On Sandra Tanner and "Enemies of Mormonism"

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[_Meadowchik]

Furthermore, I would say that there are plenty of critics who have been excommunicated by the church who have, arguably, helped generate pressure and exposure to issues which has contributed to resulting changes. And then there are changes which can be helping to improve the institution itself, therefore making it more adaptible, resulting in increased longevity in the long-term, and a healthier place for participants in the present.

[_Grudunza]

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

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

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

[_Kishkumen]

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

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

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

LOL! OK, well, I do not apologize or retract my view that Sandra Tanner is an enemy of Mormonism. Of course, one must understand what I am saying in the context of my many other posts and actions over the years. As so often happens in our current environment, someone latches on to one word or passage and gets upset about it, making unfavorable assumptions but not correctly contextualizing the content.

Sandra Tanner is not an enemy of Mormons, but she most assuredly is an enemy of Mormonism as a system of belief and practice. Her goal is to undermine Mormonism and convert Mormons to her version of Christianity. Operating with this goal, she justifiably does not see herself as an enemy of Mormon people. She believes she is acting in their best interest.

But that does not mean she is not an enemy of the beliefs and practices of Mormonism. The word "enemy" perfectly fits one who attacks something with the intention of harming it. My use of the word enemy in this context is, in short, descriptive and is not intended as an insult.

Personally, I like Sandra Tanner. I think she is a very nice person. I know she believes she is doing the right thing. But I disagree with her intensely in that. I think her views represent a popular, mainstream form of Christianity that is nevertheless intolerant of other versions of Christianity. I don't blame her for acting on that intolerance. It is just baked into the system. Similarly, it is baked into Mormonism that the creeds of Christianity are false. I can say that I do not believe in the creeds of Christianity, but I don't know that this makes them false in a derogatory sense so much as negligibly important to those who do not ascribe to them.

The difference I see between the Mormons who go around converting Christians to Mormon Christianity and the Christians who go about fighting Mormonism is that the latter are more decidedly on the offensive in denying Mormons any Christian identity. In their eyes, Mormons need to be saved and must be persuaded that their faith is false because Mormonism is not Christian.

I've heard it over and over again. I was on the receiving end of it as a missionary. I did not shrink from that fight, and I would not today. By the end of my mission, I had become quite able at taking on the average Christian anti-Mormon and arguing them at least to a kind of stand still. They were not persuaded by my beliefs, but I was able to help them understand the beliefs better and to view them with less hostility and fear. In all of this I did not view these people as my personal enemies, but I was under no illusions about their opposition and hostility to my faith.

I regret that my words cause offense, and, if it makes you feel better, I could just as easily use the terms opponent or foe. Maybe that is what I should do. I just don't think that "enemy of Mormonism" is at all an inaccurate description of Christian anti-Mormons.

[_Dr Moore]

I too would prefer to discard the idea of "enemies" and "defenders". Admittedly, I used to see it that way. But it's a false construct set up by dogmatists on all sides.

We are all just humans trying to figure stuff out with the available evidence. Some of that evidence is clear, some is murky, and some is entirely personal and non-transferable.

[_Kishkumen]

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

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

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

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

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

[_Kishkumen]

I too would prefer to discard the idea of "enemies" and "defenders". Admittedly, I used to see it that way. But it's a false construct set up by dogmatists on all sides.

We are all just humans trying to figure stuff out with the available evidence. Some of that evidence is clear, some is murky, and some is entirely personal and non-transferable.

I know that I do not want to be an enemy or a defender. I am a guy who is trying to work things out. And yet, I do defend others when I think they are being unfairly attacked. And I do defend ideas I believe are worthy of defending.

There are, on the other hand, people who definitely aspire to be seen as enemies or defenders, regardless of any label I might attach to them. Do you think that DCP is ashamed to be a defender of Mormonism? Do you think that Christians who attack Mormonism to save Mormons are ashamed to be enemies of Mormonism?

I am aware that these Christians see themselves as friends of Mormon people, and I agree that they are sincere and well intended. I don't know that they necessarily object to being enemies of the beliefs and practices of Mormonism.

[Guest]

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

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

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

[_Meadowchik]

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

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

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

LOL! OK, well, I do not apologize or retract my view that Sandra Tanner is an enemy of Mormonism. Of course, one must understand what I am saying in the context of my many other posts and actions over the years. As so often happens in our current environment, someone latches on to one word or passage and gets upset about it, making unfavorable assumptions but not correctly contextualizing the content.

Sandra Tanner is not an enemy of Mormons, but she most assuredly is an enemy of Mormonism as a system of belief and practice. Her goal is to undermine Mormonism and convert Mormons to her version of Christianity. Operating with this goal, she justifiably does not see herself as an enemy of Mormon people. She believes she is acting in their best interest.

But that does not mean she is not an enemy of the beliefs and practices of Mormonism. The word "enemy" perfectly fits one who attacks something with the intention of harming it. My use of the word enemy in this context is, in short, descriptive and is not intended as an insult.

Personally, I like Sandra Tanner. I think she is a very nice person. I know she believes she is doing the right thing. But I disagree with her intensely in that. I think her views represent a popular, mainstream form of Christianity that is nevertheless intolerant of other versions of Christianity. I don't blame her for acting on that intolerance. It is just baked into the system. Similarly, it is baked into Mormonism that the creeds of Christianity are false. I can say that I do not believe in the creeds of Christianity, but I don't know that this makes them false in a derogatory sense so much as negligibly important to those who do not ascribe to them.

The difference I see between the Mormons who go around converting Christians to Mormon Christianity and the Christians who go about fighting Mormonism is that the latter are more decidedly on the offensive in denying Mormons any Christian identity. In their eyes, Mormons need to be saved and must be persuaded that their faith is false because Mormonism is not Christian.

I've heard it over and over again. I was on the receiving end of it as a missionary. I did not shrink from that fight, and I would not today. By the end of my mission, I had become quite able at taking on the average Christian anti-Mormon and arguing them at least to a kind of stand still. They were not persuaded by my beliefs, but I was able to help them understand the beliefs better and to view them with less hostility and fear. In all of this I did not view these people as my personal enemies, but I was under no illusions about their opposition and hostility to my faith.

I regret that my words cause offense, and, if it makes you feel better, I could just as easily use the terms opponent or foe. Maybe that is what I should do. I just don't think that "enemy of Mormonism" is at all an inaccurate description of Christian anti-Mormons.

Huh. Okay, I guess I better understand your intent and thanks for explaining.

I was on Temple Square with friends about 21 years ago when a convention of Baptists promised to go to SLC and save Mormons. I was in the tabernacle when a group of them surrounded a sister missionary, who was alone, and proceeded to very obviously try to trap her in her words. She soon felt overwhelmed but was aided by my friend, a newly returned missionary who was well-equipped to help.

I still feel like it was aggressive and inappropriate.

And I grew up in Texas where I was mocked and minimised for being Mormon.

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

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

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

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

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

[_Meadowchik]

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

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

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

Yes, believers and dissidents alike can be accused of counterproductive, destructive behaviours. I'm sure I'm guilty of that in some cases both as a believer and a dissident.