TO THOSE WHO ARE INVESTIGATING "MORMONISM"

[Wrigley]

Doc: I'm glad that you avoid using the Tanners and Mr. Decker. I am curious about what specifically you find outdated at Jeff Lindsay's website. Perhaps we can discuss that here as this seems to be a generic thread about Mormonism.


~

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to use a great resource that the Tanner's have. It makes it easier to maintain your testimony when its not challenged.

 

[Wrigley]

That is great info babygirl! Thanks for posting it. The LDS present a nice facade covering a pagan religion. The Tanner's site and IRR.org are wonderful resources.

I agree babygirl. I've bookmarked this excellent resource.

 

[Doc T]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to use a great resource that the Tanner's have. It makes it easier to maintain your testimony when its not challenged.

Doc: Yes, the Tanner's are certainly a "great resource" if you do not want an unbiased source. The Tanner's have been characterized by non-Mormons as having "bitterness and sense of outrage" and that they are "driven by a very deep sense of anger." It was said that "until the Tanners are prepared to use consistent standards of judgment for their own faith as well as for that of others, their stance cannot be taken seriously by scholars or by the general public" and "the Tanners' own work falls short of history." It was also said of the Tanners:

"The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs."

Another non-Mormon said about the Tanners:

Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide that [larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history."

 

[Wrigley]

Doc: Yes, the Tanner's are certainly a "great resource" if you do not want an unbiased source. The Tanner's have been characterized by non-Mormons as having "bitterness and sense of outrage" and that they are "driven by a very deep sense of anger." It was said that "until the Tanners are prepared to use consistent standards of judgment for their own faith as well as for that of others, their stance cannot be taken seriously by scholars or by the general public" and "the Tanners' own work falls short of history." It was also said of the Tanners:
Another non-Mormon said about the Tanners:

It's not nice to quote and not show the source.

 

[baker]

Doc,

If I may comment here.

I am not endorsing nor condemning the Tanners by saying this, but I have to admit I have met Sandra Tanner recently (September) while I was in SLC. This is where I oredered my copy of the original BOM, D&C etc photocopied by Wilford Wood.

I talked to her for about 25 minutes and in that whole time, she never said one bad thing about the LDS church. As a matter of fact, she took the position with me that one must read and decide for themself. She was actually very proud of her heritage, being the great, great grandaughter of Brigham Young. I don't know if you've ever met her, but she is one of the sweetest persons I have met and was very enjoyable to talk with. She never led me to a conclusion but would only refer me to documents to read for myself. Admittedly, this is part of the interest I have generated in these forums.

I don't know if you know, but even your church newspaper, The Deseret News, printed a very flattering article on the Tanners that you can read here:

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no94.htm#Tanners%20are%20wellspring%20of%20documents

Like I said, do not stand for or against their work because at the end of the day, facts speak for themself, and everyone has to reach their own conclusion.

However, I am quite confident in saying that Sandra Tanner is no monster after meeting her. She seems to be getting up their in years so perhaps she has mellowed!?!

I just wanted to be honest with my experience in meeting her.

 

[twhite982]

Could the lds posters explain why they use this Lindsay website in all their defenses?

I personally don't use Jeff Lindsey all the time.

The LDS church doesn't pay any of the apologist, that I know of. Jeff Linsey's web site has 100's of topics discussed on his site. He doesn't speak for the church officially. Many LDS members look to people like him to help them defend the faith and it does help since everyone can't be an expert on everything.

I use him initially in my search for answer to questions I can't answer, but typically if the discussion is pressed deeeper, I have to look elsewhere for "meatier" answers, since Jeff L. does get too deep into his responses.

I usually choose from a dozen LDS apologist sites and the most frequented by me are Jeff Lindsey, Fair, and Farms.

The LDS is at a disadvantage since we don't have as large of repetiore of apologists as other faiths, but we manage just fine!

If he is merely expressing his opinion, why not express your own.

If you want to show what your church believes, why not reference to an official statement or explanation from your church.

