Princhester, I don’t know of any public statements about finances of LDS leaders. I believe it’s commonly accepted knowledge in the LDS community that General Authorities who serve in their positions full-time receive a need-based allowance for living expenses. I would expect that travel expenses for church business are paid by the church as well. The amount of the stipends or allowances isn’t publicly known AFAIK.
Personally, I am not aware of any LDS leaders who would need any allowance for living expenses, simply because most of those whose stories I’m familiar with are successful in business and other ventures. However, I’m confident that some do receive some sort of income so that their needs are met while they’re serving full-time as representatives of the LDS church.
Now, I see the work that LDS GA’s do as fundamentally different from what the Tanners do. Specifically, the Tanners attempt to discredit LDS claims by what I see as deliberate misinformation (I know there’s disagreement on this point). LDS GA’s testify of spiritual knowledge, counsel the members about doctrine, and perform missionary labors. I see a more viable comparison between the Tanners and FARMS (FARMS seeks evidence of the BoM in archaeology, ancient languages, etc.). Actually, now that I examine it, I note that there are more similarities than I thought between the Tanners and FARMS. Some objections to the Tanners are their polemical and fantastical (almost tabloid) style–LDS detractors ask LDS to look past style and examine “the evidence.” FARMS is criticized as an archaeological shill for LDS–LDS apologists ask critics to look past the bias, and examine “the evidence.”
However, I am aware of the danger of the phrase “but that’s different” Also, while I see the Tanners’ work as fundamentally destructive instead of constructive, I would guess the Tanners and their sympathizers would likely see things vice versa. Additionally, I suspect that people on this board wouldn’t see a difference either–hence I will retract my objections about the Tanners from the financial perspective. (Unless of course I find something compelling in the future that would more clearly show a problem.)
CalMeacham, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, I have ordered a copy of the Tanners’ book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality–used of course, the 1972 edition (shameless plug for Abebooks.com), to compare directly with the google groups link I listed above. If it turns out the analysis was in error, I will apologize and investigate the book more carefully. Though I’ve read portions of what the Tanners have written (hence my general criticism), I have not examined that book in particular. However, if I find that they indeed use misleading quotes and ellipsis, I expect an apology from you. I will post a scan of the pages in question when I receive the book and have time to go over it. I’ll also ratchet back the rhetoric, and try to focus on substantive errors.
Additionally, I suggest you take a better look at FARMS (and gobear too if he’s still reading). I’m spending $22 on a copy of a Tanners book. Perhaps you can spend something on FARMS material–although you can look at their eLibrary for 60 days free of charge.
You like me. You really, really like me!!! emarkp:
Interesting to hear that you’ve bought a copy of the 1972 edition of M:SoR. You will find that I have quoted the page correctly (My own edition is the 1977 edition – but it differs from the 1972 edition only in havinf extra pages appended to the end of each chapter with number + letter pagination, so my pages number the same as the 1972 edition). I do not quote out of context – I have a rep to maintain. (Look at my other posts, or my contributions to Teemings). I have to say in advance, though, it’s unlikely you’ll find anything significant enough to draw an apology from me. I say this not out of a sense of stubbornness, but because I’ve read quite a bit of the Tanners’ work (over a foot’s worth on my bookshelf). And while there’s no way I was going to go out and dig up Times and Seasons to corroborate evidence, I did have my copies of the Book of Mormon and the D&C/Pearl to check against. Until recently, the only real response to MSoR was an incredibly brief pamphlet that seemed disproportionately short compared to the encycloopedic bulk of MSoR (I can’t recall the title, and I’m at work right now. I got my copy at Deseret Book back in the 80s). The Tanners more than adequately answered the charges in this pamphlet in a much longer work of their own entitled Answering Dr. Clandestine (their identification of the pmaphlet’s author – who they identify). Having compared the two, it’s the LDS critics of the Tanners who come across as obfuscators and deceptive users of ellipsis.
I am not, myself, out to prove or disprove any religion, something I think not really a good topic for this Board (or for a self-proclaimed agnostic). But I am against the mischaracterization of the work of the Tanners, something about which one can argue meaningfully. The thing is, I suspect that this will not end, and certainly not with a declaration of “The Tanners are right” or “The Tanners are wrong”, but with shards like “The Tanners are right in this case” and “I disagree with the Tanners’ implication in this other case” and “The Tanners obviously did not know enough about X in this case”. As an accomplished debater yourself, can you see either of us making a blanket apology?
