(The first thread filled up rapidly and raucously so, per board policy and practice, it's continued here).

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1955559,1955559#msg-1955559
-----

That testifying moment from Sandra came when she got cross with me as we crossed swords over Christianity and its purported miracles. (Note: This topic is clearly related to Mormonism because Mormonism claims to be the true form of Christianity, whether it is or not. Both testify to holding the heavenly keys, powers and mandates in the name of Jesus. In my interaction with Sandra Tanner, it was abundantly clear that she had strong opinions about both--in particular, and rather curiously, about distant-Mormon-cousin Christianity to which she basically gave a faithful snd uncritical free pass, while kicking Mormonism to the curb).
-----


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-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.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:00AM by steve benson.

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?"

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?"

If we can't, does that mean "god did it?"
No, it doesn't.

> 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?"

Sandra (and you) are employing fallacious arguments from ignorance, replacing "can't be explained" with "god did it."
That's the difference.

Science not being able to explain something (yet, or ever) does not make "god did it" any more plausible or reasonable.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sandra (and you) are employing fallacious
> arguments from ignorance, replacing "can't be
> explained" with "god did it."
> That's the difference.
>
> Science not being able to explain something (yet,
> or ever) does not make "god did it" any more
> plausible or reasonable.

Actually you've veered off topic. The standard for hypocrisy according to our OP is to criticize Mormonism, but still personally embrace an event or belief that:

"could not be empirically proven through any kind of scientific appeal..."

"offers no compelling, testable evidence on which to conclude that these "miracle stories" were actual, literal events."

To embrace a purely natural origin for self-replicating life on earth fits exactly what the OP suggests as unfounded faith. To further dismiss all supernatural events without a scientific basis is also an unfounded statement of faith.

We'll just record this post as "The Day Steve Benson Bore His Hypocritical Testimony."

I'm sure he appreciates you weighing in as his second, but perhaps he may take a moment to address this himself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 01:21PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually you've veered off topic. The standard for
> hypocrisy according to our OP is to criticize
> Mormonism, but still personally embrace an event
> or belief that...

No, actually, I didn't -- and the straw-man above isn't at all an accurate representation of the OP's words.

Here, this will help:
"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."

No "standard of hypocrisy" like you made up.
None of the "science" stuff you put in (which I assume you pulled from other posts, but which weren't in this one).
Instead, an observation that Sandra applies different standards to her "christianity" belief than she does to mormonism.

Want to try again? And address *that* instead of the straw-man you created?

Since he probably won't share his testimony with you as he did with me on this board, I'll quote here his previous holy Jesus juice as he sprinkled it on me:

" . . . I do embrace turning the other cheek, but when you promote a discredited anti-intellectual farce to support your atheist ideology, you're more in the 'brood of vipers' camp. Jesus had no patience or mercy for that crowd. Jesus always stands ready with a welcome embrace, but you won't see it or benefit from it until you turn in his direction."

Amen and amen.

You might want to ask TMSH (which also stands for "Testifying My Silliness Heavenward") if his three questions are explained in scientifically complex ways via biblicsl babbling. (Don't hold your breath for serious or substantive answers, since the Bible offers none).
-----

You also might find the following interesting. It comes from RfM poster "Lawyer," who pretty well nailed TMSH with this recent assessment:

"I'm not sure I've seen . . . awareness of one's own limitations in your recent writings. In that sense I'd venture you are more like President Trump, who thinks that his own views must inevitably be constitutional because he wants them to be; than like Justice Kennedy, a conservative in political terms who violates his own personal beliefs if jurisprudence so requires.
Judicial conservatism is a harsh mistress: it demands the ability to superimpose logic on visceral impulse."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 02:54PM by steve benson.

Yeah, I know. But every now and then, I see a glimmer of hope from him, and I genuinely like the guy.
So I keep trying :)

in which he shakes the dust off his feet against god-fearless cartoonists in the holy name of pseudo-science creationism.

In his opinion, evolution is not true. At least, it hasn't been working for him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 04:10PM by steve benson.

Tall Man is making an interesting argument.

It would be an interesting conversation if you guys responded to what he's actually saying.

Besides, he insists on bringing up snakes, as if it's their fault.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:01AM by steve benson.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man is making an interesting argument.
>
> It would be an interesting conversation if you
> guys responded to what he's actually saying.

Is he?
Let's see:
Steve points out inconsistent, hypocritical behavior of somebody.
TMSH doesn't address that at all, and (fallaciously and dishonestly) tries to imply that science is "belief" and "faith."

Why is that interesting, other than in a "what a ridiculous argument" kind of way?

And I did respond to what he actually said. Didn't you read it?

The positive atheism displayed by our OP brings with it a set of absolutely necessary assumptions. It's impossible for it to be otherwise.

You cannot stand on the shore in Los Angeles and say "I know that Hawaii exists" and in the next breath say "and I can get there from here without crossing the Pacific Ocean." It just doesn't work that way.

Short of weaseling out via some nonsense like "Directed Panspermia," whenever an atheist makes the affirmative statement that "there is no God" and follows up with the entirely unscientific claim "nothing supernatural ever occurs," they appropriate the belief that all things occur naturally. This is an unscientific position and has never been proven. It is a statement of faith. You can cry "we don't have the answer to the origin of life" all you want, but when you make the positive (and completely unscientific) assertion that
a) there is no God, and
b) there is no such thing as a supernatural event,
you are making a statement of faith.

The funny thing is that there is significantly more evidence to support an ancient widespread catastrophic flood (perhaps more than one) than there is to support the assertion that the first self-replicating living cells emerged by pure chance, randomly, by a natural process. And when you compare the billions of dollars and global teams of scientists spent searching for the origin of life compared to the handful of geologists and archaeologists who have uncovered actual proof of a flood, it's laughable. The evidence for the flood shows it most certainly inundated the entire world that Noah knew of. I'll post a couple of mainstream media reports on that here.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

How about you post your proof that science has uncovered exactly how the first self-replicating living cells assembled and preserved themselves entirely by random chance? How about you even post a consensus finding on how DNA alone came into existence? For extra credit, post the names of the researchers who were able to replicate the emergence of DNA.

My point here is to demonstrate there actually is some foundation for a story regarding an ancient flood. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the intrinsic belief by atheists that the first living cells emerged randomly by entirely natural processes. And most atheists miss the irony that every time a team of scientists recreates a process whereby a certain necessary element for life occurred, they arrive at that meaningless milestone entirely by intelligent interaction manipulating otherwise natural processes. Go ahead and keep flipping that coin, but it will always be, "heads I win, tails you lose."

So bluster all you wish, but the real world is not comprised of clever rhetoric. It actually exists, and life had an origin. There is zero scientific evidence that self-replicating life emerged naturally. Not a scintilla. And science has never even come close to approximating it. It's a statement of faith with no foundation to believe science will provide an answer. So when you declare "there is no god and nothing supernatural," you lock yourself in a room from which there is no reasonable, logical escape. You embrace a faith -- that unlike that of the Christians -- has no foundation in history or science upon which to support essential elements. Is it possible science will one day discover this answer? Perhaps, but there is currently exactly the same amount of evidence supporting that assertion as there is supporting a talking donkey. And simply invoking "science" is not scientific without any evidence to support that claim.

So Steve demonstrates himself to much more of a hypocrite than he accuses Sandra Tanner of being. The difference is she embraces a belief that actually has significant elements of it that have been shown to actually exist in the real world. The faith that Steve embraces is entirely without foundation and zero supporting evidence.

Again, using Steve's standard, it is he who is the hypocrite for holding a worldview with "The same kind of faith-based conviction that [he] criticizes Latter-day Saints for invoking in behalf of their unwavering belief in Mormonism."

