Wyatt opens up

[Kishkumen]

I am glad Allen Wyatt made his feelings and personal grudge against the Tanners clear. I think his anger is genuine and understandable. In my view, the Tanners, nice and genuine, were also people living in glass houses throwing stones. I don’t agree with their aims, but I think they are nice people and that they deserve genuine credit for sharing data about Mormonism that was otherwise difficult to get. I am not bothered by the Tanners, but they never caused me or my family any heartache. If they had, perhaps I would feel differently.

[huckelberry]

I am glad Allen Wyatt made his feelings and personal grudge against the Tanners clear. I think his anger is genuine and understandable. In my view, the Tanners, nice and genuine, were also people living in glass houses throwing stones. I don’t agree with their aims, but I think they are nice people and that they deserve genuine credit for sharing data about Mormonism that was otherwise difficult to get. I am not bothered by the Tanners, but they never caused me or my family any heartache. If they had, perhaps I would feel differently.

I remember the way the church created fear of the Tanners suggesting they were an evil and corrupting influence. That might be some explanation for why Wyatt blames the Tanners for his father's difficult and abrasive actions instead of just understanding those actions as a result of his father's choices.

Kishkumen you provided the following in the opening post.

I could add my own personal witness to these anecdotes, as I joined the Church in 1968 as a pre-teen in my parents’ family. Shortly after our family joined, my father discovered the writings of the Tanners. From that point onward he would fight against the Church, using arguments that had their genesis in the Tanners’ material. My father is now into his 90s, and he still argues against the Church using the same material. His actions — rooted in what the Tanners published — have caused no end of strife and contention within our family for over half a century.

Kishkumen followed:

"This is Wyatt revealing something of how he was motivated to pursue apologetics. The Tanners’ work set Wyatt’s father against the LDS Church, and he is hearing the same Tanner material from his dad to this day!

There is a lot of other good information and insight in here. For example, Arrington blamed the Tanners and their ilk for the closing of the LDS archives and the end of Mormon history’s Camelot period."
/////////
I think it would be more fair to say the church leaders closed the LDS archives not the Tanners. In a like vein I do not think the ugly things that Brigham Young said from time to time are the Tanners' fault.

The church demanded of me that I accept its exclusive and dominating authority claims. I respect the Tanners' effort to provide perspective on those claims. I am not very concerned if the church they connect with, whatever it is, is less than perfection. It is not making the same demands of me and others.

Their books lack professional historical analysis and judgement. I guess it is reasonable that a historian would be put off and disappointed somewhat in what they present. Is that what you are considering with your oft-repeated complaint about their glass house?

[Dr. Shades]

There is a lot of other good information and insight in here. For example, Arrington blamed the Tanners and their ilk for the closing of the LDS archives and the end of Mormon history’s Camelot period.

I think it would be more fair to say the church leaders closed the LDS archives not the Tanners.

Indeed. I'm quite surprised that Arrington would blame the Tanners and not the church, since the church closed the archives, not the Tanners.

In a like vein I do not think the ugly things that Brigham Young said from time to time are the Tanners' fault.

That should be obvious, but I guess some people can't bring themselves to make that connection. They're just too hopelessly dependent on the Matrix.

Shortly after our family joined, my father discovered the writings of the Tanners. From that point onward he would fight against the Church, using arguments that had their genesis in the Tanners’ material. My father is now into his 90s, and he still argues against the Church using the same material. His actions — rooted in what the Tanners published — have caused no end of strife and contention within our family for over half a century.

Then just freakin' prove wrong what your father is presenting, you utter doofus! The fact that you can't should give you some pause, should it not?

[Philo Sofee]

I think it would be more fair to say the church leaders closed the LDS archives not the Tanners.

Indeed. I'm quite surprised that Arrington would blame the Tanners and not the church, since the church closed the archives, not the Tanners.

In a like vein I do not think the ugly things that Brigham Young said from time to time are the Tanners' fault.

That should be obvious, but I guess some people can't bring themselves to make that connection. They're just too hopelessly dependent on the Matrix.

Shortly after our family joined, my father discovered the writings of the Tanners. From that point onward he would fight against the Church, using arguments that had their genesis in the Tanners’ material. My father is now into his 90s, and he still argues against the Church using the same material. His actions — rooted in what the Tanners published — have caused no end of strife and contention within our family for over half a century.

Then just freakin' prove wrong what your father is presenting, you utter doofus! The fact that you can't should give you some pause, should it not?

