Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[juliann]

Markk, the finger pointing and moral superiority might be convincing if any of you actually took the Bible seriously. Hey...I'd settle for you just taking the Sermon on the Mount/Plain seriously. But you throw out anything that does not suit your purposes. Get back to us with your gripes about other religions when you start telling women to cover their heads and stop talking in church.

[Opaline]

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

*Dale, I hope you don't believe that. She is one of our sisters from Heaven. She may have been deceived by history she read, but that doesn't make her one of Satan's worshipers. She has come to her own conclusions about history that are different than yours. Our mission should be to help all our brothers and sisters find their way back to Christ-not put them in kingdoms or outer darkness with Satan. She believes the church deceived her and wants others to learn what she did.

[Markk]

Hi Opaline,

You wrote:

We know the Book of Mormon is the most correct book. Joseph Smith had to retranslate sections of the Bible. We have been counseled by Prophets to read our Book of Mormon 30 minutes a day. The Doctrine and Covenants is what our church focuses on the most in practice. (temple worship) The living Prophet trumps the old Prophets revelations so the Ensign/conference talks are more important than the Standard works. Joseph Smith had to retranslate the Bible because it had been altered by unsound philosophies of men. (wicked Priests)

As LDS we value the Book of Mormon as more correct/superior in translation and not tainted by philosophies of men. Any parts that were translated incorrectly were changed by new Prophets.

Edit: I do believe that the things removed from the original quotes can give somebody greater spiritual UNDERSTANDING for a principle or statement made. This example doesn't change the context though.

I don't believe that statment, but I agree with it from a LDS perspective, it is true, I once believed that way. I believe it should be noted in your edit that the Tanners never hid anything, they gave a reference to their quote and the elips [sic] were clear.

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Julieann,

Next time you pray over the sacrament...opps, you have to keep silent, sorry.

I really didn't mean that in a mean way, so please don't take it that way. I just really wonder what you were thinking about when you wrote that post. I wrote back a bunch of different answers to it but I kept deleting them because they sounded harsh and I really don't feel that way about you.

Anyway don't hate me, I'm not worth it.

Mark

John 1:12

[juliann]

Markk, you really need to focus. I asked a simple question. You are making accusations against LDS and their use of the Bible. What about your use of the bible? Do you take it seriously? If not...why should we take you seriously? Do you allow women to speak in church?

Can you answer a direct question?

[Markk]

Hi Julieann,

I believe all I have done is quote LDS leaders on THEIR views of the Bible, and what the Tanners quoted from LDS sourses.

I'm sorry, when you said this to me I thought it was a slam, not a question.

Markk, the finger pointing and moral superiority might be convincing if any of you actually took the Bible seriously. Hey...I'd settle for you just taking the Sermon on the Mount/Plain seriously. But you throw out anything that does not suit your purposes. Get back to us with your gripes about other religions when you start telling women to cover their heads and stop talking in church.

Is that really a question?

Anyway I can see what your trying to do, it's obvious, so if you want to discuss the verses by Paul and womens authority in the church open a thread and we can discuss it. Your really reaching Juliann.

mark

John 1:12

[juliann]

All you have done is avoid and it is getting annoying. You are making the accusations here. I am asking you a direct question for clarification. Do you live by a single standard? Do you honor the Bible so that you are in a position to point fingers at others?

Do you follow the Bible or not? Do you allow women to speak in church? The Bible tells you not to.

Please answer the question.

a. Women speak in my church.

b. Women do not speak in my church.

[juliann]

The problem is the LDS church uses the Bible when they need to, then bash it when and say it's incorrect when they need to. You really need to read the Book. I'ts not the tanners fault that the leaders of the church have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to the Bible...

This is Markk's inflammatory accusation against LDS. He has admitted in another thread that he does not follow the Bible's admonition for women to be silent in church.

Do you "use" the Bible's teachings on hypocrisy, Mark?

Exactly what do you use and what do you throw out and why is this any different than what you accuse LDS of? Let's talk about that fence and where you are sitting. I recall a saying that advises that those who want to lift others had better be standing on higher ground.

[Markk]

Hi Julieann,

It's not a accusation, its a fact, the church teaches they believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly, they quote the parts that they feel are tanslated correctly and also claim as we have discussed that it has been polluted and taken away from, has missing books and they didn't need it to start the church, I didn't say this stuff, the LDS leaders did.

Why are you sidetracking this thread?

Did you read that other thread, I said NO! women are not allowed to talk in where i fellowship as in context with pauls teachings.