I received my copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality today. I checked out the claims in the google post (by D. Charles Pyle), and they match exactly. The ellipsis, the erroneous emphasis are exactly as he listed it. I don’t have a copy of the Journal of Discourses handy (I’m at work), but I’ll check with my electronic copy tonight. Also, I’ll post a scan of the pages in question so there is no doubt as soon as my scanner is up and running again (we’re having some floors refinished, and my computer setup is disconnected and in separate pieces right now).
The book looks like one long bad Usenet post–with all-caps and underlining everywhere. It visually assaults you on first glance. I did some browsing in addition to verifying this one claim, and found several egregious errors in interpretation with little effort (where the source document appears along with the interpretation, and the interpretation is an obvious twisting of the source). I’ll probably post a few notes about this over the next few days or so.
So basically, I continue to consider the Tanners as unreliable and overwhelmingly biased, and examining this particular work was instrumental in reestablishing that conclusion.
emarkp, you’re gonna have to explain this. I swear that I quoted accurately from the Tanner’s book above. In fact, I left out at least two sentences – the Tanners quote quite a bit of that passage, without any ellipsis or eliminations. It’s true that on the next page they quote only part of the passage, but this was after they’d quoted the entire passage at length (and just before they cite the partial passage, they tell you that they’ce just quoted the whole thing).
Sorry for the delay CalMeacham. After the floors got finished, I went on a business trip. Finally I’ve got my things back together and I’ve scanned in the documents.
Frankly I’m surprised at the degree of difference between what you say about the 1977 edition and what I saw in the 1972 edition. I’ve posted close-up scans of Brigham Young’s quote (which spans pages 153 and 154), as well as scans of pages 153 and 154 in their entirety. Note that the images are pretty big–if they’re too difficult to read, let me know and I can scale them down.
Sorry about getting back to you so late. I didn’t even realize you’d responded, but I did a “vanity search” on my own name, and just found out.
Boy, you weren’t kidding about the pages being big. I was able to scan around the single paragraph, but when I tried to open the pages, I was stuck in one spot.
I am much confused. The page you’ve scanned it has the same quote, but the type is completely different than my edition. The one I have has it as I described it – no emphasis on any words, with the entire quote in boldface type. The paragraph you show doesn’t have bold print, but does have CAPITAL LETTERS and underscoring for emphasis. My edition, as noted before, is the 1982 fourth edition, and it has extra pages appended to the end to each chapter (p. 172, for example, is followed by 172-A, 172-B, etc.) It seemed probable, therefore, that they made this ot of the pevious edition by simply adding these extra pages onto it, so I figured the typography would be the same in this edition as in the one you eventually got. All of the quotes in this section of my edition are that way – simple boldface type without emphasis. Other sections, however, resemble the example you canned. So perhaps they re-set this section. Why that should be, do not know. If they were responding to criticism about the way they emphasized parts of the speeches, the ame criticism would hold elsewhere in the book.
The words in the quote that appear in your scanned excerpt are the same as thse on p. 154 of your edition, despite the emphasis/non-emphasis type. I assume (I have not checked) that this is the same as in the original Journal of Discourses. There are no ellipses, lacunae, or dishonest mangling. The Tanners do quote an abbreviated version on the next page (I assume they do n yoiur edition, too), but they note in preface to t that they already quoted it and followed the quote with “ibid.”, so any reasonable person would know that a fuller excerpt had already appeared.
So, while the earlier edition may, indeed, have devices that put emphasis on certain words (and pretty odd ones, at that), the quote is an honest one. How this weakens the case of the Tanners I do not knw. Th mplication one gets from readng the orginal criticism is that the Taners mangled the text and abstracted false quotes by leaving out words, rather like movie reviewers who take out the few words that make their film seem great (“Brain Boggling!”) from a review that in reality pans the film (“How this movie ever got made is a rain-boggling queston”). This the Tanners clear do not do. You only have to heft thei weighty tome to see this, or glance through it. If anything, their go too far in the opposite irection, quoting at considerable length to mae their point, as if they didn’t want to b accused of such sophomoric frippery.
You may object to the emphasis, or to the tone the Tanners take, but that is to b expected in an argument. The Tanners *don’t[/i agree with you and the certainly ake many of the passages in a different light.That’s their prerogative. In speeches in court an attorney may ertainly quote someone with the emhasis in a different place than the opposing counsel. Why not in print?
