That moment came when she got cross with me as we crossed swords over Christianity and its purported miracles.

A previous RfM thread asking believing posters to explain how they know of God's alleged existence brought my encounter with Sandra to mind.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,365962
_____


First, let me say, though, 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-fueled 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 Mecca-like 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.
_____


--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--excommunicated Mormon, outspoken feminist, professional editor, and noted author of the book, "Women and Authority."

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.

Sandra Tanner's a genteel woman who lives by faith. If she professes to have been the recipient of miracles in her lifetime, I believe her. Because I have too.

That's proof enough to people who live by faith there's a God above.

As for who's being hypocritical, it isn't Sandra.

She told you straight out she felt sorry for you. That's about as honest as it gets.

Did you tell her to her face she's a hypocrite? I imagine if you had, she would've shown you the door.

Which one of you wasn't being truthful?

God witnesses to people of all religions and persuasions. Mahatma Ghandi witnessed miracles occur during his lifetime, and was a man who walked and lived by faith.

You wouldn't understand, but that in no way, shape, or form makes a faith believing person in God a hypocrite.

On miracles, Ghandi had this to say:

"Miracles
I do [believe in miracles] and I do not. God does not work through miracles. But the divine mind is revealed in a flash and it appears like a miracle to man. We do not know God, we know Him only through the working of His law. He and His law are one. There is nothing outside His law. Even earthquakes and tempests do not occur without His will--not a blade of grass grows but He will it. Satan is here only on His sufferance, not independently of Him. (H, 7-4-1946, pp75-76)

Man cannot be transformed from bad to good overnight. God does not exercise magic. He too is within His own law. His law, however, is different from the law of the State. There may be mistakes in the latter, but God cannot err. If he were to go beyond the limits of His law, the world will be lost. (H, 19-5-1946, p136)

History provides us with a whole series of miracles of masses of people being converted to a particular view-point in the twinkling of an eye. Take the Boer War. It has given to the English language the word 'Maffeking'. People went mad on the Maffeking Day. Yet, inside of two years, the whole British nation underwent a transformation. Henry Campbell Bannerman became the Premier and practically all the gains of war were given up. The recent Labour victory at the polls is another instance in point. To me it is a sufficient miracle that, in spite of his oratory and brilliance, Churchill should cease to be the idol of the British people who till yesterday hung on his lips and listened to him in awe. All these instances are enough to sustain the faith of a believer like me that, when all other powers are gone one will remain, call it God, Nature or whatever you like. (H, 10-11-1946, p389)"

http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_god_meaning.htm

... Mormonism.

That is a double standard. Sounds like it's you who doesn't understand. At least I am willing to admit that all religions are, in someway or another, systemically irrational.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 10:56AM by steve benson.

It must be really special to feel that you have a deeper understanding of the world than Mahatma Gandhi.

I would beg to differ with him on certain matters.

For instance, like drinking one's own urine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:01AM by steve benson.

1) The Tanners did incredible work that exposed truth about TSCC, and many people have benefited from what they have done.

2) Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, no matter how illogical those beliefs may seem to me.

Having said that...I must say that I have been confused (dumbfounded, really) by people like Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer, and others who can be so determined in their efforts to find and expose the truth about the LDS church, and yet take a 180 degree different approach when it comes to applying logic, skepticism, and critical thinking when it comes to Christianity.

and people also have the right to question people's beliefs. If they don't, then where in the hell did RfM come from?

That said, I also think your final assessment above about Sandra Tanner is spot on.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 09:11AM by steve benson.

Not that he even existed but, hey, since we're talking about religious beliefs ...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 08:42AM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 09:10AM by steve benson.

Wow, the believers sure do get pissed off (where's the love Jesus supposedly taught?) when someone points out hypocrisy in "belief."

Not that I'm surprised by that at all.

Keep on keepin' on, Steve.

Go figure.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:20AM by steve benson.

Nobody's perfect. If she has another faith, what does it matter as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. The amount of suffering the TSCC inflicts on members may cause more resignations than the fact that it's a lie.

