Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[Kishkumen]

I thought it would be helpful to set out what I said about Sandra Tanner on my channel so that people could see what Markk and others are referring to when they take me to task for my treatment of her:

Now, I actually happen to know some anti-Mormons, or people who would say, "I am not anti-Mormon, or, in other words, I am not against the Mormon people, but I am anti-Mormonism because I teach against Mormonism, and I publish against Mormonism," and probably my favorite person who fits into this category is Sandra Tanner who used to run Utah Lighthouse Ministries and had a bookstore in downtown Salt Lake. She is the nicest person you'd ever want to meet, a charming person, a kind person. Uh, she's an ex-Mormon, who found Jesus, I guess you could say (chuckles lightly). Which is . . . it's kind of odd, when I think about that, because one can of course be a follower of Jesus within Mormonism and Mormons are followers of Jesus, but the argument from the opponents of Mormonism is that it's another Jesus. It's not the right Jesus, and it's another Jesus because, and this is the argument, and I think you have to take it seriously, at least, even if you don't agree with it, is that, hey, there is a Jesus in the Book of Mormon, and that Jesus speaks, and there are ideas of that Jesus, and they don't necessarily correspond to traditional orthodox, mainstream Christian teaching. Now that's a serious issue, and so Christian scholars, theologians, and seminarians, they can, if they examine Mormonism, they can look at the portrayal of Jesus and Christianity in the Book of Mormon, and they can say, "Well, this is how it differs from mainstream, orthodox Christianity." I actually think that there is, in a way, a good service that's performed there because Mormon ideas wouldn't be the foundation of a different religion, or a different Christianity, if they were the same old thing as the regular Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Christianity.

Some of the best anti-Mormons are ex-Mormons or post-Mormons because they know where the skeletons are buried, they've learned about these intimate details, uncomfortable details about their former faith as they've left. They heard, you know, the uncomfortable facts sometimes from people like Sandra Tanner, who was in this ministry for a purpose, a ministry designed to get Mormons out of Mormonism, get people to convert to what she views is the real Christianity, the true Christianity. But here's my point of view on all of that. As much as I like Sandra Tanner, as much as I like many of her associates, some of whom do excellent scholarship, I am thinking particularly of Ronald Huggins, I just have a real, um, discomfort with people who, uh, well, not with people. . . it's not the people so much because they are great people, but I have a discomfort with the activity of tearing other religions down.

So those are the mentions of Sandra Tanner in Episode #32: Anti-Mormonism, and you are welcome to check my transcription for accuracy. I may have left out some vocal ticks here and there, but this is pretty close.

See https://youtu.be/E5Z9OtTJzVo?si=Qmk2hvwR9oBheyUy

[Markk]

Here is a edit cut and paste from what I just wrote on the other thread

This is what you wrote, that started it, at least with me..... in regard to me reading "Mormonism, Shadow and Reality", as one of my main sources of deconstruction from 33 years as a Saint, after, I disagreed with what you asserted...you wrote..."If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period. " then later you wrote in context with my defense of the Tanners "research", and I quote....."You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows"

Anyone can go back and follow the conversation. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

[Kishkumen]

This what you wrote, that started it, in regard to me reading Mormonism, Shadow and Reality, as one of my main sources of deconstruction after I a disagreed with you said..."If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period."
then later you wrote in context with my defense of the Tanners "research", and I quote.....

"You’re pissed off because I dared to say something lightly critical about one of your sacred cows"

Anyone can go back and follow the conversation. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Yeah, I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism. I have a hard time seeing what could be offensive about that. It is polemical by design. They intend to attack Mormonism. That is what polemics are.

And, yes, you hold the Tanners’ research as a sacred cow because it “saved” you from Mormonism.

Sometimes I think you either can’t read very well, or you are deliberately misconstruing everything others write and just hope no one catches you in your lies. It is as though you imagine merely repeating a transparently false charge will magically turn it into a true one.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, your transcription fits what I remember hearing.

I think the view that Mormons believe in another Jesus is thoughtless and breeds misunderstanding. Mormons believe in the same Jesus one reads about in the New Testament. I do not know of anything in the Book of Mormon which presents ideas contradicting but I view it as a fictional expansion. This business of calling Mormon Jesus a different Jesus has grown in popularity, a fad. People are thinking of LDS rejection of the Trinity and the resulting ambiguity about Jesus divine status or relationship to divine power. I think it is clear that this is a different understanding of the same Jesus. I do not think any understanding is perfect though I believe the trinity focuses on critical basics.

But I think it more important to realize that nobodies view is perfect. In fact what some people see in Jesus is shockingly different than what some other people see. Jesus is not even seen exactly the same way by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There is hope in that people may be saved by the power, grace of God through faith not the accuracy of their understanding or image of Jesus.

I do not remember the Tanners using the cheep shortcut of different Jesus but that does not mean they may have at some times. I still find myself thinking I find it offensive not because it criticizes Mormons but because it is a shortcut tangling up understanding.

I suppose I should confess I have actually seen more Christians tearing down of other Christians than I like to see. Most of it is bad, decreasing understanding and increasing mistrust. It is surprising how sure of oneself some people can get with a little knowledge and a leather bound book in hand of the very word of God.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, your transcription fits what I remember hearing.