The LDS church has decided not to defend every single accusation posed against itself. This would be a waste of resources and time in their view and would be better spend in other ways. Subsequently the members are somewhat left to themselves.

There are many statements from LDS leaders that respond to questions posed against the church that are used, but when they go out on their own they are not official doctrine for the church. This is why I always say verify things with the scriptures. Yet every last question can't be answered in the scriptures, so we speculate just as others do on scipture verses that are sketchy and vague as well as church history.

Sorry to ramble on there and I hope you got your question answered.

TW

 

[Wrigley]

twhite:

The LDS church has decided not to defend every single accusation posed against itself. This would be a waste of resources and time in their view and would be better spend in other ways. Subsequently the members are somewhat left to themselves.

I can understand. It's impossible to defend the indefensible.

 

[Doc T]

twhite:
[/font]

I can understand. It's impossible to defend the indefensible.

Doc:

Bring it on.

 

[Doc T]

Doc,

If I may comment here.

I am not endorsing nor condemning the Tanners by saying this, but I have to admit I have met Sandra Tanner recently (September) while I was in SLC. This is where I oredered my copy of the original BOM, D&C etc photocopied by Wilford Wood.

I talked to her for about 25 minutes and in that whole time, she never said one bad thing about the LDS church. As a matter of fact, she took the position with me that one must read and decide for themself. She was actually very proud of her heritage, being the great, great grandaughter of Brigham Young. I don't know if you've ever met her, but she is one of the sweetest persons I have met and was very enjoyable to talk with. She never led me to a conclusion but would only refer me to documents to read for myself. Admittedly, this is part of the interest I have generated in these forums.

I don't know if you know, but even your church newspaper, The Deseret News, printed a very flattering article on the Tanners that you can read here:

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no94.htm#Tanners%20are%20wellspring%20of%20documents

Like I said, do not stand for or against their work because at the end of the day, facts speak for themself, and everyone has to reach their own conclusion.

However, I am quite confident in saying that Sandra Tanner is no monster after meeting her. She seems to be getting up their in years so perhaps she has mellowed!?!

I just wanted to be honest with my experience in meeting her.

Doc: While I have never personally met Sandra Tanner, I am personally aquainted with a couple of LDS apologists to whom she (along with her husband) became rather rude to when they pinned her in a corner (logically speaking) and caught her in a lie. She could see that there was no way out and she and her husband, rudely asked them to leave. Now I don't say that I blame her for her actions, I may have done the same thing. I am sure over all she is a very nice person. Probably even a nice sweet grandma.

But that was not my point. She and her husband have an agenda. That agenda is to put the LDS church in the worst possible light. If that means breaking the law and copying and distributing copyrighted materials or telling only half the story or intentially leaving out facts that would alter the impression they are trying to protray of the LDS church, then it would appear that the ends justify the means.


~

 

[Wrigley]

Doc: While I have never personally met Sandra Tanner, I am personally aquainted with a couple of LDS apologists to whom she (along with her husband) became rather rude to when they pinned her in a corner (logically speaking) and caught her in a lie. She could see that there was no way out and she and her husband, rudely asked them to leave. Now I don't say that I blame her for her actions, I may have done the same thing. I am sure over all she is a very nice person. Probably even a nice sweet grandma.

Aren't you relying on hearsay here? Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend.....

But that was not my point. She and her husband have an agenda. That agenda is to put the LDS church in the worst possible light. If that means breaking the law and copying and distributing copyrighted materials or telling only half the story or intentially leaving out facts that would alter the impression they are trying to protray of the LDS church, then it would appear that the ends justify the means.


~

No, the agenda is to shine the light of truth on the grave errors of mormonism. And you really should be careful when making unsourced and unsubstantiated statements like above. That type of natural man behavior comes back to bite people in the hind end.

 

[baker]

Doc,

I have no problem with your personal opinion of the Tanners. However, I have learned (perhaps the hard way at times) that opinions of others are better formed after meeting them yourself.

