Recovery Board
: RfM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:11PM by steve benson.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:09PM by steve benson.
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
The first thread filled up like a fishbowl fastened to a firehose, so on we go (with a few edited-in observations):
Sandra Tanner's "testimony moment" in her bookstore that day came when she got cross with me as we crossed swords over Christianity and its purported miracles
Before I relate how she responded, first let me say that I owe much to Sandra and Jerald Tanner for helping grease the skids in the direction of my eventual escape from the Mormon Cult. Their invaluable assistance in that effort through rigorous, responsible and readily-available research was critical to my freedom break.
Two of their works, in particular, were instrumental in helping me to crystallize in my own mind the utter falsity of the LDS faith.
The first was their review of changes in the LDS Temple Endowment over time, leading me to the unavoidable conclusion that it was nothing but a clunky, unimaginative and blatantly dependent rip-off from Masonic lodge rites. That Tanner-aided conclusion ultimately led me to suspend my payment of tithing.
The second significant impact that the Tanners' work had on my decision to leave Mormonism was their book, "The Changing World of Mormonism," a devastating compilation of historical evidences against Mormonism's defenses of its history, doctrines, policies and practices.
Over the years, I have made many appreciative treks to the Tanners' bookstore in Salt Lake City, across from the Franklin Covey ballfield on 13th South. There I have spent numerous hours, separated myself from hundreds of my own dollars purchasing vital reading material and spoken, both in person and later over the phone, with, in particular, Sandra. In so many ways, she and Jerald have my deep respect and appreciation for all the years they have devoted to shedding uncompromising light on the Mormon facade.
With that said as genuinely as possible, I nonetheless have a real bone to pick with Sandra Tanner. In a nutshell, she is not, in my opinion, equally as critically-minded or honest in her research of Christianity as she is of Mormonism. In other words, she cuts her own faith a break at the expense of consistent, unforgiving empirical research (and does so for personal reasons, as will be demonstrated below).
_____
--Preparing to Duel with Sandra Tanner Over Her Research Methodology and Mindset: A Close Encounter of the Christian Apologist Kind
Several years ago, I made one of my stops at the Tanner bookstore. With me at the time was my friend Maxinne Hanks--then-excommunicated Mormon, outspoken feminist, professional editor, and noted author of the book, "Women and Authority"d (who has subsequently been re-baptized, but that's a subject for another day).
After browsing through the Tanners' bookstore and making some selections, I noticed that Sandra had taken up her usual spot behind a desk next to the front door, where she would both ring out customers and engage in informal and informative discussions with her inquiring patrons.
I could not help but notice that many of the books in the Tanner establishment promote and defend both the faith and historicity of fundamentalist Christianity. The Tanners are, indeed, avowed Christians who operate their own outreach ministry and who are uncompromising apologists for their own Christian belief system.
I did not want to unnecessarily offend Sandra but had some basic questions I wished to ask her regarding her research and defense of Christianity. I knew, however, that it would be wise to approach these subjects somewhat delicately. So, as I approached her as she sat at her desk, I did so with cautious deliberation, asking the Lord's blessings to be with me (OK, maybe not that last part but I was a bit apprehensive).
_____
--Confrontation With Sandra Tanner Over Her Double Standard
As I had done many times in the past, I sincerely relayed to Sandra how much I appreciated her rigorous research on, and deconstruction of, Mormon doctrine and history. In particular, I mentioned her unparalleled contributions to exposing the Book of Mormon as a demonstrable fraud and 19-century artifact. I told her how much I respected her work in conclusively demonstrating that the Book of Mormon was pure fiction, both in its character development and its tale spinning--and that these conclusions could be amply, empirically demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to honest minds.
Sandra graciously took my compliments as I intended them. She knows she's a stellar researcher in the field of Mormon studies and that realization shows both in her carriage and her confidence.
Then I moved into what I discovered, soon enough, was a hostile minefield. I politely asked Sandra why she did not apply the same rigorous research approach, combined with a healthy dose of skepticism, to questions regarding the historicity and credibility of the Bible--at least as uncompromisingly as she did to the Book of Mormon.
As is Sandra's tendency when she senses she's facing a potential fight on her hands, she bristled and became defensive. She told me that unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible was a legitimate, historical record of actual, identifiable peoples who lived in documentable places and times--and, further, that these facts were absolutely confirmed through archaelogical research which employed the Bible as a reliable reference and field guide.
For instance, there were, she pointed out, real Israelites who lived in a real city of Jerusalem. The Bible, she reminded me, served as a valuable scientific roadmap for finding and identifying these populations and locales.
No dispute there.
However, I mentioned to Sandra that the Bible's "miracle stories"--such as Noah's Flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, Balaam's ass speaking in human tongue, Jesus walking on water and resurrecting himself and others from the dead--could not be empirically proven through any kind of scientific appeal to the Bible. That book of Christian scripture, I told her, offers no compelling, testable evidence on which to conclude that these "miracle stories" were actual, literal events.
At this point, Sandra was becoming increasingly upset. She scowled and the corners of her mouth tightened. I figured she would hit back in short order, at least figuratively. And, indeed, she did. But not before I proceeded apace, determined to get an answer, if I could, from her about what I saw as the clear double standard in her research approaches to Mormonism vs. Christianity.
I asked Sandra why she was so obviously willing to accept Biblical miracles as factual events but was not willing to similarly accept the miraculous tales found in the Book of Mormon.
_____
--Testimony-Bearing Time
Sandra looked back at me, her eyes flashing angrily. She said, and I quote:
"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."
End of discussion.
I thought I had just finished listening to a holier-than-thou Mormon bearing witness to the truthfulness of the Latter-day Saint Gospel during a fast and testimony meeting.
I went ahead and purchased my items and bid Sandra a civil good day. She graciously bid me the same. But we had definitely crossed swords--and maybe even drew a little blood.