This is minor when weighed against how she's contributed to society.

Not that I agree with her reaction. As a curious person, I probably would have asked the same question. I'm just not feeling the impact as much because I wasn't there.

Odd that you accept benson's characterisation of what happened without questioning his integrity or intellect. I do. He has a reputation as a monster ego who lives for flaming people who do not agree with him. His perspective on his interaction with any of the Tanners is coloured by his hatred and is therefore suspect.

And as for you. Before the internet, who did you go to when you were swimming in doubts and needed a reality check? Who had the documents? Who had the research? I'll tell you who, Sandra and Jerald Tanner. They do not deserve contempt from anyone let alone the forum that is predicated on their historic efforts.

It is a tiny prick of a man who attacks the honesty of a good person who helped thousands of people in a medium where the Tanners are not participating in the discussion. It's called character assassination.

It must've been something I did in the pre-existence.

Thou shalt not question inconsistency, hypocrisy, smugness and/or hypocrisy.

Sandra for Sainthood!

Stevie for Satanhood!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 09:56AM by steve benson.

WHEREARETHEMODERATORS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has a reputation as a
> monster ego who lives for flaming people who do
> not agree with him.

He doesn't have that reputation as far as I'm concerned.
And if I were you, I'd be worried about what your posts are doing to your "reputation." Just a thought.

> And as for you. Before the internet, who did you
> go to when you were swimming in doubts and needed
> a reality check?

I did my own damn research. I never heard of the Tanners until I'd been out of mormonism for 15+ years.

They did some good, critical research on mormonism. It didn't help me leave, but it did help others. Steve clearly stated it helped him. That fact isn't being challenged.

The point was that they didn't apply that same kind of good, critical research to their new "faith." It's inconsistent. It's hypocritical. Pointing that out doesn't diminish the good work they did on mormonism. Try thinking that one through, instead of calling Steve (and others) names.

> It is a tiny prick of a man who attacks the
> honesty of a good person who helped thousands of
> people...It's called
> character assassination.

Pot, meet kettle.

It's established fact that she has a new faith, and lots of different people get defensive the way Steve described, so her reaction is plausible.

OTOH while accusing me of making a false assumption, you made a false assumption about how I discovered the truth about TSCC. I'm a nevermo who has learned about Mormons, like a few others on these boards.

So you want me to do as you say, but not as you do?

Thanks for making my point. You found the truth about Mormons on the internet. Before the internet, we had the Tanners. Both Jerald and Sandra Tanner are reputable researchers who did the yeoman's job of discrediting TSCC BEFORE this forum.

Point out where I said I learned about Mormons on the internet. And don't try to deflect -- you want me to do as you say and not as you do?

Your point isn't/wasn't clear; your posts have been all over the map and nonsensical.

in an attempt to get the the Mod Gods to napalm this thread. Mercy!

That does not, however, immunize the Tanners from being directly and honestly questioned on the criteria which they use (or, in this case, don't use) when defending their faith.

They certainly have relentlessly and harshly questioned/attacked the dearly-held faith of Mormons, yet, they don't apply the same standard of stringent empirical proof to their own religious preference as they do to the religious preferences of Mormons.

Indeed, in Sandra's case, she ultimately fell back on faith (just like devout Mirmons do) when I asked her how she defends the supposed reality of the Bible's miracle tales.

To be sure, when she couldn't defend them factually, she went into testimony mode (just like believing Mormons do).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 10:54AM by steve benson.

wherearethemoderators Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for making my point. You found the truth
> about Mormons on the internet.

Like GG, I didn't say anything about the internet either. And I left long before there *was* an internet.

Not that any of that matters...you keep insisting that the "good" the Tanners have done makes them immune to any criticism. Which is not just ridiculous, but dogmatic nonsense.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 10:02AM by steve benson.

Another strawman.

RFM is a forum where folks are constantly pointing out the aggravating imperfections of religious systems, their believers and their thinking patterns.

