Tal Bachman, son of rock legend Randy Bachman, was raised in the Church. Through a crisis of faith, Tal decided to leave the Church in late 2003. Since that time he has been sharing his exit story with those who are curious and in various venues critical of the Church. (In the parlance of those who leave the Church, an exit story is their telling of awakening to the knowledge that the Church is no longer true for them. In many respects, an exit story is simply another type of conversion story or, more properly, a deconversion story.)
Part of Tal’s exit story revolves around his interaction with his stake president at the time, Randy Keyes. Tal often tells, with incredulity, how he heard from his stake president that he didn’t believe in different aspects of the gospel either.
It appears that President Keyes has finally read some of Tal’s comments, notably a message left by Tal on the Mormon Discussions message board run by the infamous critic “Dr. Shades.” The comments by Tal are not new; he has been making the same comments for some time. (For example, in an abbreviated exit story on the Post-Mormon site.) I first read similar comments by Tal on the Recovery from Mormonism message boards about four years ago.
I am pleased to report that we no longer have to rely solely on Tal Bachman’s version of reality. I’m pleased to share with you an open letter from President Randy Keyes and a separate open letter from his wife, Julie. These letters are posted here with their permission.
Enjoy.
-Allen
Open Letter to Tal Bachman
April 27, 2008
Tal Bachman:
It’s me, President Randy Keyes. Someone brought to my attention that you have been purporting to quote me on the web. I read your comments about the talk we had five years ago on a message board post you made on April 17, 2008. I was surprised at how you reported things I never said, as if I had said them. I now want to speak for myself on what you chose to write.
First, you stated that my term as stake president is over. I’m not sure how you would have gotten such incorrect information, but I am still stake president of the Victoria British Columbia Stake. You also reported that I said that Joseph Smith “hadn’t told the truth” and that he “invented stories” and that he “deliberately took advantage of girls.” I never said these things, nor do I believe these statements. These are your statements, not mine. You have invented things I did not say.
When we spoke, I tried to listen to and acknowledge your thinking, but you obviously did not listen to me. Here is my reality: For as long as I can remember, I have had a knowledge that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. In my childhood I visited Palmyra often. At age 14 I felt a spiritual witness of the reality of the First Vision while in the Sacred Grove. At age 16 I experienced a spiritual confirmation of Joseph Smith as a prophet while I stood in Carthage Jail. At age 18 I had a life-changing spiritual witness of Christ as my Lord and King. At age 19, while reading the Book of Mormon, I found myself in the presence of prophets (I did not, as you said, communicate with them). There have been many other spiritual events, including at the present time as I serve in the Victoria Stake.
I know God the Father and Jesus Christ personally visited Joseph Smith. I know that Moroni visited Joseph Smith and I felt a strong confirmation of this when I recently stood in the upstairs bedroom of the rebuilt Smith log cabin where Moroni stood. I know he led Joseph to the gold plates, that they were translated by the gift and power of God into the Book of Mormon.
I believe that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John restored Priesthood authority to the earth because I have seen the Priesthood in action. I regularly feel its power as it moves the Stake along and as it influences the individuals I get to work with and talk to. As I said to you and your wife, I do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet.
How is it that our memories of our interview are so different? In our talk I felt your questions and struggles were genuine.; I wanted to help. In my profession as a therapist (as in our discussion) I try to follow the principle of “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” In that initial visit it was your turn to talk. I accepted that you could not find peace on your interpretation of historical items you read concerning Joseph Smith. I listened and reflected what I heard, and when I would nod and say, “sure,” it was an indication that I was listening and that what you were saying was comprehendible.
Because I was listening for understanding, I carefully, mildly challenged some of your views by stating my beliefs and witnesses, and as to “scrutiny,” I am convinced that the Church will continue to stand up well. Over time, truth will prevail and the Church and Brother Joseph will be further exonerated and praised. Misinformation, misrepresentation, and misunderstandings will be diminished.
In your message board post you reported that I said my mission president made up motivational stories to get missionaries to follow him. You also indicated that I said Joseph Smith did the same thing. Let me be clear: I never said my mission president made up stories or that Joseph Smith did. My mission comments regarding motivation centered on the president observing that some people are motivated by external supports (like newsletters that announce top baptismal numbers) while others have quiet, inner motivation. I did not talk about “making up stories.”
Understanding each other—especially in spiritual things—is not a single event but an ongoing process. It was my hope that we would have ongoing discussions so you would get to eventually understand my views and testimony. In the first interview, I provided what I viewed as acknowledgement that I understood what you were saying, not an acknowledgment that what you were saying was true. In future discussions, had they occurred, we would have talked more about those matters, continuing with hope and faith until more information settled your questions. I felt that when I spoke of my spiritual confirmations your response was, “Yeah, but what about…” This was a dismissing of my views, and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly.
I decided to choose to listen to you. My hope was that I would be heard on some other day. Regarding your comments about my thoughts of being personally comfortable as a member of the Church, but it not necessarily being for everyone, I meant that not all people are ready for it. Not all people are ready for the commitment, rules and obligations that accompany Church membership. However, as they continue to investigate the gospel and the Church, this engagement will hopefully expand with time, involvement, and repeated episodes of being touched by the Holy Ghost. An LDS lifestyle offers such opportunities on many occasions. I would have loved to have you stay involved and I believe that with more time you would have received answers to many of your questions.
The personal improvement I get from living the gospel is only one aspect of my testimony. There are many layers and dimensions to what I know and am a witness to and I continue to learn spiritual truths with time. The knowledge that matters is the first-hand knowledge we receive from God. The constant invitation in the Church is to ask God and get your own witness. There is no compartmentalization in my gospel understanding. There are things I know and things I believe, things I hope for, and some things I don’t have answers for yet; it is a connected continuum. We worship with both knowledge and faith.
I hope in the past that I expressed understanding and compassion for your struggles. I perhaps did not do the back half of “…then [seek] to be understood” very well. I trust that these comments settle any guessing that you or others have about why I am an active member of the Church. I do know the gospel is what it claims to be. I cannot comprehend the idea that anyone would believe that a stake president would keep serving if he did not believe the gospel to be true. There is no reason anyone would give this service if he didn’t believe this is, literally, the Church of Jesus Christ. This gospel gives me a fuller life, my involvement in it feeds my soul, and it provides the way for me to worship God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.
This, Tal, is my position and reality. I trust that you will now afford me the courtesy that I afforded you—to be understood.
Your brother,
Randy Keyes
Open Letter to Tal Bachman from Julie Keyes
April 27, 2008
Tal,
I feel very frustrated that you have misquoted my husband so grossly. I know that you have misquoted him because I know my husband intimately and I know he would not make the statements you attribute to him. In your message board post you insinuated that Randy may not have been truthful with me about his feelings about Joseph Smith. You couldn’t be farther from the truth. The most important thing we have learned in our 28 years together is to be honest with each other. His only thoughts and feelings about Joseph Smith have been admiration and respect and a belief that Joseph Smith was honest and forthright with great integrity and courage.
Repeatedly, over the years, I have turned to Randy for clarification of doctrine and understanding of the scriptures and the deeper things of the gospel. He has always given me amazingly clear, insightful feedback. His understanding of the restored gospel is incredibly sound. He has shared with me several very sacred witnesses that he has received. I believe him because I know he is an honest man. We have been through too much together not to know this. We have cried together, laughed together, struggled and triumphed together. Through it all he has repeatedly, unceasingly, unflinchingly expressed his awe, respect, and reverence for the gospel of Jesus Christ, for Joseph Smith, and for the restoration. He has expressed these things in quiet ways; he does not grandstand.
As a convert to the Church at age 21 (I joined the Church a year before I met Randy) I am an independent thinker and have had some very powerful witnesses myself. I have the perspective of living my first 20 years without the gospel. The difference is quite profound. When I compare the difference between my life before joining the Church and after, it is like night and day. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ fosters deeper thinking; a broader perspective; a richer, more satisfying life; and ongoing, multiple spiritual events and experiences.
Unfortunately, in our attempts to be understood, semantics will never be enough; human language is too limited. Knowing Randy, he was just trying to empathize with your feelings. I am disappointed in you for misrepresenting my husband. You misunderstood him. I believe you have assumed too much and taken liberties with what my husband said.
Your sister,
Julie Keyes
Unfortunately, this stake president has every bit as much motivation to present his own version of the conversation as Tal Bachman does. It seems from your introduction that you automatically assume Tal Bachman (he being one of those wicked apostates and all) must be telling a lie, and the stake president (being an LDS stake president) must be telling the truth. The real likelihood is that the truth is somewhere between the two.
Further, does this stake president actually thinks his wife’s glowing character reference is evidence of what he said, during a conversation when she wasn’t present? Her statement is nothing more than a wife expressing admiration for her husband, along what she allegedly would expect him to say. It’s clearly submitted as “another witness” of the stake president’s spin, but it holds no actual value at all as evidence that the stake president is being truthful.
I’m afraid you might be reading a bit too much between the lines, Nick. I said nothing in my short intro that would lead one to believe what I “automatically assume.” I purposefully left it up to the reader to make his or her own decision.