The GOLDEN point of it right there. Shades hits a Grand Slam. We don't even care if you can psychoanalyze the Tanners into some psychic-psycho ward, that will also be irrelevant to the ONLY issue at hand that matters. Refute what the Tanners have brought out. GOOD FLIPPING LUCK with that Wyatt, as now your own church with the Gospel Topics Essays are admitting many things the Tanners said and got excommunicated for!!! The church now says the actual history aligns with the Tanners materials, even if unprofessionally presented, which is also quite beside the point as they were not professionals anyway. The utterly crazy thing I have discovered... the utterly crazy thing I have discovered is that the Tanners were vastly more correct than Mormon apologists are with what they found and spoke out on concerning the papyri and Book of Abraham translation! Now to me, that is just wildly weird. And the church agrees with the majority of the criticisms fatal to a testimony concerning the translation of the papyri. They admit the papyri do not have the Book of Abraham in the hieroglyphics, and it was not translated from them. You would have gotten a church discipline court for saying that in the 1970's. Now Wyatt has to straighten the church out as well in the 2020's as Egyptologists even if they are Mormon, do not find Abraham in the papyri.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wyatt thinking about the Tanners

[huckelberry]

For my previous post I had not read the actual review linked so feeling a touch of curiosity and guilt I read it.

I can believe the book had a bit of rose colored glasses quality. That is common for EV promotional biographies. I did not care a whole lot about the observed inaccurate details. I did react to the proposal that the Tanners are guilty of causing injury by publishing the information and observations they do.

I have not felt impelled to bring up Tanner material at family thanksgiving. I think to do so is just bad form but perhaps Allen’s father felt a fatherly duty. Not my decision. On the other hand one could wonder if the friction for the Wyatt family had more sources than the father. I am not going to try and decide but I will state clearly that I do not think it is the Tanners’ fault. I think the blame lies squarely upon the claims and threats from the LDS church.

I feel approval for the Tanner effort to present material and their point of view. I think it is valuable even if I am a more liberal leaning Christian than I think the Tanners are. There is plenty of critical and thoughtful material about fundamentalist limitations or uncertainties in Christianity. I do not object to the existence of that material. I think it serves a purpose just as the Tanners’ one-sided urging serve a purpose.

[Philo Sofee]

For my previous post I had not read the actual review linked so feeling a touch of curiosity and guilt I read it.

I can believe the book had a bit of rose colored glasses quality. That is common for EV promotional biographies. I did not care a whole lot about the observed inaccurate details. I did react to the proposal that the Tanners are guilty of causing injury by publishing the information and observations they do.

I have not felt impelled to bring up Tanner material at family thanksgiving. I think to do so is just bad form but perhaps Allen’s father felt a fatherly duty. Not my decision. On the other hand one could wonder if the friction for the Wyatt family had more sources than the father. I am not going to try and decide but I will state clearly that I do not think it is the Tanners’ fault. I think the blame lies squarely upon the claims and threats from the LDS church.

I feel approval for the Tanner effort to present material and their point of view. I think it is valuable even if I am a more liberal leaning Christian than I think the Tanners are. There is plenty of critical and thoughtful material about fundamentalist limitations or uncertainties in Christianity. I do not object to the existence of that material. I think it serves a purpose just as the Tanners’ one-sided urging serve a purpose.

Well said Huck....

[Marcus]

Wyatt's complaint is equivalent to saying it's the fault of the CES letter that people leave the lds church. To me, that's ridiculous. The CES letter was just a method used to collect and present issues. If the CES letter didn't exist, the issues would still be there; likewise for the Tanner's efforts, if they hadn't published newsletters and had a bookshop, the issues the lds church has would still exist.

This mopologetic technique of attacking people just seems like a desperate attempt to hide the fact that they can't refute the problems those people talk about. It's an extremely unethical tactic to use.

[Kishkumen]

I think it would be more fair to say the church leaders closed the LDS archives not the Tanners. In a like vein I do not think the ugly things that Brigham Young said from time to time are the Tanners' fault.

I found Arrington’s statement interesting because people usually blame historians like Arrington for the end of “Camelot.”

The church demanded of me that I accept its exclusive and dominating authority claims. I respect the Tanners' effort to provide perspective on those claims. I am not very concerned if the church they connect with, whatever it is, is less than perfection. It is not making the same demands of me and others.

I respect your perspective on your experience. I see why the Tanners were valuable to you. From my point of view, people who convert to other religions are best served by living their new faith, not by running a counter-ministry directed at the old one. I’m just not in favor of that, just as I do not go around trying to convince people to leave the LDS Church myself. It does not line up with my personal ethos at all.

Their books lack professional historical analysis and judgement. I guess it is reasonable that a historian would be put off and disappointed somewhat in what they present. Is that what you are considering with your oft-repeated complaint about their glass house?

People believe in religion because of faith, not because of history or reason. Anyone can poke holes in another faith. That is the glass house. If a person wants to attack a religion, it does not take too much effort to find its flaws. Protestant Christianity is no less vulnerable. What it enjoys is the power of cultural dominance in the US. From that position it picks on other religions, calls them Satanic, demon-inspired and whatnot. This is the kind of intolerance I have real problems with. People complain about Mormonism’s apostasy narrative, but it is not nearly as aggressive as the Satanic or demonic accusations.

[Dr. Shades]

From my point of view, people who convert to other religions are best served by living their new faith, not by running a counter-ministry directed at the old one.

If you move out of an apartment that you strongly suspect is leaking carbon monoxide, should you just concentrate on setting up your new apartment, or should you warn the people who move into your old one?