But dare gore somebody's sacred cow and, suddenly, some demand this place become a worshipful chapel and the heretics be thrown out.

Lordy! Grab thy swordy!

What do you call an egocentric person with no empathy for others and who appears incapable of feeling remorse or guilt? Another clue: When you challenge their ad hominem attacks on another, you become their next target.


In my opinion, the OP.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 09:57AM by steve benson.

Wherearethemoderators Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you
> challenge their ad hominem attacks on another, you
> become their next target.

You don't seem to know what "ad hominem" means.
Insulting someone, calling them names, whatever isn't "ad hominem." Not that Steve insulted Sandra or called her names anyway (he didn't).

An "ad hominem" is when you claim that someone's claims or argument is wrong *because* of personality traits you don't like.

"You're a pig" isn't an ad-hominem.

"Your claim is wrong because you're a pig" is.

Hie wrote:

An "ad hominem" is when you claim that someone's claims or argument is wrong *because* of personality traits you don't like.

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

Kinda like your attacks on Steve because you think he's egotistical, etc.

That's coming from someone who doesn't entirely agree with him.

A COW? Who is the sexist pig?

Not a cow. A good woman.

"Definition of 'sacred cow': One that is often unreasonably immune from criticism or opposition"

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)


"'Sacred cow'

"Define 'Sacred cow' at Dictionary.com

"Dictionary.com › browse › sacred-cow

"A person or thing immune to criticism or questioning, as in 'The rules governing the press conference have become a sacred cow in this administration.'

"This term alludes to the honored status of cows in Hinduism, where they are a symbol of God's generosity to humankind. It has been used figuratively since about 1900."
------


Quit mixing your cows with your pigs.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 10:29AM by steve benson.

Sexist pig: someone who portrays an intelligent female researcher as a hypocritical, dishonest, thin skinned and incapable of justifying her belief system in a hit and run forum post.

does not cover your ignorance of the definitional term, "sacred cow."

Nice attempt at "recovery," though.

Check the definition again. I went back and added some information on the historical origins of the phrase.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 10:24AM by steve benson.

The OP is a vain attempt to portray a respected female researcher as a dishonest ninny incapable of defending her self, replete with characterisations as to her face and demeanour. Sexist pig.

You're giving sacred cows a bad name.

As to your puerile name-calling, sticks and stones may break my bones but that's all you've got: sticks and stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:42AM by steve benson.

... and let us just criticize the Book of Mormon! After all, Sandra Tanner says so!"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 09:48AM by steve benson.

This is "Recovery From Mormonism"

If you really want "Recovery From Christianity", it's down the web...somewhere...

The OP was certainly entitled to initiate a discussion with Sandra Tanner. An important part of life is the communication of ideas and the airing of differences. Sandra responded. She was as entitled to do that as the OP was to initiate the discussion.

The two parties (one a born again Christian--the other a non-believer) disagreed on whether or not the Bible can be taken entirely as the word of God or not. Nothing new there. That debate probably dates back to just a few moments after someone said, "He look, y'all...Jesus just turned the water into wine!" during the wedding feast at Cana. Obviously, some of the guests believed that he had. Others likely felt that the claim was a hoax.

What I am not clear on is why the OP chose to share his private discussion with Tanner in this public forum.

What has been gained?

Miracles explain nothing. They are as useful as religious testimony.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Roberts

The Tanners were not the first people to have qualms with some of the issues with the church. To claim they were the first to do what they did is I suspect not wholly accurate.

Someone feel free to discredit this claim. I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, maybe there really wasn't anyone else besides the Tanners who did what they did, but I have a hard time believing that there weren't any other people before the Tanners who did Research into Mormon history.

The name Fawn McKay Brodie also comes to mind.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(journal)

Doesn't dialogue also predate the Tanners research? I know the things I mentioned aren't the same as what the Tanners did, but they all raised questions and challenged the status quo within Mormonism of not questioning church leaders or church history, at least that is my understanding.