CalMeacham: don’t worry about the delay. I should have sent a message to you that I’d responded. I was planning on doing that if you didn’t see this within a few days.
I’ve resized the images. I think it should be much easier to read the pages (I made the full-page images 750 pixels wide. That should make them small enough to be read just about anywhere).
I’m confused too about the difference between my edition and yours. Maybe you can scan in a page of your copy for comparison. As you can see from the page scans, the underlining/CAPS are pervasive throughout the whole book. I imagine they did get a lot of flak about that, because it’s just difficult to read. I’m interested to see what your edition looks like.
The Brigham Young quote is abridged more in the second pass (as I mention below) on page 154, where it is deliberately misleading. Noting that there is another passage (which is not quoted as “ibid” in my edition) does not change the fact that the shorter quote is even more deliberately misleading.
The complete quote from the Journal of Discourses is:
“The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator…”
The Tanners misemphasize the phrase “The Lord did not come” and “But he did send His angel”. It is actually later on the page (the second-to-last paragraph on page 154) that they then string them together and state:
(that’s exactly as the Tanners wrote it, including caps and underlining).
This clearly distorts the original reading intentionally. How can they possibly suggest that their summary (with ellipsis) is equivalent to the whole reading unless 1) their reading comprehension skills were lacking, or 2) they were intentionally deceiving? In either case, they prove themselves to be not worth considering for serious investigation.
Furthermore, D. Charles Pyle noted in the post I linked also pointed out a more egregious use of ellipsis. Paragraph 4 of page 154 reads:
(caps and underlining as in M-SOR)
Compare this to the actual quote from Journal of Discourses (I have underlined the portions that the Tanners directly quoted):
Pyle notes correctly that Heber C. Kimball is talking about the restoration of the Priesthood authority, under the hands of John the Baptist (who is erroneously named as Peter, where I’ve put the [sup]*[/sup]. This is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants) and later of Peter, James, and John, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the instructions from Moroni about the Golden Plates. Those events were years after the First Vision which happened in spring of 1820 (Moroni first visited in 1823, and Peter, James and John came in June of 1829).
I can only conclude, as did Pyle, that the Tanners are frauds. It’s sad that I had to spend the money to buy a copy o ftheir book, but at least now I don’t have to depend on anyone else to show how wrong they are. They show it quite clearly themselves.
When the quotes don’t emphasize part of the text, but rather distort the text, or the emphasis attempts to change the meaning to the opposite of the plain reading, that’s deception. It matters not whether you think the Tanners are nice, or that they’re honest in your opinion. Their work shows them to be deceivers, plain as day.
this is the key
a testament i take it as being a confession or narrative…the exact meaning is unimportant
what is really for christians to take on board was the reason for Jesus being around when He was…in the flesh.and subsequently became sacrifice for all sins for all time…once only.
all these woolly shaggy dog stories are fine but i need a saviour not a narrator.
the cross touched eternity so no temporal subsequent visits were required in north america or downtown jerusalem in ad 70.
once for all time.
of course none of the above is credible unless you stay put in the authorised version of the canonised sewn sheets of antiquity
but there is mention of not accepting any other doctrine even if given by an angel?
:rolleyes:
Sorry once again fo the dely. Life has been hectic, and, while I’ve had opportunities to add my usual $0.02 to various SDMB threads, I wanted to be sure that I had time enough to do this justice. I invariably find that if don’t check carefully on the matter for a GD thread I invariably seem to misremember the material I’m quoting.
The Tanner’s book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality is, indeed, largely written in a peculiar style with emphasis indicated by underlining and even stranger methods, such as partly hand-drawn brackets. The edition I have – the 1982 edition “Fourth Edition, Enlarged and Revised” – is a mix of some chapters in this style and others, such as the eighth chapter (which we are discussing) in a different style, with only bold and unbolded text. The chapters in the bold/unbold style (there are others besides this one) lack the weird underlining and brackets. This was in the age befre publishing software was cheap and easily available. I suspect that making up the page roofs was still largel a matter of printing out th text, aying it out on a waxing board, marking some things up by hand, and photographing it. Changing texts and fonts was no easy matter. I strongly suspect that the annrs wanted to get away from the underlining/bracketing method, which looks amateurish, and switch over to bold/unbold styles, which look more pofessional, and which they had probably just obtained the ability to print. But switching over is time-consuming, so they went to press in a part old/part new style. I’ll bet that you won’t find these weird printing styles in their more recent publications.
