Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[Markk]

Hi Allen

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.

I believe it is a cop out Allen, I never said intent wasn

[Markk]

Hi 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 none 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.

How is what the Tanners did/do like what you write above? They gave references, and backed up evrything they said in further chapters. What was the point that the apostle Richards was saying? Your argument is not a valid one, but if you would like you could go point by point with me and when we get to how the History of the Church was changed, without references, breaks that indicate the text was skipped through, and no further mention, then we can bring up your example, it would fit much closer to that cenerio.

Mark

John 1;12

[Markk]

Hi cdowis,

You write:

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.

I can't speak for the Tanners on why they chose to print what they print, but i will say what they did print made a clear that Richards, being a LDS "leader" taught that the Bible was not enough, by leaving out what they did, did not change the teaching of Richards, if Richards did not teach thet the bible was not needed and the everlasting gospel could not be found only in the bible,then show me?

Where do the Tanners say anything about what LDS "believe" here, what they do is print what LDS teachers have taught and claimed.

To say what the LDS faith believe is not a very good avenue, I slip and say that at time and it's wrong, not a deception, just a slip of the tounge in that LDS members are all over the board on what they believe, the truth is we can only state what the churhc teaches and what they have taught in the past, belief is personal and many differnt beliefs exist in the LDS world. If you have the book we are discussing, show me where the Tanners expound on what "mormon believe", I'm sure they say that somewhere but just skimming through the book i don't see that.

I think the problem might be you do not believe some of the teachings of the church, and thats Ok.

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

You said this of the Tanners"...They make mistakes but I hate to use the word dishonest to describe them"

Then you say this of Sandra"...The big book's just trivia by an unsaved person. I know she isn't saved from outer darkness. "

I think you had better think deep about what your saying, Dale I really hope you don't believe that.

Mark

john 1:12

[emaughan]

How is what the Tanners did/do like what you write above? They gave references, and backed up evrything they said in further chapters.

You really don't see the double standard - do you? My example is perfectly valid. I can reference all the points listed as being well referenced in the bible (except maybe the age of Mary). I took a series of "facts" and put them together to paint an image of Christ. The Tanners do the same thing with our faith Markk and you refuse to see it! Because they preach what you want to hear, you assume their methods are just Okee-Dokee. Having read some of their work - it is NOT good historical analysis because they will ignore that which contradicts their pet theories. In your rush to cheerlead for them, you seem to be ignoring their poor methodology.

If it slams the Mormons, give it a pass.

[Markk]

Hi Emaughan,

The point is, and what you are avoiding to answer, is how did the Tanner misrepresent the Richard's text.

I'm going to ask you point blank "what was the point Richards was making?"

Mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Markk said:

[MorningStar]

I think the problem might be you do not believe some of the teachings of the church, and thats Ok.

Mark

John 1:12

Oh, of course! If we don't agree with the Tanners, then we must not know what our true beliefs are, right?

I just had a conversation with a pastor whose sole resource for studying Mormonism is the Tanners' website. I explained to him, "Without Christ, there would be no salvation for anybody." He said, "Wow! I agree with you 100%, but I don't believe that reflects LDS teachings." Of course it reflects our teachings! This man has been misled by the Tanners.

[Markk]

Hi Wyatt,

Yes I read MWW, I have a later addition though, but it reads the same and as you know if you read what you posted it says..."This makes it easy to understand why the "everlasting gospel" could not be discoverd by reading the bible alone..." he shift gears and make the point that the bible is not enough, and that is all the Tanners said he said. The point that he is making is that JS was called because the bible was not enough and there was a need fro a restoration (chapter 5 as a whole).

Has that changed? was Richards lying when he said that the Bible is not enough?

You answer me this when he says " That is why OUR original statement is consistent: Who is "our"....

The facts are...The LDS church teaches the bible is not enough, and that it was polluted by wicked priests...Is this a valid statment?

mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi morning star,

The Tanner's are writing what your leaders have taught, and back it up, it's obvious you have not read the book in discussion. My point was they don't teach what "mormons believe", they write about what the church has taught.

Have you read the book we are talking about?

Mark

John 1;12

[emaughan]

This man has been misled by the Tanners.

So has Markk and he can't even seem to see it when it is highlighted, spotlighted, underlined, large font, in front of his eyes, clear as day, painfully obvious, and coated with glow in the dark paint.

Markk - I was responding to the Richards quote, but you did not understand the point I was trying to make.

