Sandra Tanner Interview: "I came to Jesus through the Bible...and the Book of Mormon"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Pheonix

If Joseph did just "make it up", he had an understanding of Biblical doctrine that would make any P.h.d, feel like they wasted 200,000 on their education, knowing a guy with Joseph's education could make up something like 2 Nephi 9-10, where Jacob gave a perfect understanding of the Atonement and "why" the Atonement. Mosiah 1-5...greatest sermon since the Sermon on the Mount. Just to name two of my head...I would do more but two of my grandbabies just got here! Got to go help Nanny watch them. ;)

---

If you step back and take an objective point of view and see all of the works of fiction in any library or book store you would realize that there are many gifted writers who write complex works of fiction--including religious fiction.

I think we also have to take into consideration that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was fairly crude in, both spelling and grammar. A lot of changes have been made, over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

I think we also have to take into consideration that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was fairly crude in, both spelling and grammar. A lot of changes have been made, over the years.

---

You are right there were a lot of changes--"3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon"
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

Also note some important changes about the LDS Godhead--which ties into the discussion we had about Joeseph Smith's changing beliefs in God as discussed in the Grant Palmer video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCp4...dex=34&list=WL

Quote:

---

The Changing World of Mormonism--chapter 7
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm#183

". . .Serious Changes

As we pointed out in another chapter, the Mormons claim that a voice from heaven told the witnesses to the Book of Mormon that the translation was correct. In spite of this Joseph Smith tried to change the Book of Mormon to support his concept of a plurality of Gods. Four important changes were made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon concerning the Godhead. One of the most significant changes was made in 1 Nephi 13:40. In the 1830 edition it was stated that the very purpose of the Nephite records was to make known that Christ is the Eternal Father: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world ..." (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p. 32).

In the current Utah edition, page 25, verse 40, three words have been interpolated: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world...."

A second important change was made in 1 Nephi 11:18; this is page 25 of the 1830 edition. In the first edition it read: "... Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." In modern editions it has been changed to read: "... Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." Notice that the words "the Son of" have been inserted in the middle of the sentence. Verse 21 of the same chapter originally read: "And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" It was changed to read: "And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" Verse 32 of the same chapter, which is on page 26 of the original edition, was also changed. In the 1830 edition it read: "... the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record." It was changed to read: "... the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world: and I saw and bear record." These additions begin to distinguish the Son from the Father and are part of the process that ultimately led Joseph Smith to declare the Father and the Son as two separate gods. . ."

---

I like the side by side charts, from Mormon Transitions.

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

I like the side by side charts, from Mormon Transitions.

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture

---

Thanks for the link. It makes it much easier to see the changes when they are side by side. These changes sure seem to follow what you would expect with the changes in the different versions of the First Vision as outlined by Grant Palmer. I find it odd that Joseph made these changes but then failed to take out all of the other p***ages that teach the same thing. Maybe these were just the most obvious to him at the time.

". . .Changes in Doctrine. Key P***ages on Deity in the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon were changed in the 1837 edition to reflect Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of Deity. Joseph originally taught that Jesus and the Father were the same person and that God had always been God, but later developed the idea that the Father and Son were separate Gods, each with a tangible body. Smith taught that both God the Father and Jesus had been mortal men. What follows are specific examples from the original 1830 first edition Book of Mormon (which did not have verse divisions) compared with the altered text of recent versions. . ."

Quote:

---

One of the most significant changes was made in 1 Nephi 13:40. In the 1830 edition it was stated that the very purpose of the Nephite records was to make known that Christ is the Eternal Father: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world ..." (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p. 32).

---

Yes, this shows Joseph's modalistic beliefs, in the beginning, which then changed to the separate personages, you see in the later version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Thanks for the link. It makes it much easier to see the changes when they are side by side. These changes sure seem to follow what you would expect with the changes in the different versions of the First Vision as outlined by Grant Palmer. I find it odd that Joseph made these changes but then failed to take out all of the other p***ages that teach the same thing. Maybe these were just the most obvious to him at the time.

". . .Changes in Doctrine. Key P***ages on Deity in the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon were changed in the 1837 edition to reflect Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of Deity. Joseph originally taught that Jesus and the Father were the same person and that God had always been God, but later developed the idea that the Father and Son were separate Gods, each with a tangible body. Smith taught that both God the Father and Jesus had been mortal men. What follows are specific examples from the original 1830 first edition Book of Mormon (which did not have verse divisions) compared with the altered text of recent versions. . ."

