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

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

... I would say, if you have several people giving the same story, then chances are good that it IS true.

So if you have several people giving the same story about Joseph Smith being a true man of God, who treated others with kindness and charity like a Christian should do....chances are good that those stories are true? And if you have several people claiming that they heard the voices of the heavenly beings who were conversing with Joseph Smith...chances are good that those stories are true?

But you believe that NO beings visited him. Doesn't that contradict what you are now saying?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So if you have several people giving the same story about Joseph Smith being a true man of God, who treated others with kindness and charity like a Christian should do....chances are good that those stories are true? And if you have several people claiming that they heard the voices of the heavenly beings who were conversing with Joseph Smith...chances are good that those stories are true?

But you believe that NO beings visited him. Doesn't that contradict what you are now saying?

I was talking about people who had actually witnessed an event. There were no witnesses to Joseph's vision...and he, himself, changed it, several times, over the years, which should raise a red flag, don't you think?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

I was talking about people who had actually witnessed an event.

So then you doubt that the Stephen theophany really occurred?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So then you doubt that the Stephen theophany really occurred?

No, I do not. No reason to doubt.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

No, I do not. No reason to doubt.

any appearance has to be judged against the scriptures and the words of Christ.

So if I were to claim "Jesus appeared to me" then you have to then judge my claim against the scriptures.

If what I claim is in agreement with the text, then there is no problem.

On the other hand, if I were to claim "Jesus appeared to me" and then add things that I also claim that Jesus said to me that go against the Scriptures, then you are to reject my claim .....


In all things we are to put such claims to the test and reject everything that goes against the text we have already received....as Paul taught us to do....

[Libby]

Yes, exactly.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

No, I do not. No reason to doubt.

Sure you do, by your standards, since there weren't two or three other witnesses to corroborate what Stephen said he was seeing.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Sure you do, by your standards, since there weren't two or three other witnesses to corroborate what Stephen said he was seeing.

Well, that's only part of it. Stephen's story is in the Bible. Joseph was only in there, after he put himself in.

Also, as far as know, Stephen didn't change his story ten different times.

(Bet I won't get a "cheer" from you for this post )

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Sure you do, by your standards, since there weren't two or three other witnesses to corroborate what Stephen said he was seeing.

we do not have 2 witnesses....but whatr we have is a statement from him about what he saw, and we have the context of his life up to that point and his other statements....

So can we confirm what he saw?...not really.

But on the other hand we dont have a real problem with his claim as nothing he claimed to have seen runs counter to the Faith as received.....

So the question is left open.
We cant confirm, but we dont really have a issue with what he said as its in agreement with the words of Christ and the Bible.





So once again, what we do when anyone comes out with a claim of haveing "seen Jesus" is to take their claim and put it to the test against the Scripture.

If what is said in the claim is in agreement, then we dont have a problem with it.

But if what is said is different?...then we are to reject it, regardless of who made the claim, or what the claim was.....

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, that's only part of it. Stephen's story is in the Bible. Joseph was only in there, after he put himself in.

Also, as far as know, Stephen didn't change his story ten different times.

(Bet I won't get a "cheer" from you for this post )

get one from me.....because that was what I was going to say!




We have to look at the claim made, and test it by the Bible, regardless of who is making the claim.
If you were to suddenly tell me that you also "saw Jesus" then we would have to put your claim to the test just like Paul tells us we should do if even he were to come out with a claim about what he saw or a new teaching.


We are to put "all things" to the test....and only hold fast to the things that are true

[Libby]

Yes, the test of, already established, scripture.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, that's only part of it.

Okay. So if I am not mistaken, what we have is a story, written by Luke, that claims that Paul heard Stephen claim to see Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

In the case of Joseph Smith's vision, we have proof that he definitely made the claim. It can be proven that he really did claim that he had the vision. But in the case of Stephen's vision, all we have is Luke's claim that Paul said that Stephen said he saw Jesus at God's side. We have nothing written by Stephen himself about it, which would have been difficult anyhow since he was being killed at the time of the vision.

Stephen's story is in the Bible.

Yes, it's in there because some anonymous person or council put it there, but it's not really Stephen's story, since as I said, it's Luke's story about what he claims Paul saw and heard regarding what Stephen claimed he saw.

Also, as far as know, Stephen didn't change his story ten different times.

He didn't even change it once. He died rather soon after the vision in question.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Okay. So if I am not mistaken, what we have is a story, written by Luke, that claims that Paul heard Stephen claim to see Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

In the case of Joseph Smith's vision, we have proof that he definitely made the claim. It can be proven that he really did claim that he had the vision. But in the case of Stephen's vision, all we have is Luke's claim that Paul said that Stephen said he saw Jesus at God's side. We have nothing written by Stephen himself about it, which would have been difficult anyhow since he was being killed at the time of the vision.



Yes, it's in there because some anonymous person or council put it there, but it's not really Stephen's story, since as I said, it's Luke's story about what he claims Paul saw and heard regarding what Stephen claimed he saw.


He didn't even change it once. He died rather soon after the vision in question.

Well, you should get my point then. I know calling Joseph a "liar" upsets you, but wouldn't the changing of his story several times, be a perfect example of why people might doubt his word?

Stephen's experience was written by Apostles of Jesus. I tend to think they were pretty reliable, don't you?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, you should get my point then.

I think I get it; I just think it's incorrect.

I know calling Joseph a "liar" upsets you, but wouldn't the changing of his story several times, be a perfect example of why people might doubt his word?

Only if you're also saying that calling the Bible a liar is the right thing to do ALSO, because IT ALSO has changing stories.
As for me, that is not good enough evidence that the Bible lies.

Stephen's experience was written by Apostles of Jesus. I tend to think they were pretty reliable, don't you?