If you're going to actually embrace atheism to the point that you ridicule and criticize the beliefs of others, why not pull on your big boy pants and actually be prepared to answer some of the questions that are implicit in that worldview?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 03:41PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

TMSH: Elder Benson, do you realize that the Book of Abraham is a complete fraud, and no actual archaeologist agrees with Joseph Smith's translation?

SB: You're an exmormon! Why should I listen to anything you say!

TMSH: But Elder Benson, does my being an exmormon somehow change the facts I presented?

SB: I bet you were an adulterer! Yeah, you cheated on your wife!

TMSH: Really? Even if that were true, would that somehow change the facts that I presented? Did you ever attend a college course in logic or argumentation? Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy?

SB: [shakes dust off shoes, storms away]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 01:18PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't hold
> your breath for serious or substantive answers

I never would from you. You consistently prove yourself entirely incapable of presenting a reasonable answer to honest questions about elements of your worldview. That's something you only expect of others.

Apart from your own glaring hypocrisy, why on earth would you pose questions to Sandra Tanner about her beliefs, but completely refuse to answer questions about yours?

Feel free to tell me if these are not things you personally believe, and offer your personal explanation:

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?"

I'm confused how it's possible to assert Sandra or any human 'never come(s)across as smug or self righteous.'

Per the original thread.

Or that she is a 'genteel woman who lives by faith.'

I just don't think we can know. Further, Steve can relay his experience confidently because it's his (own). I choose to trust it's accurate.

I think it's really important to ask the question, 'why is critical reasoning selectively applied?'

Sandra or anyone else has a multitude of possible responses. But it does not mean she shouldn't be asked. She says she's received tons of criticism, shunning, threats, etc for her work. One could conclude she's able to receive a logical inquiry with gratitude and respect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 12:30PM by carameldreams.

Personally speaking, I think I hit a nerve (although I was not aggressive in my inquiry, but I was direct). I inquired about the history, evidence and reasoning when asking her about her belief in Christianity vs. her disbelief in Mormonism. Both are rooted in what their respective believers insist are historically-rooted and faithfully-followed truths rooted in common Bible narratives.

I suspect that Sandra probably knew she couldn't defend Christianity and its miracle tales any better than she could debunk Mormonism and its other-worldly wonder stories.

Like Sandra told me, she believed in "miracles," and "felt sorry" me.

Whatever. Been there, done that



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 01:50PM by steve benson.

It might help you recover from it.

Sandra probably won't mind having her name used this way. She's likely totally forgotten the encounter since she has to deal with so many interactions in her shop. I can't imagine her as speaking in anger, but we all know how that feels and can understand.

I think I remember the first time you brought this up many years ago. It reminds me of how kind and classy Sandra was whenever I met her or corresponded. She was a bright spot in my many interactions with exmormons. I enjoyed her steady nature, her humor, and her willingness to help exmormons with their recovery. I especially liked that she never tried to impose her beliefs and was totally accepting of my atheism.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It might help you recover from it.

Sorry, where does Steve ask for help? I might have missed that in the original thread.

Posting in this forum is his way of venting. Like it is for many of us. I get what Cheryl is saying.

Also, in agreement w/Cheryl's assessment of Sandra's public persona, and from others who have met her over the space of many years.

Cheryl's description of her fits my perception of this very classy woman. She is all that and more.

As for a woman of faith, that's who she is. Without trying to force her views onto others.

Basically, Steve was encroaching on her space that day. She was there to sell books, engage in friendly banter like other salespeople do. Where is it in her job description she cow tow to someone else's expectations of what her beliefs should or should not include?

That was off limits based on what OP has shared. He crossed the line of civility, and she didn't continue to debate with him. That isn't what she's there for. That doesn't make her a hypocrite that she believes in the bible but not the BoM. She is true to what she believes.

... fact-deficient Mormonism.

I've made my professional career in the world of journalism, where facts are fundamentally important in reaching rational and informed conclusions. I like digging for facts, and then describing what I found. Bennie the Bone Digger, so to speak.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 01:15PM by steve benson.

