The beat (or beating, take your pick) goes on.

In another thread, RFM poster "aaron" writes:

"Steve Benson is 100% right in his assertion that people like Sandra Tanner do not apply the same logic to their beliefs in Jesus that they do to Mormonism."

("Re: 'I believe in God because of personal experience.' Yeah. Prove It," posted by "aaron," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 26 March 2017)


"aaron" is himself correct. While Sandra Tanner has long been an effective, outspoken and much-appreciated critic of the fundamental fakery of Mormonism, she has, unfortunately, also been consistently inconsistent by cutting her evangelical Christian faith undeserved breaks on the "miracle"-believability front while, at the same time, refusing to grant those same breaks to her former LDS faith.

This is seen in her writings appearing in Christian publications, where she demonstrates no problem whatsoever in debunking the "miracle" tales of the Book of Mormon because, for example, she argues that the Book of Mormon's references to these tales are, in and of themselves, too long and clunky for them to be true:

"Considering the effort needed to make the original gold plates of the Book of Mormon and then to engrave them, one would expect a scribe to be as concise as possible, not wordy. Nephi's brother, Jacob complained:

"'I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates' (Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:1).

"However, lengthy sentences abound in the Book of Mormon. Here is just one example:

"'And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record—for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a MIRACLE [emphasis added] in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity—And now it came to pass, if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time, the thirty and third year had passed away; And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Laminate, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land' (3 Nephi 8:1-3").

(SOURCE: "The Oldest Biblical Text?: Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham Examined," by Sandra Tanner, reprinted from "Christian Research Journal," http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no113.htm)


Ever seen Sandra Tanner criticize Bible "miracle" tales using the same standard that she invokes above?

Didn't think so.

Double-standard hypocrisy on her part, plain and simple.

The reason for her conveniently-selective criticism of believer bogusness is clear: She's long been a Bible believer who chooses not to apply the same hard, empirical research methodology to Christianty's irrational "miracle" tales that she does to the "miracle" tales of Mormonism. She hangs on to her Christian "miracle" mythology as fervently as Mormons hang on theirs.

Here's Sandra's confessional in that regard, posted on her Utah Lighthouse Ministry website:

"What We Believe

"Utah Lighthouse Ministry unites with the broad, historic evangelical faith rather than affiliating with any specific denomination. In this commitment, the ministry embraces the following declarations of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"Statement of Faith

"We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

"We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

"We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, IN HIS MIRACLES [emohasis added], in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

"We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

"We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

"We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

"We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ."

(SOURCE: "What We Believe," Utah Lighthouse Ministry "Statement of Faith," http://www.utlm.org/statementoffaith.hym)


Well, I'll be damned.

What Sandra Tanner faithfully believes is evangelical biblical Christianity--which explains her selective, hypocritical double standard in not subjecting the "miracle" tales of her Bible to the same kind of rigorous, critical, demanding examination that she imposes on the "miracle" tales of the Book of Mormon.

Busted! But for true believers, being busted means nothing when their God is being trusted. Indeed, one day several years ago in One of my many visits toher Salt Lake City bookstore, I carefully approached Sandra with the question of how she managed to square her acceptance of unverified Bible "miracles" and her rejection of similarly unverified book of Mormon "miracles."

After browsing and making some selections, I saw she 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. 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.

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 her 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. 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

For the record, I wasn't asking her to talk about "miracles" that had transpired in her own life. I was asking her to explain to me how the "miracle" tales of the Bible could be explained rationally and historically. In redponse to that legitimate question, what I got was a holier-than-thou, Mormon-like testimonisl witness straight out of 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 drawn a little blood.

Sandra Tanner--the invincible, pugnacious and impeccable crusader against all things illogical and baseless--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.

In so many ways, Sandra 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 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, do the "miracle whip."

Mormons do the same thing.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 05:38AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only
> infallible, authoritative Word of God.

I'll leave the rest to others, but...

That one statement right there takes about thirty seconds to conclusively prove false. And you don't even have to read very far into the bible.

