Jerald and Sandra Tanner - Criticism

Criticism

Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon historian who has written about the church, has written 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 criticized them for "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. ... The Tanners seem to be playing a skilful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same—negative."

Foster says that some of the Tanners' "research and analysis ... would do credit to any professional historian." He credits them with being "more than simply gadflies; in curious and often indirect ways, their work has also been a factor helping to stimulate serious Mormon historical writing."

Foster has praised Jerald Tanner for his "fierce opposition to Mormon racism" and notes:

Some scholars have also, at least in private, been very pleased that the Tanners have made available hard-to-find printed works from early LDS history... even those scholars who are most critical of the Tanners and their methods have profited, at least indirectly, because the Tanners' allegations have spurred them to begin their own investigations into vital and still incompletely understood topics.... Jerald and Sandra Tanner have functioned with regard to Mormonism in much the same way that Ralph Nader has functioned with regard to American business.... The Tanners have prodded the church to begin, however haltingly and imperfectly, to develop a more realistic sense of itself. I would imagine, for example, that much of the flowering of Mormon historical studies in the 1970s, which has helped to give at least some Mormons a richer and more vital knowledge of their own heritage, has been more than tangentially related to the desire of Latter-day Saint historians to prove the Tanners wrong by showing that a full and honest history of the Latter-day Saints can indeed be written. Much like the irritating grain of sand in the oyster, the result has been a pearl."

Michael Quinn, a historian and former member of the LDS Church, takes issue with the Tanners' work. He noted that, "although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history."