Sandra Tanner, the invincible and impeccable crusader against all things illogical and baseless in Mormonism, had shown me a stubborn determination (born of an absolute faith-based conviction that she is unquestionably right) for believing in Christianity. The same kind of faith-based conviction that she criticizes Latter-day Saints for invoking in behalf of their unwavering belief in Mormonism.
_____
--Conclusion: Sandra Tanner and the Mormons
In so many ways, Sandra Tanner and the Mormons are fundamentally different and at insurmountable odds with one another.
But in one important respect, Sandra Tanner and the Mormons are solidly joined at the hip. They both faithfully accept their respective religions on the basis of "miracles" which defy--indeed, do not (at least in their minds) require--rational explanation or empirical proof. The kind of rational explanation or empirical proof that Sandra Tanner claims are reasons enough to reject Mormonism--but not enough to reject Christianity.
"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."
OK, Sandra, whatever you say. Mormons say the exact same thing about us, too, ya know.
This stubborn resistance by believers when confronted by faith-challenging fact is manifested in what has been called "invincible ignorance" (as evidenced with Sandra Tanner, when her personal religious convictions were challenged by scientific evidence). Resistance to one's religion of choice can manifest itself in a personal determination to stay the course, even if it takes conjuring up irrational defenses to do so.
As the Queen character in "Alice in Wonderland" tells Alice:
"I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Setting matters of faith aside, what about monetary motives? In some cases, could the imperative to criticize the Mormon Church (or any other religion, for that matter) while leaving one's religion of choice free from healthy skeptical analysis have at least some connection to personal financial incentive? I ask this because the operations of Utah Lighthouse Ministries seem to clearly benefit monetarily (in the form of religious tax-exemption and product income)--as manifested through UTLM's Christian-related activities. That possibility certainly is suggested by this Tanner evangelical pitch for donations:
"SUPPORTING 100 CHILDREN
"In the January 1985 issue of the 'Messenger,' we told of our interest in the area of world relief. We related that $1,000 had been designated "for relief work in Africa-i.e., providing food, medical relief, shelter and a demonstration of true Christian love." At that time we decided to provide monthly support for five children under the World Vision Childcare Partner plan. In the April 1986 issue of the Messenger we reported: "Because God has been so gracious in supplying all our needs, we have decided to take another step in faith. In the future we will be supporting 25 children."
"Since God has continued to bless our work in a marvelous way, we have decided to take an even larger step of faith and expand the ministry TO SUPPORT 100 CHILDREN! While we have some money designated for this work, it is basically a move made on faith that the Lord will continue to provide as the months go by. We still have our regular expenses. It is necessary that we meet these obligations so that we can continue an effective work among the Mormons. We do hope that our friends will pray earnestly about UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY and world relief. While we feel somewhat apprehensive about making this move, we know that God 'is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, . . .' (Ephesians 3:20)
"Those who are interested in helping out with this important ministry can send their tax deductible contributions to UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY, Box 1884, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110. [Web-editor: Or place a donation over the internet using our secure shopping cart]."
("Salt Lake City Messenger," #62, March 1987, capitalization in original, at: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no62.htm)
Like I said, I appreciate the Tanners for their commendable, honest and courageous historical research into the failings and falsehoods of Mormonism but when it comes to matters of consistency, they appear (at least to me) to have been unfortunately tainted by a combination of irrational faith and the prospect of supplemental cash. This can pose a problem. When one has both an emotional and financial investment in religion, it becomes doubly hard to break free.
The Tanners' petition for donations sounds like it's been taken straight out of the evangelical playbook and appears to be strangely at variance with their empirical approach to evidence on the ground against the Book of Mormon and Mormon Church claims in general. As far as I can tell, this children-program outreach is a source of income (along with bookstore sales). If they weren't pitching for money for their Christian ministry work, there would be less reason to question their objectivity about the Christian faith. I'm not saying that one cannot have genuine charitable impulses and therefore wish to donate to the needy (which is all good); but taken in the context of Sandra's personal Christian belief system, it helps explain why she's so bluntly adverse to the questioning of her own faith. Indeed, why Sandra's lack of enthusiasm for (indeed, why her indignation against) doing clinical, deep and bonafide research into Christianity claims--areas which can (and are in many respects) just as nonsensical as those of Mormonism? The point is that the Tanner outfit doesn't do (at least comparatively speaking) significant research on the Christian religion because Sandra is too personally invested in it.
In the end, Sandra invokes her "I've-had-miracles-in-my-life-and-I-feel-sorry-for-you" line, then goes about her business of using Christian outreach as a financial source--and also because she obviously wants to believe that Christianity is true. Hence, up goes the roadblock and she suddenly morphs into evangelical-Christian defense mode when even politely challenged on her paucity of decent, meaningful and historical research into Chrisitian origins, claims and history. Having been to the Tanner bookstore and seen its Christianity shelves, it is clear that--when compared to its Mormon Church stock items--the bookstore's Christian literature doesn't hold a candle big enough to light Joseph Smith's Cumorah stone box. That's because Sandra isn't interested in going there, at least in part because she's a true-believing Christian.
I am convinced that Sandra's miracle-minded, Christianity-devoted heart gets in the way of her empirically-minded, hard-nosed head when it comes to seriously investigating the basic claims of Christianity. This double standard does nothing, in my opinion, for her credibility, especially when that credibility rests on a willingness and ability to go where the facts lead. Sandra's split-view on Mormonism vs. Christianity is reason to question her approach to Christian studies, given her stubborn faith-based commitment to it that appears to be impervious to reason, science and legitimate investigation.
_____
Below are some RfM responses to the original post:
--RfM poster "Greyfort":
"You've basically just described the never-ending clashes between the still-religious/spiritual and those who have rejected religion entirely on this forum.
"Those of us who have rejected religion entirely can't understand how one can develop new critical-thinking skills and just stop after demolishing Mormonism in their minds. How do you not go on to study the Bible with the same critical eye?