Whatever motivation you might attribute to both the stake president and Tal, I would think it would be beneficial to have both stories in the wild rather than just one side. Do you disagree?
-Allen
It is certainly a rare opportunity to get both sides of such a situation, and your letters eloquently and convincingly set the record straight. I almost wish I lived in your Stake 🙂
Just one other thought… While Julie Keyes wasn’t present during the conversation between Tal and Randy, I would think that she should know her husband well enough to know when something she reads (in this case something written by Tal) doesn’t match her understanding of the man.
Unless, of course, you think that Randy has been hiding the truth from his wife for 28 years and just happened to spill it all to Tal in a solitary interview five years ago.
-Allen
I’m sorry, but I tend to give more credence to a serving stake president than an apostate musician on logic alone.
Being a stake president isn’t an easy job, as any of you out there that have served in that capacity can attest. I submit that it would be extremely difficult- if not downright impossible- to have the doubts that Bachman says Keyes admitted and still fake it as a stake president.
Now maybe Bachman thought he heard Keyes say these things. Kind of a stretch, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he misinterpreted church history the same way he interpreted his stake president, what a waste. Even if he realizes his mistakes, it will be all the harder to return to the church now that he’s- how do I put it- “living it up.”
As yet another person who has been a victim of Tal Bachman’s selective attention and public misrepresentations for a number of years — Paul Simon’s line (“still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”) has come repeatedly to mind when I’ve reflected on his abuses — I’m delighted that we now have the other side of this particular story.
Bravo to FAIR for posting it, and many thanks to President and Sister Keyes for their compassionate, lucid, and even moving responses to this unfortunate situation.
“The real likelihood is that the truth is somewhere between the two.”
Nick, this is to simplistic. the “truth lying somewhere between the two” is indicated by Keyes when he said the following:
“There is no compartmentalization in my gospel understanding. There are things I know and things I believe, things I hope for, and some things I don’t have answers for yet; it is a connected continuum. We worship with both knowledge and faith.”
If Tal implied that Keyes is being disingenuous by holding the position of a Stake President while harboring some critical doubts about the veracity of the LDS Church, Keyes can counter with his own witness (which admits to fallibility in knowledge). As far as his wife is concerned one would hope, if anyone, Keyes’ spouse could vouch for his testimony alongside him. I’m fairly certain she knows her husband better than Tal.
-Blair
Dan,
If Tal Bachman’s side of the story wasn’t true, would you want to know? And would you be willing to do what it takes to find out? 😉
I meant “too simplistic,” dog-gone-it.
I don’t doubt that it’s useful to have both Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes’ views of whatever conversation took place, and as I noted, the truth is likely somewhere in between.
While Julie Keyes wasn’t present during the conversation between Tal and Randy, I would think that she should know her husband well enough to know when something she reads (in this case something written by Tal) doesn’t match her understanding of the man.
Allen, I understand where you’re coming from, but please pay attention to what she said: “I know that you have misquoted him because I know my husband intimately and I know he would not make the statements you attribute to him (emphasis mine).” This simply isn’t a useful statement. It would be far better if she honestly stated that she believes Tal Bachman misquoted her husband, because she knows her husband intimately, and she doesn’t believe her husband would not make the statements Tal Bachman attributed to him. Surely you see the difference. The only mortals who can know what was said are Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes, and each of them will interpret what they heard, via their own experience and understanding.
Sad to say, but there are plenty of women in this world who “know” their husbands would never do certain things, only to be met with huge surprises. Think Dorie Hoffman, who had no idea her husband was forging documents and building bombs in the basement. Think the wife of the monstrous man recently arrested in Austria, who police say had no idea he was keeping a daughter and three grandchildren captive in the cellar. Think of all the women who’ve been surprised to find their husbands had affairs.
As I said, I really think the truth falls in between both stories here. If Randy Keyes is well read in LDS history, he knows Joseph Smith did some things that were unfortunate. One doesn’t have to believe Joseph Smith was perfect, or even perfectly truthful throughout his lifetime, in order to believe he was a prophet (heck, Moses murdered an Egyptian). I would not be surprised to find that Randy Keyes acknowledged Joseph’s imperfections along these lines, and Tal Bachman focused in on that, as opposed to focusing on Randy Keye’s overriding faith.
I’m sorry, but I tend to give more credence to a serving stake president than an apostate musician on logic alone.
I don’t think that’s logic, but rather your experience and level of trust. While many (likely most) stake presidents are wonderful individuals, I find there are bad apples in all walks of life. I was trained in the Utah police academy, and rode with officers in rural areas of the state. I learned enough about some of those officers’ encounters with certain stake presidents that I’m not willing to assume every stake president is automatically of unquestionable good character. Perhaps you remember several years ago, when a stake president in SLC had to be released, after he was arrested for soliciting prostitutes. Perhaps you remember George P. Lee, who was excommunicated for apostacy, and then was revealed to have repeatedly molested a young neighbor girl while he was a sitting general authority?
I’m afraid you might be reading a bit too much between the lines, Nick. I said nothing in my short intro that would lead one to believe what I “automatically assume.”
Actually, Allen, don’t you think the title of your blog posting makes it rather clear that you take the Keyes’ letters as conclusive of the truth? If that’s not how you “automatically assume,” you may want to consider changing the title.
Wow, who to believe? A guy who has demonstrable disdain for keeping vows he made with Heavenly Father, or a man whose spiritual witnesses of the reality of God and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith mirror my own? It’s an easy call.
Bachman has as much credibility today as he had yesterday: Zero.
Kudos to President Keyes for maintaining a charitable and conciliatory tone throughout his tome.
NOTICE FROM FAIR BLOG ADMINISTRATORS:
We tend to have rather liberal comment guidelines here. The two exceptions are abusive comments and those that use temple language.
Please feel free to post your views, but keep it civil. That includes not using names of deity in sacrilegious or sarcastic ways.
You are reading the title as being telling of my beliefs, but they are a summation of Randy Keyes’ beliefs. He thought the record was not straight–it was incorrect and one-sided–and he decided to set that record straight by his open letters.
The title is a statement of his beliefs about Tal’s statements, not a statement of my beliefs. I’m just the messenger presenting the open letters.
I am glad to have them on the record.
I can usually judge the strength of a position by how quickly its adherent runs to poison the well. Some musicians have molested neighbors, Nick. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Tal. Especially when his silly story was harder to believe than anything Joseph ever said.
Some musicians have molested neighbors, Nick. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Tal.
Absolutely true, Juliann, and I’m in no way saying that I believe Tal Bachman’s version completely, either. As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.
Truth is often binary. Either the SP believes the Church is true, or he doesn’t. Either he intended to convey to Tal that he should hang in there even though it’s false, or he didn’t.
Waffling in the middle makes no sense.
The idea that a stake president would “admit” that it is all a fraud to a struggling member is just absurd on the face of it.
Only someone with an axe to grind would find that plausible, IMHO. I’d no more believe that than if someone who left the Republican party said they’d sat down with George Bush, who admitted privately to them that (say) free market economics were a bad idea, or the Iraq war a drastic mistake.
There’s just no way anyone would say something like that to someone “on the ropes” and looking like they might leave and spill the beans–maybe to a cynical group of insiders when everyone knows that no one believes, but not to someone with the potential to be a whistle-blower.
It’s like Tal’s insistance that Daniel C. Peterson or Lou Midgley told him they don’t want to know if the Church is false. It just beggars belief….even if they DIDN’T (which I think absurd, based on knowing them AND their own testimony) are two such crafty Mopologists going to admit it to Tal?
Keyes’ version would thus be less plausible if Tal didn’t do this sort of thing repeatedly.
Is it intentional? Who knows. Is it plausible? No, not before Keyes’ message, and even less so after.
So, interested readers can read both and decide. I think it’s a no-brainer just on plausibility grounds. (The implausibility of Tal’s version is, I suspect, part of its appeal in some circles….)
Greg
Nick:
“As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.”
I believe Keyes fully accounted for how Tal may have been misled in his understanding of Keyes position. “somewhere in-between” was clearly expressed by Keyes.
Nick:
Why must the truth be “somewhere in between the two?” I see no evidence at all that this must be the case. In fact, we have it from Dan Peterson that Tal has on several occasions misrepresented what he said. Others have said similar things. That establishes a pattern of behavior on Tal’s part. That being the case, I see no reason to assume that we must look to the center to find the truth. Can you give me any reason why I should credit Tal’s version of this story in anyway?
Lance Starr
Nick: As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.
So we have a sitting Stake Prez who spends multiple hours a week in a volunteer position not really believing what he bases his life upon… but almost? Is that the “in between” you are talking about? Or do we have a Stake Prez who has spent all those hours successfully duping members but who inexplicably chooses Tal Bachman as a confidant in a moment of weakness? Is that the “in between”? This might work if Pres. Keyes was no longer a Stake President. Of any of this, the most telling element should be Bachman’s need to remove him as a current stake president to make his story more plausible. What is the “in between” on that tale?
Greg: So, interested readers can read both and decide. I think it’s a no-brainer just on plausibility grounds. (The implausibility of Tal’s version is, I suspect, part of its appeal in some circles….)
I am not alone in seeing an obvious faith element that is involved in the acceptance of exit tales that equals anything required of a believer in the church.
