On Sandra Tanner and "Enemies of Mormonism"

[_Meadowchik]

As I saw it and read it I figured Kishkumen was suggesting it is quite good there is room enough to speak about topics from competing perspectives. I did not see him denouncing Sandra Tanner and I think his clarification makes that clear.

I also don't see that as suggesting anyone really likes to see competing sides, particularly as things get ugly. But in another way competing sides on any given issue is a really good thing. Without them it's really hard to step back and view things differently, its hard to question your own approach on any given issue or topic. And it's way too easy to get carried away, make rules that hurt people or view others as demons (shout out to Midgley), if you don't consider the opposite side.

TO me the real problem here is labeling each other. It's hard to do. I mean it's almost silly to imagine we proceed in life without doing it. Once you label someone you create a category, if it isn't already created, and suddenly that person so labeled gets limited to whatever the biases towards that label are. THe labeling itself doesn't seem so bad or harmful, well for the most part, but it's what it does to our minds when we start seeing people as categoried (Look at that, just made up a word). Its tough to avoid, we're somehow inherently programmed to see the world in categories and to base our thought processes on summed up clichés on what those categories are and mean.

Yes, I think the labelling is a thought-stopping action. It's so much harder to manage uncertainty and labels help provide certainty.

[_Meadowchik]

Agreed. Not sure why the dig on Sandra, or maybe please clarify, Kish.

Sandra is indeed considered an enemy by many Mormons, and occupied enough of that space in my mind that I wouldn’t ever read any UTLM articles or pamphlets, or listen to her MS interview (even at a time when I was pretty close to being mentally out). Then after leaving, I begrudgingly listened and found her to be incredibly charming and insightful and sweet, and some of the UTLM tracts and articles to be thoughtful and interesting and often waaaay ahead of their time. And perhaps most importantly, fair and polite and not sensationalized like the ranting God Makers kind of criticism that we saw much of for many years. Hell, Gerald Tanner was the one trying to warn church leaders about Mark Hoffman... what enemy has that kind of integrity to their target?

And yes, apologists are sometimes an enemy to the people they supposedly serve when they are an enemy to truth and decorum in the name of defending their beliefs at all costs. We’ve seen a lot of that with people like Peterson and Midgley, and they don’t deserve any warm and fuzzy appreciation for that kind of “defense.”

Hey, Grundunza. Yes, Sandra and Gerald Tanner (God rest his soul) are both really decent and upstanding people with integrity. They have done many things worthy of admiration. I completely disagree with their ultimate goals regarding Mormonism and I do not believe in their version of Christianity, in which it is OK to attack other versions of Christianity. As I have explained below, I similarly do not agree with the Mormon tendency to view creedal Christianity as false, but I think there is a difference between the passive view that Christianity is lacking something that Mormonism adds and Mormonism being dangerous because it simply is not Christian.

The latter view comes too close to darker forms of prejudice.

Yes, and it seems so unChristlike, too. Although I suppose we could say that Christianity, like Mormonism, is not perfectly consistent and therefore isn't always Christlike as an ideology.

[_candygal]

This is a response to a statement made by Kishkumen in the thread about the passing of William Hamblin.

I think that due respect requires a new thread rather than bogging down the memorial thread with a potential debate:

...At the same time, I think you sell yourself short when you reminisce about your trepidation regarding the possible reaction of our apologist sparring partners, as you aptly dub them, to your ideas. We can also acknowledge another side of this complexity, which emerges not when others attack the faith but when insiders have a different view. I don’t for one second believe that Mike Quinn, Maxine Hanks, and John Brooke should ever be treated as enemies of Mormonism. My hope is that, as we are willing to embrace and celebrate the good things about our sparring partners, they are willing to reflect on what it is to be an actual enemy of Mormonism.

There are enemies of Mormonism. And I believe they deserve strong pushback from talented and educated Latter-day Saints. Bill was a capable and willing defender. I applaud him for that. Mormons should not accept Sandra Tanner’s view of their faith or see it left unchallenged by faithful apologists, to cite but one example. I am happy that people like Drs. Midgley, Peterson, and Hamblin put up that defense...