Sandra is a business licensee, and you were a guest on her property. She is engaged in the selling and dissemination of her books and reference materials for Mormonism.

Her time is important to her. If she wanted to engage in a discussion of your "empirical" views on life, vs her religious "beliefs," she would have done so.

She let you know she wasn't interested in pursuing the subject with you further. You bought your materials, and thus left her store.

What more is there to say? She had no obligation to you, and as a business licensee and a private property owner, was not there to engage in your idea of free speech. Your disdain for her beliefs is obvious.

You call her a hypocrite on a public forum, because of her beliefs not meshing with yours. She picked up on your vibes while you were in her store, on her clock.

She drew her boundaries, Steve. That's all. What is it you didn't understand about that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 02:35PM by Amyjo.

... and then later comparing notes with Sandra so you could post here with such Christianized certainty.

Or, if you actually were not in the store that day, did you divine this insight from ghosts that were inside that submerged car upside down in the Spanish Fork River?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:02AM by steve benson.

Based on your sales transaction as you described, Sandra fulfilled her duty to you as her customer.

She owed you nothing further from that point on. She certainly didn't need to defend her beliefs to you. And you don't allow room for discussion, because you're always right.

You determined the direction and outcome of the argument had you pursued it with her, to its logical conclusion as you deemed fit with a complete disregard for her sincere beliefs.

Your bias is showing. There was no tolerance for an open discussion with Sandra. You just wanted to show her up regarding her 'deficient beliefs' to your 'superior empirical' ones.

She could see that coming a mile away. Maybe she even foresaw you'd be writing about it on RfM someday and calling her a hypocrite because she's a bible toting Christian.

She had no further duty to you, and more likely than not she was more courteous in her assessment of you, than you are toward her.

It just seems degrading and disingenuous that you'd run a series of threads on her hypocrisy, when she is one of the most honest ex-Mormons alive on the planet. Not to mention disrespectful of a living legend in her own right, and a national treasure to many.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 03:17PM by Amyjo.

If she did, she certainly didn't let it get in the way of taking my bucks.

"Forget if I could see you a mile away. Praise the Lord and pass me your cash." It's the great equalizer that facilitates unholy communion between believers and non-believers.

As far as my "series of threads" on this, you certainly wouldn't be disagreeing with the number if you agreed with the content.

Last time I checked, this "living legend" hasn't yet been elevated to God status. Even if she had, I don't believe In God.

Just so we understand each other.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 04:19PM by steve benson.

How do you like being the subject of scorn and ridicule, and not be able to defend yourself to your pundits?

You do it all the time when they dish it out to you where you work as a cartoonist. You give it back to them, and call it your "hate mail."

Here, Sandra gets no such chance to defend her honor to your railing against her.

Calling her a hypocrite for her beliefs behind her back not only seems cowardly on its face. It also seems, well hypocritical.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 03:40PM by Amyjo.

Must be hell.

Keep it up. You're providing endless unintentional comedy :)

For a narcissist who gloats on having your ego stroked by putting down a living legend like Sandra Tanner, must be hell for you when it isn't.

You have no moral superiority here.

Funny Steve Benson.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For a narcissist who gloats on having your ego
> stroked by putting down a living legend

How do you diagnose with authority?

Whew. Good for Sandra you agree with her! Otherwise, she'd undoubtedly be the recipient of your name calling ad infinitum. A 'miracle' she escaped your verbal assaults.

Are your comments on the Tanners' website ('living legend', 'classy', 'a woman of genteel faith', never comes across as smug or self-righteous') or is that saved for us on RfM (hope not)?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 05:45PM by carameldreams.

Don't worry. Exorcisms can be performed here without the priesthood as long as how things actually work is well understood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrQ0scRm8O4

And quit blaming me. Just admit that it was the Devil who made you post in this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:05AM by steve benson.

Did your Uncle General Patton know Sandra? Did you meet one of her friends when you were teaching French in Romania in the 1980's - when you met the Pope?

took up his whole day, remember? He fell asleep.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:07AM by steve benson.