Gen. 1:24-27 says 'god' created the animals before 'man.'
Gen. 2:7-19 says 'god' created man before the animals.

Now, apologists come up with all sorts of explanations for that one (and many others like it), usually coming down to some sort of "scribal error." Fine. Even though that's probably NOT the case, let's call it a 'scribal error.' Which means it's an error. Which means the bible is not infallible. And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, more such self-contradictory 'errors.'

Whatever the bible is, 'infallible' it is not.
Yet there Sandra is, clearly stating she believes the bible is 'infallible,' a belief so easy to show false it's embarrassing.

And making Steve's point quite nicely.

as far as she has been translated correctly.

You have to give the biblical authors a break. They were literally out of their minds on hallucinogenic plants.

You should be glad Sandra was an evangelical Christian. It gave her motivation to expose Mormonism. The Tanners moved a mountain. That's not easy.

in the process, she's been swept away in an avalanche of irrational evangelical "miracle" nonsense that she has unfortunately allowed to muddle her critical thinking and compromise her intellectual integrity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 01:52PM by steve benson.

Look, you can prove Mormonism false, the BofA, the BofM, JS claims of gold plated and his witnesses concluded testimony.

But can you prove the Bible false? You may state you don't believe, but show the proof.

It is generally recognized that there never were Nephites, Zarahemla, and that JS produced a cult that is a very tangent form of Christianity, and because he lied about the BofA, he is a completely unreliable witness.

But the Bible has many evidentiary items, such as there are Jews, and they all know that they are named after a man named Judah, one on the 12 tribes. That the Jews firmly believe in the OT. That the Jews still celebrate Passover.

That the Jews in the OT and NT merged into being the ruling class. And that even now, Jews have been persecuted for being a ruling class, and essential run the TV and movie companies. And as a missionary in Boston, whenever we tracted in mosterhouse areas, a high percentage of homes had the door rectangle things.

My point being that there are several things today that are consistent with the OT, and NT. Purim is celebrated. Sabbath is still considered Saturday. Pork is avoided. Throughout the whole Bible, there are records of genealogy, over and over. Even the Muslims claim Abraham as their father. Genealogy from King David to Jesus has been recorded. Dead Sea scrolls have been found. The animosity of neighbouring countries to Isreal and Israel continue to this day.

But Mormons can't even be constitant who the Lamanites are.

... was to claim that she had had miracles occur in her life and that she felt sorry for me.

"Miracles" in her life don't prove the authenticity of the Bible.

Yes, there is an historical record of the existence of the kingdom of Israel, of the Jews, of their rulers, and of their cities.

But to prove the so-called "miracles" of the Bible by falling back on a smug "I-feel-sorry-for-you" statement of personal "miracles" in one's own life, just doesn't cut it.

I suspect that Sandra knows that, given her curt, defensive, self-righteous smack-back reply. Again, she is willing to claim that Bible "miracles " occurred, but she can't prove it. If only she would cut the Book of Mormon the same kind of break.

But she won't, of course, because of her personal investment in evangelical Christianity. It blinds her to the obvious myths of the Bible, which is too bad because a non-Mormon mind is a terrible thing to waste.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2017 01:32AM by steve benson.

Unable to stop until every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Sandra Tanner is a hypocrite, Steve Benson and his lackey ificouldhieuntokolob are determined to keep this thread alive until the rest of us give in from sheer fatigue.

Give it a rest Steve! Who cares?

Plus, others care who have posted not only in this thread but in the two related threads thst preceded this current one.

Give yourself a rest. This person whom you demean as "a little old lady" can certainly take care of herself. You're not the mod here--or the bishop.

If you don't like the conversation, don't click on the thread.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 04:03PM by steve benson.

I was hoping it would be something different.
I was wrong.
In the grand scheme of things I enjoy your contributions.
Just getting a little weary of this one.
I'll keep checking in once in a while.