I think the view that Mormons believe in another Jesus is thoughtless and breeds misunderstanding. Mormons believe in the same Jesus one reads about in the New Testament. I do not know of anything in the Book of Mormon which presents ideas contradicting but I view it as a fictional expansion. This business of calling Mormon Jesus a different Jesus has grown in popularity, a fad. People are thinking of LDS rejection of the Trinity and the resulting ambiguity about Jesus divine status or relationship to divine power. I think it is clear that this is a different understanding of the same Jesus. I do not think any understanding is perfect though I believe the trinity focuses on critical basics.

But I think it more important to realize that nobodies view is perfect. In fact what some people see in Jesus is shockingly different than what some other people see. Jesus is not even seen exactly the same way by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There is hope in that people may be saved by the power, grace of God through faith not the accuracy of their understanding or image of Jesus.

I do not remember the Tanners using the cheep shortcut of different Jesus but that does not mean they may have at some times. I still find myself thinking I find it offensive not because it criticizes Mormons but because it is a shortcut tangling up understanding.

I suppose I should confess I have actually seen more Christians tearing down of other Christians than I like to see. Most of it is bad, decreasing understanding and increasing mistrust. It is surprising how sure of oneself some people can get with a little knowledge and a leather bound book in hand of the very word of God.

Thank you, huckelberry. I appreciate you sharing these insights from your own experience. My inclusion of Sandra was driven by four things:

1. My desire only to bring up someone I can honestly say I like and respect in many ways.

2. To point out a well known professional in the world of anti-Mormonism ministries.

3. To point out that the goal of her ministry includes leading people out of Mormonism and into her idea of true Christianity.

4. To say that though I like her, I do not agree with the goal of tearing down Mormonism.

I brought up a lot of other stuff in that episode, but those were the things I sought to say in reference to her, her ministry, and some of the motives behind it.

I wasn’t saying that she uses the “other Jesus” argument. I just anticipated that someone listening might have that come to mind, so I felt it needed to be mentioned.

[drumdude]

As Wikipedia states:

The Tanners have specialized in publishing original documents that would otherwise be inaccessible to the general public. For example, in 1966, they were the first to publish Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (since called the "Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers"). Prior to their publication, few LDS Church members knew about these documents.[8] The next year, the publication prompted discussions and debates about the content of the documents, which have continued for decades.

I think this is a valuable service they have done for the community which has nothing to do with polemics, as the documents were published as is. They may have an agenda but that doesn’t diminish what they’ve done which is objectively useful (arguably to both sides) and without bias.

[Kishkumen]

I think this is a valuable service they have done for the community which has nothing to do with polemics, as the documents were published as is. They may have an agenda but that doesn’t diminish what they’ve done which is objectively useful (arguably to both sides) and without bias.

Yes, that part of what they did was objectively useful and I never denied that.

[MG 2.0]

This what you wrote, that started it, in regard to me reading Mormonism, Shadow and Reality, as one of my main sources of deconstruction after I a disagreed with you said..."If you start with the Tanners, you start with a skewed polemical view of Mormonism, period."
then later you wrote in context with my defense of the Tanners "research", and I quote.....

Anyone can go back and follow the conversation. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Yeah, I stand by the fact that the Tanners have a skewed, polemical view of Mormonism. I have a hard time seeing what could be offensive about that. It is polemical by design. They intend to attack Mormonism. That is what polemics are.

The Tanners were some of the first ‘anti-Mormons’ I read almost exclusively from.

I concur that they had a “skewed, polemical view of Mormonism”. They intended to “attack Mormonism”.

But they were nice people.

Regards,
MG

[yellowstone123]

The Tanners took a stand on issues when they knew the community would shun them. To live in Utah and write about the LDS church in a way that was not faith promoting was risking everything. They started publishing things in the early 1960s with full knowledge of how Fawn Brodie was treated by the LDS church and so-called intellectuals at BYU.

They were visited by angry/fearful people who read what they published. Like us all, things briefly looked at are again revisited and then the reality sets in to what had been happening. The LDS church had whitewashed its history so not to interfere with its growth.

Once other people see others taking a stand regarding an issue they believe in they come out of shadows to join them. In a way, the Tanners were the new pioneers of Utah. All others who now question the LDS church, or authorities that cannot be questioned should take note and honor them.

In this decade it doesn’t take a lot of courage to question the LDS church, especially with the internet. To do it 60 years ago in Utah was heroic.

[MG 2.0]

The Tanners took a stand on issues when they knew the community would shun them. To live in Utah and write about the LDS church in a way that was not faith promoting was risking everything. They started publishing things in the early 1960s with full knowledge of how Fawn Brodie was treated by the LDS church and so-called intellectuals at BYU.

They were visited by angry/fearful people who read what they published. Like us all, things briefly looked at are again revisited and then the reality sets in to what had been happening. The LDS church had whitewashed its history so not to interfere with its growth.

Once other people see others taking a stand regarding an issue they believe in they come out of shadows to join them. In a way, the Tanners were the new pioneers of Utah. All others who now question the LDS church, or authorities that cannot be questioned should take note and honor them.

In this decade it doesn’t take a lot of courage to question the LDS church, especially with the internet. To do it 60 years ago in Utah was heroic.

I think they truly believed in their cause. They sure put in a LOT of time and effort. Along with possibly a few thousand ellipses or more.

Regards,
MG