Amyjo Wrote
>
> You call her a hypocrite on a public forum,
> because of her beliefs not meshing with yours.

Ugh, no. The rightful label, 'hypocrite' comes from Sandra's behaviors.

Why does Sandra apply such scrutiny and intolerance to Mormonism and seemingly no such labor to Christianity (whatever that means but for sake of discussion).

To be exacting with one belief system and not another is hypocritical.

Sandra's response included, 'miracles'. Amyjo asserts Sandra is 'a woman of faith'.

Let's take those two terms: both belief systems are faith based. Both faith based systems posit miracles. Sandra's extensive body of work testifies that Mormonism is a fraud. How is she so sure she picked the right faith? Maybe she didn't believe enough in the miracles in LDS?

Further, how can she justifiably pity Steve or anyone who does not agree with her? Why are they in need of pity when it can be argued she is to be pitied for her confusion regarding faith and miracles?

Sandra has a well-earned reputation of engaging in lively and open discussion, and I have seen her do it not only with me but with other store customers. I have also spoken with her by phone. She is quite capable of defending herself or not defending herself, depending on what she thinks she's got in her ammo belt at the moment.

My personal assessment of her "I-believe-in-miracles" rejoinder was that it was her way of trying to maintain a point of dominance by appealing to the supernatural when it came to defending her own faith, since that's all she had to throw back at me within the context of my inquiry. She certainly wouldn't do a faith fallback when it came to Mormonism.

I simply struck too close to home--and was not uncivil in doing so. Her store is something of a debating society, and she didn't want to go there when I asked her to defend Christianity like she offended Mormonism. Why believe the so-called "miracles" of the Bible and not the so-called "miracles" of the Book of Mormon? I was merely asking her to employ the same standard of critical thinking for both--and she wouldn't, or couldn't, do it.

Frankly, I was kind of surprised by her response. I thought she could do better than that. I think it's quite possible that she knew she couldn't.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 01:42PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She certainly wouldn't do a faith
> fallback when it came to Mormonism.

This is what interests me and hence, my appreciation for your inquiry and relaying your experience here.

Maybe I don't understand that Sandra is to be discussed on RfM solely in complimentary terminology? I would hope that as GAs, Bishops, JS, et al are mentioned specifically, the Tanners can be discussed as well?

If Sandra had replied, 'That's a fair question. I don't know. The Xian tale is a better fit for me and I don't want to be disappointed by putting it under the microscope', that's an understandable albeit very emotional response. She's entitled to any justification she wishes! Or lack thereof.

But her zeal to expose Mormonism as fraudulent and her personal sacrifices to do so absolutely beg Steve's question. She would be prudent to expect as much.

We are talking about a man who supported Sandra's work to the effect of hundreds of dollars. If he was intent on rendering the Tanners incredible, there are cheaper methods to do so.

... in the miraculous managing of her anti-Mormon merchandising.

As the motto on our money declares, "In God We Trust. All Others, Strictly Cash."

No. Steve Benson is to be discussed in only complimentary and even fawning and worshipful terms.

This is the great part of RfM. I have learned over the years that if I read his posts, which seem to be awfully overbearing and unnecessarily wordy for a journalist, they will either bore me half to death, annoy me, or make me feel sorry for him living out the rest of his life so damaged and forever angry.

So I just don't bother to read them except to reconfirm my choice not to. This post made that confirmation admirably.

Besides. Didn't he have a tantrum a few months back and announce he was never going to post ever again?

Just quit taking his bait TMSH&Amyjoe. He'll find another hobby.

I don't need to tell it in order to recover from it. I retell it in order for others to hear it. It's up to them as to how they choose to personally process and deal with it. I already know how I feel about it. I share my assessments of the encounter and of how others respond to it either positively or negatively.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 01:43PM by steve benson.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 06:33PM by steve benson.

