Friday, January 1, 2010

Sandra and Jerald Tanner: An Example

On one of the many hyperpreterist websites a “discussion” took place where some of the hyperpreterists claimed to be confused how someone could ever have adopted hyperpreterism and then renounced it and…*gasp* actually work against it.  The discussion went as follows:
“Roderick is the person I thought of the most when I made those comments [about how people could leave the movement]. He helped me out immensely when I was new to FP. Since I don’t keep up with the blogs I didn’t even know that he had left FP until a friend mentioned it in a passing comment about a year ago. I was shocked to say the least.” (source)

Yet Cyndi previously says:
“I don’t understand how someone can go from full-preterist to angry anti-pret overnight. We all encounter stumbling blocks in our studies, but you don’t quit and decide to revert back to wrong theology because you hit a wall, you continue studying and keep pushing until you break that wall down. If you know you’re on the right track, but hit a wall, why would you go back to ignorance, but not only that, you actually start fighting against what you once believed? I don’t get it!!” (source)
So, if she didn’t even know I left the movement, how does she come to the conclusion it was “overnight”??? Just ask Dee Dee if I changed “overnight”. Ask the hyperpreterists themselves if it was “overnight”.  They will attest that perhaps for the last 5-10 years while I was a hyperpreterist, I was constantly at odds with most of the “leaders” because of what they were teaching.
Can you see how this hyperpreterist’s own words AREN’T making any sense?  Or will she claim my pointing this out is me just being “angry”?  What do hyperpreterists say to a person who falls into Mormonism but at some point begins to realize it is a lie?  Do they tell them to “keep pushing” on?  Have you ever heard of Jerald and Sandra Tanner?

THE TANNERS: An Example of What Happens When People REALLY Leave a Cult
The Tanners are ex-Mormons that founded the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, whose stated mission is “to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare its doctrines with Christianity” (source).  The Tanners’ have amassed much of the present counter-cult material against Mormonism; with over 40 published books dealing with the teachings of Mormonism, but mainly with its history.  They have also published countless newsletters and other material over the years.
But as you can imagine, this fight against the cult of Mormonism didn’t come without all the typical accusations we see coming from our fight against Hyperpreterism.
In 1999 the LDS [Mormon] church sued the Tanners for Internet linking, from their website to a third party, the copyrighted Church Handbook of Instructions, and received a favorable injunction from a judge. The lawsuit was settled out of court before an appeals court could rule on what observers described as a potentially landmark case concerning internet linking.[4] Wikipeida

How many times have we heard the hyperpreterists claim they are going to “sue” us for something?  Here the Tanners were merely source linking to Mormon documents.  Why would the Mormons oppose that?  Perhaps it is the same reason many of the hyperpreterists get upset when we ACTUALLY source link to the things they say and teach.  I’m sure if we were to visit a Mormon discussion forum, the Tanners would be labeled as “angry”, “hateful”, “bitter”, people who just love to “condemn people to hell” — all the typical hyperpreterist mantra.  Further, I’m sure some of the Mormon’s express how they are confused that the Tanners could have left Mormonism, after all Sandra is a great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president of the LDS church.
But it doesn’t stop there.  You know how sometimes non-hyperpreterists like to join in in claiming that what we do at PretBlog, which might be paraphrased as “to document problems with the claims of Hyperpreterism and compare its doctrines with Christianity” — some of these people like to claim that we’re not “scholarly” or “legitimate”.  The Tanners had to endure the same.
Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon historian who has researched and written about the church, has stated that until the Tanners “are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians”. He has also accused them of assuming “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. (source)
Sound familiar?  Yes, it is the same old line we hear from the hyperpreterists and some people who happen upon the issue without understanding, “You better write nicey-nice things or you are just a bunch of self-righteous meanies”.
So, let the Tanners and their fight against the cult of Mormonism be an example to us in our fight against the cult of Hyperpreterism.  When hyperpreterists claim we couldn’t have ever been hyperpreterists, or when their leaders snobbishly try to dismiss us, take heart.  It is the tactic of cultists to do all they can to deflect.
I urge you to read the Tanners Testimony — substitute the references to Mormonism with Hyperpreterism and you will see the striking parallels to what we have experienced with the Hyperpreterist movement.

No comments: