Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[awyatt]

Markk said: First of all who are "we"?

Obviously, those of us who think that the Tanners do deceive.

Markk said: 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.

This, I believe, is open to subjective interpretation, and not as clear-cut as you may believe.

Markk said: 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.

Intent is a hard thing to prove, and I am not proposing to prove it. I do think the Tanners are sincere in what they do. But if you require that I do prove intent before you will believe deception, then any analysis of the Tanners works is a fruitless exercise--we will get nowhere.

Markk said: 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?

Ya sorta lost me on this one.

Markk said: 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?

No need comment, since you follow this up with:

Markk said: Don't make a big deal about dancing, who cares...

Markk said: ...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 now?

I agree that the Church has changed its view on dancing. (Not all dancing, mind you, but specifically "round dancing.") But, as you say, so what? Why do the Tanners even spend ink and paper discussing something that you say is of no importance? They do it as support for their contention that the Church changes.

I don't think you'll find any argument from anyone here--the Church does change. So what? What the Tanners don't tell their readers is that during the 1830s and 1840s dancing (and many other "worldly" recreations) were considered "sinful" by the majority of Protestants. The quote the Tanners provide in S&R is from October 1837, from a very young Church where most of the members had the cultural conditioning that they brought with them from their previous religious education (Protestantism).

Do the Tanners "deceive" in talking about dancing? No, they technically don't. Are they specious in using such information as support for their contention that the Church changes and that such change is somehow "bad?" Yes, they technically are.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

What does anything you said have to do with going through the Book point by point. You are saying tings about the Tanner's yet do not want to address there work point by point, I'm sorry you need to do it, see my talking points on chapter two.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[Helorum]

address [the Tanners'] work point by point

Here's a real good start:

Matthew B. Brown,

[awyatt]

Mark,

Might I suggest that you read the following article:

Lawrence Foster, 

[juliann]

Do the Tanners "deceive" in talking about dancing? No, they technically don't. Are they specious in using such information as support for their contention that the Church changes and that such change is somehow "bad?" Yes, they technically are.

What would the anti-Mormon world be without their double standards?

In early 1996 Baylor University, the nation's largest Baptist institution, announced that it will allow dancing on campus for the first time in 151 years.  "Dancing is just no longer an issue for 90 percent of people in Baptist life," said the president of the university in a USA Today article.  Change the definitions.  Redefine the borders.  All it takes is a major respectable institution to come along and announce that dancing and Christianity are no longer in conflict and a 151 year-old boundary suddenly vanishes as the university president and his wife take to the floor for the first waltz. . . .While Christians are blindly embracing culture, few are offering intelligent biblical responses to that culture.  As Christians become more and more worldly, we are becoming more and more uncertain as to what to do about our world and our apparent "worldliness".

John Fischer, What on Earth Are We Doing? ? Finding Our Place as Christians in the World (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publications, 1996), 20-21.

[awyatt]

Markk,

You asked for an example of where the Tanners "deceive." Let me give you one from the very first page of the first chapter of their book. Look at the page and you'll find the Tanners citing the following quote from a book by LeGrand Richards:

According to Mormon leaders, the Book of Mormon is far superior to the Bible because it contains the "pure" words of Christ. The Bible, they claim, has been altered by wicked Priests. The Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards states: "...the 'everlasting gospel' could NOT be discovered through reading the Bible alone...this is the only Christian church in the world that did NOT have to rely upon the Bible for its organization and government...if we had no Bible, we would still have all the needed direction and information through the revelations of the Lord 'to his servants the prophets' in these latter-days." (A Marvelous Work And A Wonder, 1966, page 41)

Note that the emphasis was done by the Tanners; it is not in the original. Now, let's see if the quote they provide actually illustrates what they say it does. The only thing I will do in the following (besides remove the capitalization and underlining done by the Tanners) is to replace the ellipses in the LeGrand Richards quote with the original text that the Tanners omitted. (For clarity, I've put the parts they omitted in bold.)

According to Mormon leaders, the Book of Mormon is far superior to the Bible because it contains the "pure" words of Christ. The Bible, they claim, has been altered by wicked Priests. The Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards states: "This makes it easy to understand why the everlasting gospel could not be discovered through reading the Bible alone

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark I try & give the writers of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? the benifit of the doubt. But the above example makes them look kind of fishy. If researchers can easily show left out parts of quotaions that makes Mormonism look good would Jesus have called them to do that? To me as soon as they saw the accusation of out-of context quotations they needed to defend themselves. The charge of using out of context quotations is like getting the charge of plagiarism. Either the Tanners work for Jesus or what they do is evil. Does Jerald & Sandra Tanner have the true Jesus? Maybe you need to give the restoration Jesus another chance.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Wyatt

Yes, by all means keep going.

First of all the Tanners explain in the preface the use for underlining and capitalization for "emphasis", turn one page back and read the last page of the preface.

Second, chapter one is a general overview, there is no way that what the Tanners wrote here is deception, first of all they gave the reference which you checked out and second, the point they were making, coming off the subject of the angel giving Smith the plates, was that the BOM is the fullness of the everlasting Gospel.

The point the Tanners factually make here is that the LDS church leaders put the BOM above the bible, and that if they didn't have the bible they would still have the truth. This is not deception in any way, it is the truth and well written. The emphasis NOT is a key in that the LDS church does NOT need the bible for their version of what they believe to be the truth, and did NOT rely upon it for what they teach. Richards said this and the Tanners wrote this fact

You also have to remember that the Tanner's were born and raised in the church, as was I, and things like wicked Priests and scribes polluting the bible is a common belief and talking point. like I said chapter one is a overview and if you want more on this topic go to chapter 24, but not now please, we can get there soon enough lets go point by point.

You said

With the full wording in place, the quotation seems a little silly. I does not, as the Tanners assert, show that the Book of Mormon is "superior" to the Bible or that it "has been altered by wicked Priests."

What it does prove is that a LDS apostle taught that the bible is NOT necessary to the LDS faith other than..."True, we take the Bible to prove that these principles and ordinances are in accord with divine truths of all ages", and that if you keep reading you will see the LDS teachings that teach the Bible was indeed hacked by wicked priests (pages 382-383).

If you want to say the Tanners made a mistake by not going into more details in the overview of chapter one then OK (although I disagree), but to say they have deceived anyone here is just not true.

So again keep going

thanks

mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

How did they take Richards out of context, tell me in your own words what he context is. It's not that you can't believe the LDS faith is wrong, its the fact that you just choose to ignore the facts. The parts weren

[Markk]

Hi Julieann,

How do you know the Tanner don't dance, the point is that the church changed, not the issue of dancing. It was a precourse to more important and critical changes by the church. You missed the point.

Mark

john 1:12

[awyatt]

Markk said: You also have to remember that the Tanner's were born and raised in the church, as was I, and things like wicked Priests and scribes polluting the bible is a common belief and talking point.

I would contest whether Jerald, at least, was "raised" in the Church--but such an assumption has absolutely nothing to do with what is said in their paragraph that I quoted. You are reading your knowledge about the Tanners into what they said.

Just look at the words--they make an assertion (about wicked Priest and scribes changing the Bible) and then provide a quote that they believe proves the point.

However, when you look at the full quote--including the parts they omitted (dare I say "censored!")--the quote doesn't prove what they say it should.

In other words, they misused the quote. They edited it to fit their purposes. I don't care how you look at it Markk, that is deceptive. One of the favorite hobby horses of the Tanners is how the Church "censors" its history, yet the Tanners do the same thing. If you can't see it... well, then there is little point in us continuing discussion concerning them, is there?

Markk said: ...if you keep reading you will see the LDS teachings that teach the Bible was indeed hacked by wicked priests (pages 382-383).

If you want to say the Tanners made a mistake by not going into more details in the overview of chapter one then OK (although I disagree)...

Oh, I see... It is OK for the Tanners to feed a little here and a little there, "line upon line and precept upon precept," "milk before meat," as it were. Nice double standard.

It isn't just in the "overview" that this happens, Markk. It is a hallmark and trademark of their careers. They pick and choose, pulling out of context, and making people an offender for a word. They apply "standards" to the Church that no mortal could pass, assiduously avoiding juding their own religiosity by the same standards they apply. (Don't believe me? Just read the sources I provided earlier in the thread.)