Cheryl: That you recommended an approach to 'help (him) recover from it.'

I missed where he asked for recovery help or help at all. I'm
confused why you recommend 'help' to Steve. Maybe I didn't see where it was stated or implied that he asked for help?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 01:58PM by carameldreams.

There are no miracles there are just things people interpret differently, one sees natural healing and improvement another sees a miracle. But for me the whole endowment was the biggest red flag of the fraud as well it was undeniable after seeing all that.

The question you, Steve, asked Sandra is one that I have thought about whenever I hear of someone who I feel has investigated MormonismCultCo. with a fine tooth comb but is now Christian and has not done the same investigation with Christianity.

Some answers I have come up with, without discussing said subject with these individuals, is that there are only so many hours in a day to do rigorous investigation, they are emotionally exhausted of doing such research feeling both tired and betrayed, and/or they, at this point, want and need a community.

I do find the subject fascinating as my own story differed in that the investigation of Mormonism where I found it a fraud led me to want and need to investigate Christianity right away. In both instances I am very grateful for those people who did and shared excellent research. I personally found both journeys fascinating and both led me to the same conclusion that people so want there to be a guaranteed life after death that very, very often facts will not be allowed to seen for what they are.

I find it freeing to say that I do not believe there is any evidence at the present time to show that a god or gods exist/s. Further, I feel the evidence points to man making god, not the other way around.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 03:16PM by presleynfactsrock.

presleynfactsrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Some answers I have come up with, without
> discussing said subject with these individuals, is
> that there are only so many hours in a day to do
> rigorous investigation, they are emotionally
> exhausted of doing such research feeling both
> tired and betrayed, and/or they, at this point,
> want and need a community.

I can't think of a more inferior place from which one chooses life abiding principles.

This premise describes perpetual damnation to believing lies. Isn't that what Sanda, et al have given most of their lives to defeat?

If it all nets out at, 'I'm tired, I'm lonely, I'll believe anything' then Sandra labored in vain. There are many faith systems but LDS requires so many manhours that most, if not all are 'exhausted'. Sandra and Gerald sacrificed money, reputation, health, etc toward truth telling and freedom from Mormonism for all they could reach.

To imply she possibly chose another faith from fatigue and lack of social structure is questionable.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 05:14PM by carameldreams.

For those that leave Mormonism the intellectually honest will give the same scrutiny to other forms of Christianity. They will then naturally give the same scrutiny to the existence of God or Jesus Christ. The point is trying to find out the truth.

They're not exactly the same, but have enough in common that they can at least get along for the cameras. For instance, for family group photos, fraternal twins can look just as similar to each other as any other sibling.

On the other hand, given that they're fraternal, or "dizygotic," they come from two separate fertilized eggs that most often develop into their own, separate amniotic sacs, complete with their individual placentas and supporting structures (as determined by how early into development the single fertilized egg splits into two). They are usually of different genders, which means they don't share the same DNA. They can also have different blood types.

(see: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Fraternal_Twins_vs_Identical_Twins; and https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/Pages/The-Difference-Between-Identical-and-Fraternal-Twins.aspx)


They can pleasantly say to each other, "I, as do you, believe in miracles" then, all of a sudden, start screaming in each other's faces, "I feel sorry for you!"

In other words, it can be a match made in hell.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 11:56PM by steve benson.

I find one important principle that guides many out of controling religions is personal freedom of choice.

I can respect that you have the choice to believe as you do; as does Sandra Tanner also has her agency or freedom of choice to believe as she does.

Thank goodness that Gerald and Sandra found strength in their journey to expose the rotteness of Mormonism!

I am so grateful for people (Erik , Yourself, the Tanner's, Grant Palmer, etc.) who have spoken up to show the problems in Mormonism.

News articles helped us see that the church was not what it said it was. I discovered the Tanner's website after we left. ( Also RFM along with a few other sites.)

Each person's journey to find what they believe in is their free choice. I can respect their freedom to choose their own journey.