Nick: As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground
The “argument to moderation,” or golden mean fallacy applies.
Unless there’s some other reason to credit the truth in the middle, I see no _a priori_ reason to find Tal’s version particularly credible.
Exit stories have the disadvantage, though, of invoking living people who can talk back. 🙂
I think Church leaders have taken far too much silent abuse from those who misrepresent what they say. I would be happy to see both versions put out if the ex-member chooses to “go public.” This seems to be the trend.
Greg
hmmm. . .
Interesting testimonial letter
This is what bugs me about the internet. Any wild-eyed fanatic can come on here and give any biased, out-of-touch, or just plain dishonest version of what he went through and we’re just supposed to take it at face value.
I keep this to myself generally, but I really do believe people troll websites to talk about falsified stories of how their bishop let their husband rape them, or how the Church took their kids away, or, or… it goes on.
I usually try to take internet “testimonials” with a grain of salt.
They always mock us whenever Mormons try to say “I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet.” Why should they expect any different from us when they claim “I know my bishop abused me?”
“Any wild-eyed fanatic can come on here and give any biased, out-of-touch, or just plain dishonest version of what he went through and we’re just supposed to take it at face value.”
I thought President Keyes’ letter was very rational and well-spoken.
Nick, I appreciate your generally cordial tone, despite its dissent. Obviously you disagree with most of us who frequent this corner of the bloggernacle, but I am willing to listen to you because you avoid vitriol (at least as much as any of us here do).
In this case I agree that it would have perhaps been better if the wife’s testimony had used the word “believe”. However, this is an extremely small issue to my mind.
I think this was a very wonderful letter and it was nice to hear that President Keyes is willing to speak out so that he doesn’t remain misrepresented. Why let false claims go undisputed?
Just for the sake of suggesting it…Maybe Keyes didn’t like being outed on the internet without his knowledge and now he has some serious damage control to do.
It’s possible…
It’s possible.
But, as one who’s had personal experience with Tal Bachman’s repeated falsehoods — despite my protests, public and private, that he was misrepresenting my position and distorting what I’d said — President Keyes’s claim that Tal Bachman has distorted what he said and is misrepresenting his position strikes me as not only plausible, but all too FAMILIAR.
And President Keyes and I are not alone in this experience. Friends of mine have had precisely the same kind of frustrating, exasperating encounters with Mr. Bachman.
While it does appear that Tal has sensationalized the interview (or perhaps even lied about it), does that take away from his overall criticisms of the church or of its history? I found his comment that all latter-day saints need to do is “pay, pray, and obey” hit the mark. While I see no point in him needing to distort a five year old interview, even if he did, would that detract from other potentially valid points that he made?
After all, if we want to talk about “credibility,” should we assume that President Hinckley honestly didn’t “know” (according to his television interview) about the doctrine of godhood, or should we conclude that perhaps he merely replied the way he did in order to avoid a PR fiasco?
It was good to see both sides of an issue that ultimately none of us can really conclude one way or the other on. I won’t trust someone simply because he was once on MTV, nor will I trust someone merely because of a title.
You are reading the title as being telling of my beliefs, but they are a summation of Randy Keyes’ beliefs. He thought the record was not straight–it was incorrect and one-sided–and he decided to set that record straight by his open letters. The title is a statement of his beliefs about Tal’s statements, not a statement of my beliefs. I’m just the messenger presenting the open letters.
Wow. Now I see where your friend, Trevor, gets it from.
So we have a sitting Stake Prez who spends multiple hours a week in a volunteer position not really believing what he bases his life upon… but almost? Is that the “in between” you are talking about?
No, that wouldn’t be “in between” the two stories at all. Look at it this way, though. I’m aware of a former BYU history professor, who believes that the First Vision was made up, yet otherwise believes fully in Mormonism. I’m told (but without name, unfortunately) of a current BYU religion professor who has told students he doesn’t believe anything Joseph Smith said in the King Follett Discourse, yet the man is actively pursuing his occupation. It’s entirely possible that the stake president in this case expressed specific questions/doubts that he has, which Tal Bachman blew up into “total unbelief.” That’s the sort of thing I would call “in the middle.”
Brian, Tal isn’t introducing any new criticisms of the Church or its history. The arguments he presents have all been dealt with more than adequately. IMO, his sensationalizing hurts, rather than strengthens, his arguments. I hope that some he has led astray — including himself — will come back one of these days.
Nick, I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the person who wrote the above letters is lying when he gives his own opinions?
Certainly I’ve known of people at BYU in religious leadership positions who shouldn’t have been. I had a friend who was having seriously doubts about her testimony who went to her Stake President for advice. But the SP said something like the Bishop you mentioned. In my opinion such a person should never have accepted to be a Bishop let alone a Stake President. I think it quite dishonest.
Having said that simply assuming that the SP in the above is lying seems quite odd as well.
Brian wrote:
Because Tal’s misunderstanding (or fabrication) of his interview with his stake president is typical of his overall misunderstanding or fabrication of Mormon history, beliefs, and culture.
Absolutely he needs to distort that interview because he desperately needs to demonstrate that Mormonism is a lie and that lots of active Mormons know it but they’re just “going along with it” for social or family reasons. In Tal Bachman’s mind it’s unthinkable that intelligent, rational people could possibly believe in Mormonism — it must be that they really don’t!
Being a denizen of the “RFM” board, Brian, you yourself certainly encounter such thinking on a regular basis.
(Oh, BTW, I removed your link to your repulsive, defamatory web site. Any future links will be treated as abuse and your comments will be deleted.)
Although I can certainly imagine a bishop or stake president speaking as Mr. Bachman describes, Randy Keyes is adamant that he did not. Furthermore, President Keyes bears a strong testimony of the restored gospel.
Could President Keyes be lying about his testimony? Possibly, but there seems to be no reason for him to do so. Stake Presidents aren’t paid much for their services, so money would not be an issue. I suppose the prestige of the calling (such as it is) could be a motive, but only for a time: sooner or later, he will be released as stake president.
Try as I might, I cannot think of a plausible explanation other than that President Keyes means what he wrote in his letter.
Does that mean that Mr. Bachman is lying? Not necessarily. Sometimes people hear what they want to hear, so he may sincerely believe his account.
Of the two, I find President Keyes to be more credible.
Doesn’t Tal also claim he had to dodge crocodiles in Argentina on his mission?
Well, well, what an interesting revelation (no pun intended). I see no reason to doubt, at face value, President Keyes statement, nor to think that he’s lying. However, it looks like someone isn’t telling the truth, or perhaps Tal Bachman gravely misunderstood what President Keyes said. Here are Tal’s original words from his exit-story on PostMo (as a refresher):
>>>>He asked me to visit with the Stake President, since I wouldn’t go into any detail with him. I consented, though I already knew I knew. To my shock, my SP admitted that he also knew that JS had invented his stories, related a personal story involving then-counselor Hinckley in the 80’s, which suggested that Hinckley was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications, but then invited me to stay in church on grounds it made us “better husbands and fathers”.
I could not have been more shocked. I had never heard anything like what I had just heard, from any member that I could remember. I kept saying, just to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating, “So – so – you already know he made up these stories?!”. He kept nodding, but made sure to say that whether he did or not just “didn’t matter” to him. >>>>>>
What I find a bit difficult to believe about this is that President Keyes would suggest that President Hinckley “was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications”. How did he (Keyes) get that knowledge? Was he privy to secret conversations with President Hinckley? Not sure why he would speak for the President of the Church in this way either, or assume this. Not even Thomas Stuart Ferguson suggested this, although himself disillusioned and eventually fit into the category of one thinking that the Church was “the best brotherhood anywhere”.
This is a direct question/answer report between Bachman and Keyes, and so far as I am aware, Tal has not yet responded anywhere, so it will be interesting to see his replies.
President Keyes:
>>>>How is it that our memories of our interview are so different? In our talk I felt your questions and struggles were genuine.; I wanted to help. In my profession as a therapist (as in our discussion) I try to follow the principle of “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” In that initial visit it was your turn to talk. I accepted that you could not find peace on your interpretation of historical items you read concerning Joseph Smith. I listened and reflected what I heard, and when I would nod and say, “sure,” it was an indication that I was listening and that what you were saying was comprehendible.>>>>>>
President Keyes also noted:
>>>>There are many layers and dimensions to what I know and am a witness to and I continue to learn spiritual truths with time. The knowledge that matters is the first-hand knowledge we receive from God. The constant invitation in the Church is to ask God and get your own witness. There is no compartmentalization in my gospel understanding. There are things I know and things I believe, things I hope for, and some things I don’t have answers for yet; it is a connected continuum. We worship with both knowledge and faith.>>>>>>
If there is no “compartmentalisation” by Keyes (taking him at face value), then Tal may have gotten something wrong somewhere, but not according to his direct question/answer claim above, in his exchange with Keyes. He asserts that Keyes said this, verbatim. Perhaps a general insight would have been safer than a verbatim quote? I’ve also had very lengthy debates with Tal on Mormon Discussions, and in my opinion he doesn’t strike me as one who is very eager to listen to another’s point of view (at first, yes, but once he realises he can’t win you to his point of view he gets very frustrated and starts telling you what you “should believe”, because what you believe is such a “dud”, “irrational”, and opposed to his “sane” worldview), nor has much tolerance for those alternative viewpoints (To be fair, this occurs on both “sides”, and can be just as bad on the Mormon side at times, the intolerance to really consider other viewpoints). Consequently, I gave up debating him, because in my opinion it was all one-way traffic. I was also surprised at some of the conclusions he drew from the statements I made, so I decided it was best not to engage Tal again lest I be further misconstrued or told what I believe, and I haven’t.
