That moment came when she got cross with me as we crossed swords over Christianity and its purported miracles.

A current RfM thread asking believing posters to explain how they know of God's alleged existence brought my encounter with Sandra to mind.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,365962
_____


First, let me say, though, 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 12/14/2011 07:39PM by steve benson.

So her house of cards doesn't go quite as high as the Mormons' does, but a house of cards it remains.

I still own many items from their store.

So that makes them delusional and insane. Got it.

In that one area, yes. Not insane hardware, just some insane progamming.

I don't remember reading that Steve thought that religious belief makes a person insane in all ways and at all times, but that magical thinking is insane and delusional. I would have probably used the words disfunctional and harmful. But then no-one would have read my post because it would have been boring.

I enjoy these posts because, for me, recovery from Mormonism means recovery from magical thinking, major and minor, as much as recovery from a specific organization.

It is hard to see how Christianity in general isn't hipocritical in pointing out the impossibility of Mormon claims.

Now, when Christians point out specific or systemic harms, that is more useful.

Of course, there are a lot of specific and systemic harms associated with Christianity.

I also find it logically strange when an ex-Mormon continues to believe in the christian god. It's weird to me that someone would use logic to go halfway to the rational conclusion.

Why do you think that is?

Some of my guesses:

1) The Mormon church is arguably easier to disprove. There is perhaps stronger evidence of the Mormon church not being true than Christianity. (Although for me personally believing the Old Testament literally is even more clearly false than Mormonism - e.g. would god really condone killing an entire city after all the males in the city just converted to your religion and circumscribed themselves.)

2) Confirmation bias - in short, the human brain naturally ignores evidence contrary to what they believe and highlights evidence that supports what they already believe.

I like Michael Shermer's treatment of this:
this is what I call the Hard Question: why do smart people believe weird things? My Easy Answer will seem somewhat paradoxical at first: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
That is to say, most of us most of the time come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning (that, presumably, smart people are better at employing). Rather, such variables as genetic predispositions, parental predilections, sibling influences, peer pressures, educational experiences, and life impressions all shape the personality preferences and emotional inclinations that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to make certain belief choices. Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational belief, regardless of what we previously believed. Instead, the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through our lifetime. We then sort through the body of data and select those most confirming what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that are disconfirming.

All of us do this, of course, but smart people are better at it through both talent and training.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/excerpt/

3) Some people have experiences that cause them to specifically question the Mormon church but not Christianity.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 05:47PM by steve benson.

I love the large tempral lobe capacity for creative processing. I just want to rememer the source: my own brain.

To me it seems like being a kid who no longer believes in the Easter Bunny but still believes in Santa.

It both fascinates and perplexes me how you can use some reason but then not carry it all the way through.

are proof of their faith...no other empirical data is needed. their negative can not be proven which leaves room for their faith.

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.

Christians dont seem to realize that just because there is a Jerusalem that dates back to antiquity that doesnt mean that the storys from that time are also true...that line of "reasoning" is not logical to me. I can feel your frustration with Sandra Tanner from here. You are very good at telling the story to be sure.

Personally could not care less if the Tanners (and I've been to the store several times) drove straight into atheism or drifted sideways into another version of Christianity.

They provided a valid service in trading me good info for spare cash over the years, and that's all that matters to me.

I was inactive for a loooong time, and my resignation from the corporation left me without a firm belief in any deity, but still acknowledging the possibility, and I don't require anybody else who left to end up atheistic, agnostic, Catholic, Moonie, Baptist, or anything else.

You've become as rabid a missionary for atheism as any Mormon missionary I ever ran into was for their cause.
They think they're "right", you think you're "right".
Long as neither side tries to push those "rights" off onto me, I'm quite happy to let you both have your beliefs.

I have no problem whatever with Sandra Tanner's version of Christianity, whatever it may be.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 05:55PM by steve benson.

Of course it's "right" to reject unsubstantiated claims. If I claim that you owe me $5000.00 and don't provide evidence, would you expect a judge to find in my favor simply because they "believe" me? That's ridiculous.

You also said, "I'm quite happy to let you both have your beliefs." Atheism is not a belief. It's not a claim.

You make as much sense as Ray Comfort.

Steve,
I have no interest in cute repartee.

I'm just pointing out that I don't require you to have the same beliefs, travel the same direction, or end up in the same place as I did once out the "Mormon Door".

I don't belittle Sandra Tanner because she followed a different direction than I did once outside the Corporation, I saw no need to pick a fight with her during any of my visits, and I don't see that the denigration by atheists here of those who were "smart" enough to leave the Corporation, but "too stupid" to go all the way & give up on religion entirely has a hell of a lot of validity.

I won't argue the presence of God with an atheist, I won't argue the absence of God with a "religionist".
Believe, don't believe. Your life, pick what works for you.