This is not meant as a criticism of the Tanners at all. The research they did was remarkable and like many of the people here I credit them, along with people like Richard Packham and Steve Benson with helping me research my way out of the church. Really, I credit the information age and the internet and the associated internet community that must have been fledgling back in 2004 when I started researching the church. Maybe it was more established then I realized, but whatever it was, it was enough to destroy whatever small testimony I had when I realized everything the church was telling me was a lie, a half-truth, or a distortion.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:20AM by midwestanon.

Fawn Brodie's book was one of the first I read, along with the one by Valeen Tippetts Avery and Linda Newman.

But it was UTLM that introduced me to the world of opinions, facts, and hearsay on the other side of Mormonism.

Getting ahold of one of their brochures was a "forbidden fruit," in my early adulthood. It would lead us astray, we were warned by our leaders.

Didn't want to apostasize. Then when TSHF, I was like no wonder it was carefully kept hidden from view. Of course. Now with the Internet Highway, it's all available to the average truth seeker without even needing to go to the public library. (My reads were checked out of my university library, before there was Internet as we know it.)

The Tanners were the first real people I had heard of who had the guts to do what they did. That they've empowered thousands of others like me to go forward in courage without fear in leaving the cult, is what I owe them a debt of gratitude for. And a big thank you for just "being there," as they've been now for more than 50 years.

Her and Jerald are my post-Mormon version heroes equal to Dale Evans and Roy Rogers, of television fame. That was before your time, but someone I loved from my early childhood.

She's a gutsy lady, and has been for all of her life.

While I could never read all of the literature they offer on their website, I'm glad it's there as reference material for those who can. Sandra must have an insatiable appetite for learning and amassing large amounts of information, because that's what she's dedicated her life to doing - to help others like herself. I don't see her as proselytizing her Christianity so much as condemning Mormonism.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:23AM by Amyjo.

Comparing Mormonism to Christianity is too much of a stretch. They are 2 different entities.

We all agree here that Mormonism is fraudulent. There are no proofs and there is whitewashing, spin, omitting... Joseph Smith can't be trusted because he lies. He is an unreliable witness. Mormonism also has no ideology, except may be for we are the one and only and do Mormon stuff and be blessed with wealth. The BofM doesn't compare to the OT because the main premise of the OT is animal sacrifice, the BofM only mentions that in passing

Christianity actually has ideology that couldn't be created by man. Humans in power always have a trail of taking advantage. Like JS and his female followers. The money!! Even the chief priests, Scribes and Pharisees needed the perks. The admiration, fame, power of the leaders. Jesus said to help those in need, without self bragging. We do good works to glorify heaven, not ourselves. The leader is the servant, He washed his apostles feet. Boasting how you keep commandments is wrong, but bowing your head and asking forgiveness is of Christ. Turn the other cheek implies don't play the victimizing game. Mormonism does actively promote This ideology.

Also all Jews know they are named after a guy named Judah. Jews still celebrate Passover. That has been going on for thousands of years. We know where Jerusalem is, nobody knows where Zarahemla is.

But connecting to the heavens requires humility and faith. If you are an egocentric, prideful person, chances are you won't be able to connect. You also have to expose yourself to truth, and your spirit will be drawn to it. There is some truth in Mormonism because of good living and Christian beliefs, so Mormons do connect. But the problem with Mormonism is the lies and incorrect ideology damages self esteem and relationships.

Just because Mormonism is fraudulent does mean anything religious is. They are 2 vastly different entities and need two vastly different discussions

That should have said Mormonism DOESN'T actively promote...

1. Can you explain the purely natural origin of self-replicating life on earth without expressing a statement of faith akin to "science will explain this one day?"

2. What is your scientific basis for dismissing all supernatural events? If you wish to claim they can be dismissed due to the lack of evidence, the ability to observe or scientifically test these events, please revisit the previous question.

3. If you're unable to completely and scientifically answer the previous two questions, in exactly what way are you any different than Sandra Tanner, who you describe as holding on to a belief "born of an absolute faith-based conviction that she is unquestionably right?"