Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[lwyatt]

HI Dale

The Tanners and Wyatt are doing it the correct way, they are following the law, know What if the Tanners or wyatt formed a milita and stormed their homes and smashed their computers and were running for president, and were prophets and were generals of said milita?

JS could have got a injuction to stop the printing of the paper, and went through due process. Instesd he chose to violate the constitution by calling up the milita and provoking a riotous situation.

Plus W. Law was upset in that he claimed that JS was going after his wife, which may very well be true. he was dloser to JS than any of us, he knew the man and he was ticked...it is much deeper than you let on.

Bottom line, in hindsite, JS commited treason for using a state milita to violate the constitutional rigts of a person and buisness, not to mention and civil suites.

Mark

John 1:12

So it was illegal for Joseph to do this (you said violated civil and constitutional rights I believe), but it was perfectly legal for the mobs and Gov. Boggs to do at least the same thing (if not worse)?

How were the actions of Gov. Boggs legit according to your interpretation of the Constitution? Because (I think) that you are at the very least implying that it was ok for these others to take whatever actions they wished against the "evil" and "bad" Mormons who followed Joseph Smith.

Talk about a bit onesided on the legal issue, don't ya think?

[Markk]

Hi Lwyatt,

If Boggs and others broke the law then they broke the law, two wrongs do not make a right. I never said or implyed in any way, shape, or form that it was OK for what ever anybody else did that was against the law. I never said Mormons were evil and bad, your just making stuff up, while I believe LDS theology is wrong and deceiving, I care for the people, my WHOLE family for the very most part are almost ALL LDS, and I love them very much, you are again just making stuff up.

Do you believe that Joseph Smith had the legal right to do what he did...why and what laws allowed for such a act?

mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark I agree with you two wrongs don't make a right. I feel Joseph Smith mostly handled the Expositor as the law allowed him to do. I only am accepting of Dallin Oaks conclusion that the destruction of the press went to far. Dallin Oaks documented what he felt the law allowed & didn't allow them to do.

Would it help you if we saw no need to defend him for what was done wrong? He was human no doubt made mistakes.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

One point must be made...what Law allowed JS to do what he did, Oaks, if I remember correctly did not quote any law that provided for what he did. In my research, very limited, JS could have sought a injuctin to stop the printing of the paper until the case could be heard, but I have not been able to find a law that would allow him to even destroy the paper with out a written injucntion from a court.

Maybe I'm wrong, and if you can show me I'll admit it, but commen sense tells me that what he did is very serious and if found guilty would have been jail time and at the very least, loss of his power of milita and Mayor.

But to answer your question, there is no need to defend him, whats done is done and he paid for it whether guilty or not with a much worse penalty than he deserved, but, it should be aknowlaged that he was most likely guilty of a VERY serious crime that deserved a major punishment.

Anyway, pick a topic in the s&r and I'll give you my take.

Thanks

mark

john 1;12

[Dale]

Mark let's agree to disagree. You have failed to convince me that the actions to destroy the Expositor press were that bad. I have no pity for poor William Law. He brought his own suffering upon himself.

Let's move on to Ch. 20 on the virgin Birth. I feel they are guilty of blatant errors in what they wrote. I am really bothered by the ignoring of quotes they negected to tell their readers about. How do you explain those left out quotes?

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

The Virgin birthis a tough one in LDS theology, I'm not sure if they really know what they believe. I have allot of LDS books and for the most part is it ignored in detail and tuff get get a straight answer.

I was alway taught that the Father was the lit. Father of God and that Mary was one of His wifes. I believe LDS theology teaches that still for the most part, and I have never read a retraction of early LDS teachings on this.

You know Dale, you have to read what you quote, an Im not bashing you, I am just saying you had better do a better Job reading before you write. Doctrines of Salvation by JFS teach that Jesus was begotten by the Father and not by the HG and that the "Reorganites teach falsly that Jesus was begotton by the HG, it bashes your faith here Dale, read it in context, pages 18,19,and 20.