As to their agenda, I would probably disagree with your charaterization of it. I just don't see what they do any differently than what some of these apologetic groups do. Each side put's out information as to what they believ and how they want to defend it. At the end of the day, everyone has to read, study, investigate and decide for themself. Part of that process, for intelligent people anyway, is to decide the accuracy, factual reliabilty, objectiveness, peer acceptance, context and perhaps other criteria of the information presented.

I don't want to start a debate on this point, but if the Tanners choose to take their missionary agenda to the public in trying to demonstrate that the mormon church is not the true church it claims to be, how is this any different than the thousands of missionaries that the mormon church sends out trying to convince everyone else that their church is not the true church? For me, this seems to be a two way street.

Again though, if the Tanners are as bad as you may believe, why did your church newspaper print such a glowing article on them?!? Perhaps they had a different impression of them than you do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Now, I was not aware that the Tanners were convicted of breaking any laws in the distribution of any material. Could you refer me to any support on this. After all, I wouldn't want to accuse you of using the same tactics that you are accusing the Tanners of!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Doc T]

baker: Now, I was not aware that the Tanners were convicted of breaking any laws in the distribution of any material. Could you refer me to any support on this. After all, I wouldn't want to accuse you of using the same tactics that you are accusing the Tanners of!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doc: I too do not want to get into an argument about the Tanners. I have my evidence of their distortions of the facts that I would be more than happy to present. If you have evidence of any distortion of facts by any LDS apologists then you are welcome to present that. As far as the Tanners breaking the law is distribution of materials see: http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,230012567,00.html


~

 

[baker]

baker: Now, I was not aware that the Tanners were convicted of breaking any laws in the distribution of any material. Could you refer me to any support on this. After all, I wouldn't want to accuse you of using the same tactics that you are accusing the Tanners of!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doc: I too do not want to get into an argument about the Tanners. I have my evidence of their distortions of the facts that I would be more than happy to present. If you have evidence of any distortion of facts by any LDS apologists then you are welcome to present that. As far as the Tanners breaking the law is distribution of materials see: http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,230012567,00.html


~

Doc,

Thanks for the link to the story.

I see the Tanners were not convicted of violating any copyright law afterall.

Again though, I appreciate your opinions.

 

[Wrigley]

Doc,

Thanks for the link to the story.

I see the Tanners were not convicted of violating any copyright law afterall.

Again though, I appreciate your opinions.

One more thing to think about. Mark Hoffman approached the Tanner's with some of his forgeries, which the Tanner's declined to buy because they thought those materials weren't what Hoffman claimed. The Mormon church's hierarchy was quick to purchase them though.

If the Tanner's were as quick to embarass the Mormon church at any cost, why not buy Hoffman's forgeries?

 

[Doc T]

Doc,

Thanks for the link to the story.

I see the Tanners were not convicted of violating any copyright law afterall.

Again though, I appreciate your opinions.

Doc: True, they backed down and eliminated all copyright infringment material before they were conficted.

But that would have been all the evidence the Tanners would have needed to convict JS in the court of public opinion.




~

 

[Rejoice]

Why is the Mormon church so concerned about the public having access to information involving their procedures for name removal from their membership rolls?

 

[baker]

Doc,

Speaking as one with more time in a court room, arbitration & mediation hearings and settlement conferences than I care to admitt, I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you here.

When two parties reach a settlement, it is only because there is "mutual" benefit and satisfaction. Each side knows that without a settlement, they had potential and significant exposure of something to loose. Otherwise, they would not have settled.

I leave this as food for thought.

With as financially strong as the lds church is and would have been over the Tanners in the tactics of litigation surrounding this case, why did they not go to trial with it? Why did they settle? Surely they could have financially destroyed the Tanners and this thorn of "misinformation" if their case was as clear cut as you may have concluded.

Believe me, the lds church had some real exposure in this case as well!

 

[Doc T]

baker: Doc,

Speaking as one with more time in a court room, arbitration & mediation hearings and settlement conferences than I care to admitt, I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you here.