"The other side can't understand how we can go on to throw out the baby with the bathwater. How does one go from being a devout Mormon, to not being religious at all? That's quite a leap. I understand that.
"I guess maybe there is no solution to this issue. The only thing left is to do what you did with Sandra. 'Well, you have a nice day.'"
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049109#msg-1049109
--RfM poster "Alpiner":
"The problem with miracles is that, even when something inexplicable occurs, people try to ascribe it to their preferred deity. You also introduce the problem--why are you so special, you get miracles, when many others die or lead terrible lives but live by the same beliefs?
"You're stuck either with the idea that your deity is capricious, or that somehow your deity loves you more than others.
"I can live with having inexplicable phenomenon. I can't abide them being ascribed to Jesus."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049121#msg-1049121
--RfM poster "anagrammy":
"I am not the least bit surprised at Sandra's response.
"It is her choice to question or not question Christianity after leaving Mormonism. She clearly has chosen not to go in that direction and respecting her decision is part of being polite.
"As you well know, her niche in the ex-Mo world is that of a pioneer at a time when the only public ex-Mormon voice was Ed Decker. She and Jerald singlehandedly earned the respect, albeit grudging, when they failed to authenticate the Salamander Letter even when the Church itself was already issuing an apologetic.
"Sandra and Jerald Tanner refused to lie for their Lord when a great temptation was before them. I have nothing but admiration for them.
"People join and stay with religion for emotional reasons, as you well know. These are complex. A full recovery from Mormonism includes the willingness to accept wholeheartedly that others who believe differently than you are worthy of your respect."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049172#msg-1049172
--RfM poster "ozpoof":
" . . . [N]o one knows what happens to conscience after death, but that doesn't mean you should believe in nonsense to make you feel better.
"Maybe there is a God like being out there. What is certain is the stories in the Bible are man-made and denigrate any loving and powerful deity."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049151#msg-1049151
--RfM poster "snuckafoodberry":
"One thing that people need to understand: Religion has a fierce grip on some of us. Please try and be understanding. What seems easy to you does not come easy to everyone. You are told something your whole life. Christianity is an easier transition for some people to make than moving right into atheism. Atheism feels like defeat. It is saying you won't live on. It is saying Jesus whom you have prayed to your whole life really isn't there. For me personally, I'm just not brave enough to say that. It has a really tight grip on me and I can't let go of that. There is hell to consider. A really firey hot place. And no one to care this whole time. To protect me and my family and watch over us."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049158#msg-1049158
RfM poster "rhgc":
"1. Certain 'miracles' in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally.
"2. Other miracles did and do occur, I believe.
"3. There is a difference in accepting miracles from a work which is not proven--such an out-and-out fraud as the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, etc. While I, for one, do not take stories from the Bible as literally true, I do find certain value in those same stories and can separate the wheat from the chaff and remain a believer in Christ.
"4. I recognize that the rigor I apply to some things is not the same as for other things. Basically, I acknowledge that while some things (definitely almost all) can be shown true or false, there are some, fortunately few, which are a matter of faith. My test is one which is one that if something can be proven by science or definite physical evidence, one cannot then rely on belief. The matter of Mo'ism is such that the evidence in the negative is such as to remove it from the realm of allowing a belief 'override.'"
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049190#msg-1049190
--RfM poster "hanger18":
"The fact that Sandra got so defensive and borderline hostile seems like there is quite a bit of cog-dis going on within her. Deep down she is probably well aware that the Bible crumbles just as easily as any Mormon scripture when thoroughly examined; she just refuses to go there due to all the Christian groups sending grants and donations her way. Hmmm, seems very similar to an LDS apostle."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049213#msg-1049213
--RfM poster "ddt":
"It is interesting to see the Christian/Judeo Fear Paradigm at work. People are afraid to admit there's no such thing as god. They were programmed as kids to fear a made-up god and even as adults they are still frightened by it.
"This is a testament to the power of indoctrination of young minds. It is one of the greatest evils in the world."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049218#msg-1049218
Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:27AM by steve benson.
Sandra Tanner's "testimony moment" in her bookstore that day came when she got cross with me as we crossed swords over Christianity and its purported miracles
Before I relate how she responded, first let me say that I owe much to Sandra and Jerald Tanner for helping grease the skids in the direction of my eventual escape from the Mormon Cult. Their invaluable assistance in that effort through rigorous, responsible and readily-available research was critical to my freedom break.
Two of their works, in particular, were instrumental in helping me to crystallize in my own mind the utter falsity of the LDS faith.
The first was their review of changes in the LDS Temple Endowment over time, leading me to the unavoidable conclusion that it was nothing but a clunky, unimaginative and blatantly dependent rip-off from Masonic lodge rites. That Tanner-aided conclusion ultimately led me to suspend my payment of tithing.
The second significant impact that the Tanners' work had on my decision to leave Mormonism was their book, "The Changing World of Mormonism," a devastating compilation of historical evidences against Mormonism's defenses of its history, doctrines, policies and practices.
Over the years, I have made many appreciative treks to the Tanners' bookstore in Salt Lake City, across from the Franklin Covey ballfield on 13th South. There I have spent numerous hours, separated myself from hundreds of my own dollars purchasing vital reading material and spoken, both in person and later over the phone, with, in particular, Sandra. In so many ways, she and Jerald have my deep respect and appreciation for all the years they have devoted to shedding uncompromising light on the Mormon facade.
With that said as genuinely as possible, I nonetheless have a real bone to pick with Sandra Tanner. In a nutshell, she is not, in my opinion, equally as critically-minded or honest in her research of Christianity as she is of Mormonism. In other words, she cuts her own faith a break at the expense of consistent, unforgiving empirical research (and does so for personal reasons, as will be demonstrated below).