ScottyDoo:
>>>Just for the sake of suggesting it…Maybe Keyes didn’t like being outed on the internet without his knowledge and now he has some serious damage control to do.
It’s possible…>>>>
Don’t you think the SCMC would have been on to this in a flash?
🙂
Nick wrote:
>>>>As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.>>>>>
I think Tal really needs to clarify this, which he used with quotation marks:
>>>>I kept saying, just to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating, “So – so – you already know he made up these stories?!”. He kept nodding, but made sure to say that whether he did or not just “didn’t matter” to him.>>>>
He kept nodding what? “Yes” in agreement that the stories are all made up? Or was Keyes just trying to understand Tal’s point of view? “Yes, Yes, I see your point of view”? Tal clearly interprets this as agreement! It’s all a fabrication and “didn’t matter”. He laughs out loud, then tells his wife, while still laughing at President Keyes’ purported admission. There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity here on Tal’s part. He is 100% certain that Keyes agreed with him, and the fact that it was all fabrication “didn’t matter” to Keyes.
>>>>Could President Keyes be lying about his testimony? Possibly, but there seems to be no reason for him to do so. Stake Presidents aren’t paid much for their services, so money would not be an issue. I suppose the prestige of the calling (such as it is) could be a motive, but only for a time: sooner or later, he will be released as stake president.>>>>
It’s not just money and prestige that would give a doubting stake president reason to publicly stick to the party line. There are unselfish motivations as well.
For example, he may be concerned about the members of his stake. Conflicted as he may be, would he want to be the catalyst for someone in the stake to lose a testimony? It could lead to a whole other slew of problems.
Likewise, he could be concerned about his family. He may fear that expressing such doubts/concerns could cause his spouse or children to suffer. One could argue that he should “man up” and come clean with his family. But in his role, he’s probably seen examples where doing just that destroyed a family.
Or he may feel responsible to the church. Conflicted or not, he agreed to represent the church.
Or he may simply be working things through for himself. He may keep personal concerns to himself while he soul searches and tries to determine whether these concerns are a trial of faith or the beginning of a de-conversion.
Of course, there is no reason to conclude that Randy Keyes is a doubter or that any of these cases applies to him.
It’s just important not to dismiss the possibility of him being a doubter simply because he is a stake president.
The premise of some of these posts seems to state that the truth lies somewhere between these two arguments. I do not not know this Stake President. I do consider Tal to be a personal friend.
However, as Senator Moynahan once so elquently stated, “Sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.”
The LDS church keeps making childlike excuses for huge logical, and historical discreptincies. There has been a couple of incidents in the recent past(FLDS in Texas and September Dawn) that raise questions about the “truthiness” LDS leadership passing along.
Of course the FLDS is not associated with the LDS church, however, this brings up doctrinal and historical questions the LDS church is desparately trying to sweep under the rug.(Beleive me, I just had a couple of wide eyed missionaries in my living room)
The church has enormous power, however, they do not have near the power of Google. The church must become more accepting, yes let non-members see their kids get married.
One last thing, I beleive the church is on the verge of lawsuits that will make the Catholic fiasco look like a cakewalk. When juries start to hear that middle age/old men are asking adolescent kids if/how/how often/technique of masterbation huge damages will be awarded. Particulairly when a jury is informed this is policy. Many mainstream Christians consider “Fo young men only” to be the most destructive sermon ever.
We just want some honesty here. Even President Hinckley choked up when he said no tithing dollars were going to the mall in SLC.
The only “fact” we’re dealing with here is one’s testimony. And that’s what President Keyes is defending–his testimony. Why should we rely on someone other than Keyes to learn how Keyes feels about the church? We all know how Bachmann feels about the church–no one is questioning that. So why should we question Keyes’ statement? It’s an incredibly absurd double standard, if you ask me.
If this were the case, the simplest, easiest, and most honest thing for Randy Keyes to do would be to say nothing. A stake president is not obligated to comment on conversations held in private with a member of his stake.
Instead, Keyes writes an open letter in which he bears a strong testimony of the gospel. His letter betrays no hint of personal soul-searching or doubts. However, it does provide plausible explanations as to how Mr. Bachman might have misconstrued their conversations.
I agree.
I don’t find it implausible that a stake president would have, or would share, testimonial doubts. In my own days of “crisis,” I had friends and bishops share their own past and ongoing struggles with me. Perhaps they wanted me to know I was not alone in my struggles. Perhaps they wanted me to see an example of someone who remained faithful in spite of doubt. Perhaps they were being disingenuous with me, to help me trust them more. Who knows? Maybe there’s a good psychologist out there who can explain why people do this. But for me the bottom line is that it’s entirely plausible that a SP might share his doubts with a member of his flock, even if he hasn’t shared them with his own wife.
As for the truth, it is surely somewhere in between — or maybe outside them both. How many times have I recalled a conversation or event with a third party that my wife also heard or experienced, and we recall it a little differently? Frankly, I would expect these two men to have different recollections of their conversations.
deepthrottle,
Your post certainly covers a lot of ground: your personal friendship with Tal Bachman; logical and historical discreptincies [sic]; the FLDS situation in Texas; a recent movie; the “truthiness” of the LDS leadership; doctrinal and historical questions the LDS church is desparately [sic] trying to sweep under the rug; the relative power of the Church and Google; letting non-members see their kids get married; lawsuits; masturbation; and the mall in SLC.
Have I missed anything?
Only the first item on the list appears related to the present thread. As for the rest, I believe we can safely conclude you do not like the LDS Church much.
Thus we see another example of “Lying for the Lord.” Randy Keyes has every reason to defend his reputation by denying his statements to Tal Bachman. He does so in the same tradition as Joseph Smith and others that lied in order to protect their reputations.
I doubt Randy’s letter will change anyone’s opinion. Mormons will believe him and Ex-Mormons will believe Tal. That’s what we see in the comments posted here and on the ex-mo sites.
There is a glaring flaw in your reasoning: No one has shown that Randy Keyes is lying about anything.
The parties to a conversation may remember that conversation differently. That does not mean that either one is lying, but merely that memories are imperfect.
That said, President Keyes’s letter leaves little middle ground regarding his testimony. Either he is lying through his teeth about that, or he really does believe what he says. I find it hard to believe he would write what he did if he did not believe it.
“Thus we see another example of “Lying for the Lord.””
Actually, we don’t.
A stake president is not obligated to comment on conversations held in private with a member of his stake.
Indeed, one might suggest taht a stake president is usually obligated not to comment on conversations held in private with a member of his stake. I’ve been thinking about this issue throughout the thread, and questioning whether to bring it up. If we see Tal Bachman’s expression of doubts to the stake president in a “confessional” sense, then the stake president has some obligations of confidentiality. On the other hand, we can certainly argue that Tal Bachman, by going public about the conversations, made it fair (no pun intended) game for the stake president to go public. Further, we can all feel that the stake president has some right to express his views of the conversation, when he feels that his character has been publicly maligned. This doesn’t really follow LDS precedent, however, when you consider that LDS leaders won’t comment on specifics of an excommunication, even when the excommunicated person has issued wide-ranging press releases.
Whether the stake president should have gone public really is a grey area, and I can sympathize with both sides of the issue.
Deconstructor said: Thus we see another example of “Lying for the Lord.” Randy Keyes has every reason to defend his reputation by denying his statements to Tal Bachman. He does so in the same tradition as Joseph Smith and others that lied in order to protect their reputations.
Just curious, D-con… Is it possible that you could conceive of Tal as being one of those lying to protect his reputation?
Further, how is lying to protect a reputation an example of “lying for the Lord?” Lying to benefit oneself is not an example of lying to benefit another (the Lord). Could you please clarify why you would equate the one with the other?
Then, for good measure, could you please clarify how you unequivocally know that Randy Keyes is lying, either for himself or for the Lord.
-Allen
From the post: It appears that President Keyes has finally read some of Tal’s comments
From Keyes’ letter: Someone brought to my attention that you have been purporting to quote me on the web.
Who alerted Keyes to Bachman’s comments? Did someone associated with the FAIR blog invite Keyes to respond?
Those of you who are bashing Tal for coming to the conclusion that the LDS Church is not true or what it claims to be: remember your own 11th Article of Faith. As I interpret the Article, it applies to EVERYONE, rather than to be selectively revoked when the person in question chooses not to believe in the LDS Church or Joseph Smith.
Justin,
Someone who is acquainted with FAIR also knew of the comments that Tal had made. (They really are available in several places on the Internet and Tal has been making them for years.) This person knows Randy Keyes and, I believe, brought the comments to his attention.