When two parties reach a settlement, it is only because there is "mutual" benefit and satisfaction. Each side knows that without a settlement, they had potential and significant exposure of something to loose. Otherwise, they would not have settled.

I leave this as food for thought.

With as financially strong as the lds church is and would have been over the Tanners in the tactics of litigation surrounding this case, why did they not go to trial with it? Why did they settle? Surely they could have financially destroyed the Tanners and this thorn of "misinformation" if their case was as clear cut as you may have concluded.

Believe me, the lds church had some real exposure in this case as well!

Doc: While I am certainly no expert in the law, it would seem to me that the main purpose of the LDS law suit was to stop the Tanners from infringing on copyrighted materials. This the settlement accomplished. The Tanners obviously had a lot of money to lose so it seems obvious as to why they settled. As for the reason the Church did not go to trial, I think that they were getting enough flack from their critics as it was, could you imagine the headlines, Big Bad Rich Church picks on Poor Little Old Tanners. They would have had a hayday.

Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to have some expertise in the law, would you deny that the Tanners were violating copyright laws by posting copyrighted materials on their website?



~

 

[baker]

Doc: While I am certainly no expert in the law, it would seem to me that the main purpose of the LDS law suit was to stop the Tanners from infringing on copyrighted materials. This the settlement accomplished. The Tanners obviously had a lot of money to lose so it seems obvious as to why they settled. As for the reason the Church did not go to trial, I think that they were getting enough flack from their critics as it was, could you imagine the headlines, Big Bad Rich Church picks on Poor Little Old Tanners. They would have had a hayday.

Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to have some expertise in the law, would you deny that the Tanners were violating copyright laws by posting copyrighted materials on their website?

First off, there was huge grey area as to whether any copyright was violated. If I remember, there had been a non-copyrighted version of the material in existence which posed several problems for the lds church (if memory serves me correctly). It was not, however, the saving piece of evidence for the Tanners either.

Second, copyright suits are usually an issue of monetary damage. The chruch did not loose any money from what the Tanners did (but perhaps members) and therefore any damages would have been nil to negligable(IMO). Still though, not an all-saving defense for the Tanners either.

But finally, why I believe the church had to settle was the uncharted (and potentially devastatingly expensive battle it would have brought them into) of internet law. The reason I heard and read about this was because of the negative presedence it was generating in the tech world. It was not the Tanners they would have been fighting, but various and many entites that were lining up to side with the Tanners, not to what they were citing, but to the presedence. I can tell you, this is what the lds church feared most. It would have had the same impact on their CHI as Turley's statements about "Under the Banner of Heaven". Everyone would then want to see/read it. Sometimes its just best to let a sleeping dog lie.

However, no question the theTanners were feeling the financial pinch of litiagation.

 

[Der Alte]

Doc: While I am certainly no expert in the law, it would seem to me that the main purpose of the LDS law suit was to stop the Tanners from infringing on copyrighted materials. This the settlement accomplished. The Tanners obviously had a lot of money to lose so it seems obvious as to why they settled. As for the reason the Church did not go to trial, I think that they were getting enough flack from their critics as it was, could you imagine the headlines, Big Bad Rich Church picks on Poor Little Old Tanners. They would have had a hayday.

Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to have some expertise in the law, would you deny that the Tanners were violating copyright laws by posting copyrighted materials on their website?~

Here is a copy of the pertinent copyright law as contained in the United States Code. The mere displaying of copyrighted material for the purposes listed would NOT violate the law. So the Tanners were NOT violating the law by displaying copyrighted material on thier web site since it was NOT of a commercial nature.

But litigious attorneys for big institutions with huge budgets are infamous for delaying hearings through various legal but nefarious tactics which force individuals to give up on legitimate issues because they cannot afford to continue paying attorneys, investigators, expert witnesses, copying and printing fees, etc., etc. etc. for a lengthy period of time.

US Code Title 17:Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec=107​