Is it really necessary to perpetutate a paradigm of "enemies" and "non-enemies" of Mormonism? How do you even define that?

Depending on the definition, one could say that some Mormons themselves are among Mormonism's worst enemies. It just really seems like another version of gatekeeping the valid and invalid criticism when perhaps it is best to let criticisms be judged on their own merits without pidgeon-holing individual people.

Sandra Tanner seems like a sincere and earnest truth-seeking person. And she was Mormon, so she in my opinion has sacrificed significantly in order to uncover hidden Mormon history. Why shouldn't Mormons accept her view of their (and her former) faith?

I agree. Sandra has walked in both shoes. That can't always be said for apologists and those who defend the faith. In my view, Dan Petersen doesn't hold a candle next to the Tanners.

[_Kishkumen]

As I saw it and read it I figured Kishkumen was suggesting it is quite good there is room enough to speak about topics from competing perspectives. I did not see him denouncing Sandra Tanner and I think his clarification makes that clear.

I also don't see that as suggesting anyone really likes to see competing sides, particularly as things get ugly. But in another way competing sides on any given issue is a really good thing. Without them it's really hard to step back and view things differently, its hard to question your own approach on any given issue or topic. And it's way too easy to get carried away, make rules that hurt people or view others as demons (shout out to Midgley), if you don't consider the opposite side.

TO me the real problem here is labeling each other. It's hard to do. I mean it's almost silly to imagine we proceed in life without doing it. Once you label someone you create a category, if it isn't already created, and suddenly that person so labeled gets limited to whatever the biases towards that label are. THe labeling itself doesn't seem so bad or harmful, well for the most part, but it's what it does to our minds when we start seeing people as categoried (Look at that, just made up a word). Its tough to avoid, we're somehow inherently programmed to see the world in categories and to base our thought processes on summed up clichés on what those categories are and mean.

Very well said, Stem. I apologize to everyone for using the word enemy. A better word, in my opinion, would be opponent. If, like I, you are a fan of words, you may appreciate the difference between the two and see how I am intending to shift away from applying a hard label on someone else. It has been a while since I have cracked a history of the English language, but opponent is closer to stressing the verbal idea of opposing something, while enemy strikes me as more of a hardened identity. I prefer not to ascribe a hardened identity to others but to let them choose those things for themselves. Still, I think it is fair to say that one who opposes something is an opponent of it, and it does not necessarily drag the same adversarial baggage in with it.

[_Kishkumen]

Of course those who treat Mormons as the enemy just because they're Mormon was not really the subject here.

Yes! True, and I don't think the Christians who attacked my faith when I was a missionary were trying to be personal with me; they sincerely believed that I was on the path to hell because of my faith.

So, they are indeed opponents of Mormonism, and I do not have to agree to the terms of their opposition. According to my revised terminology, Sandra Tanner, lovely, fine person that she is, is an opponent of Mormonism, and I do not agree with her opposition to Mormonism.

The distinction I am talking about is what seems to be classifying dissidents in some heirarchichal way. I'd just prefer to focus more on bad arguments and behaviours as being enemies to overall good sense.

That's cool. I hope that opponent works better as a description of a person who has devoted their life to opposing Mormonism.

And what might appear paradoxical, is that Mormonism taught me to look for truth anywhere including in anyone. So I cannot really accept that definition of enemies, neither now or in that previous life of mine as a believing Mormon.

A person who is sincerely seeking truth, even if it means destroying Mormonism with the truth, cannot be its enemy. In such a case, it is Mormonism which is its own enemy. And those who help identify truth from falsehood are in my opinion giving it the best chance it has to survive its own flaws.

Sandra Tanner has her motives and goals, but more important to me is the information she shares and her manner in sharing.

