huckelberry wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:49 pm
Kishkumen, I can see good sense in your comments. I am unable to shake a bit of caution about the Tanners. Perhaps they are committed to questioning the authority claims of the SLC LDS to an extent that they may be a bit unquestioning about some uncertain materials they share. Well considering the salamander affair they do do some good questioning.
As Sandra pointed out, they took the documents already circulating underground and made them more available. They were pretty cautious and they did very much care about the authenticity of the materials they shared. They did not want to rely on falsehoods and fakes to appear to win against the Mormons in the short run.
I doubt they feel an obligation to review all material questioning their beliefs or make that a part of their business. There is no shortage of such material in the world.
It sounds to me like they are very happy with their current beliefs, and I say more power to them as far as that goes.
I gather you have positive interest in some ideas in early Mormonism and feel that they have value separate from those literal claims that the Tanners focus on questioning. I can at least relate to that . I do not see much consideration of such basic faith ideas in the Tanner materials . One could feel an empty place there.
I gave a paper or two at Sunstone that piqued the interest of Sandra Tanner and Ronald Huggins, two people I like and respect. I just don't share their views. When I was speaking about controversial topics, such as magic, they saw in what I was saying an opportunity to affirm their own negative views of Mormonism. One or both of them thinks that Mormonism is just a fraud and probably demonically inspired.
OK.
Fair enough.
But nothing I want to assist them in promoting because I don't agree with their views about esotericism. Yes, Smith was into magic and Freemasonry. That does not make him demonically manipulated, however. They have a tendency to lump esotericism in with Satanism, and I just don't think that is correct.
I might think that boiling Christianity down to sola scriptura and sola fides is in danger of poring off the substance and keeping the dregs.
The Christian landscape is very complicated. What a rich tradition or set of traditions! I say let people follow the religions that speak to their desire for meaning. To say that one tradition or another is evil is a gross oversimplification or distortion that I can't get on board with. The effort of the Tanners does fall in a tradition of anti-catholicism, anti-Masonry, and anti other religious traditions.
I am probably not a good Christian because I do not believe in groups calling their competitors demon worshipers like St. Paul and the heresiologists of old did. Such bigotry is unfortunately very much part of the Christian tradition.