_____
--Preparing to Duel with Sandra Tanner Over Her Research Methodology and Mindset: A Close Encounter of the Christian Apologist Kind
Several years ago, I made one of my stops at the Tanner bookstore. With me at the time was my friend Maxinne Hanks--then-excommunicated Mormon, outspoken feminist, professional editor, and noted author of the book, "Women and Authority"d (who has subsequently been re-baptized, but that's a subject for another day).
After browsing through the Tanners' bookstore and making some selections, I noticed that Sandra had taken up her usual spot behind a desk next to the front door, where she would both ring out customers and engage in informal and informative discussions with her inquiring patrons.
I could not help but notice that many of the books in the Tanner establishment promote and defend both the faith and historicity of fundamentalist Christianity. The Tanners are, indeed, avowed Christians who operate their own outreach ministry and who are uncompromising apologists for their own Christian belief system.
I did not want to unnecessarily offend Sandra but had some basic questions I wished to ask her regarding her research and defense of Christianity. I knew, however, that it would be wise to approach these subjects somewhat delicately. So, as I approached her as she sat at her desk, I did so with cautious deliberation, asking the Lord's blessings to be with me (OK, maybe not that last part but I was a bit apprehensive).
_____
--Confrontation With Sandra Tanner Over Her Double Standard
As I had done many times in the past, I sincerely relayed to Sandra how much I appreciated her rigorous research on, and deconstruction of, Mormon doctrine and history. In particular, I mentioned her unparalleled contributions to exposing the Book of Mormon as a demonstrable fraud and 19-century artifact. I told her how much I respected her work in conclusively demonstrating that the Book of Mormon was pure fiction, both in its character development and its tale spinning--and that these conclusions could be amply, empirically demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to honest minds.
Sandra graciously took my compliments as I intended them. She knows she's a stellar researcher in the field of Mormon studies and that realization shows both in her carriage and her confidence.
Then I moved into what I discovered, soon enough, was a hostile minefield. I politely asked Sandra why she did not apply the same rigorous research approach, combined with a healthy dose of skepticism, to questions regarding the historicity and credibility of the Bible--at least as uncompromisingly as she did to the Book of Mormon.
As is Sandra's tendency when she senses she's facing a potential fight on her hands, she bristled and became defensive. She told me that unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible was a legitimate, historical record of actual, identifiable peoples who lived in documentable places and times--and, further, that these facts were absolutely confirmed through archaelogical research which employed the Bible as a reliable reference and field guide.
For instance, there were, she pointed out, real Israelites who lived in a real city of Jerusalem. The Bible, she reminded me, served as a valuable scientific roadmap for finding and identifying these populations and locales.
No dispute there.
However, I mentioned to Sandra that the Bible's "miracle stories"--such as Noah's Flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, Balaam's ass speaking in human tongue, Jesus walking on water and resurrecting himself and others from the dead--could not be empirically proven through any kind of scientific appeal to the Bible. That book of Christian scripture, I told her, offers no compelling, testable evidence on which to conclude that these "miracle stories" were actual, literal events.
At this point, Sandra was becoming increasingly upset. She scowled and the corners of her mouth tightened. I figured she would hit back in short order, at least figuratively. And, indeed, she did. But not before I proceeded apace, determined to get an answer, if I could, from her about what I saw as the clear double standard in her research approaches to Mormonism vs. Christianity.
I asked Sandra why she was so obviously willing to accept Biblical miracles as factual events but was not willing to similarly accept the miraculous tales found in the Book of Mormon.
_____
--Testimony-Bearing Time
Sandra looked back at me, her eyes flashing angrily. She said, and I quote:
"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."
End of discussion.
I thought I had just finished listening to a holier-than-thou Mormon bearing witness to the truthfulness of the Latter-day Saint Gospel during a fast and testimony meeting.
I went ahead and purchased my items and bid Sandra a civil good day. She graciously bid me the same. But we had definitely crossed swords--and maybe even drew a little blood.
Sandra Tanner, the invincible and impeccable crusader against all things illogical and baseless in Mormonism, had shown me a stubborn determination (born of an absolute faith-based conviction that she is unquestionably right) for believing in Christianity. The same kind of faith-based conviction that she criticizes Latter-day Saints for invoking in behalf of their unwavering belief in Mormonism.
_____
--Conclusion: Sandra Tanner and the Mormons
In so many ways, Sandra Tanner and the Mormons are fundamentally different and at insurmountable odds with one another.
But in one important respect, Sandra Tanner and the Mormons are solidly joined at the hip. They both faithfully accept their respective religions on the basis of "miracles" which defy--indeed, do not (at least in their minds) require--rational explanation or empirical proof. The kind of rational explanation or empirical proof that Sandra Tanner claims are reasons enough to reject Mormonism--but not enough to reject Christianity.
"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."
OK, Sandra, whatever you say. Mormons say the exact same thing about us, too, ya know.
This stubborn resistance by believers when confronted by faith-challenging fact is manifested in what has been called "invincible ignorance" (as evidenced with Sandra Tanner, when her personal religious convictions were challenged by scientific evidence). Resistance to one's religion of choice can manifest itself in a personal determination to stay the course, even if it takes conjuring up irrational defenses to do so.
As the Queen character in "Alice in Wonderland" tells Alice:
"I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Setting matters of faith aside, what about monetary motives? In some cases, could the imperative to criticize the Mormon Church (or any other religion, for that matter) while leaving one's religion of choice free from healthy skeptical analysis have at least some connection to personal financial incentive? I ask this because the operations of Utah Lighthouse Ministries seem to clearly benefit monetarily (in the form of religious tax-exemption and product income)--as manifested through UTLM's Christian-related activities. That possibility certainly is suggested by this Tanner evangelical pitch for donations:
"SUPPORTING 100 CHILDREN
"In the January 1985 issue of the 'Messenger,' we told of our interest in the area of world relief. We related that $1,000 had been designated "for relief work in Africa-i.e., providing food, medical relief, shelter and a demonstration of true Christian love." At that time we decided to provide monthly support for five children under the World Vision Childcare Partner plan. In the April 1986 issue of the Messenger we reported: "Because God has been so gracious in supplying all our needs, we have decided to take another step in faith. In the future we will be supporting 25 children."