I'm not a missionary for either side, as you feel you are for yours.

Every time I've pointed out that some participants here occasionally exhibit exactly the same types of crusading behaviors against the Corporation (and/or Christianity) that are found so reprehensible by missionaries & other TBMs, but in diametrically opposed form in favor of the Corporation, I get dumped on.

It's a crime against humanity for Mormons to try to crusade for their church, but it's perfectly acceptable for you to crusade endlessly against religion.

The same exact thing that gives their activities validity in their minds also gives your activities validity in your mind: belief. They believe they're right, you believe you're right.

Gerald & Sandra Tanner have done the world a great service, and I don't criticize them for "not going all the way" into atheism as you did.

Once out the Corporate Door, you turned left while they turned right.
You're happy, she's happy.
She's not, as far as I know, posting anywhere about how disappointed she is that you didn't take her path.

What difference in the grand scheme of things does it make that you don't believe & she does?

And to deny that you don't care is just plain horsefeathers.

Hit your buzzer, didn't it? You're really going at it now. :)


By the way, I did commend the Tanners for their great service. (Reread the OP in case you missed it).

I chose not, however, to commend Sandra for her Great Pumpkin magical miracle thinking when it comes to the fairy tales of Christianity. She can feel sorry for me all she wants and bear testimony to that effect 'til Jesus comes home.

Now, quit proselytizing me on what you think.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 07:12PM by steve benson.

Steve,
Will do, but I doubt you'll stop proselytizing the rest of us with your views of religionists who don't measure up. :)

You've provided a fair amount of insider info about the Corporation, which has been useful & informative, even recycled endlessly, and you deserve full credit for that.

For incessantly pushing the atheist agenda, not so much.

And this should in no way be construed as an attack on atheists.

Done.

Just who is "the rest of us"?

Did your Jesus appoint you spokesperson for them, whoever they may be?

Amen and amen.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 07:20PM by steve benson.

What is this so called "atheist agenda" of which you speak ?

I think you're making shit up again.

how some people are smart enough to see their way out of Mormonism but can't quite make the additional step to see they way out of all religion.

You also said, "I'm quite happy to let you both have your beliefs." Atheism is not a belief. It's not a claim.

you are on the ball Kolobian...when i read it your response leaped into my brain.
just sayin...

Ok if you want to play with words and say atheism is not a belief, we can word it this way.

I'm an "evolutionist" and a "realist". I believe that science is the best way of explaining the world. I believe that evolution and not any type supernatural force is what has created life and humans. I believe that this occurred on it's own and that there is no secret being playing house with the earth.

That's a belief right?

"I believe that evolution and not any type supernatural force is what has created life and humans."

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. That's a-biogenesis. Evolution deals specifically with speciation, and I agree no supernatural intervention is necessary.

It's not a belief, however, because we have empirical evidence that evolution is responsible for diversity of species. There is no belief necessary. Both the fossil record and DNA evidence show the same thing.

It's not playing with words to say atheism is not a belief. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. No word play is necessary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:26AM by kolobian.

The fundamental problem with using "miracles" as confirmation of one's faith (Mormon or Christian or whatever) is that "miracles" (i.e., some astonishing or unexpected occurrence which cannot be explained with our present scientific knowledge) are used by EVERYBODY to confirm their religious belief.

In fact, "miracles" (as I tentatively defined above) even happen to atheists. Miracles have happened to me, a staunch atheist for many years. The only difference between my miracles and the miracles that happen to believers is that I don't think that the miracles "prove" my atheism.

I would also like to point out that Steve Benson did not in any way in his post "belittle" Sandra. He merely pointed out his view that her skepticism of Mormonism stopped at the Bible.

"Horsefeather"'s criticism of Steve as a "missionary" seems extreme. Would Horsefeather criticize Sandra Tanner's efforts to expose the falsity of Mormonism to the same extent? When is it improper to point out the logical or factual errors in someone else's assertions, especially when done in a civil manner? Comparing Steve's comments to Mormon missionary efforts is not accurate: Steve does not employ a corps of 50,000 full-time people to knock on people's doors.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 07:22PM by steve benson.

I agree their work was very helpful for me and I respect their work as whistle blowers against Mormonism. However they never seemed very scholarly beyond that.

They did not apply their criticism or standards to anything but Mormonism, and would make fantastical claims about other beliefs. I moved on fairly fast once I saw they had inconstant scrutiny outside of Mormonism.

. . . Sandra and Jerald (RIP) could not, in my opinion, be accurately described as objective historians on religious matters outside of Mormonism which are inside of Christianity, since they seem to have fallen prey to (or at least perhaps not escaped from) the same kind of miraculous magical Mormon mindset when it comes to supernatural Christian God belief.

Amazing how superstitious thinking can continue unabated when it's your own religion and not Mormonism anymore. (As a sidenote, I must confess that I have sometimes wondered how truly true-believing some of these tax-exempt Christian outfits truly are).