Here is a quote from page 19, " Reorganites" claim that BY went asstray and apostatized because he declared that JC was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, "Reorganites" claim that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost, and they make the statement that the scriptures so teach> But they do err not understanding the scriptures. They tell us the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challange that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible..."

You wrote:

I thought only LDS leaders suppressed material? What is an out of context quotation but one method of suppressing positive materialf from the quote you wish to make sound negative? On the Doctrines of Salvation book they cite page 18 & ignore the other quote on page 19. It say's "Christ Conceived By Power of Holy Ghost." And then Alma 7:10, Luke 1:34-35 & Mathew 1:18 was then cited in support of that statement. I note the Tanners cited page 18 & ignored the clarifying notes on the next page.

Again read pages 18,19 and 20 in context and you will see that they are saying

that ..."Christ Conceived By Power of Holy Ghost." is a false teaching if the reorganized church.

Jesus the Christ by Talmage says..." The Child to be Born of Mary was begotten by Elohim, the eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manification thereof, and, the offspring from that association of supreme sancity, celestial Sireship, and pure through mortal maternity, was the right to be called the "Son of the Highest." ...The child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parants-one immortal and glorified-God, the other human woman." Page 81)

Dale the only things the Tanner are gulity of, if anything, that I can see is not giving more evidence as to what the LDS prophets have taught.

I have a very helpfull LDS book called " Doctrinrs and Principles of the COJCOLDS"

that takes topics and give LDS answers from LDS authority and standard works, but it doesn't say anything of the virgin birth as is most modern LDS commentary, so like I said the virgin birth is a tuff one to get a modern LDS exogesis of the text by a authorized soarse, I'm open to reference. But as i have shown even 20th century authorities teach Jesus is begotten by the Father the same way we are pro-created.

So read your soarse again, I don't have a copy of Mormon doctrine, but Im going to check out what BM said when I get a chance.

Mark

John 1:12

[Dunamis]

The Virgin birthis a tough one in LDS theology, I'm not sure if they really know what they believe. I have allot of LDS books and for the most part is it ignored in detail and tuff get get a straight answer.

This is offensive. Do not tell the adherents of a religion that they do not know what they believe. The Book of Mormon refers to a virgin birth. Mormonism believes that Jesus was the son of God not the son of the Holy Ghost. Those that try to explain this miraculous conception have done so with varying speculations that are suited to the knowledge of the era in which they lived.

Mormonism believes in modern prophets. Mormons are not required to maintain 19th century speculations. The bottom line in Mormon theology is that it must line up with scripture. Therefore, it is disingenuous to use older commentary in an effort to trump modern teachings and scripture. So we now can say that some Mormons had varying explanations of how Jesus was conceived but that LDS scripture considers this miracle to be a virgin birth. What that means to each individual is up to that individual.

In short, consider this a warning that we consider it distasteful and vulgar to entertain speculation regarding intimate details of anyone's life let alone that of deity. LDS know no more about such details than any other religion.

[ave maria]

This is offensive. Do not tell the adherents of a religion that they do not know what they believe. The Book of Mormon refers to a virgin birth. Mormonism believes that Jesus was the son of God not the son of the Holy Ghost.

Just to be clear, as I don't believe it's your intent to mislead, traditional Christians don't believe that Jesus Christ is the "son of the Holy Ghost," either.

I doubt you're asserting that, but in your clarification regarding LDS belief, it might be implied.

Traditional Christians believe the same thing about the role of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit in that process that Latter-day Saints do, simply that He assisted in the process. Speculating further is as distasteful to non-LDS as it is to LDS.

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark the Tanners misrepresented Doctrines of Salvation & ignored the clarifying statement on the next page. I caught them in a lie by simply looking up the citation in context . Perhaps they need to read things better before them telling me what it means? They ignored a quote because it taught a type of virgin Birth. They couldn't cite all the quotes without making themselves look like they had come to false conclusions. They came to false conclusions I explained it correctly you have not convinced me otherwise.

LDS do believe the Father & Son are biologically related not that the conception anything like what the Tanners try to suggest is modern Mormon Doctrine.