"Since God has continued to bless our work in a marvelous way, we have decided to take an even larger step of faith and expand the ministry TO SUPPORT 100 CHILDREN! While we have some money designated for this work, it is basically a move made on faith that the Lord will continue to provide as the months go by. We still have our regular expenses. It is necessary that we meet these obligations so that we can continue an effective work among the Mormons. We do hope that our friends will pray earnestly about UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY and world relief. While we feel somewhat apprehensive about making this move, we know that God 'is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, . . .' (Ephesians 3:20)
"Those who are interested in helping out with this important ministry can send their tax deductible contributions to UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY, Box 1884, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110. [Web-editor: Or place a donation over the internet using our secure shopping cart]."
("Salt Lake City Messenger," #62, March 1987, capitalization in original, at: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no62.htm)
Like I said, I appreciate the Tanners for their commendable, honest and courageous historical research into the failings and falsehoods of Mormonism but when it comes to matters of consistency, they appear (at least to me) to have been unfortunately tainted by a combination of irrational faith and the prospect of supplemental cash. This can pose a problem. When one has both an emotional and financial investment in religion, it becomes doubly hard to break free.
The Tanners' petition for donations sounds like it's been taken straight out of the evangelical playbook and appears to be strangely at variance with their empirical approach to evidence on the ground against the Book of Mormon and Mormon Church claims in general. As far as I can tell, this children-program outreach is a source of income (along with bookstore sales). If they weren't pitching for money for their Christian ministry work, there would be less reason to question their objectivity about the Christian faith. I'm not saying that one cannot have genuine charitable impulses and therefore wish to donate to the needy (which is all good); but taken in the context of Sandra's personal Christian belief system, it helps explain why she's so bluntly adverse to the questioning of her own faith. Indeed, why Sandra's lack of enthusiasm for (indeed, why her indignation against) doing clinical, deep and bonafide research into Christianity claims--areas which can (and are in many respects) just as nonsensical as those of Mormonism? The point is that the Tanner outfit doesn't do (at least comparatively speaking) significant research on the Christian religion because Sandra is too personally invested in it.
In the end, Sandra invokes her "I've-had-miracles-in-my-life-and-I-feel-sorry-for-you" line, then goes about her business of using Christian outreach as a financial source--and also because she obviously wants to believe that Christianity is true. Hence, up goes the roadblock and she suddenly morphs into evangelical-Christian defense mode when even politely challenged on her paucity of decent, meaningful and historical research into Chrisitian origins, claims and history. Having been to the Tanner bookstore and seen its Christianity shelves, it is clear that--when compared to its Mormon Church stock items--the bookstore's Christian literature doesn't hold a candle big enough to light Joseph Smith's Cumorah stone box. That's because Sandra isn't interested in going there, at least in part because she's a true-believing Christian.
I am convinced that Sandra's miracle-minded, Christianity-devoted heart gets in the way of her empirically-minded, hard-nosed head when it comes to seriously investigating the basic claims of Christianity. This double standard does nothing, in my opinion, for her credibility, especially when that credibility rests on a willingness and ability to go where the facts lead. Sandra's split-view on Mormonism vs. Christianity is reason to question her approach to Christian studies, given her stubborn faith-based commitment to it that appears to be impervious to reason, science and legitimate investigation.
_____
Below are some RfM responses to the original post:
--RfM poster "Greyfort":
"You've basically just described the never-ending clashes between the still-religious/spiritual and those who have rejected religion entirely on this forum.
"Those of us who have rejected religion entirely can't understand how one can develop new critical-thinking skills and just stop after demolishing Mormonism in their minds. How do you not go on to study the Bible with the same critical eye?
"The other side can't understand how we can go on to throw out the baby with the bathwater. How does one go from being a devout Mormon, to not being religious at all? That's quite a leap. I understand that.
"I guess maybe there is no solution to this issue. The only thing left is to do what you did with Sandra. 'Well, you have a nice day.'"
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049109#msg-1049109
--RfM poster "Alpiner":
"The problem with miracles is that, even when something inexplicable occurs, people try to ascribe it to their preferred deity. You also introduce the problem--why are you so special, you get miracles, when many others die or lead terrible lives but live by the same beliefs?
"You're stuck either with the idea that your deity is capricious, or that somehow your deity loves you more than others.
"I can live with having inexplicable phenomenon. I can't abide them being ascribed to Jesus."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049121#msg-1049121
--RfM poster "anagrammy":
"I am not the least bit surprised at Sandra's response.
"It is her choice to question or not question Christianity after leaving Mormonism. She clearly has chosen not to go in that direction and respecting her decision is part of being polite.
"As you well know, her niche in the ex-Mo world is that of a pioneer at a time when the only public ex-Mormon voice was Ed Decker. She and Jerald singlehandedly earned the respect, albeit grudging, when they failed to authenticate the Salamander Letter even when the Church itself was already issuing an apologetic.
"Sandra and Jerald Tanner refused to lie for their Lord when a great temptation was before them. I have nothing but admiration for them.
"People join and stay with religion for emotional reasons, as you well know. These are complex. A full recovery from Mormonism includes the willingness to accept wholeheartedly that others who believe differently than you are worthy of your respect."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049172#msg-1049172
--RfM poster "ozpoof":
" . . . [N]o one knows what happens to conscience after death, but that doesn't mean you should believe in nonsense to make you feel better.