On the one hand, I agree that Sandra Tanner, being a person of integrity who believes the LDS Church should me more transparent, has done much to bring information about Mormonism to light, when the LDS Church would have preferred to keep it in the dark. Very true. I am grateful for that.

Of course, her motivation in doing so is not to make Mormonism the best it can be on its own terms, but to oppose Mormonism or see that it changes to be what she thinks it ought to be. I don't support that. Indeed, I oppose it. So, I would be an opponent of her aim of opposing Mormonism or remaking it into something that reflects her preferred theology.

It is my opinion that I am not at all inconsistent in appreciating that Sandra is a good person, recognizing that I really do like her, being grateful for all the good things that she has done, and yet not agree with her in her goal of opposing Mormonism.

Let me give you an example of my friendly opposition to the goals of Sandra Tanner. I have been approached (not by Sandra but one of her friends) with a casual offer of perhaps publishing something at UTLM on Joseph Smith's participation in folk magic. On the one hand, I was kind of flattered. After all Marquardt, who is someone I respect as a historian, and someone with whom Don Bradley has co-written an article, published pieces with UTLM. Another fellow I really like and respect, as a scholar and a person of great character, is Ron Huggins, who has also published really good stuff with UTLM.

So, why would I not want to join the ranks of these good people whom I admire in many ways to publish something with UTLM? Is it not a great honor to be approached with a casual offer of making that happen?

While I was flattered, I had absolutely no problem passing on that opportunity. Why? Because it is not my goal to oppose Mormonism. To the contrary, I would have Mormonism be the best it can be, as Mormonism, and not as some variety of Protestant Christianity. This is not because I have a problem with people being Protestants. Be Protestants! Love it! It is because I am a Mormon. The Mormons are my people, and I want Mormonism to be at its best.

I understand that this will make people upset and perhaps boggle their minds, but it is true. You see, I don't really invest that much in whether someone personally believes in every detail of a religion. No one really does. They are devoted to a group, a point of view, or a faith, or they are devoted to something else. Devotion takes all kinds of forms. Criticism can come from a place of devotion. Loving something or someone does not entail agreeing in all particulars. I can love being Mormon and be devoted to Mormonism in my own way without being a member of the LDS Church.

Please note that I will not answer questions about whether I believe X or Y, whether I think Joseph lied about A or B, or how I can live with myself with all the evil Joseph Smith and the LDS Church have done. Anyone who asks these questions has not spent time thinking about what I am saying. And that's OK. I also don't have to answer.

[_consiglieri]

In my view, Dan Petersen doesn't hold a candle next to the Tanners.

Although I imagine he would like to...

[_Meadowchik]

Of course those who treat Mormons as the enemy just because they're Mormon was not really the subject here.

Yes! True, and I don't think the Christians who attacked my faith when I was a missionary were trying to be personal with me; they sincerely believed that I was on the path to hell because of my faith.

So, they are indeed opponents of Mormonism, and I do not have to agree to the terms of their opposition. According to my revised terminology, Sandra Tanner, lovely, fine person that she is, is an opponent of Mormonism, and I do not agree with her opposition to Mormonism.

The distinction I am talking about is what seems to be classifying dissidents in some heirarchichal way. I'd just prefer to focus more on bad arguments and behaviours as being enemies to overall good sense.

That's cool. I hope that opponent works better as a description of a person who has devoted their life to opposing Mormonism.

And what might appear paradoxical, is that Mormonism taught me to look for truth anywhere including in anyone. So I cannot really accept that definition of enemies, neither now or in that previous life of mine as a believing Mormon.

A person who is sincerely seeking truth, even if it means destroying Mormonism with the truth, cannot be its enemy. In such a case, it is Mormonism which is its own enemy. And those who help identify truth from falsehood are in my opinion giving it the best chance it has to survive its own flaws.

Sandra Tanner has her motives and goals, but more important to me is the information she shares and her manner in sharing.

On the one hand, I agree that Sandra Tanner, being a person of integrity who believes the LDS Church should me more transparent, has done much to bring information about Mormonism to light, when the LDS Church would have preferred to keep it in the dark. Very true. I am grateful for that.