Start another thread, is your job to way lay this one or something?

Love ya

Mark

John 1:12

[juliann]

Why are you sidetracking this thread?

No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to accuse someone else of not using the Bible to your satisfaction (or to the Tanner's satisfaction) and then declare it off-topic when you are asked to account for your use of the Bible. You made the accusation now you need to establish the standard for being on the right side of that fence you say Mormons are on both sides of.

Do women cover their heads in your church?

Do you give all of your money to the poor?

[Markk]

Hi Julieann

Take it to another thread, I promise to respond.

Mark

John 1:12

[Smith]

Take it to another thread, I promise to respond.

First off you should refer to JULIANN not julieann [JulianN]

2nd I dont see why you cant respond in this thread as Julian has shown how it relates to the Tanners.....

So please do cos I am keen to see your replies.

[yaanufs]

I have to say it looks like side tracking to me.

[emaughan]

I have to say it looks like side tracking to me. 

I disagree!

Markk is engaging in a large number of double standards on this thread and many have very clearly pointed it out over and over. He gives the Tanners a pass when they consistantly do not tell the whole truth and leave out key info that would bust thier arguments bubble. To Markk that is ok. It is ok to pick and choose as long is it meets his agenda as well. When I showed him clearly by example how such methodology could be used against Christ, he replied that it was not relevant. When Juliann points out how his own faith will pick and choose what they use out of the bible, it is not relevant.

I see it as very relevant as it goes to the heart of the issue of what the Tanners do to us and what other "christian" critics employ against us. The Tanners cherry pick and so does Markk. If it speaks evil of the church, it is honest and good. If supports the church, it is deceptive and missleading.

[Confidential Informant]

Since Markk doesn't care for the prior example of the Tanners' creative editing, let's try another of their more notorious edits. Regarding Joseph Smith the Tanners wrote:

The fact that Joseph Smith had a great interest in the ancient inhabitants of the land prior to his "translation" of the Book of Mormon is no secret to those who have read the History of Joseph Smith by his Mother. Mrs. Smith said: "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth--all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, ...During our evening conversations, JOSEPH would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ANCIENT INHABITANTS of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with EASE, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, 1954 Edition, pages 82-83)3

This would seem at first blush to be quite damning. However, he complete unedited passage reveals a much different picture fram that painted by the Tanners via the use of selective editing:

From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth, all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons, and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study. We were now confirmed in the opinion that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds, or that would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family. This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our house, and tranquillity reigned in our midst. [p.85] During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.(I copied this from the concordances webpage you listed at your webpage.)

I see very little wiggle room in this particular example. The Tanners edits appear to deliberately change the context and meaning of the original quote. It is quite misleading and, moreover, very unlikely to have been an error.

C.I.

[emaughan]

I see very little wiggle room in this particular example. The Tanners edits appear to deliberately change the context and meaning of the original quote. It is quite misleading and, moreover, very unlikely to have been an error.

C.I. I give up on this one. If there is any wiggle room, Markk will find it. Few times on this board have I seen something so clearly demonstrated as being "black" and yet the critic keeps claiming to see "white".

[Markk]

Hi Emaughan,

Your example you gave has nothing to do with the reality of what we are talking about, it is not even similar to the discussion. the Tanners used a real quote by a LDS apostle and supplied a reference for cross check, they didn't paraphrase nor add personal conjection, they factually showed that the LDS church puts the BOM above the Bible in part that it was polluted by wicked priest, and that they did not nor would need the bible for the founding of the Church. The Tanners told the truth here but I guess that dislike someone blinds, and your (many church members) dislike for the Tanners on a personal level Blinded the fact that what they wrote is LDS doctrine in it's core. thats why and what Richards was talking about in the whole chapter...apostacy, and a need for a prophet...JS, and bringing forth a new dispentation. Thats why the articles of faith put a disclaimer on the bible, thats why O Pratt said 'can any of it be true' (paraphrase).

Opaline under stood this when he/she said..."The Tanners have intent to prove the church is dishonest and changes to gain members but........... this kind of example is not taken out of context. We know the Book of Mormon is the most correct book. Joseph Smith had to retranslate sections of the Bible. We have been counseled by Prophets to read our Book of Mormon 30 minutes a day. The Doctrine and Covenants is what our church focuses on the most in practice. (temple worship) The living Prophet trumps the old Prophets revelations so the Ensign/conference talks are more important than the Standard works. Joseph Smith had to retranslate the Bible because it had been altered by unsound philosophies of men. (wicked Priests)

As LDS we value the Book of Mormon as more correct/superior in translation and not tainted by philosophies of men. Any parts that were translated incorrectly were changed by new Prophets.