"Maybe there is a God like being out there. What is certain is the stories in the Bible are man-made and denigrate any loving and powerful deity."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049151#msg-1049151
--RfM poster "snuckafoodberry":
"One thing that people need to understand: Religion has a fierce grip on some of us. Please try and be understanding. What seems easy to you does not come easy to everyone. You are told something your whole life. Christianity is an easier transition for some people to make than moving right into atheism. Atheism feels like defeat. It is saying you won't live on. It is saying Jesus whom you have prayed to your whole life really isn't there. For me personally, I'm just not brave enough to say that. It has a really tight grip on me and I can't let go of that. There is hell to consider. A really firey hot place. And no one to care this whole time. To protect me and my family and watch over us."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049158#msg-1049158
RfM poster "rhgc":
"1. Certain 'miracles' in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally.
"2. Other miracles did and do occur, I believe.
"3. There is a difference in accepting miracles from a work which is not proven--such an out-and-out fraud as the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, etc. While I, for one, do not take stories from the Bible as literally true, I do find certain value in those same stories and can separate the wheat from the chaff and remain a believer in Christ.
"4. I recognize that the rigor I apply to some things is not the same as for other things. Basically, I acknowledge that while some things (definitely almost all) can be shown true or false, there are some, fortunately few, which are a matter of faith. My test is one which is one that if something can be proven by science or definite physical evidence, one cannot then rely on belief. The matter of Mo'ism is such that the evidence in the negative is such as to remove it from the realm of allowing a belief 'override.'"
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049190#msg-1049190
--RfM poster "hanger18":
"The fact that Sandra got so defensive and borderline hostile seems like there is quite a bit of cog-dis going on within her. Deep down she is probably well aware that the Bible crumbles just as easily as any Mormon scripture when thoroughly examined; she just refuses to go there due to all the Christian groups sending grants and donations her way. Hmmm, seems very similar to an LDS apostle."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049213#msg-1049213
--RfM poster "ddt":
"It is interesting to see the Christian/Judeo Fear Paradigm at work. People are afraid to admit there's no such thing as god. They were programmed as kids to fear a made-up god and even as adults they are still frightened by it.
"This is a testament to the power of indoctrination of young minds. It is one of the greatest evils in the world."
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1049085,1049218#msg-1049218
Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:27AM by steve benson.
I totally get your criticism of their hypocrisy regarding believing in the Bible but you also compare their work to the church and their profit motive.
I don't really like that comparison. I have a difficult time believing that the Tanners were simply just trying to make big bucks by exposing LDS Inc. While they do sell their books I have always been impressed by how cheap they sell them for. They have done a TREMENDOUS amount of research on Mormonism and they have provided SO MUCH research at an extremely discounted rate. They intentionally sell most of their books in cheap softcover versions at very low rates. You can buy Mormonism-Shadow or Reality for like $18 or something, which, for the volume of material anyway, normally would sell at $50 at a bookstore if published by a regular publisher.
You get a 80 page piece of crap by someone like Ed Decker selling at Barnes and Nobles for $25 and then you have the Tanners selling 600 pages worth of real research for a fraction a fraction of the price, so I have a hard time criticizing them for profit motive. I think they deserve every penny they get. They have devoted their time to real research and they should be compensated for the great work that they do. I don't they make much money anyway.
BTW I'm drunk and in a rush to go out so I'm sure you can nitpick this post pretty easily.
I don't really like that comparison. I have a difficult time believing that the Tanners were simply just trying to make big bucks by exposing LDS Inc. While they do sell their books I have always been impressed by how cheap they sell them for. They have done a TREMENDOUS amount of research on Mormonism and they have provided SO MUCH research at an extremely discounted rate. They intentionally sell most of their books in cheap softcover versions at very low rates. You can buy Mormonism-Shadow or Reality for like $18 or something, which, for the volume of material anyway, normally would sell at $50 at a bookstore if published by a regular publisher.
You get a 80 page piece of crap by someone like Ed Decker selling at Barnes and Nobles for $25 and then you have the Tanners selling 600 pages worth of real research for a fraction a fraction of the price, so I have a hard time criticizing them for profit motive. I think they deserve every penny they get. They have devoted their time to real research and they should be compensated for the great work that they do. I don't they make much money anyway.
BTW I'm drunk and in a rush to go out so I'm sure you can nitpick this post pretty easily.
(By the way, I've gone back and wrapped the following into my post at the top of this thread).
When one has both an emotional and financial investment in religion, it becomes doubly hard to break free.
The Tanners' petition for donations sounds like it's been taken straight out of the evangelical playbook and appears to be strangely at variance with their empirical approach to evidence on the ground against the Book of Mormon and Mormon Church claims in general. As far as I can tell, this is their source of income (along with bookstore sales). If they weren't pitching for money for their Christian ministry work, there would be less reason to question their objectivity.
I'm not saying that one cannot have genuine charitable impulses and therefore wish to donate to the needy (which is all good); but taken in the context of Sandra's personal Christian belief system, it helps explain why she's so bluntly adverse to the questioning of her own faith. Indeed, why Sandra's lack of enthusiasm for (indeed, why her indignation against) doing clinical, deep and bonafide research into Christianity claims--areas which can (and are in many respects) just as nonsensical as those of Mormonism? The point is that (to use your phrase) the Tanner outfit doesn't do "real research" on Christianity because Sandra is too personally invested in it.
In the end, Sandra invokes her "I've-had-miracles-in-my-life-and-I-feel-sorry-for-you" line, then goes about her business of using Christian outreach as a financial source--and also because she obviously wants to believe that Christianity is true. Hence, up goes the roadblock and she suddenly morphs into evangelical-Christian defense mode when even politely challenged on her paucity of decent, meaningful and historical research into Chrisitian origins, claims and history. I have been to the Tanner bookstore and its Christianity shelves (when compared to their Mormon Church stock items), don't hold a candle big enough to light Joseph Smith's Cumorah stone box. That's because Sandra isn't interested in going there, at least in part because she's a true-believing Christian.
