- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The program for the Salt Lake Sunstone symposium came yesterday and Rock Waterman is giving a paper called “Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed: A closer look at a misunderstood teaching” and Denver Snuffer one called “Was there an original?”. I’m wondering if Sunstone is taking another step or two to the left, trying to include anything and everything under the big tent of Mormonism, or if they’re just trying to aggravate the brethren. Very interesting, GB. That seems to indicate the church broadened things and the fringe is perhaps further left, as you said. Do you go to these? I wonder if someone planning to go can report on what the feeling is like at these talks, and the whole symposium.
If those two are speaking about those topics, there almost has to be a conscious effort to push institutional buttons. Frankly, I’m disappointed.
Old Timer wrote:Frankly, I’m disappointed.
Me, too. I actually had some respect for Sunstone and thought that if the opportunity ever presented itself I might go the conference. I’m all for alternative points of view and different ways of interpreting the church and my definition of apostate is pretty narrow – those two meet the definition though. I really don’t see how an organization that I perceived as being supportive and faithful is doing so with a couple headline apostates as speakers.
At one time, there was a TR question regarding “Do you attend Symposia or conferences that….[insert something negative here]”. Would the Sunstone Symposia qualify as one such meeting? Particularly with these two recently censured members speaking there? SilentDawning wrote:At one time, there was a TR question regarding “Do you attend Symposia or conferences that….[insert something negative here]”. Would the Sunstone Symposia qualify as one such meeting? Particularly with these two recently censured members speaking there?
Probably depends on your bishop/SP and/or whether or not you admit or they know you attended. That’s the thing, until now I didn’t really see Sunstone and an organization opposed/contrary to the church (and I admittedly may have been wrong about that). Snuffer and Waterman are unquestionably opposed and contrary to the church.
I looked back at the program and the title is “Many Mormonisms and the Mormon movement” so I guess that might be one reason why they are included. There are a number of titles on faith crises, LGBT issues, polygamy, plus some that don’t give me much of a clue as to what they’re about. There are some familiar names like Bill Reel, John Hamer, Janice Allred and interestingly there’s a panel on “Four views of the Book of Mormon” that includes Sandra Tanner (I think from the Lighthouse Bookstore/ministry). I used to go pretty regularly but not so much recently. It might be possible that they are trying to be inclusive. If they are going to allow someone like Michael Quinn or John Dehlin speaking time then perhaps they felt that they had to grant the same favor to more fundamentalist types. Sandra Tanner is participating, also? Holy. Cow.
I had to look up who Sandra Tanner is. Sounds like an anti-Mormon with semi-scholarly, but biased perspective (negative) on Mormons, willing to call out any historical record that may not be authentic. I wasn’t aware that the the Church sued them for linking to copyrighted Church Handbook of Instructions. Wow, that is aggressive on the part of the church! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerald_and_Sandra_Tanner I would be cautious of having a lot of really negative people at Sunstone.
You walk a fine line when you have independent meetings about Mormonism, attracting people to discuss the church, outside of official channels…all you have to do is read Armand Mauss’ book where he talks about his brushes with gatekeepers in Mormonism due to his activities in the independent journal about Mormonism known as Dialogue.
He was never censured by the church, although he was “investigated” by his SP’s a few times, all leading to no action.
SilentDawning wrote:I had to look up who Sandra Tanner is. Sounds like an anti-Mormon with semi-scholarly, but biased perspective (negative) on Mormons, willing to call out any historical record that may not be authentic. I wasn’t aware that the the Church sued them for linking to copyrighted Church Handbook of Instructions. Wow, that is aggressive on the part of the church!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerald_and_Sandra_Tanner I would be cautious of having a lot of really negative people at Sunstone. Add the question about attending Symposia that spread teachings contrary to the church (If still a TR question), and you have a bit of a landmine on your hands.
You walk a fine line when you have independent meetings about Mormonism, attracting people to discuss the church, outside of official channels…all you have to do is read Armand Mauss’ book where he talks about his brushes with gatekeepers in Mormonism due to his activities in the independent journal about Mormonism known as Dialogue.
He was never censured by the church, although he was “investigated” by his SP’s a few times, all leading to no action.
Sandra Tanner is about as anti as you can get. What you perceive as aggression on the part of the church is minimal compared to her (and her late husband’s) aggression. They did/she does far more than publish unflattering church history stuff. Waterman and Snuffer are single A minor leaguers in comparison.
DarkJedi wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I had to look up who Sandra Tanner is. Sounds like an anti-Mormon with semi-scholarly, but biased perspective (negative) on Mormons, willing to call out any historical record that may not be authentic. I wasn’t aware that the the Church sued them for linking to copyrighted Church Handbook of Instructions. Wow, that is aggressive on the part of the church!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerald_and_Sandra_Tanner I would be cautious of having a lot of really negative people at Sunstone. Add the question about attending Symposia that spread teachings contrary to the church (If still a TR question), and you have a bit of a landmine on your hands.
You walk a fine line when you have independent meetings about Mormonism, attracting people to discuss the church, outside of official channels…all you have to do is read Armand Mauss’ book where he talks about his brushes with gatekeepers in Mormonism due to his activities in the independent journal about Mormonism known as Dialogue.
He was never censured by the church, although he was “investigated” by his SP’s a few times, all leading to no action.
Sandra Tanner is about as anti as you can get. What you perceive as aggression on the part of the church is minimal compared to her (and her late husband’s) aggression. They did/she does far more than publish unflattering church history stuff. Waterman and Snuffer are single A minor leaguers in comparison.
Thanks — the Wikipedia entry doesn’t make her out as being so aggressive, but I will trust your own assessment. I thought the lawsuit from the church was more aggressive than what I normally see from the church, but I was not criticizing the church for the lawsuit necessarily.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.