Markk said: .but to say they have deceived anyone here is just not true.

Like I said, if you can't see what is plainly before your eyes, there is little point in discussing it further.

*sigh*

-Allen

[emaughan]

Markk,

If the Tanners were atheist, would you put up with the way they cherry pick quotes and even leave parts out to prove their point? If they were doing their best to discredit the divinity of Christ, would you think that their "research" methods were acceptable?

One way I test myself for bias is I image the same methods used in the article/book/paper - but change the argument to something I would defend, if I am opposed to what the writer is saying, or to something I am opposed if the writer is stating something I agree with. I've found it is a waste of time trying to defend an argument that is poorly thought out, or worse dishonest - even if it supports my POV.

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

In your own words, what is the context or message that Richards is trying to get across in said chapter?

Don't bail out, thats a cop out.

The bottom line is that Richards taught that the Bible is not nesessary to the LDS faith beyond some kind of benchmark for "accord". And it is a fact and a truth that LDS leaders teach and have taught that the Bible was polluted by wicked priests and scribes, how are they deceiving when what they say is 100% factual truth and is verifyed in the book.

When and if we get into the text that shows the church changing actual history, then we will see deception.

So, is what the Tanner's said not the truth? if it isn't what parts are lies?

emaughan,

I'll ask you the same question..., So, is what the Tanner's said not the truth? if it isn't what parts are lies?

If you don't like their style of writting thats one thng, but inorder for there to be deception, there has to be a clear premeditated action to avoid getting the truth brought forth, what did they say that is not true?

Mark

John 1:12

[urroner]

Hi Allen,

In your own words, what is the context or message that Richards is trying to get across in said chapter?

Don't bail out, thats a cop out.

The bottom line is that Richards taught that the Bible is not nesessary to the LDS faith beyond some kind of benchmark for "accord". And it is a fact and a truth that LDS leaders teach and have taught that the Bible was polluted by wicked priests and scribes, how are they deceiving when what they say is 100% factual truth and is verifyed in the book.

When and if we get into the text that shows the church changing actual history, then we will see deception.

So, is what the Tanner's said not the truth? if it isn't what parts are lies?

emaughan,

I'll ask you the same question..., So, is what the Tanner's said not the truth? if it isn't what parts are lies?

If you don't like their style of writting thats one thng, but inorder for there to be deception, there has to be a clear premeditated action to avoid getting the truth brought forth, what did they say that is not true?

Mark

John 1:12

If I tell only tell the truth, but I only tell half the truth, leaving out the truth that would dismiss my point of view Markk, am I telling the truth or am I lying?

Remember, a definition for lying is stating something in a way that is meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

[awyatt]

Markk said: Don't bail out, thats a cop out.

No, it is not. It is a judgment that there is no sense in spending good time discussing an issue with someone who cannot see what is plainly before their eyes. (That would be you, by the way.)

I started my participation in this thread by asking about whether you felt intent was important. You, in a round-about way, implied that it wasn't. So I show you a quote, from the very first page of S&R, that was misused by the Tanners. The result of that misuse--regardless of the Tanners intent--is deception. The reader is "deceived" into thinking that the quote supports the Tanners position. It doesn't, but you fail to see it.

Look at the specific quote, Markk. It doesn't say anything about wicked priests or scribes. So how, exactly, does this quote support the Tanners' assertions about wicked priests or scribes? The bottom line is that it doesn't. But the Tanners use it as if it does.

That's deception, whether you want to see it or not.

Markk said: ...how are they deceiving when what they say is 100% factual truth and is verifyed in the book.

But it isn't verified in the book; that's the whole point. The quote provided by the Tanners does not verify the assertions right before it.

Markk said: So, is what the Tanner's said not the truth? if it isn't what parts are lies?

What's the point of showing you the lies when you refuse to see them?

Let me close by, once more, suggesting that you read the Lawrence Foster articles that I cited earlier in the thread. You really would benefit by reading them. Many people have asked why the Church doesn't respond to the Tanners' polemics; why it doesn't attempt to systematically respond to the Tanners' criticisms. (You are effectively asking the same thing from the very beginning of this thread.) I think that Foster summed it up very nicely:

What accounts for this reluctance to discuss the Tanners? The Tanners' answer is simple: The Mormon church is afraid of them. In their view, it has been engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" because it cannot answer their objections. The Tanners argue that if the church were to try systematically to answer their objections, it would realize the error of its ways and collapse. By failing to deal with them directly, the church, in the Tanners' opinion, is providing yet another proof of its underlying fraudulence and repressive mind control.