It is my understanding that Randy Keyes didn’t care for what he saw as misrepresentation of his beliefs, and decided to make an open statement of those beliefs. (I think that Randy’s letter speaks for itself in this regard.) He gave that statement to this other person, who forwarded them on to me.
FAIR did not solicit a response from Randy Keyes, nor did we invite him to respond. He is the one who initiated the response and permitted FAIR to post it.
Quite frankly, if FAIR had been interested in soliciting such a response, it would have been better to do it four years ago, or so, when Tal was first telling his version of what his ex-stake president believed.
-Allen
Here is Tal Bachman’s response, from the MormonDiscussions website:
Pres. Keyes,
I am surprised by this letter. I have been posting about my meeting with you, literally, since the day after we had it. The very night we had it, I came home pretty much in shock, and wrote up an account of it in my computer diary, and then posted it under the alias “RB” on a bulletin board (exmormon.org) I found the next day. Yet today is the first time I’ve ever heard of you denying much of what you said that night.
To be honest, I’m not sure how much to say in public response to you, because I feel a deep appreciation for you. You were instrumental in me feeling relief from an exruciating cognitive dissonance. I walked into your office that night feeling like I had a thousand pounds on my back, having found out that I was wrong about everything most important to me in life, bewildered and upset, and I walked out light as a feather. And honestly, I’m not sure that that would have happened if someone else had been sitting in that stake president’s chair. For that, I will be forever grateful to you. I also feel grateful because you did the same thing in a private meeting about a week later for Tracy, in which, according to her, you repeated many of the same things you’d said to me.
I also know from our meeting and subsequent emails how much church life and service mean to you, and I have no particular desire to spoil that for you. I believe that church members are a lot better off with sensitive and candid leaders like you, than with dogmatic, domineering types. I also appreciate the effort you made to empathize with, and hear, Tracy and me. As I said in my original MD post, you’re always welcome as a friend to my house for those reasons. I feel that I owe you big time.
Three of the more trivial matters: I’ve never meant to claim that you said your MP made up stories. In writing, I had in mind the “rah rah” motivational speeches, numbers-announcing, competitions, etc., that you mentioned in the meeting, and which you referred to again in your recent letter. My apologies if my wording was unclear or misleading.
About the Book of Mormon characters you felt you were in the presence of, I remember you speaking of just how real that seemed, as though they were really there with you, and I understood you to say that part of this experience was an element of spiritual communication. Are you saying there was none?
Lastly, not sure if you were misled by an overexcited correspondent, but I said only that I “guessed” you were no longer stake president, because some months ago, an out-of-the-blue email correspondent said she’d heard there’d been a change, and I assumed the average term had expired and someone had replaced you. Not sure what the big deal is on this, though.
These items seem pretty trivial. More important, I suppose, is the question of what you conceded about the truth claims of the church. And on this, you ask how we can have such different recollections of the same meeting. To be really honest….I’m not sure that we do.
And……………..
While a part of me is burning to respond in detail….my deep appreciation for you, and my admiration for your wife and her desire to protect you and all that is most precious to you both, and my sympathy for the hurt she must feel, leaves me feeling that I should stop here.
I understand that my remarks may have put you in an awkward position; but I want to ask that in the future you refrain from claiming I have been incorrectly reporting your comments in our meeting, or that Tracy has incorrectly reported your comments in your subsequent meeting with her. (Do that, and some of your other comments, like your “spin doctor” comment which I’ve never repeated, will most likely go with me to the grave…).
I have a deep appreciation for you and wish you all the best. Please do us both a favour now, and stop.
Let me know if you want to hang somewhere where we don’t talk about this anymore. (I’d consider raquetball).
Regards,
Tal
I think this whole discussion is useless.
It’s Tal’s word against the Stake President’s. People can decide who they trust, but they will never know what took place in that conversation since they weren’t there. Even the two people involved may have colored or embellished their memories of the conversation. The most reliable memory of the event would be an honest one WRITTEN DOWN closest to the actual event. I don’t know if either one of them did that (except that apparently TAl’s account was written down at some point after the event).
As for the wife’s testimonial, that was beyond useless. She wasn’t there. She may think she knows her husband’s heart, and hopefully she does, but her trust is not evidence of his testimony . . . it’s hearsay.
What the SP or what Tal said in that interview (in other words, who is the most honest or most trustworthy) makes no difference to the bigger issue–is the CHURCH what it claims? There IS evidence out there. There is no reason to base your testimony or UNtestimony on who you trust more.
How about trusting YOURSELF to think it through and focus on the issues instead of trying to discredit the proponents of one side or the other?
Jim S,
I didn’t get a sense from the postings that anyone is bashing Tal for his beliefs about the LDS Church. The question in this thread revolves around Tal’s representation of someone else’s beliefs–his ex-stake president’s.
The 11th Article of Faith deals with worshiping God, not with representing (or misrepresenting) another’s beliefs.
-Allen
Oh, real big of Tal.
He’s been shooting his yap off all over the internet for years now, and the moment the stake president tries to get a word in edgewise, he immediately calls upon him to “do us both a favor and please stop.”
What a baby.
Nick:
Your dismissal of Julie Keyes’ comments is faulty. She would be an excellent character witness. Her husband is essentially accused of being dishonest, either five years ago (when he “admitted” certain things to Bachman, which Bachman then characterized as “duplicity”) or now (when he denies having made these admissions to Bachman).
In the U.S. legal system, “character evidence” (“evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character”) is generally not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. However, if that character trait is brought into question in the litigation, then character evidence *is* admissible.
Pres. Keyes has been accused of lying. His character (his honesty and integrity) are therefore directly at issue. Evidence would therefore be admissible as to Pres. Keyes’ reputation, particularly in the form of opinion testimony by competent witnesses. Julie Keyes is just such a witness. She’s been married to her husband for 28 years. She has a measure of the man. Her testimony would therefore be admissible.
You could, of course, accuse *her* of lying so as to protect her husband. But that accusation would go to the weight, not the admissibility, of her testimony.
In other words, you are wrong to suggest that Julie Keyes’ comments are not “evidence of what [her husband] said, during a conversation when she wasn’t present.” Her comments pertain to her husband’s character. And inasmuch as we have two wildly divergent accounts of the discussion between her husband and Bachman, evidence as to the character of her husband is certainly relevant (as would character evidence for or against Bachman).
As a personal observation, I would say that general human experience militates against Bachman’s version of the events in question, experience that even Bachman acknowledges when he says, “I don’t personally understand staying in a church which you know is a fraud.” I agree. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty unlikely that a person in Pres. Keyes’ position would behave this way. So not only do we have reasonable credulity against Bachman’s account, we have testimonial evidence of a pretty persuasive character witness in favor of Keyes’ version (and against Bachman’s).
“How about trusting YOURSELF to think it through and focus on the issues instead of trying to discredit the proponents of one side or the other?”
I don’t see Keyes’ response as intending to “discredit” anyone, rather, to set the record straight as far as his side is concerned.
As for Tal’s claim that the stake president “waited all these years” to finally speak up.
This is one thing that ticks me off about tell-all internet ex-Mormons. They have free reign to say whatever they want, but the people involved in their disciplinary hearings, their bishop interviews, etc. have an obligation to keep things confidential. So the ex-Mormon gets to say, fabricate, or spin whatever account he or she wishes, while the bishop or stake president gets to say – nothing at all.
This gives ex-Mormons essentially carte blanch to say whatever they want – true or not – with no fear that anyone will ever step up and contradict them.
The fact that most bishops and stake presidents aren’t plugged into the internet in a big way doesn’t help things.
Interesting to see the reaction, once a leader finally steps up to have his say – a panicked request that he remain silent.
What a selfish little coward.
For the record Nick, the truth is not always somewhere in the middle.
Sometimes one side really is just messed-up.
It is simply naïve to presume that church leaders do not have doubts about some of the finer points of church history and its doctrine, not to mention some of the big points of contention. I believe that many have mastered the solution Boyd K. Packer gave to new mission presidents in 1982, to help them deal with missionaries who had difficulty asserting knowledge about something that they felt they didn’t know.
The local church leaders with whom I have spoken concerning my doubts generally respond in one of two ways:
They either profess knowledge about the particular problem, but state that they have been satisfied with the apologetic responses, have shelved the issue, or dealt with it in some similar way. In my experience church leaders will not respond with ” I don’t care about that,” (a repsponse I have encountered more from rank and file members), because to do so would not be productive in the ecclesiastical setting.
Alternatively, albeit less frequently, they will know nothing about the issue, and say so.
The similarity shared by these two reponses is that the outcome is always the same. The leader asserts that the church is still true.
Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes have access to the same information, and have drawn very different conclusions from it, and have made important life decisions based on those conclusions.
At times I am bewildered at peoples’ resolve to stay in the church, despite their doubts. But at least they acknowledge their doubts–to quote Akhenaton: “True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.”
So Tal (ab-) uses his stake president for four years to gain traction in his attempt to lead people out of the Church, but when his stake president refutes Tal’s version of events, Tal wants everyone to just drop it?
And, on top of that, he threatens to reveal embarrassing information about his former SP if Keyes doesn’t shut up?
Wow.
Just . . . wow.