Moreover, by your latest admission, you weren't really concerned about that "little old lady." You just wanted something more interesting for you to read.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 04:07PM by steve benson.

rutabaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unable to stop until every knee bows and every
> tongue confesses that Sandra Tanner is a
> hypocrite, Steve Benson and his lackey
> ificouldhieuntokolob are determined to keep this
> thread alive until the rest of us give in from
> sheer fatigue.
>
> Give it a rest Steve! Who cares?

And your name-calling adds so much to the discussion, doesn't it?

I'm a lot of things. Some you probably wouldn't like.
But I'm nobody's lackey.

rutabaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares?

Thank you for supporting the process of curious inquiry! No doubt you recognize the significant lack thereof in the life of Sandy T. when it comes to 'the Bible' (simply a working term for this and other threads).

I care.

Add me to the lackeys tally.

And, rutabaga, if you ever get scared again by a thread of any kind, just go back underground.

6 iron, you actually *can't* "prove" the BofM false. You can't "prove" Joe's gold plate claims are false. You can't "prove" the "witness testimonies" false. The BofA, well that's a different issue...

Anyway, with mormonism, you can't prove most of it false. What you CAN do is show that for most of its claims, there is no evidence to show them TRUE, and that there are far more plausible, reasonable explanations for their claims than "Joseph was a prophet!" or "Joseph translated gold plates!" That's because, logically, claims without supporting evidence don't have any merit.

What you don't seem to get is that the vast majority of the bible is in exactly the same situation.

Some parts (analogous to the mormon BofA) of the bible *have* been pretty conclusively shown false. Humans didn't magically spring up as "created" 6,000 or so years ago. There was never a global flood. Languages didn't originate at some "tower of babel." There was no Hebrew captivity in Egypt, no "exodus," no wandering in the desert for 40 years. There is more than sufficient evidence to show all of those stories, and more, conclusively false.

For most of the rest, other than a few kingdoms, kings, events, and a very few "battles," there is simply no confirming evidence for biblical events. "Jews" being descended from "Judah," who was one of the "12 tribes," is a good example. There is no evidence to back that up. There is no evidence that "Abraham" ever existed. And so on and so on.

It's reasonable to reject mormonism because the claims it makes are not backed up by evidence, and they're highly improbable.

The vast majority of the claims in the bible are also not backed up by evidence, and are highly improbable.

So why believe one and not the other? Clearly not because the same logic or reasoning is being applied in both cases.

Back on this again? It's obvious her worldview isn't built on sound logic.

But neither is yours. You are just as silly making up your mind about an unknown. Your disgust of religion clouds your logic proven by all the fallacies you generate.

You believe there is no God. That isn't logical. Neither is literal belief in the lore of stone-age/bronze age religions or blindly following so called leaders who do your thinking for you. Same applies to claiming certainty of God.

It's foolish to make ones mind up about an unknown. You traded the dogma of Mormonism for being a "new" Atheist. You defend your position of the unknown with the same vigor and intellectual dishonesty as Dan Peterson defends Mormonism.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle. That's not you no matter the number of Pulitzers you receive from the "yellow press".

I expect nothing less than logical fallacies in return.

thinking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You believe there is no God. That isn't logical.

Steve will have to answer for himself, but as for me...I don't "believe there is no god."

I try hard not to "believe" anything.

Lacking belief in the 'god' things other people make outrageous, unsupportable claims about isn't the same thing as believing there's no god.

Do I think it's likely there IS a god? Nope. There's no evidence of any, and no need for any to explain anything. And while there's substantial evidence that most of the 'gods' people make claims about do not, in fact, exist, I can't say there isn't any such thing anywhere. So I won't.

If somebody presented verifiable evidence of one, I'd accept that one existed. That wouldn't be "belief" though.

This response is sematic gobbledygook.

You state:

>I don't "believe there is no god." I try hard not to "believe" anything.

Then go on contracting yourself by stating:

>Do I think it's likely there IS a god? Nope.