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 08:30PM by steve benson.

I'm always annoyed by Christians who claim validity of the Bible vs the Book of Mormon because the Bible can be verified archeaologically, etc. The same could be said of the D&C. If I replace the Bible with the D&C, a Mormon could "prove" the D&C as a reliable scripture of God by saying:

"the LDS Doctrine & Covenants is 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 D&C as a reliable reference and field guide.

For instance, there were, real Mormons who lived in a real city of Nauvoo. The D&C serves as a valuable scientific roadmap for finding and identifying these populations and locales in New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois."

You can PROVE that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris lived, that Nauvoo and Palmyra were REAL cities and that we have the ORIGINAL manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. There were even miracles spoken of in its pages. By their logic Christians must accept the D&C as scripture too.

Steve;

Interesting experience with Sandra. It fascinates me that several of the people who have done so much to expose Mormonism using facts, history, and logic, refuse to apply the same objective standards to their own myths, magic, and superstitious beliefs.

In my case, I have always been willing (or at least tried very hard) to change my beliefs based on whatever the evidence shows. My problem with Mormonism and religion in general was that I was completely surrounded by so many people talking about truth and evidence, I really believed the answers would be there when I got around to looking.

Quite a few Mormons it seems, become willing to seriously look at the Church for some reason or another, and when they objectively look, it is pretty easy to figure things out. In my opinion, the main thing that people are missing who only go "part way" in their objective reasoning is they don't understand that personal experiences are virtually useless in discovering reality. They easily discount everyone else's personal experiences when they apply to magical and superstitious beliefs not shared, but seem to be totally unable to look at the big picture when it relates to their own cherished unfounded beliefs.

Ex Mo's can now easily understand that a personal experience of being healed by the priesthood is totally meaningless if the effect of priesthood blessings is statistically undetectable within Mormonism. Take the same concept though, and and apply it to their experience with Jesus, Mary, aliens, copper bracelets, or tin foil hats, and their brain quits working.

I like John Loftus term of OTF (outsider test of faith) Anyone looking at your religion from outside of it has no trouble seeing that it is bogus. Since there are thousands of religions the odds are greatly against your just happening to be in the true one. If you really want to know, it behooves you to look at your beliefs in the same manner that you examine the beliefs of others you do not share. (OTF)

I am very grateful to the folks like Tanners, Evans, Palmer, Larson, etc. etc. but they do mystify me.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 03:03AM by steve benson.

Sandra just happens to be smart. She was BIC, but she could not ignore the fact that Mormonism was and is a fraud.

If the facts said the same thing about Christianity, you can bet she would be part of the Benson movement.

No critical application of that acknowledged and obviously smart mind of Sandra's that she has used so well in picking apart the absurdities of Mormon scripture stories.

If Sandra had been in possession of facts about those Christianity wonder tales, you can bet she would have produced them--but all I got from her was a Mormon-like testimony:

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

Sorry, indeed-- as in, sorry but that just doesn't cut it.

I wasn't asking her to tell me about miracles in her life.

I was asking her to tell me about those miracles in the Bible.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 01:02AM by steve benson.

I have noticed this same behavior in all denominations of faith when you corner them on truth. They all behave the same way, mormon vs. christian born again or whatever. Its an amazing phenomenom or its basically Sandra's suttle way of saying that she is banking on religion the same way as the LDS church.

Either way you look at it, ppl will find ways to exploit human emotions to gain money. Moreover, humans will cling desperately to B.S. faiths to provide some sort of happy impression on their painful existance.

I owe my awakening to Richard Packham. It didn't cost me a dime that I know of, but it was far cheaper to view his websites and compare them with other known facts to find the truth. Thank you Richard! A mile high salute to you bud!

The day I discovered the truth about the false church of jesus christ of lds, was that hour I dropped god and jesus into the trash bin. Literally. I dumped my old bible and bom into the trashbin.

Just an hour ago before that, I was still waiting for an answer, a confirmation of my worthiness and of the truthfulness of the BOM. There are too many personals things happening to me that faithful day - which caused me to ask the question what if the church is not true. It took me alot of courage to stop and ask the question. After an emotional heartfelt prayer, I waited for the burning bosom or a sign or inspiration that would strenghten my faith in the mormon god.

Nothing happened. No answer from heaven.

I was at a cross point, and emotional wreck if you like

I decided to turn to the internet for an answer, which I never ever dared to previously. I found rfm. That turned out to be the breaking moment, the decisive moment.

I accepted tearfully that christianity is man made and that joseph smith was a con man.

I am glad, today, Im no longer a believer in all things jesus or any other religion for that matter. Im free to live my life as I see fit :)

When one reject mormonism, one naturally and intelligently give up on all things related to god and jesus. Because both matters are related in many ways.