BHodges Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
“How about trusting YOURSELF to think it through and focus on the issues instead of trying to discredit the proponents of one side or the other?”
I don’t see Keyes’ response as intending to “discredit” anyone, rather, to set the record straight as far as his side is concerned.
*****************************
My comments were not directed towards SP Keyes. He certainly has the right to state what he remembers of the interview and what he believes.
I was addressing the discussion that followed his letter . . . . of who is more trustworthy, Tal or Keyes. It seems that people just trust the person who agrees with THEIR take on whether or not the church is true.
And then they consider the other side’s “lying” as evidence to further reinforce their belief or non-belief.
PseudoMormon:
You seem to be one who believes doubt is-in and of itself- a virtue. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not see doubt as intrinsically virtue or vice.
Doubt is neither; it is a condition. What we do with doubt is what matters.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tal Bachman sincerely believes what he says about what President Keyes told him, and that he will continue to believe it, quite sincerely, no matter how strongly President Keyes denies it and no matter how vigorously President Keyes affirms the contrary — precisely as Mr. Bachman has done with me, with Louis Midgley, with Davis Bitton, and, if I’m not mistaken, with others.
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
His behavior in this regard has puzzled and astonished me for several years.
It’s rather funny, though, to see him ask President Keyes to “stop.” Mr. Bachman has been regaling his audiences for years with a story about President Keyes (and others), and has evidently grown used to the idea of monopolizing the conversation. President Keyes finally gets wind of this, is displeased, and replies. It probably comes as a shock to Mr. Bachman to have his monopoly challenged. Life’s tough, sometimes.
Seth R. said:
This is one thing that ticks me off about tell-all internet ex-Mormons. They have free reign to say whatever they want, but the people involved in their disciplinary hearings, their bishop interviews, etc. have an obligation to keep things confidential. So the ex-Mormon gets to say, fabricate, or spin whatever account he or she wishes, while the bishop or stake president gets to say – nothing at all.
That’s funny, I’ve always heard this argument cited as a strength of the church’s position–that they don’t need to stoop to respond to the spurious claims of ex-mo’s.
Seth R. also said:
This gives ex-Mormons essentially carte blanch to say whatever they want – true or not – with no fear that anyone will ever step up and contradict them.
Poor defenseless church…if only they had millions of dollars at their disposal and a world class PR department so they could defend themselves!
Seth R. said:
What a selfish little coward.
I fail to see the substance of this statement. Oh, right. There isn’t any. It’s just name calling. You have totally persuaded me.
(See how I can respond to you without resorting to ad hominems?)
Judges hear two sides of a story every day of their working lives and do not feel obliged to accept that “the truth lies somewhere in between”. In this case, one witness is a self-confessed breaker of promises, the other is a man making a volunteer sacrifice of a significant portion of his life for no discernable reason than the one he gives: he knows his church is true. On this point, credibility goes to the stake president beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the first witness alleges that he alone of the hundreds of people who have inevitably had private interviews with the stake president, heard him deny his faith. The claim is not plausible, it lacks corroboration of any kind, and is convincingly denied. On this point, too, credibility goes to the stake president beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no reason to believe Tal Bachmann, and no reason to disbelieve Randy Keyes. Why do their statements differ so fundamentally? Tal Bachman has a strong motive for self-justification, has shamelessly engaged in self-promotion of his near-celebrity exit story, has exploited the stake president, and has won a personal following by doing so. Until Tal Bachman promoted himself at the stake president’s expense with the clearly stated motive of discrediting his church, the stake president said nothing. His only motive for posting was to sustain the trust in the Church of those who might otherwise be influenced by Tal Bachman.
This case is closed.
PseudoMormon: “(See how I can respond to you without resorting to ad hominems?)”
Evidently civility still escapes you. For example, your sarcasm in the “poor defenseless church” remark.
BHodges said:
You seem to be one who believes doubt is-in and of itself- a virtue. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not see doubt as intrinsically virtue or vice.
Not exactly, but I see how that might have come across. I simply meant that in the course of studying and learning we constantly expose our current worldview to new information–sometimes requiring a reevaluation of that world view. At times that new information challenges our belief system, and that is the doubt to which I am referring.
Doubt is neither; it is a condition. What we do with doubt is what matters.
Exactly. I am merely suggesting that as soon as we stop incorporating new information into our understanding, we stop having doubts about our worldview. Not being able to embrace new knowledge is what I consider bad.
So yes, doubt is a condition. It’s the condition of learning.
Pseudo,
Tal’s request for his SP to essentially “shut-up or else” is rather hard to read in a manner favorable to him. Yeah, “cowardly” is name-calling. But it also happens to fit Tal’s actual response.
Neither did I fault the Church for not responding. Re-read the comment and you’ll note that it’s something that bothers me about internet ex-Mormons, not the Church.
Your remark about the millions and PR department also highlights why it’s not really a good idea for the Church itself to respond to Tal in the first place. It would immediately be taken as a case of “big evil corporation picking on poor defenseless little guy.” No matter what the real facts of the case. So organizational silence in the face of an inaccurate ex is probably the best course of action.
The implicit threat toward the end of Mr. Bachman’s response lent it an especially charming touch, I think.
In spite of my fears that someone will highlight all my typos and punctuation errors to discredit my thoughts I have decided to give a response.
I am shocked that so many find it incredible that a church official might conceed having doubts. In my struggles to come to grips with a nonexistent testimony, that by all rights should have been forthcoming, I have had many conversations with Bishops. I was in the service and moved frequently, so I had contact with Bishops of many wards. Each made it his business to know the details of my inactivity. To a man, they all conceeded (in private conversations) that they, at times, had doubts about the church’s unlikely version of history. These doubts, however, never kept them from declaring, in testimony meeting, that they “knew with every fiber of their being” that “the church was true”. You can imagine how this compounded my confusion.
Also, I find suspicious that (apparently) it took 5 years for Pres. Keyes to find out that Tal had posted his version of their meeting on the internet, and to decide to defend himself. Maybe it is just paranoia, but I would suspect that Pres Keyes was “encouraged” to set the record straight. I am personally aware that the church “fosters”, in it’s members, a deep sense of responsability for the testimonies of other church members. There is no end to how we can be punished in the after life if our actions cause others to reject or fall away from the church. In my opinion, this encourages folks, who may only suspect that the church has some validity, to be very careful what they say. (or what is reported that they have said)
The small chance that I was mistaken, and the serious consequences that could follow, kept me silent for many years after I discovered that the church’s claims were highly unlikely.
Len
In the interest of full disclosure, I do not know either Mr. Bachmann or Pres. Keyes. I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and my bias is in favor of the church. I am a co-owner of the SHIELDS website, and have written or co-written a number of the items on that site. I do know Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley,and have a high regard for both.
As an example of how something may be misconstrued, consider the following sentence: “Proteins are building materials for the body.” This sentence is a real example from an English class I had in high school eleventy-eleven years ago.
Is the verb “are,” as in the proteins are the bricks (building materials) from which the body is built? Or is the verb “are building,” as in the proteins are engaged in an ongoing action of manufacturing the body’s materials?
Only the originator of the sentence knows what he had in mind when he wrote it. Without additional context a reader of the sentence has no way of detertermining the originator’s intent.
Pres. Keyes is the foremost authority on what he believes, and without further corroboration, I see no reason to accept Mr. Bachmann’s version of Pres. Keyes’ beliefs. IMO, in his open letter Pres. Keyes has provided both a satisfactory and adequate explanation for Mr. Bachmann’s misunderstandings, whether or not Mr. Bachmann has a history of such misunderstandings with others.
However, given Mr. Bachmann’s history of misundertanding others, as testified to by some of those he has misunderstood (who are the foremost authorities on what they believe), IMO the onus is on Mr. Bachmann to provide corroborating evidence for his version of what Pres. Keyes believes, or acknowledge that he misunderstood Pres. Keyes. Simple repeated assertions of his misunderstandings won’t do, and further undermine his credibility as a reliable witness.
Note: I do not accuse Mr. Bachmann of lying. I have not been inside his head to know if he knows his statements are misrepresentations. I am willing to accept that he misunderstood Pres. Keyes, possibly because Pres. Keyes was not clear enough in explaining his beliefs to Mr. Bachmann.
BTW, the 30 or so students in the English class were split about evenly on what was the verb in the sentence. Those tending toward the physical sciences (including me) generally said that the verb was “are.” Those tending in other directions (including the teacher) generally said that the verb was “are building.”
Bhodges said:
Evidently civility still escapes you. For example, your sarcasm in the “poor defenseless church” remark.
Ah yes, but uncivil discourse can still be useful. Ad hominem attacks are primarily used by those with weak arguments.
I don’t think my argument was necessarily uncivil. I was trying to demonstrate how ridiculous Seth’s argument was, that the church cannot defend itself against its opponents.
Sarcastic? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe. At least I’ve steered clear of personal attacks–which I generally see as counterproductive. I’d much rather respond to the substance of someone’s argument.
By the way, I don’t find it incredible that church leadership would have doubts. I believe there are at least a couple bishops over at places like New Order Mormons and the like.
I just don’t find Tal very credible, that’s all.
Careful not to equate the two.