Actually, I don’t know if the Tanners are nice or not. They’re civil, and, I suspect, honst, which is the point uner iscussion.
The tanner claim about the Brigham Young quote, of coure, is that it does NOT distort the message, but bols it down to the essential points. It requirs neither deception nor poor reading skills. Pyle claims that the Tanners mislead because what Brigham Yung was really saying as that God didn’t come “with the armies of heaven”, but alone, and that this is wh the Tanners sought t misrepresent. The Tanners claim that Young said that God did not come at all, and the bit about the armies of heaven was a rhtorical flourish. This is why , in the paragraph where they quote with elipsis rom the assage, they point out that “…Mormon scholars have been unable to locate any sermon by Brigham Young in which he identifies the personages as God h Father and His Son Jesus Christ.” and quotes Dr. Nibley on this as well: A favorte theme of Brigham Young was the tangible, personal nature of God, which he never illustrates by any mention of the first vision." I now you must have read this – it’s in your copy, too. How can the Tanners make their case any clearer?
In the Heber C. Kimball quote I am still unable to see how it is misleading. The Tanners correctly note the gap in their quote, and it does not at all change the meaning, as far as I can tell. You claim that it is not about the First Vision, but Kimball’s quote is clearly meant to apply to all circumstances, so it applies to the fist vision as well.
I emphasize again that I do not alwas agree with the Tannrs, an am not arguing their case, as I do not share their beliefs. But I do objec to their being called frauds and poor rsearchers. As far as I can tell, they are very careful and precse in their use o quotation and ellipsis. That you and I can look at substantially the ame text (plus or minus typographica differences) and come away with such completely different interpretations shows to me the futility of continuing this discussion. All I can say is, “there it is – the Tanner’s may not agree with you, and may have plced emphases to show their own reading, but they do not misquote or mislead. Yes, their interpretation is vastly different than yours, and they have chosen their texts to support their case, but they have not done so dishonestly, despite what you may believe. You cannot simply dismiss them by saying that they distort the texts. Their case deserves a better response than that simple panacea.”
In context, it is not “rhetorical flourish.” Young was stating that the revelation came in a different way than the world might expect. Here’s the full paragraph, with the underlined portion being the part quoted by the Tanners:
In contrast, there are several quotes from Young which clearly indicate that he believed that the Lord Himself visited Joseph. Consider the following (emphasis mine):
Do you still think that Young claimed that the Lord didn’t visit Joseph? How did the Tanners miss these quotes when doing their research?
My “claim” is correct–there is no reference to the First Vision. Even thought the Tanners continue after quoting Kimball by writing, “Many other confusing statements about the First Vision were made by Mormon leaders after Joseph Smith’s death”–it is clear that they are suggesting that Kimball was speaking specifically about the First Vision, which is why they excised the names of Peter, etc. A plain reading of the text leaves the reader believing that Kimball was directly referring to the First Vision. That’s plain as day, and there’s simply no denying it.
Now, Heber was referring to a principle which we still teach today. Which is that when the priesthood authority was lost from the earth, it had to be restored by the laying on of hands by one who had that authority–namely John the Baptist (the authority to baptize, or Aaronic priesthood as we call it), and Peter, James, and John (the Melchizedek priesthood). (Additionally, Moroni–the last author and archivist in the Book of Mormon–communicated with Joseph over a period of several years about the Book of Mormon.) The Father or the Son don’t need to do this, because there are others who can. Indeed, this is a theme of Kimball’s–teaching over and over the importance of the chain of the priesthood which was given (for instance) from Jesus to Peter, James, and John, and from them to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. It is inconceivable that Kimball was saying that neither the Father nor the Son ever visit, because of other claims to the contrary, for instance, the events described in Doctrine and Covenants 110, in which the Lord, Moses, and Elijah all visit Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in Kirtland, Ohio. Kimball was ordained an Apostle in February 1835, and this event took place April 3, 1836. He was most likely present when this happened, and even if he wasn’t, he couldn’t have misunderstood it, especially after it was canonized in scripture. (Point of reference: the Tanners quote from Kimball is from 1857.)
If the Tanners claim is that Heber C. Kimball was referring to the First Vision (as a plain reading shows), then they are lying, flat out. If they claim that he’s referring to a principle that the Lord never visits, then they have ignored evidence to the contrary.
The Tanners are frauds or failures. Plain and simple.
Wrong, quite arguably. But that’s different from being a failure. I don’t claim infallibility for them.