It is irrelevant that Decker charges more for his religious products. Sandra is in the money, too, in her own way--based, I am convinced, on where her "miracle-minded" heart is when it comes to Christianity. This double standard does nothing, in my opinion, for her credibility, especially when that credibility rests on a willingness and ability to go where the facts lead. Sandra's split-view on Mormonism vs. Christianity is reason to question her approach to Christian studies, given her stubborn faith-based commitment to it that appears to be impervious to reason, science and legitimate investigation.
_____
As to your concern, this isn't nitpicking at all. This is basic rationality.
Getting drunk isn't exactly rational, especially if you're heading out to drive. Hope you're smarter than that and have made arrangements for someone to haul you around.
Edited 23 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:12AM by steve benson.
When one has both an emotional and financial investment in religion, it becomes doubly hard to break free.
The Tanners' petition for donations sounds like it's been taken straight out of the evangelical playbook and appears to be strangely at variance with their empirical approach to evidence on the ground against the Book of Mormon and Mormon Church claims in general. As far as I can tell, this is their source of income (along with bookstore sales). If they weren't pitching for money for their Christian ministry work, there would be less reason to question their objectivity.
I'm not saying that one cannot have genuine charitable impulses and therefore wish to donate to the needy (which is all good); but taken in the context of Sandra's personal Christian belief system, it helps explain why she's so bluntly adverse to the questioning of her own faith. Indeed, why Sandra's lack of enthusiasm for (indeed, why her indignation against) doing clinical, deep and bonafide research into Christianity claims--areas which can (and are in many respects) just as nonsensical as those of Mormonism? The point is that (to use your phrase) the Tanner outfit doesn't do "real research" on Christianity because Sandra is too personally invested in it.
In the end, Sandra invokes her "I've-had-miracles-in-my-life-and-I-feel-sorry-for-you" line, then goes about her business of using Christian outreach as a financial source--and also because she obviously wants to believe that Christianity is true. Hence, up goes the roadblock and she suddenly morphs into evangelical-Christian defense mode when even politely challenged on her paucity of decent, meaningful and historical research into Chrisitian origins, claims and history. I have been to the Tanner bookstore and its Christianity shelves (when compared to their Mormon Church stock items), don't hold a candle big enough to light Joseph Smith's Cumorah stone box. That's because Sandra isn't interested in going there, at least in part because she's a true-believing Christian.
It is irrelevant that Decker charges more for his religious products. Sandra is in the money, too, in her own way--based, I am convinced, on where her "miracle-minded" heart is when it comes to Christianity. This double standard does nothing, in my opinion, for her credibility, especially when that credibility rests on a willingness and ability to go where the facts lead. Sandra's split-view on Mormonism vs. Christianity is reason to question her approach to Christian studies, given her stubborn faith-based commitment to it that appears to be impervious to reason, science and legitimate investigation.
_____
As to your concern, this isn't nitpicking at all. This is basic rationality.
Getting drunk isn't exactly rational, especially if you're heading out to drive. Hope you're smarter than that and have made arrangements for someone to haul you around.
Edited 23 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:12AM by steve benson.
Nope, no drinking and driving for me. Me, my wife and friend pre-loaded and had called a cab to go out last night.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:11PM by steve benson.
Interesting take on Sandra Tanner. I have always been wary of the sites that are critical of Moism yet espouse their own form of mythology, including the Tanners who seem to be immune from criticism from ex-Mos. Christian sites have an agenda to convert you to evangelical Christianity, which is just as perverse as the Mo nonsense.
I have never been in the Tanner's bookstore, nor met either of them. However, like you Steve, I found some of their writings very helpful to me in the pre-internet days when I was young and eager for honest information about the church. They really helped me journey out of the church. I did, however, take a different path than Sandra. I could not understand how she could go from Mormon to literal Bible believing Christian. I had to question everything or wasn't being honest with myself.
I haven trouble with the concept of "respecting" all beliefs. Perhaps it is just the word "respect." I agree with anagrammy that we should be polite to others and their beliefs, but "respecect"? I am not sure that is the right word. If I am being honest, I don't respect the intellectual honesty she has used with her Biblical beliefs as much as I respect the intellectual honesty with which she examined the Book of Mormon, for example. How could I? She's used emotion by her own admission, not logic. Do I respect Joseph Smith because he "feels" called by God? No. Do I respect the street preacher while he's ranting at me about the end of the world? No. Do I respect Sandra Tanner's Christian beliefs? No. Because she has not applied the same logical scrutiny to them that she applies to Mormonism. But I do defend her right to believe them and even make money off people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 07:59AM by sofia.
I haven trouble with the concept of "respecting" all beliefs. Perhaps it is just the word "respect." I agree with anagrammy that we should be polite to others and their beliefs, but "respecect"? I am not sure that is the right word. If I am being honest, I don't respect the intellectual honesty she has used with her Biblical beliefs as much as I respect the intellectual honesty with which she examined the Book of Mormon, for example. How could I? She's used emotion by her own admission, not logic. Do I respect Joseph Smith because he "feels" called by God? No. Do I respect the street preacher while he's ranting at me about the end of the world? No. Do I respect Sandra Tanner's Christian beliefs? No. Because she has not applied the same logical scrutiny to them that she applies to Mormonism. But I do defend her right to believe them and even make money off people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 07:59AM by sofia.
When we say "I respect your beliefs," it is understood that this does not mean you agree with the beliefs.
What it connotes (not denotes) is that you respect the right of the person to exercise/express their beliefs regardless of the opinions of others.
Anagrammy
What it connotes (not denotes) is that you respect the right of the person to exercise/express their beliefs regardless of the opinions of others.
Anagrammy
"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you." Got an early-season chill reading that.
In a book I once read of the nearly weekly occurrence 2,000 years back of Jerusalem's dead popping fresh out of their burial tombs.
No religious person I know ever prays for a real miracle. Like Jonas Salk coming back. Or Ben Franklin. Or a Cub World Series winner.