I decided I would not waste my time trying to respond to one issue more than a few replies back & forth. I saw much of the previous discussion as fruitless back & forth trying to convince each other. I felt a need to limit my replies to a few per topic & then move on.

Sincerely,

Dale

[ave maria]

Ch. 20 is my favorite because on the Virgin Birth they cite sources like Doctrines of Salvation & Mormon Doctrine to deny the Virgin Birth. But I flt the ignored Doctrines of Salvation 1:19 & Mormon Doctrine 822 which affirms Christs conception was caused via the spirit. I left my copy of Mormon Doctrine at my church & I hope the page was correct. I don't know how else that can be described but abused sources & out of context quotations. They couldn't deal with the quotes so they ignored quotes that they couldn't prove denied the Virgin Birth. I agree with the Tanners there were 19th century denials of the Virgin Birth.

Dale--

Since the "Virgin Birth" was raised here, I think it's helpful to note that there is much confusion about what that term actually means.

Belief in the "Virgin Birth" does not simply mean that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ, but that she was a virgin when she gave birth (before and after the birth).

While most Latter-day Saints seem to be unaware of it, LDS Church leaders in the past have agreed that they subscribe to this belief.

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark while I don't believe God has a body I do not know whether divine created sperm wasn't created to impregnate Mary. I don't know the exact mechanics of the conception only that the power of Spirit not sex was the means God used to cause Jesus conception.

The Tanners cite other parts of Mormon Doctrine but leave out Ava's citation. I am puzzled how the authors leave out major quotes & not recognize the discoveries of the other citations would make themselves look bad. Are they not smart people?

Mark this is my only attempt to clarify real LDS doctrine as opposed to fabricated myths. The moderator prefer us to move on & I agree we have discussed this issue as far as appropriate. I won't participate in a further discussion of this virgin birth chapter. Let's move on to another topic so both of us can avoid trouble with the moderator.

Sincerely,

Dale

-------------

The Martha Brotherton Case is up at the http://www.restorationbookstore.org along with Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy demonstating errors in the case for Joseph Smith & Polygamy.

[Markk]

Hi Dunamis,

Sorry, no personal offense was meant by what I said, it was meant in the context that I have searched many ' later ' LDS books, 1950 and on, and not a whole lot is written on the subject, again I apologize, I reread my post and can see how it could be construed as offensive.

Dale,

I am afraid you are not reading what Doctrines of Salvation says, it agrees with what the Tanners report, your wrong in calling them liars for this, you need to re-read DofS. What quote are you speaking of in Mormon Doctrine, the only quote I see is about the Virgin birth in general, I believe it's safe to say that LDS believe in that and the Tanners have not denied that. The Tanners reported what Dunimas confirmed..."Mormonism believes that Jesus was the son of God not the son of the Holy Ghost. " JFS in Doctrines of salvation wrote that the reorganites were wrong in believing Jesus was "begotten of the Holy Ghost."

So far I have only seen one quote taken out of context ( with Rongo) in the three of four chapters that we have went through, thats doing pretty good for a book with that much detail, what would you like to bring up next?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Mark you present no reason for me to continue the conversation with you. We must end the discussion here. I feel you are decieved. You admit no errors in the book & offer me nothing new that I havn't heard before. Thanks for the information but no thanks. I have to refuse your version of truth. Not trying to offend but this particular post has been a waste of time for both of us.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale

I'm sorry you feel that way, we go back a long way on other boards. You may feel I am deceived, thats OK I understand, but the facts remain, with all the attempts here to dispute the Tanners point by point, it has come to this. You have not given one fact that can hold up to the least bit of test, you have on every case misquoted and misread your own arguments which show me that you can not look at the evidence in a objective way, you will see what you want to believe. The Tanners didn't quote anything they just made up, they simply quote LDS leadership. While you feel I am being deceived, I stand by my statement I made years ago that I feel you are being tossed around, not knowing where to stand. You are defending a religion that believes your faith is false, read page 20 of DofS.

I hope we can continue discussion later at your timing, and I will pray that this doesn't get blown out of context and we can remain cyber friends.

Thanks

mark

John 1:12