For the first point – Note that Hugh Nibley himself seems to have stated the same thing that the Tanners did – how is it that he was unaware of the other Brigham Young quotes?
A plain reading of the Kimball quote says that God did not visit Joseph Smith, regardless of what he may have said elsewhere. I agree that a reading of the way the Tanners have written the paragraph suggests that it was the First Vision being discussed, but doesn’t explicitly say so. In any event, if Kimball was stating a general principle (and his words seem quite absolute – this is no question of a mistaken statement or a slip of the tongue), then it is irrelevant whether it is the First Vision or not being discussed. It’s certainly not inconceivable that Kimball erred – unless there is a new doctrine of infallibility in the LDS Church.
Allow me to point out, by the way, that you appear to have switched arguments.
In the matter of the Brigham Young quote you have, until now, been citing Pyle’s work, to which , I maintain, my above reply is an adequate riposte. In your last offering, you argue not that the Tanners have ignored the “with His Host” part of the quote, and instead argue that Young was instead offering a brief description of how the Book of Mormon came to be written, and not a commentary on the First Vision.
I also note that you go to great lengths to try to show that the Tanners are wrong in their citations of Young and Kimball, by showing that they expressed other views elsewhere. Again, I’d like to note that this is irrelevant. I’m not arguing that the Tanners are right. I’ll freely admit that they may well be quite wrong. I have already done so several times. I’m simply arguing that they do not mangle the texts or illegitimately misquote them. To say that “But X says here that …” is irrelevant if the Tanners have legitimately quoted them correctly saying something else.
This isn’t sophistry. I’m not hiding behind trivial arguments about words. Although you quite clearly believe otherwise, it is abundantly evident to me that the Tanners have quoted correctly. Moreover, I don’t believe that they spent their time hunting for the few mistakes the Great Men of the LDS may have made where they misspoke themselves. The Tanners may be mistaken, but not malicious.
What are you talking about? I have made no reference to the Book of Mormon when talking about Young’s quote. I did refer to Moroni when discussing Heber C. Kimball though. Have you conflated the two quotes?
Let’s review the issue: [ul][li]I claimed that the Tanners were an untrustworthy source because of the issues raised in Pyle’s post. Namely, that by use of misplaced ellipsis and emphasis, they twist the plain meaning of text to appear to agree with their arguments.[]You then claimed that the Tanners did not use emphasis at all, and had complete quotes.[]I purchased a copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, the 1972 edition, and proved with scans of the pages that the emphasis existed as Pyle wrote about it.[/ul]Now, while the quote from Brigham Young illustrates misplaced emphasis quite clearly. The quote from Kimball is an excellent example of deceptive use of ellipsis.[/li]
I’m fairly confident that you’re confusing the issues now. The other quotes I brought up are from Young, not Kimball. And it is not irrelevant, as I’ll explain below.
Here you’ve gone completely wrong. There are two issues at hand, lexical and semantic. You’re claiming that the quotes are lexically correct, that the words the Tanners wrote are in fact the words of the source documents. If they erred there, they’d be guilty of outright falsification of the source documents. I have never stated even once that I believed the Tanners were making up the source documents. No, I’ve been arguing the semantic issues. That they have taken the source documents, and by use of emphasis and elision have changed the plain reading to mean something very different.
Okay, so they’re incompetent, not frauds. That’s a possible argument (see Hanlon’s Razor). I believe I’ve disproved it, as I’ll explain in a moment.
CalMeacham, it is you who have changed your argument. Let me remind me of the very first comment you made:
I have endeavored to show that they in fact have relied on ellipsis and misplaced emphasis (including out-of-context statements) to make their points. Now that I have done so, you’re assertion is changing to simply state that the words in their quotes match the words in the source documents–we agree on that point, indeed I’ve never claimed otherwise!
I showed how the Tanners reduced Young’s quote “The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory” to “THE LORD DID NOT COME with the armies of heaven” to “THE LORD DID NOT COME”. This is clearly relying on misplaced emphasis to make their point, and they drive it home by removing half the statement in the final quote. If we are to address the semantics, we have to determine objectively what Young meant in his statement. My claim is that it’s referring to the method and details of the visit, not whether the visit happened at all. I searched and found those other three statements which clearly show that Young believed that the Lord personally visited Joseph at the First Vision. It is not reasonable to conclude that Young meant that the Lord did not appear to Joseph when he made that specific claim that the Lord did several other times. The semantics clearly don’t agree with the Tanners. The Tanners clearly emphasize the text to fit the meaning they wanted–a meaning which contradicts Young’s other statements.