Even the privately deluded don't want to become public dodos.
In a book I once read of the nearly weekly occurrence 2,000 years back of Jerusalem's dead popping fresh out of their burial tombs.
No religious person I know ever prays for a real miracle. Like Jonas Salk coming back. Or Ben Franklin. Or a Cub World Series winner.
Even the privately deluded don't want to become public dodos.
Have you never had anything "supernatural" happen to you?
Like have you had a dream that came true? Intense spiritual feelings while saying a prayer? Heard a voice in your mind? etc...
Some of us have.
Just because mormonism is a damaging cult doesn't discount connecting with Jesus through faith. It is all about faith. It only works with faith. That is how it operates. That is how it operated and that is how it will operate.
Mormonism isn't about Jesus as the central focus. It is about controlling old men taking advantage of its members and having them create in its members an emotional connection to the church/cult, not Jesus.
Like have you had a dream that came true? Intense spiritual feelings while saying a prayer? Heard a voice in your mind? etc...
Some of us have.
Just because mormonism is a damaging cult doesn't discount connecting with Jesus through faith. It is all about faith. It only works with faith. That is how it operates. That is how it operated and that is how it will operate.
Mormonism isn't about Jesus as the central focus. It is about controlling old men taking advantage of its members and having them create in its members an emotional connection to the church/cult, not Jesus.
6 iron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just because mormonism is a damaging cult doesn't
> discount connecting with Jesus through faith. It
> is all about faith. It only works with faith. That
> is how it operates. That is how it operated and
> that is how it will operate.
>
Faith? Faith? Who needs faith? I want some hard-ass evidence. There is little to no evidence of your Jebus. If you need an invisible friend to get through life, you are a bit delusional and irrational.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just because mormonism is a damaging cult doesn't
> discount connecting with Jesus through faith. It
> is all about faith. It only works with faith. That
> is how it operates. That is how it operated and
> that is how it will operate.
>
Faith? Faith? Who needs faith? I want some hard-ass evidence. There is little to no evidence of your Jebus. If you need an invisible friend to get through life, you are a bit delusional and irrational.
A dream coming true is not a "supernatural" event. It is simply coincidental. What about the uncounted, forgotten, non-memorable, thousands of dreams that never come true? People tend to focus on the ones that do, ascribing special meaning to them while ignoring all the duds.
As for Sandra Tanner's "miracles," she can go ahead and "feel sorry" for me that I haven't had wondrous "miracles" in my life like she says she's had that guided her to a personal embrace of Christianity. Maybe Sandra's "miracles" are just "too sacred" to trot out in any substantive, examinable way as proof of her claim. That's a convenient cul-do-sac conversion story, if I ever heard one. (And one hears such stories a lot).
Ascribing voices in one's head or answers to one's prayers to divine communication are just as easily chalked up to imaginative, wishful thinking that attaches miraculous meaning to phenomena that don't deserve it. Major scientific studies have been conducted, for instance, that show no meaningful correlation between wellness/survival rates among hospital patients and intercessory prayers offered in their behalf.
Finally, recall what RfM poster "Alpiner" astutely observed about events that are not always explainable (at least in the moment) by natural means:
"The problem with miracles is that, even when something inexplicable occurs, people try to ascribe it to their preferred deity. You also introduce the problem--why are you so special, you get miracles, when many others die or lead terrible lives but live by the same beliefs?
"You're stuck either with the idea that your deity is capricious, or that somehow your deity loves you more than others.
"I can live with having inexplicable phenomenon. I can't abide them being ascribed to Jesus."
Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 04:29PM by steve benson.
As for Sandra Tanner's "miracles," she can go ahead and "feel sorry" for me that I haven't had wondrous "miracles" in my life like she says she's had that guided her to a personal embrace of Christianity. Maybe Sandra's "miracles" are just "too sacred" to trot out in any substantive, examinable way as proof of her claim. That's a convenient cul-do-sac conversion story, if I ever heard one. (And one hears such stories a lot).
Ascribing voices in one's head or answers to one's prayers to divine communication are just as easily chalked up to imaginative, wishful thinking that attaches miraculous meaning to phenomena that don't deserve it. Major scientific studies have been conducted, for instance, that show no meaningful correlation between wellness/survival rates among hospital patients and intercessory prayers offered in their behalf.
Finally, recall what RfM poster "Alpiner" astutely observed about events that are not always explainable (at least in the moment) by natural means:
"The problem with miracles is that, even when something inexplicable occurs, people try to ascribe it to their preferred deity. You also introduce the problem--why are you so special, you get miracles, when many others die or lead terrible lives but live by the same beliefs?
"You're stuck either with the idea that your deity is capricious, or that somehow your deity loves you more than others.
"I can live with having inexplicable phenomenon. I can't abide them being ascribed to Jesus."
Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 04:29PM by steve benson.
To expect a supernatural being to suspend the laws of nature for one believer but he is neither interested in or capable of performing a miracle for another is just egotistical absurdity. Where, for instance, was this god when, a board favorite, Elizabeth Smart was being kidnapped, threatened and raped? Or when the god of the three young girls in Ohio while they were chained and raped for a decade? Their god is either impotent or callous and unsympathetic. Or the pleas of millions being prayed for right now for intercedence into their disease or illness? Why won't their whimsical god suspend nature's laws for them?
Why doesn't he? Because he loves you.
I want no part of this fictional Jebus or Yahweh or whomever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 06:41PM by No Mo.
Why doesn't he? Because he loves you.
I want no part of this fictional Jebus or Yahweh or whomever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 06:41PM by No Mo.
+1
It seems fairly clear to me that her's is a simple case of compartmentalization. She has one section of her brain for her christian belief system, and the rest of it (at least the logical part) for everything else. Pretty much what Mormons do. But it is strange when someone can break free from this problem with Mormonism, but continues with Christianity.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2013 08:09PM by steve benson.