Oh well.

[MorningStar]

Hi morning star,

The Tanner's are writing what your leaders have taught, and back it up, it's obvious you have not read the book in discussion. My point was they don't teach what "mormons believe", they write about what the church has taught.

Have you read the book we are talking about?

Mark

John 1;12

I have read about eleventy million cut and pastes from this pastor that are about a mile long when you add them up. Many of these things are from their book and they are very misleading. It's interesting how paragraphs change when you find out what replaces the ..... I kept asking this guy where he was getting this info and he said it was from his own "research". Then I googled his posts and they were all from the Tanners' website, word for word. It's possible I may have read the entire book now because this conversation has been going on for 3 months now.

Look how I can change your post with ... It's pretty nifty!

"The Tanner's ... believe ... what the church has taught."

THEY DO??? That's great!!!!

MorningStar

[awyatt]

No matter what the Tanners have done, and how they do it, it is "honest and truthful." Only the LDS lie, and the Tanners shine a spotlight on the lies.

The man is seriously deceived, and not open to honest discussion. May I kindly suggest that we, from this point forward, not disturb him in his delusion.

-Allen

[cdowis]

Markk

Here is from your own post ==>>

The Tanners said: "The Bible they claim, has been altered by wicked priests."

What JS actually said: "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or Designing or corrupt priests have committed many errors.

[Confidential Informant]

I'm just curious, is there any form rule or guideline that dictates how much deleted material can be represented by an ellipsis?

C.I.

[MorningStar]

I'm just curious, is there any form rule or guideline that dictates how much deleted material can be represented by an ellipsis?

C.I.

That's a very good question. There have been instances where ellipses have replaced many pages.

[cdowis]

>ellipsis

Yep, when the material omitted does not alter in any meaningful way the meaning or flavor of the original passage. It is simply excess verbage.

And that is precisely the issue here.

Since the Tanners are, by their own omission, very unsympathetic to the LDS church, their objectivity is questioned whenever dots appear. We look at the omitted material, and sure enough the passage they are citing has been altered in a meaningful way by the missing material.

You can make a very educated and reasonable person sound like a blithering idiot by selectively omitting words from his writings. The reader of the original material may say -- "yes, that sounds reasonable". But the omission of critical working or phrases may draw the reader to a very different conclusion ==> the difference between "for various reasons the Bible is not inerrant", compared to "wicked priests altered the text of the Bible".

[Zakuska]

A few comments for Mark:

Markk:

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?

Markk:

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).

Hmmm. And this was a unique LDS teaching? Ever read any of Marttin Luthers works? Ever read... the orthodox coruption of scripture, from the religious studies chair at Chapel Hill? Margaret Barker anyone?

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.

Hmmm. Shall I show the quotes of Sandra's G....G... Grandfather no less that paints him as a blood thirsty tyrant, only to find that when the "..." tm where removed and the full quote was examined he was saying just the opposite of what they said he was as well as reacting to a dream that he had of someone molesting his children?

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

And who ever said the church was set in cement?

The Bible even admits Gods dealing with men changes. Check out Hebrews, there was a huge "Change" in the way the church was to be practiced and the ordinances administerted.

So how did they deceive Allen? This is what they were speaking of in the overview in chapter one, the

[cdowis]

>So how did they deceive Allen? This is what they were speaking of in the overview in chapter one, the

[Markk]

Hi wyatt,

No matter what the Tanners have done, and how they do it, it is "honest and truthful." Only the LDS lie, and the Tanners shine a spotlight on the lies.

The man is seriously deceived, and not open to honest discussion. May I kindly suggest that we, from this point forward, not disturb him in his delusion.

No, you are so wrong, there are even parts of S&R I wouldn't include in the book, but it doesn't make them deceiving people, and your argument on the Richards quote is a loser, in that the church leaders taught exactly what he said. The BOM even stresses the fact that the bible is not enough. McKonkie said.."At the same time the bible is sealed in the sense that verses, chapters, even books have been lost because of "intellectuals, unbelievers, ministers," and Satan, " who hate and spurns the scriptures..."

You can twist this fact and attack me, and thats OK, I understand, but aside from those that will no doubt not talk to me anymore because you have spoken, there are those who will objectivley check out what the Tanners wrote and what we both said and what we failed to answer to each other and make a choice and address it whether we are right or wrong, thats what makes this site a great place to learn.

Allen, in the law suit you have with the Tanners if you saw my posts on another thread you would have seen that I believe it is wrong for them to take you to court, but I also believe it is wrong how you personally attack them, instead of sticking to what they write and teach. What you are failing to realize is that you are not putting down the Tanners, what you are doing for the most part is ignoring LDS History and what the leaders teach. Like you said the Tanners are sincere, and you should treat that as such and not label them as you have done.

All the best

Mark

John 1:12

[Neighbor]

The Tanners were faithful Mormons who were also Christians, and who came to see that the truth of the matters does matter. So they are not terribly organized, that doesn't take away from their honesty or work to get the most truth about many matters that has been brought to light by the LDS authorities.

"I don't know how to repent of the truth"

One particular thing I disagree with on the Mormon side is that quote where if one were to take away the BOM, POGP and D&C that they wouldn't have a religion. If your faith is in Jesus Christ you certainly have a lot more to bank your faith on than those books. I can't imagine that one of the prophets would say such a thing.

[awyatt]

Markk said: ...aside from those that will no doubt not talk to me anymore because you have spoken...

I hope that nobody chooses to not talk to you anymore simply "because I have spoken." I simply said that it is of little value to talk with you on the subject of the Tanners because you see them as presenting facts in a proper manner. I pointed out a single, simple instance where they didn't do that. You said that my argument was "a loser," which makes my point very nicely, thank you. (My point about you, not the Tanners. )

Markk said: Allen, in the law suit you have with the Tanners if you saw my posts on another thread you would have seen that I believe it is wrong for them to take you to court, but I also believe it is wrong how you personally attack them, instead of sticking to what they write and teach.

Which only shows that you have no idea what I did or was doing on my site. Not even the Tanners had the audacity to claim that I "personally attacked them." (And I won't say anything more about the suit until everything is settled, so don't even ask.)

-Allen

[Opaline]

in recovery from LDS inc. now

[awyatt]

Neighbor said: The Tanners were faithful Mormons who were also Christians, and who came to see that the truth of the matters does matter.

It's never as clear cut as that. So that others don't think I am attacking the Tanners, I'll let Jerald explain how "faithful" he was in his own words.

Jerald Tanner said: Although my father and mother were not active Mormons, my mother encouraged me to participate in teh church and looked forward to the day when I would go on a mission.

...

I was rather religious until I was twelve or thirteen years of age. ...I soon began to lose interest and to search elsewhere for happiness.

...

As I have already indicated, the Mormon Church did not really present the message I needed to hear. Nevertheless, I cannot complain about the treatment I received from the people. There were many good and sincere people in the ward I attended, and I cannot remember anyone deliberately trying to hurt me. On the contrary, I always felt welcome at the church. When I was 12 years old I was ordained a deacon in the Mormon Church.

In spite of my upbringing, at the age of 14 I began to drink. I still remember the first time I became intoxicated. What fun it was to forget my problems and just have a good time. I felt as free as a bird. Before I had found some escape from reality by attending about two shows a week, but after I started to drink, I felt I had found something much more satisfying. Instead of spending my money on movies, I decided to use it to buy alcoholic beverages and cigarettes. My life was completely miserable.

...

As the years went by, I found that drinking began to lose its thrill. It took more alcohol to get the same effect. Finally, it seemed that there wasn't even pleasure in drinking.

...

Still another night I ended up in jail, and the next day a friend who had spent the night in the same cell, told me that he was going to change his life. I had no intention at that time of changing mine, however. That night I got drunk again. I continued this way of living for some time.

...

When I was about 18 years of age I was working part time at a candy company. One of the young men who was working with me challenged me to read the Book of Mormon. Although I had believed it was from God since I was a child, I had never sat down and read it through. When I did I was fascinated with its contents and began to think serious about getting active in the church. The bishop encouraged me, and said that I would be made an elder if I continued to come to church.

[Jerald Tanner, Jerald Tanner's Testimony (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), pages 1, 2, 3, 4.]

If you read Jerald's story, you'll find that he was never made an elder (he only made it to deacon) and that very shortly after this, when he was 18, he started going first to the RLDS church and then to the Lukites (Pauline Hancock's Church of Christ).

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi cdowis,

Your wrote:

Here is from your own post ==>>

The Tanners said: "The Bible they claim, has been altered by wicked priests."

What JS actually said: "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or Designing or corrupt priests have committed many errors.