In this case, one witness is a self-confessed breaker of promises, the other is a man making a volunteer sacrifice of a significant portion of his life for no discernable reason than the one he gives: he knows his church is true.
I seem to be missing where Tal Bachman confessed to breaking any promises. I’m left to assume you refer to his act of having his name removed from the records of the LDS church as “breaking promises.”
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the name removal process, as it is interpreted by LDS leaders. It is noteworthy, for example, that in no LDS ordinance does the recipient make any promises to always remain a member of the LDS church. Therefore, there is no “promise” to be broken by means of name withdrawl. Further, LDS leaders characterize name removal as a purely clerical procedure, and not an ecclesiastical one. The days of “excommunicating” anyone who directs that their name be removed from LDS church records are long gone. No judgment is passed on the former LDS member in the name removal process. Further, LDS leaders specifically state that when one has their name removed from the records of the LDS church, all ordinances that person has received in the LDS church become null and void. The former member withdraws from those promises (as opposed to “breaking” them), and the LDS church respects the former member’s decision to do so.
When I chose to have my name removed from the records of the LDS church, I was serving as a stake executive secretary. My stake president and I discussed it at some length, and we both agreed quite clearly that if a person chooses to no longer keep the promises made in LDS ordinances, the honorable thing to do is to withdraw from those promises, rather than violate them.
As another of those “nasty apostates,” let me just say that my final discussion with my stake president was probably one of the best experiences I ever had with an LDS leader. He was a wonderful individual, and we still keep in touch from time to time.
Psuedo,
My argument was not that the Church “can’t defend itself.” My argument was the the Church does not choose to defend itself in this fashion and some people take unfair advantage of that fact.
Len L wrote:
I’m sure that this is simply a case of Randy Keyes not being as obsessed with Tal Bachman as Bachman is obsessed with Keyes.
Keyes strikes me as one of the 99% of people who have access to the Internet who do not spend every waking moment on it, tracking people they may have met or had conversations with. People who spend time on web message boards — like Mormon Discussions and Recovery from Mormonism — are part of a unique subgroup. It should not be assumed that everything that goes on in these fora is widely known.
In short: Randy Keyes has a life.
Seth,
I will concede that an official response from the church to an issue as commonplace as this would bring much more attention than it deserves.
I understood your comment to be directed at ex-mormons. I was just saying that I have heard this very argument as a complaint against the church. Because the church does not talk about disciplinary proceedings, it allows the church and its defenders to discredit people like the September Six by saying, “well, that’s just their side of the story.”
It is frustrating, and well within the rights of the church to do so (unless subpoenaed or otherwise legally compelled). But it won’t stop people from trying to have intelligent dialog about it.
The references to law always crack me up in these discussions. The bulk of the laws that we have in this country apply to actions – when it comes to human interaction of words you will find little aside from slander which usually must be printed (action) or it is quite difficult to prove.
In my many years on this earth (that is a joke), I see this happening over and over. I have come to accept that humans are what humans are. Communication is a difficult and challenging thing. Many a relationship is built on what is not said – others on exhaustive detailed discussions. In the end fault for miscommunication lies on no one, in my opinion. Why? Because we have liberty!
We all have the right to believe what we want. We all have the right, as sovereign beings, to choose whom we will believe. There is no fault in that.
Most Mormons choose to believe a man, Joseph Smith, whom they never met.
Hitler – Bad
Ghandi – Good
MLK – Good
JFK – Good
Mother Teresa – Good
Sadam Husseign(sp?) – Bad
Me – Good and Bad
You – Good and Bad
Everyone – Good and Bad
The real truth, in my opinion, is that we are all HUMAN and all that that entails.
This debate could last a life time and we will never know.
Funny thing is: It is so far removed from our lives and outside of our influence it makes me wonder of all the energy spent arguing.
If an exmo’s belief’s need Tal’s story and the Mormon’s Pres. Keyes to be validated, then everyone should spend a little more time in front of the mirror looking at the person who knows you best of all – YOU!
Rise up sovereign humans and think for yourselves: because whatever you think is YOU!
Fluff
I think that (1) we have to distinguish between having doubts and having disbelief. They are not the same. I can have doubts about a position while still believing it. This happens all the time in science for instance.
I also think it very important to distinguish between (3) having doubts and struggles with belief in ones past and (4) having doubts today. Most members struggle with testimony at some time in their lives. Even people who may in the past have had a strong testimony and even people who now have a strong testimony. Some of my best SPs were inactive in their past and my MP spent most of his life inactive.
It seems to me that you’re conflating those positions in your comment.
I do strongly feel that if you don’t at that time know you shouldn’t say you know. If you do you are lying. It’s wrong and there’s no excuse for it. If you have those kinds of doubts and you are in a leadership position you should tell your leader about it (SP or Area President). And let’s recognize that we’re talking about doubts about the core of the Church beliefs and not doubts about things like the doctrinal correctness of the King Follet Discourse or authorship of Isaiah or the like.
For a leader to try and help someone with doubts by simply saying they don’t believe in unconscienable in my opinion. It’s certainly not the worst thing a leader can do. But I consider it an abrogation of their leadership duty and highly unethical.
Fluff said: Most Mormons choose to believe a man, Joseph Smith, whom they have never met.
Actually, if “most Mormons” were following the tenets of their religion, they wouldn’t rest their testimonies on what Joseph Smith said. I don’t believe Joseph Smith just because he said something; I believe the witness of the Spirit as to the truth of what he said.
This is an important point, really, in this discussion about Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes. If I recall correctly, Joseph Smith never asked anyone to take his word for it; he always said that those who heard him should go get their own witness from the source–from God.
Tal makes a statement about something he heard (which he says that Randy Keyes said). Tal expects us to take him at face value; he never says “go ask the source.” Yet, when the source speaks up on his own and doesn’t validate what Tal said, Tal goes into defensive mode and implicitly threatens the source unless he doesn’t stop.
Interesting comparison in approaches to validating what one says.
-Allen
Malin Jacobs said: Pres. Keyes is the foremost authority on what he believes, and without further corroboration, I see no reason to accept Mr. Bachmann’s version of Pres. Keyes’ beliefs.
Excellent point, Malin. Randy Keyes is the expert on Randy Keyes’ beliefs. Many seem willing to take Tal’s comments at face value, but disparage Randy’s comments because he is a member of the Church and has the audacity to be a stake president.
But, then, I suspect that there are some groups who would disparage Tal’s comments because he is a professional singer and (gasp!) Canadian.
-Allen
Fluffinator wrote:
Slander is spoken; libel is printed.
“I’m sure that this is simply a case of Randy Keyes not being as obsessed with Tal Bachman as Bachman is obsessed with Keyes.”
Good point. My personal experience suggests that this is true: Tal Bachman has been telling untruths about me, insulting me, distorting what I’ve said, and misrepresenting my views — very publicly — for YEARS now. He has continually brought me up when I had nothing to do with the conversation, on message boards where I don’t participate.
As I say, I’ve found his behavior positively weird.
Unfortunately, I have less of a life than President Keyes probably does, so I’ve occasionally responded. But not nearly as much as I could have.
I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t admit that there is a sense of quiet satisfaction in seeing one of Mr. Bachman’s self-serving tales publicly contradicted.
“Actually, if “most Mormons” were following the tenets of their religion, they wouldn’t rest their testimonies on what Joseph Smith said. I don’t believe Joseph Smith just because he said something; I believe the witness of the Spirit as to the truth of what he said.”
—————
I find this to be the crux of the problem. Personally, I discount the value on what folks term the “witness of the spirit” because it is impossible to tell when (if ever)the spirt is telling me something or when I am hearing my own thoughts. It is clear to me that Both Smith and Young were, at times at least (more than likely always, IMO), unable to distinguish the whisperings of the spirit from their own thoughts. I feel it would be ridiculous for me to have the audacity to suppose that I would be more perceptive than they were.
Clark said:
I do strongly feel that if you don’t at that time know you shouldn’t say you know. If you do you are lying. It’s wrong and there’s no excuse for it. If you have those kinds of doubts and you are in a leadership position you should tell your leader about it (SP or Area President). And let’s recognize that we’re talking about doubts about the core of the Church beliefs and not doubts about things like the doctrinal correctness of the King Follet Discourse or authorship of Isaiah or the like.
Clark,
I agree with you that it is dishonest. Nevertheless, Boyd K. Packer advocates doing precisely what you (and I) assert as dishonest:
It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”
Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” is as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)
It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!
The prophet Ether “did prophecy great and marvelous things unto the people, which they did not believe, because they saw them not.
“And now, I, Moroni, … would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.” (Ether 12:5–6.)
To speak out is the test of your faith.
(Boyd K. Packer, “The Candle of the Lord,” Ensign, Jan 1983, 51)
I think that lying with the “honest intent” that what you say will be true in the future, is still dishonest. If you hav successfully trained yourself with autosuggestion it can help you put a lot of doubts on the proverbial shelf.
Len, why is that so audacious? Everyone struggles with that kind of discernment. Jesus said his “sheep hear his voice” in a number of ways, and I, for one, have arrived at a point in my life where I finally know the voice of the Spirit from my own thoughts. If I were reduced to what my brain alone could reason, I would be an unfortunate soul .