Of course, her motivation in doing so is not to make Mormonism the best it can be on its own terms, but to oppose Mormonism or see that it changes to be what she thinks it ought to be. I don't support that. Indeed, I oppose it. So, I would be an opponent of her aim of opposing Mormonism or remaking it into something that reflects her preferred theology.

It is my opinion that I am not at all inconsistent in appreciating that Sandra is a good person, recognizing that I really do like her, being grateful for all the good things that she has done, and yet not agree with her in her goal of opposing Mormonism.

Let me give you an example of my friendly opposition to the goals of Sandra Tanner. I have been approached (not by Sandra but one of her friends) with a casual offer of perhaps publishing something at UTLM on Joseph Smith's participation in folk magic. On the one hand, I was kind of flattered. After all Marquardt, who is someone I respect as a historian, and someone with whom Don Bradley has co-written an article, published pieces with UTLM. Another fellow I really like and respect, as a scholar and a person of great character, is Ron Huggins, who has also published really good stuff with UTLM.

So, why would I not want to join the ranks of these good people whom I admire in many ways to publish something with UTLM? Is it not a great honor to be approached with a casual offer of making that happen?

While I was flattered, I had absolutely no problem passing on that opportunity. Why? Because it is not my goal to oppose Mormonism. To the contrary, I would have Mormonism be the best it can be, as Mormonism, and not as some variety of Protestant Christianity. This is not because I have a problem with people being Protestants. Be Protestants! Love it! It is because I am a Mormon. The Mormons are my people, and I want Mormonism to be at its best.

I understand that this will make people upset and perhaps boggle their minds, but it is true. You see, I don't really invest that much in whether someone personally believes in every detail of a religion. No one really does. They are devoted to a group, a point of view, or a faith, or they are devoted to something else. Devotion takes all kinds of forms. Criticism can come from a place of devotion. Loving something or someone does not entail agreeing in all particulars. I can love being Mormon and be devoted to Mormonism in my own way without being a member of the LDS Church.

Please note that I will not answer questions about whether I believe X or Y, whether I think Joseph lied about A or B, or how I can live with myself with all the evil Joseph Smith and the LDS Church have done. Anyone who asks these questions has not spent time thinking about what I am saying. And that's OK. I also don't have to answer.

Cool. I agree that opponent is a better descriptor. And no need to apologize, in my opinion. I thought it a question worth asking and discussing.

I'm not sure how I feel about keeping Mormonism like it is, or some other denomination like it is, either. Personally I think they're changing all the time anyway. What increasingly informs my motives is the belief that truth is better confronted than hidden or denied, among other values. So my hope is that Mormonism will be better if its values improve.

Simultaneously, I've appreciated more (especially since my experience with the CoC three months ago) the less tangible functions of religion. In that experience, I believe I was edified in large part to improved values. Edification can be very helpful for managing the worry and sorrows of life, and that can't be underestimated.

I don't think, by the way, that Mormonism has to be a copy of the CoC to be vastly better than it is. For all we know there is atleast one highly creative iteration of Mormonism that is more truthful, more moral and yet retains a uniqueness representing the best of what it has been in its past.

[_Mormonicious]

The sad narration about Mormonism is that it follows the tantrums of Mr. Trump.

For such powerful entities, they both resort to play-ground name calling when dealing with opposing opinions and views. Instead of acknowledging that a different view is not necessarily completely wrong, they attack the presenter and villainize them.

[_moksha]

The Tanners had the unfair advantage of actual history on their side. Just the same, the defenders made great sophistry despite that disadvantage. History was the enemy!

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think, by the way, that Mormonism has to be a copy of the CoC to be vastly better than it is. For all we know there is atleast one highly creative iteration of Mormonism that is more truthful, more moral and yet retains a uniqueness representing the best of what it has been in its past.

That is beautifully written, Meadowchik. That is my hope and I agree with you.