Edit: I do believe that the things removed from the original quotes can give somebody greater spiritual UNDERSTANDING for a principle or statement made. The Tanners have not hidden anything that changes the context in this example or any others I have read from their book. " (end quote)

If that is not a true statement given by leaders, why did the leaders say it?

What you did on the other hand is paraphrase a personal opinon based not on any facts backed up by references to be cross checked. Basically it was a giant "if" question.

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi CI,

What you failed to mention in your post, nor give reference to the post, which I finally found, was that it was under the Topic...

"Orgin of Indians"

Then the Tanners write in introduction..."The fact that Joseph Smith had a great interest in the ancient inhabitants of the land prior to his "translation" of the Book of Mormon is no secret to those who have read the History of Joseph Smith by his Mother. Mrs. Smith said: and then they quote the quote you quoted.

The Tanners then go on and give a couple of pages of other example of this topic head. Notice in the Tanner quote they capitilize the emphsis, and actually underline it also which you failed to do or point out. It is very clear that their point was, in context with the topic head line that JS at 18 years of age, before the BOM was "translated", JOSEPH,...ANCIENT INHABITANTS,...with every particular,...and with EASE.

How is this taking anything out of context, within the context of their point? If the Tanners were saying JS didn't read the bible as child then you might have a point...But?

What did they leave out of the quote that would effect the point they were conveying? And given they gave a complete reference to the quote it's impossible for deception.

Mark

John 1;12

Again they put elips[sic] when needed and gave a complete cross refernce so it could be checked out

[Markk]

QUOTE (NotJLo @ Jul 12 2005, 04:31 PM)

Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon that we can get closer to God

by abiding its precepts than any other book.

I'm new to this forum. What are its major precepts?

Thank you,

Jennifer

[rongo]

Here's another example of Tanner textual manipulation I posted in the Lawsuit against FAIR thread:

"Joseph Smith Speaks on the First Vision"

I'd like to hear your take on this one, Markk.

Edit: (Apparently, the link goes to the top of the page with the post. My post is the last one of the page).

[Neighbor]

The value of the Tanners books is not their ability to communicate as being inspired by the Divine, nor their persuasiveness of speech, nor their method of organizing or using various methods such a type fonts or underlining texts. Those may be helpful to draw attention to their concerns, but that really is not the issue, so those who critisize them for such things are merely attempting to draw attention away from the obvious problem issues they have both identified and substantiated.

Unless you can prove they quoted people inaccurately to deliberately twist what they said you would do well to at least read their finds and be enlightened to the facts of the LDS matters not promoted by the Church, but more verified in substantiation than the first vision or any other matter of your faith.

That's why it's better to just believe Jesus instead of wasting your time trying to keep the issues the Tanners have raised as untruth. You witness against your faith as being true when you do that. You witness your faith is based upon what you want to believe, not what is or was.

Face the facts and repent of believing in revisionist history. The words of Jesus are imperrishable.

[rongo]

Unless you can prove they quoted people inaccurately to deliberately twist what they said . . .

I gave an example of this:

(See the link in my above post).

Through the Tanner-esque use of ellipses, they tried to demonstrate that Brigham Young taught that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith at all (which they knew to be false. They obviously had the original quote before them in order to choose what to elliminate in their version).

Also interesting here is their "double-think." They claim here that the "party line" of the First Vision story still hadn't been hammered out in 1877, yet elsewhere in their writings they embrace the Wes Walters 1838-1842 time frame for solidifying the orthodox First Vision story. Well, which is it? Why did they try to convey the impression that things were still up in the air in 1877? Because they wanted their doctored quote to have maximum shock value.

The ridiculous part of this is that hundreds of "orthodox" First Vision references can be produced from 1838 to 1877, and the Tanners knew it when they wrote their mass mailing.

[awyatt]

Neighbor said: Face the facts and repent of believing in revisionist history. The words of Jesus are imperrishable.

[MorningStar]

Face the facts and repent of believing in revisionist history. The words of Jesus are imperrishable.

No, YOU repent!

[USU78]

Neighbor said, quite plainly:

t's better to . . . wast[e] your time [than] to . . .believe . . . [ that t]he words of Jesus are imperrishable.

proving he believes in a different Jesus, whose words are not imperrishable. He is so unshriven that he'd rather waste his time than believe in the Biblical Jesus.