to radically revise the 1987 revision of the book to keep up as they are falling way behind.

One example the Taners argue the Book of Mormon has a 19th century revival in it, whereas Blake Ostler & FARMs argues for an ancient Festival. Blake Ostler allows for 19th centuy expansion & commentary on the text(others allow for some) but my point is I know of no Tanner response to that issue. To get a better response from an Evangelical, Fundementalist scholar to some answers to Book of Mormon evidences the ULM folks were most unhelpful. Instead Zondervan produced the New Mormon Challenge with two essays actually citing LDS scholars & attempting a rebuttal. FARMS gave a couple of counter review & that's a better approach to let scholars deal with each others work.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...