---

Yes, exactly. (We were cross posting :) )

Part 2 of Sandra Tanner's interview is now available. I just finished listening to it. Some interesting stuff in this one, including her story on the Mark Hoffman forgeries.

http://mormonstories.org/

There is an interesting story, in the interview, about LeGrand Richards that kind of shows his character. Not in a good way, either.

I listened to Part 3, tonight.

Sandra was saying that the number one reason people leave the LDS Church is over the Book of Abraham....the fact that Joseph's "translation" did not line up with what the papyri actually said. John Dehlin's research bears that out, as well. He did extensive research on why Mormons leave. I think it became a part of the work for his Phd in Counseling.

Anyway, Sandra also talked about polygamy, particularly, Joseph's marriages to young girls and already married women. She said that most people she talked to were more bothered by the polyandry...but, she, personally, was more bothered by the marriages to young girls. I have to agree with her on that. That part bothered me more than anything else. It was one of the things that made me feel Joseph could not have been a real prophet.

Anyway, I think there are four parts to this interview. I've listened to all but the fourth. (Looks like Part 4 is not up yet)

They are all here, if anyone is interested.

http://mormonstories.org/

Correction. The number one reason, given by John (through his research) was:

"Were never really converted/integrated!in the first!place. Probably the largest single group (e.g.,low income converts who were never active, or who go inactive almost immediately…if they were ever active to begin with)."

That seems to be the largest group.

http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-conten...ruary-2014.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Correction. The number one reason, given by John (through his research) was:

"Were never really converted/integrated!in the first!place. Probably the largest single group (e.g.,low income converts who were never active, or who go inactive almost immediately…if they were ever active to begin with)."

That seems to be the largest group.

http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-conten...ruary-2014.pdf

---

I have a son-in-law from Ecuador. His family was quite poor and the Mormon missionaries gave the family goods and food, and the whole family was baptized. When the missionaries left their area, the family reverted to folk religion and Roman Catholicism. If you talk to him today, he'll tell you he knows nothing about Mormonism's beliefs. But he and his family are still counted as Mormon.

Yes, I've heard that has been somewhat of a problem...one that the church (from my understanding) is trying to rectify, by building better support systems within the communities where they are proselytizing..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I've heard that has been somewhat of a problem...one that the church (from my understanding) is trying to rectify, by building better support systems within the communities where they are proselytizing..

---

Libby, do you want these missionaries to succeed in converting third world people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apologette

Libby, do you want these missionaries to succeed in converting third world people?

---

Where did I say that?

It's a "problem" from the church's viewpoint. Might actually be a blessing, in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

It's a "problem" from the church's viewpoint. Might actually be a blessing, in reality.

---

The Mormon cult is evil, Libby, and any attempt it makes to draw poor third world country folks into its web is demonic! Our Christian missionaries (and my daughter and son-in-law have done missionary work in Africa) have enough to contend with in terms of the inroads of Islam - they don't need to be combating the wicked onslaught of Mormon pretenders too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Where did I say that?

---

It's not that you actually said that - it's the way you comment about what they are doing. You must realize the evil their missionaries are doing, don't you?

I don't, generally, like to use the word "evil" against the church. Feels very wrong, to me. I think JS did do some terribly evil things, but to use that word against today's church and the membership (including the hierarchy) just doesn't seem accurate. It's unnecessarily divisive and insulting to the Mormon people (who are not evil). I think the doctrine is in deep error, in many, many ways....but, I also believe there are many people in that church who find Jesus, despite the errors. One of the reasons they do find him is because they are genuinely seeking and reaching out to him. And, he is reaching out to them. I don't think our beliefs about God and Jesus have to be perfect in order to have a relationship with him. I am a prime example of that. I know this through experience.

I have no problem debating LDS doctrine, just as rigorously as I have debated Calvinism...but, I do believe it is more productive to focus on doctrine and not phrased in a way that insults the Mormon people. I have a lot of respect for them and I know "most" are doing what they believe is best and right. Again...that doesn't mean I won't argue against the doctrine and even the history and JS. I can and will, if anyone is interested.

Not much interest here, at this point.