To think means to have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something. You stated your belief, what you believe as "likely there IS a God? Nope." It doesn't matter if you change the word you're trying to avoid to something synonymous, the meaning stays the same. The contraction and failed logic still exists.

Please explain to me the difference between: 1)"I believe your mind is an incoherent jumble of thoughts" vs. 2)"I think its likely your mind is an incoherent jumble of thoughts".

thinking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This response is sematic gobbledygook.

It's a shame you consider honest reasoning "gobbledygook."
But that's YOUR problem, not mine.

> To think means to have a particular opinion,
> belief, or idea about someone or something.

think: verb:
- to reflect on (ponder)
- to subject to the processes of logical thought

> You
> stated your belief, what you believe as "likely
> there IS a God? Nope."

That's not a belief, it's an assessment of the available evidence (or lack thereof).

> It doesn't matter if you
> change the word you're trying to avoid to
> something synonymous, the meaning stays the same.
> The contraction and failed logic still exists.

The words used *do* matter. And there's neither any contradiction nor "failed logic." If you think so, point out what they are rather than just making a bare assertion that they exist.

> Please explain to me the difference between: 1)"I
> believe your mind is an incoherent jumble of
> thoughts" vs. 2)"I think its likely your mind is
> an incoherent jumble of thoughts".

While a "belief" CAN be based on observation and evidence and logic, it doesn't have to be. It CAN be completely made-up, ignorant, unobserved, unexperienced nonsense and still be "believed." "Belief" requires no basis whatsoever other than acceptance.

So you could arrive at your #1 above without any thought, reasoning, observation, evaluation, evidence, or anything else. You can't arrive at #2 that way (if you're being honest).

Considering something "likely" is an evaluation of available evidence, observation, and consideration of probability. It's not "belief."

Words have meanings. I choose mine carefully. Assessing a probability isn't "belief." While it's *possible* that some people arrive at a "belief" by the same method as assessing a probability, doing so is not necessary in any way to have a "belief." Making an assessment of probability different from "belief."

"Belief" is imprecise. It doesn't convey any information about how someone arrived at a particular conclusion or idea. It's ambiguous, and so I try not to use it when other words that DO convey information about the process used to arrive at a conclusion are much more precise and correct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2017 09:52AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Tell us again how "miracles" in one's life prove the historicity of the Bible's "miracle" tales. After all, that was the theme of the OP, which apparently has you so flustered and fretting that you're trying to change the subject to an attack on wicked atheists.

BOO! from your feared bugaboos.

I've put in my 2 cents about the Tanners in the past.

When I first discovered their articles, they really helped me. I am appreciative for the contribution they made to my "awakening" so to speak.

As I read more and more I began to gravitate toward more scholarly work.

Obviously the Tanners are head and shoulders above crackpots like Ed Decker. That said, I would classify them as whistle blowers, not academicians.

I would expect an academic to apply the criteria and standards they use on Mormonism to other areas in life. They only looked under one rock.

I don't understand how the mental gymnastics doesn't make people go out digging with a shovel.

That's what the Tanners get for trying to serve two masters.

Science has demonstrated that in nature two-headed calves don't fare particularly well



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2017 01:58AM by steve benson.

Reductive materialism / naturalism (the belief that only material reality exists, miracles being impossible) has implications a lot of cynics haven't considered.

Here is a thoughtful book by Tim Keller addressing this:

"Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical"
http://a.co/ewvnOOd

If one accepts the possibility of miracles, then refuting the Book of Mormon still happens on historical grounds, but it isn't as shallow as, "It makes claims of supernatural miracles, therefore it must be false."

so-called "miracles" are natural phenomena that have yet to be empirically explained. Give science enough investigative time and resources, and these supposed "miracles" tend to fall by the wayside as accumulated knowledge passes them by with tested and verified evidences that lead to informed naturalistic explanations rooted in the real world.

Remember, the voice of "God" used to be thunder--that is, until the science of meteorology came along. More rain on the primitives' parade.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2017 02:14AM by steve benson.