This interpretation fails to deal with many complex factors that have contributed to Mormon reticence about discussing the Tanners in print. The most obvious point is that neither conservative nor liberal Mormons think that the Tanners are really serious about wanting a truly open discussion or considering approaches that differ from their own chip-on-the-shoulder, anti-Mormon mindset. On the one hand, the Tanners have repeatedly demanded that Mormonism live up to standards of rectitude impossible for any human organization to achieve or else give up its truth claims. On the other hand, the Tanners simultaneously tell the Mormon church that even if it were somehow able to live up to its impossibly high standards, it still would be false because it is not normative Christianity as they understand it.

[Lawrence Foster, "Apostate Believers: Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Encounter with Mormon History," Differing Visions, edited by Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 353.]

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

-Allen

[RichardMdBorn]

My friend Lynn wrote

If I tell only tell the truth, but I only tell half the truth, leaving out the truth that would dismiss my point of view Markk, am I telling the truth or am I lying?

Remember, a definition for lying is stating something in a way that is meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

How does JS fare under your definition. It seems to me that LDS should respond to the Tanners' arguments. Defaming the messenger does not inspire confidence in the cogency of LDS claims.

Richard

[urroner]

My friend Lynn wrote

If I tell only tell the truth, but I only tell half the truth, leaving out the truth that would dismiss my point of view Markk, am I telling the truth or am I lying?

Remember, a definition for lying is stating something in a way that is meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

How does JS fare under your definition. It seems to me that LDS should respond to the Tanners' arguments. Defaming the messenger does not inspire confidence in the cogency of LDS claims.

Richard

But Richard, when the messenger only presents a partial truth, should we welcome him with open arms?

And AFAIK, the LDS have responded to Tanner's arguments. I haven't seen any argument they have put forth that hasn't been responded to. If you could show me one, I'd be pleased to try and respond to it the best I can.

[juliann]

How does JS fare under your definition. It seems to me that LDS should respond to the Tanners' arguments. Defaming the messenger does not inspire confidence in the cogency of LDS claims.

Are you really prepared to live by your own rules? How does any religious leader fare under them? Calvin? Luther? Billy Graham? (And no, the usual excuse that they weren't "inspired" like JS claimed to be doesn't fly )

Are you prepared to answer every argument about your religion from every corner? Why is Christianity fading into oblivion in Euorope? Why is it a liability to be religious in America? What is your answer to every atheist's arguments? To every Catholic website?

Start here to inspire confidence in the cogency of your ultra-conservative version of Christianity. So many websites...so little time, eh? http://www.geocities.com/church_of_hank/fu..._anonymous.html

Start with these two influencial books:

Bruce Bawer, Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity. (New York: Three Rivers Press: 1997).

Marlene Winell, Leaving the Fold. (Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1994)

[ave maria]

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

-Allen

Hi Allen--

It's completely tangential, I realize, but interestingly ironic that the Gospel reading in today's mass readings for the Catholic Church worldwide was this same scripture in Matthew that you are citing:

On that day, Jesus went out of the house and sat down by the sea.

Such large crowds gathered around him

that he got into a boat and sat down,

and the whole crowd stood along the shore.

And he spoke to them at length in parables, saying:

"A sower went out to sow.

And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path,

and birds came and ate it up.

Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil.

It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep,

and when the sun rose it was scorched,

and it withered for lack of roots.

Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it.

But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit,

a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.

Whoever has ears ought to hear."

http://www.usccb.org/nab/071005.htm

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark you could be right. Others like myself dissagree with you. But I can be wrong. To me the burdon is not to convince you the Tanners are bad. They make mistakes but I hate to use the word dishonest to describe them

Pick out a topic from the Preface to chapter 3 & we can discuss it. I prefer to move on from the editorial practices of the authors to a a better issue. They do raise some interesting topics & let's deal with those.