What I like most about Sandra Tanner is that she does her homework and keeps most things impersonal. She is an information gatherer and she will lay it out there and let you make of it what you will. She rarely gets insulting (although, she doesn't spare any of the leadership whom she believes have done "evil"). But, her whole family is LDS, so she has always had to walk that fine line between pointing out error and not being personally insulting. I heard her say, once, that she does not discuss any of this with family anymore. It's a sort of truce they have made, so that every family gathering doesn't turn into endless arguments over religion. I kind of feel that way with my LDS friends, both, here and in real life. It's not that we haven't ever discussed the problems, but sometimes it gets to the point where it's only arguing and nothing (no good thing) is being accomplished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't, generally, like to use the word "evil" against the church. Feels very wrong, to me. I think JS did do some terribly evil things, but to use that word against today's church and the membership (including the hierarchy) just doesn't seem accurate. It's unnecessarily divisive and insulting to the Mormon people (who are not evil). I think the doctrine is in deep error, in many, many ways....but, I also believe there are many people in that church who find Jesus, despite the errors. One of the reasons they do find him is because they are genuinely seeking and reaching out to him. And, he is reaching out to them. I don't think our beliefs about God and Jesus have to be perfect in order to have a relationship with him. I am a prime example of that. I know this through experience.

I have no problem debating LDS doctrine, just as rigorously as I have debated Calvinism...but, I do believe it is more productive to focus on doctrine and not phrased in a way that insults the Mormon people. I have a lot of respect for them and I know "most" are doing what they believe is best and right. Again...that doesn't mean I won't argue against the doctrine and even the history and JS. I can and will, if anyone is interested.

Not much interest here, at this point.

---

Well, then the problem is with you, Libby. What does the Bible say:

1 Timothy 4: 1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,…

How about Paul's condemnation of those bringing another gospel, as the Mormons do:

Galatains 1: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Are you more comp***ionate than God? He is the one Who inspired Paul to write these things? You better get your priorities right: These Mormons are dishing out death, eternal death, to millions - are you going to sit on the side line and say we can't call that evil? Just because Mormons "believe" they are doing the right thing, gives them NO Excuse. They have God's Word, and they have rejected that in favor of an EVIL WORD!

Yet you say nothing about the Mormon here who called a great Christian, John Calvin, a devil and a murderer? Seems you have problems, Libby - which side are you on? Have you repented of Mormonism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

I think we also have to take into consideration that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was fairly crude in, both spelling and grammar. A lot of changes have been made, over the years.

---

Why do we have to take that into consideration? Smith proclaimed that God told him that it was the most correct book in the whole world. Why are you always trying to justify Mormonism's obvious problems? If, as Whitmer said, Smith translated "word for word" while looking into his top hat with magic stones, is it God Who has the grammar problems? Ask yourself why you are constantly making "excuses" for Mormonism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apologette

Why do we have to take that into consideration? Smith proclaimed that God told him that it was the most correct book in the whole world. Why are you always trying to justify Mormonism's obvious problems? If, as Whitmer said, Smith translated "word for word" while looking into his top hat with magic stones, is it God Who has the grammar problems? Ask yourself why you are constantly making "excuses" for Mormonism?

---

I think you weren't following the conversation. My remark was not a justification. Someone said that Joseph must have been brilliant (very smart or something like that) to have written such a book. My comment was to remind that the original work was not nearly as polished as it is today. It definitely showed Joseph's lack of education in the many spelling and grammar errors.

Not that he wasn't smart....I'm sure he was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apologette

Well, then the problem is with you, Libby. What does the Bible say:

1 Timothy 4: 1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,…

How about Paul's condemnation of those bringing another gospel, as the Mormons do:

Galatains 1: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Are you more comp***ionate than God? He is the one Who inspired Paul to write these things? You better get your priorities right: These Mormons are dishing out death, eternal death, to millions - are you going to sit on the side line and say we can't call that evil? Just because Mormons "believe" they are doing the right thing, gives them NO Excuse. They have God's Word, and they have rejected that in favor of an EVIL WORD!

Yet you say nothing about the Mormon here who called a great Christian, John Calvin, a devil and a murderer? Seems you have problems, Libby - which side are you on? Have you repented of Mormonism?

---

I am not on the sidelines in regards to Mormonism, but I am not you. Why don't you just trust God and allow him to work through me in the way he sees fit? Have I repented of Mormonism? Yes..I turned away from that along time ago. But, I have to say, I believe God had a plan for me, through that experience...in other words there was a reason I was there.

As for John Calvin, I would not call him "a great Christian", when he has led so many people into error. I'm not saying he wasn't a Christian, either, and I don't believe he was "evil"...but, I can certainly understand why some believe he was. Even many Evangelicals believe he was "evil", Apologette.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvin_servetus.htm

John Calvin became a major stumbling block for me, as I was trying to enter back into mainstream Christianity. The more I studied his theology, the more I was convicted that it could not be true. I even read three of the four books of Calvin's Ins***utes. John Calvin was very bright and also very opinionated and had a quite caustic personality. It really shows through in the Ins***utes.

The read was interesting, to say the least.