But I also believe that Joseph Smith was an apostle of Jesus, so obviously I give see his story as being as reliable as the NT apostles' stories. An atheist would deem ANYONE claiming to have been divinely called, to be a liar or insane. You are not an atheist when it comes to the NT apostles' claims, but you are (currently, you may change your mind again someday) like an atheist as far as modern-day apostles' claims are concerned.

Therefore, it's no surprise that you have no problem with one changing story (the NT one), but you do have a problem with the other one (the latter-day one).

[Libby]

Show me where one single Apostle in the Bible gave ten different stories about something...and then we'll talk.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

Show me where one single Apostle in the Bible gave ten different stories about something...and then we'll talk.

How about 2 different, contradictory versions of a story? If it's true and inspired and all, there shouldn't be ANY "errata" right? ALL stories should agree 100%.

Here's one for you to explain for me (When I posted it on Carm, it got me banned once):


Matt. 14:

...took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matt. 15:

:And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. 38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, you should get my point then. I know calling Joseph a "liar" upsets you,.....

LOLO...I perfer the term "born Liar"....its more descriptive of Joe's real lack of morals.....

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

LOLO...I perfer the term "born Liar"....its more descriptive of Joe's real lack of morals.....

Were YOU born a liar?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

How about 2 different, contradictory versions of a story? If it's true and inspired and all, there shouldn't be ANY "errata" right? ALL stories should agree 100%.

Here's one for you to explain for me (When I posted it on Carm, it got me banned once):


Matt. 14:

...took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matt. 15:

:And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. 38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

It got you banned?? Why?

Okay, did Matthew give both of those? I haven't referenced it.

It's only two, not ten.

Seriously, how do you explain Joseph's ever changing story?

[Libby]

But I also believe that Joseph Smith was an apostle of Jesus, so obviously I give see his story as being as reliable as the NT apostles' stories. An atheist would deem ANYONE claiming to have been divinely called, to be a liar or insane. You are not an atheist when it comes to the NT apostles' claims, but you are (currently, you may change your mind again someday) like an atheist as far as modern-day apostles' claims are concerned.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a modern day "prophet", as long as they appear to be reliable and don't contradict the Bible. Joseph doesn't p*** the test on either of these points.

[Libby]

Actually, I think the standard belief for mainstream Christians is that Christ was the last prophet. No need for prophets, now, because Christ is our intermediary. So, a new prophet would be highly unlikely, yes?

That's another strike against Smith.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

It got you banned?? Why?

It was "divisive." In other words: It asked a question that caused Bible-Inerrantists some discomfort, or it posed the "danger" of making some Evangelicals realize that the scriptures they believe to be perfect, are as prone to contradictions as the scriptures they daily mock and ridicule as being amateur fiction. Can't have that, right?

Okay, did Matthew give both of those?

All I know is they are both in the book of Matthew.

It's only two, not ten.

But if there are differing, changing stories, then it has to be made-up, right? Wasn't that pretty much what you said?

Seriously, how do you explain Joseph's ever changing story?

I use the "Harmony of the Gospels" as one helpful resource. It tries to show that what SEEM to be contradictions in Bible accounts, could just be differing emphasis on details about the event in question. For example, did Paul hear stuff by see nothing when he had that "vision" while on the way to Damascus? Or did he see stuff but hear nothing?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

Actually, I think the standard belief for mainstream Christians is that Christ was the last prophet.

So all prophecies made after Jesus had left the building are false prophecies? So long, St. John, I guess....
When do you plan on tearing his prophecies out of your Bible, seeing as how they were given to John after Jesus, 'the last prophet,' had died?

And what about "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" in 1 Corinthians 11:5?
Doesn't that suggest that Paul thought there could be women prophesying after "the last prophet" ?

No need for prophets, now

Does Kate agree with you on that? It's hard to figure out, since on the one hand, she demands the "right" to become one, but on the other hand, she rejects what the current one has been telling her.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

It was "divisive." In other words: It asked a question that caused Bible-Inerrantists some discomfort, or it posed the "danger" of making some Evangelicals realize that the scriptures they believe to be perfect, are as prone to contradictions as the scriptures they daily mock and ridicule as being amateur fiction. Can't have that, right?


All I know is they are both in the book of Matthew.


But if there are differing, changing stories, then it has to be made-up, right? Wasn't that pretty much what you said?


I use the "Harmony of the Gospels" as one helpful resource. It tries to show that what SEEM to be contradictions in Bible accounts, could just be differing emphasis on details about the event in question. For example, did Paul hear stuff by see nothing when he had that "vision" while on the way to Damascus? Or did he see stuff but hear nothing?

The commentary I have found says that Matt 14 and 15 are actually two different occasions on which Jesus performed this same miracle.

Your example, regarding Paul, on the road to Damascus, is really not comparable to Joseph's first vision. The changes in Joseph's story were not minor, they were major, with completely different personages (first an angel, then it was just Jesus, I think, and then, much later, Jesus and the Father. Many "important" details were changed, over the years. Not easy to explain, IMO...just looks bad, even to people who want to believe.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So all prophecies made after Jesus had left the building are false prophecies? So long, St. John, I guess....
When do you plan on tearing his prophecies out of your Bible, seeing as how they were given to John after Jesus, 'the last prophet,' had died?

And what about "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" in 1 Corinthians 11:5?
Doesn't that suggest that Paul thought there could be women prophesying after "the last prophet" ?

http://carm.org/question-modern-prophets

Does Kate agree with you on that? It's hard to figure out, since on the one hand, she demands the "right" to become one, but on the other hand, she rejects what the current one has been telling her.

Are all Melchezedek priesthood holders, prophets? I do know that LDS believe, all members in good standing, have the ability to receive revelation.