Sincerely,

Dale

[RichardMdBorn]

Hi Lynn,

But Richard, when the messenger only presents a partial truth, should we welcome him with open arms?

Well, I'm sure that Sandra Tanner would prefer not to suffer the abuse and nastiness I saw directed towards her in 2002 at the UTLM bookstore from two LDS who were attending the FAIR Conference> However, I doubt if she worries over whether you welcome her with open arms.

However, the lines of your argument could be dangerous from an LDS perspecitve. Given that JS used his alleged prophetic gifts to try to browbeat Emma and others, how can you when his revelations were genuine and when they were false and were being used to get him out of sticky situations?

Richard

[juliann]

Come on, Richard. Are you going to avoid responding to a vacuous and insulting accusation by throwing out another one?

[Dale]

Hi,

FAIR has no control of persons who attend it's events. Certainly it's bad taste to confront an unrepentant sinner. Sandra doesn't have to worry about LDS accepting her but the judgement. I know her salvation claim's is like going back in time & hearing someone on board the Titanic talk about the safe trip they will have. The waters so beautiful & the air's so clean I am sure we will reach are destination soon. A lot of people who think they are saved are not. (Matthew 7:22,23) A lot will say "didn't we do many good works out of love for Jesus after we were saved? The works we did wern't done to be saved but the fruit of are salvation. In the end the things they refused to do or failed to do will make them guilty.

There's a difference between Joseph & Sandra she claim's to be saved by grace alone? You would expect a sinner to make mistakes but either Sandra has the one true faith or not? If she judges Joseph for sins she is equally guilty before God & will end up in the same place & Joseph will be smiling at her. And if he's saved & she isn't then she spent a great deal of her life fighting a true prophet of God.

The big book's just trivia by an unsaved person. I know she isn't saved from outer darkness.

Sincerely,

Dale

[cdowis]

Markk writes, in defense of the Tanners quoting only part of Richard's statement:

>The point the Tanners factually make here is that the LDS church leaders put the BOM above the bible, and that if they didn't have the bible they would still have the truth. This is not deception in any way, it is the truth and well written.

Please explain why the Tanners removed these sections from their quote. Was it a lack of space? It would have cost an enormous amount of money to include the entire citation?

Or, did they exclude it because they did not like what Richards actually wrote. It "watered down" their point.

Over the past almost two decades of discussions with the aunties, I have found that they tell "almost" what we believe. As one professional antiMormon admitted, it is not exactly what we believe, but "almost".

Thus, you statement that we put the BOM "ABOVE" the Bible. It is *almost* what we believe. Instead of citing the Article of Faith which give an exact statement of our belief, you tell us "almost" what we believe.

Had the Tanners give the full citation, it would have revealed their "almost" truth about Mormonism. They "almost" tell the truth.

And, according to you, this is "magnificent and flawless writing". Well, that is ... almost what you wrote.

[emaughan]

I'd like an honest reply to my questions Markk. Do you feel it would be ok for atheist to employ the same techniques against your faith that the Tanners use against the LDS church? You state it is ok if one uses the truth and not a big deal if they do not include everything - fine.

Jesus Christ hung out with low lifes and love drinking with his buddies.

Jesus taught very strange doctrines such as ritualized canabolism and death ceremonies.

Jesus was a racists who called non Jews "dogs".

Jesus was a homeless bumm.

Jesus added to scripture and taught doctrines that were of "another gosple" from the one Moses taught.

Jesus had delusions of granduer and claimed to be a King.

Jesus also claimed to be a God.

Jesus was concieved out of wedlock by a young teenage girl who, while pregnant, married at the age of around 14.

Jesus was always running amiss of the authorities and eventually the law caught up with Him and he was sentenced to death by the state. (In spite of Jesus telling some of his followers to take swords with them, and Peter initiated violence by cutting off an ear of a law enforcement official in the ensuing scuffle).

In spite of their claims to the contrary, Christians believe in a different Moses.

None of the above are false. All of them come from out of the bible and biblical studies. Does the above give a fair picture of who Jesus Christ was? Don't blame me if I left out some of the other details, I don't think folks are ready for them nor are they really needed. It is obvious from the information above at what a scoundral Jesus really was. It is hard to believe that so many have been fooled into believing he was something special.