With Kimball’s quote, the Tanners did everything possible to imply that Kimball was referring to the First Vision. They introduced the statement by saying “Heber C. Kimball, the First Counselor to Brigham Young, made the following statement” (conveniently ignoring the context of the statement), and directly afterwards assert that “Many other confusing statments about the First Vision were made by Mormon leaders after Jospeh Smith’s death”. Yet the quote from Kimball clearly refers to the visitations by Peter, James, John, etc. and do not refer to the First Vision at all. This is deceptive elision. This is using out-of-context quotes to make their point. If they didn’t want to confuse their readers, why then did they continue with “Many other confusing statements about the First VIsion…”? If they wanted to claim that Kimball was referring to a general principle that could be applied to the First Vision, why directly assert that it was one of the statements related to the First Vision? To evaluate whether Kimball was referring to any visit of the Lord (since it’s clear he’s not referring specifically to the First Vision), I pointed out a similar appearance of the Lord in Kirtland, where Heber C. Kimball was likely present. I also explained that Kimball’s statements make perfect sense to LDS because he’s talking about the means of conferring priesthood authority, etc. by ministering angels (Peter, James, John, etc.). It does not make sense that Kimball would claim that the Lord never visits men ever. Thus we can see the semantics are the opposite of what the Tanners are claiming. The Tanners use ellipsis to remove any hint that the text isn’t referring to the First Vision.
Finally, when checking out the Nibley reference, I just about split my side laughing at the audacity of the Tanners. The quote they use is from the November 1961 issue of the Improvement Era. The funny thing is, the article was part five of a five-part series entitled (get this) “Censoring the Joseph Smith Story”, directly addressing the critics of the First Vision. The articles were reprinted in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, volume 11 in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, and can be read online here. The thing that really got me was that the article that they quote Nibley from was precisely the same article that was responding to their use of the quote from Brigham Young–hence we come full circle. The Tanners took the Nibley quote out of context, from an article which refuted their claims about Brigham Young (following pretty much the same argument I’ve given). They ignored Nibley’s refutation (didn’t even address it–just ignored it) and then perverted another statment of his to try to make their point. It was at this point that I could no longer believe that the Tanners are merely stupid or incompetent. They are intent on misinformation, and not interested in rational discourse. Their motivations are clearly malicious. They are frauds, and their “research” simply cannot be trusted.
I can see that we’re not going to reach ay resolution on this. We’re very much like people speaking entirely differeent languages. I see no point in connuing this.
With all due respect, that’s about the weakest response I’ve ever seen in Great Debates.
I claimed that the Tanners misused emphasis and elision to present their points. You claimed not only that they didn’t do this, but they didn’t use emphasis at all in this particular case. I purchased the version and found the emphasis and ellipsis as stated (granted, you’re reading a different edition of the book). Remarkably, you responded with surprise yet but didn’t concede or apologize for mistakenly asserting things about the 1972 edition of MSoR.
After a lot of effort on my part (buying the book, scanning it in, searching through the Journal of Discourses, etc.) you backpedalled to stating that the Tanners at least didn’t fabricate quotes. I backed up my claim by showing that interpreting Young’s and Kimball’s statements the way they do would ignore significant evidence that they wouldn’t teach such things.
And you respond by saying we’re not speaking the same language? What does that even mean? I’ve backed up my assertions with citations and logic. That’s how it’s commonly done here, as you should well know. I’ve not even resorted to witnessing, or by stating my belief about the character of Young or Kimball to refute the Tanners assertions.
Finally, after giving them the benefit of the doubt, I find that their 1972 (and apparently others) edition of MSoR attempted to use a quote from Nibley taken from an essay which began by addressing the Brigham Young quote and refuting the Tanners claim, and even footnoted the Tanners. Surely they didn’t miss that gem, since they quoted the article, and it was published eleven years before?
How can I conclude anything other than they’re frauds, and that their so-called research is useless? And how can you claim that it’s like we’re not speaking the same language?
Also, while I see the Tanners’ work as fundamentally destructive instead of constructive, I would guess the Tanners and their sympathizers would likely see things vice versa. Additionally, I suspect that people on this board wouldn’t see a difference either–hence I will retract my objections about the Tanners from the financial perspective. (Unless of course I find something compelling in the future that would more clearly show a problem.)