Just spent 15 minutes skimming over this....can't get that time back....damn.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:09AM by steve benson.

Easy everyone, we are friends here.

"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."

A lot to do about 'nothing'. I have heard Sandra speak and I think she could have and should have provided a better answer if approached 'correctly'. I say this because I believe she comes across as a logical person. I say this even though, I totally disagree that 'Christianity or the bible' are totally correct ---- based on my 'spiritual experiences'.

I would really love to hear a 'good answer'. I have 'never' heard a 'good answer' from Mormons who claim to 'know' the church/BOM is true. All I ever heard is when they relate that 'knowing' to a feeling. I have never heard any religious person relate that knowledge to a spiritual experience where voice, vision, etc. occurs. Even though many Mormons have been saved from danger by 'voices, visions, etc.'.

Even Joseph Smith "had to have" JC 'tell him' no churches or the bible were completely true ---- he didn't rely on only a feeling!

It would be interesting if any of our 'xmo heros' could relate a 'good answer' to why they believe in Unitarianism/Christianity? (JD), Christianity/Bible (Sandra), or Atheism (Steve and Tom), others???. My challenge to any EXmo heros in the audience.

Maybe there is no 'scientific evidence' of X,Y, and Z is the best answer that atheists 'appear' to have. However, when people have significant 'spiritual experiences', just like many other people as documented in books and on the internet, at least some have something 'personal' to make a 'personal' judgment on.

I am not saying interpretation of personal experiences will always be correct, however, decisions will be based on 'evidence' because in most instances 'experiences' are 'evidence' ------ especially to those that have them.

Tell her to think about maybe chillin' and just answering the question without invoking the magic that cannot be spoken.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 12:08AM by steve benson.

I'm wondering why U 'feel the need' to challenge someone else's faith or expression of their belief...

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm wondering why U 'feel the need' to challenge
> someone else's faith or expression of their
> belief...

I'm not Steve, obviously, but please. Let us all not return to shaming for questions. It's the tired routine of LDS and all other systems that/who want to squash curiosity and all manner of inquiry.

Jesus handled questions just fine, if he's someone you admire. Heck, even Satan in the Bible story could handle a challenge.

:shrug He's someone Sandra believes in. Amyjo recommended Ghandi as well. He received questions graciously. Lots of spiritual teachers welcomed inquiry.

But you're right, maybe Sandra is far from that caliber. 'Classy' doesn't equal respectable.

There's a Jesus humor thread you might enjoy.

I don't have a dog in this fight. It is my humble opinion that God dealt with the human race differently in ancient times than He has since Christ came. The Bible says there was a time when certain people had the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, etc for various reasons...however none of those gifts have been extant since Christ was on earth. I'm not trying to answer for Sandra or anyone else, just presenting my own reasons for believing in the biblical stories that would not be possible today (the flood, Tower of Babel, etc).
I think there's room in the exmo community for atheists and Christians alike, and people in both categories have made huge contributions to our cause!!

It's fair to say that Sandra Tanner has done more to help people out of Mormonism than anyone else on this forum, with the exception of Eric K. who runs this site, and Richard Packham, for their tireless efforts expended to helping other Mormons have the resources available to help them help themselves.

Sandra is a pioneer in her field, and highly respected for the person that she is.

Calling her a hypocrite because she's witnessed miracles in her lifetime, doesn't make her a hypocrite. It means the one making the accusation has a problem processing her account. For someone who makes his livelihood working in journalism, it doesn't bode well for the journalist to negate what his subject discloses by discrediting her honesty for saying as much.

A good journalist looks for facts - not letting his own biased views cloud his judgment when interviewing his subject/s.

Truth of the matter is Sandra Tanner was not being interviewed. But if she was she would not have answered it any differently based on her life experiences. She was honest and forthright with Steve Benson - he just wasn't able to accept her answer at face value, without calling her a hypocrite for the beliefs she holds dear. A good journalist passes no judgment. Certainly not in his writings based on the exchange.