Mike Parker Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Len L wrote:
I find suspicious that (apparently) it took 5 years for Pres. Keyes to find out that Tal had posted his version of their meeting on the internet, and to decide to defend himself.
I’m sure that this is simply a case of Randy Keyes not being as obsessed with Tal Bachman as Bachman is obsessed with Keyes.
Keyes strikes me as one of the 99% of people who have access to the Internet who do not spend every waking moment on it, tracking people they may have met or had conversations with. People who spend time on web message boards — like Mormon Discussions and Recovery from Mormonism — are part of a unique subgroup. It should not be assumed that everything that goes on in these fora is widely known.
In short: Randy Keyes has a life.
I find it a bit unlikely that, with all the admitted dialog, on this subject, between Tal and apologists in this thread, that none of the apologists (out of brotherly love and a sense of fair play) bothered to “clue in” Pres Keyes that he had been “misquoted” until about 5 years after the fact. Blissfully unaware…. Amazing!!
Falling back on the insistence that everyone has doubts is a strange defense for Bachman’s tales. Of course we all have doubts. It is a quite a leap from there to confiding in some random person that you are living a complete lie, however. Surely Mr. Keyes, like so many others living a lie, could post under an anonymous screenname and disclose every secret thought without any consequences at all. The scandal is not that he may be a total fraud and deceiver, it is that he would share it all with a Tal Bachman.
Len L. said: I find it a bit unlikely that, with all the admitted dialog, on this subject, between Tal and apologists in this thread…
There has been no dialog between Tal and apologists on this thread. Indeed, if history is any indicator, Tal is no longer interested in having a dialog with apologists because he views them as somehow dishonest. (Which is interesting, since Tal apparently doesn’t see himself as an apologist for his own position. Anyone who stakes out a position and defends that position is functioning as an apologist.)
Len L. said: …that none of the apologists (out of brotherly love and a sense of fair play) bothered to “clue in” Pres Keyes that he had been “misquoted” until about 5 years after the fact. Blissfully unaware…. Amazing!!
And yet such things happen. Why would you assume that within the past five years any apologists would have had any communication at all with Randy Keyes?
-Allen
Joel Honea Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Len, why is that so audacious? Everyone struggles with that kind of discernment. Jesus said his “sheep hear his voice” in a number of ways, and I, for one, have arrived at a point in my life where I finally know the voice of the Spirit from my own thoughts. If I were reduced to what my brain alone could reason, I would be an unfortunate soul .
Joel,
I find it audacious because men who are held (by 4 or 5 million believing members of the church)to have been prophets (Smith and Young) have demonstrated that they could not reliably determine the source of the thoughts in their heads.. Am I, (or are you) more likely to be able to make the distinction??
It is obvious that we must ,in the end, rely on our own feeble intellects to decide if a feeling we have is from a spirit, or born of our own biases and programming, or possibly, in the case of plural marriage, of our own strong desires.
I submit for your consideration that it would be fortunate for many if you, and all of us (suicide bombers included) would confine our beliefs to “what our brains alone could reason”.
PseudoMormon said: I agree with you that it is dishonest. Nevertheless, Boyd K. Packer advocates doing precisely what you (and I) assert as dishonest:
I suspect there is something more at play in what you quote than what you presume from the wording. Note in your quote that BKP says:
It is implicitly acknowledged in this phrasing that a missionary cannot give that which he (or she) doesn’t have. They can only give what they have, meager as it may be, and have faith in the Lord to provide the rest–a witness that what they have provided is true. This is the increase to which he speaks.
Besides, it is a good thing that the bar for missionaries was raised about 8 years ago (and 17 years after the cited BKP article). Missionaries are specifically supposed to have testimonies before they are recommended for missions; their mission is not a place to find their testimony.
-Allen
We all know each other, Allen. Borders, oceans and continents are irrelevant. If there is a Mormon who is being maligned, we are in immediate contact. I believe the command will be included in temple recommend questions next year. Very funny.
Allen Wyatt Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Len L. said: I find it a bit unlikely that, with all the admitted dialog, on this subject, between Tal and apologists in this thread…
There has been no dialog between Tal and apologists on this thread. Indeed, if history is any indicator, Tal is no longer interested in having a dialog with apologists because he views them as somehow dishonest. (Which is interesting, since Tal apparently doesn’t see himself as an apologist for his own position. Anyone who stakes out a position and defends that position is functioning as an apologist.)
Len L. said: …that none of the apologists (out of brotherly love and a sense of fair play) bothered to “clue in” Pres Keyes that he had been “misquoted” until about 5 years after the fact. Blissfully unaware…. Amazing!!
And yet such things happen. Why would you assume that within the past five years any apologists would have had any communication at all with Randy Keyes?
-Allen
My words may have been a little confusing. I apologize, I am a carpenter by trade not a communicator. I dind’t mean that the dialog had taken place in this thread between Tal and the apologists. What I said was that dialog had taken place between Tal and some of the apologists (that were posting) on this thread
Several, Daniel Petersen for one, have mentioned, in this thread, dialoging with Tal. That is where I got the idea that such dialog had, indeed taken place.
I assumed (that is a scarey word)that some contact between Keyes and apologists had also taken place because if I were a defender of Mormonism and I had read such an “incredible claim” as Tal had offered, my first thought would have been to go to the source and hear the other side of the story so I could better refute the “false claims” of a critic and defend the beliefs I held so dear. I am, now a bit dismayed to find that, apparently, none of the apologists are so thorough and conscientious.
Len
Len wrote:
Two questions:
(1) Why do you bring suicide bombers into this discussion?
(2) How would you suggest we “confine our beliefs to ‘what our brains alone could reason'”?
Perhaps you would be served, Pseudo, to recognize that a testimony is a statement of belief not necessarily of knowledge. I don’t believe President Packer tells them to say they “know” things that they don’t, he encourages them to express their belief.
testimony
PseudoMormon, I don’t think what I was attacking and what Elder Packer was teaching are the same at all. It’s undeniably true that in the act of testifying the spirit can come to you and confirm things you didn’t know before. I’ve had it happen to me. This is an expanding of ones testimony though. There’s a huge difference between getting up to bear testimony and having the spirit speak through you and lying about what you do not know.
To add, Trevor’s point is important as well. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I believe” or even “I hope.” (Indeed the Book of Mormon teaches that – see Alma 32 where belief or hope turn to knowledge) There are some things that when I bear testimony I say, “I belief” and not “I know.”
Being deceptive – usually for social pressure – is simply inexcusable.
It happens of course, although I think it far rarer than some suggest.
I see no evidence that Br. Keyes is engaged in this sort of deception.
It’s being suggested elsewhere that I’m the one who “ratted out” Mr. Tal Bachman.
I have absolutely no objection to cluing a person in to what someone else is saying about that person in public venues of which the person may be unaware — recently, the son of an old friend was mocking him on a message board, and I thought my friend ought to know about it (I would have wanted to know it if MY son had been doing such a thing), so, after hesitating for a while, I told him — but I’ve never met Randy Keyes, don’t know Randy Keyes, and have, as far as I’m aware, never had any contact with Randy Keyes.
(As if my saying so will have any effect on inveterate conspiracy fantasists!)
Paul Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Len wrote:
I submit for your consideration that it would be fortunate for many if you, and all of us (suicide bombers included) would confine our beliefs to “what our brains alone could reason”.
Two questions:
(1) Why do you bring suicide bombers into this discussion?
(2) How would you suggest we “confine our beliefs to ‘what our brains alone could reason’”?
It is somewhat off topic, I apologize. The main topic seems to some what have played itself out. Believers will accept Keyes’ statements as accurate, non-mormons will see a lot of familiar information in Tal’s words. It comes down to belief.
The implication of my statemsnts that you questioned is: that many atrocities have historically been committed in the name of religion. Though many claim to be able to recognize the “voice of god”, in enough known cases to indicate (to me) that this phenomena is universal, they later change their minds, or are shown to be in error (Smith and Young).
I think I see the implication of your second question. It is difficult to control what we believe??? Perhaps it would have been better if I had urged folks to believe what they will, but act on those beliefs only when they can be supported with reasonable evidence.
This was in response to Joel’s statement.: “If I were reduced to what my brain alone could reason, I would be an unfortunate soul”
I don’t accept that he would be unfortunate, at all. And that, quite probably, the rest of us would be more fortunate.
Len
In my experience, most “apologists” don’t take much that Tal Bachman says about what other people think/say/believe about the Church very seriously. When one sees him misunderstand and misrepresent the position of others so many times, the credibility dips.
Chasing down every wacky and potentially untrue thing said by Tal about the Church would be a full-time job, I suspect.
And, since Tal claimed on national TV that he would have been a suicide bomber if his mission president told him to, that suggests that his mind and spiritual life don’t work the same as mine, or most people that I know.
As this thread is evidence, Keyes’ testimony won’t convince those who are already convinced by Bachman. But, sometimes its worth just having the other side of the story out there.
As I said before, this discussion has not changed anyone’s mind. We will believe whom we want to believe based on our own biases.
Tal has been accused of lying about what Keyes said to him. That doesn’t make sense to me, because Tal could has easily have cited the same version as Keyes has claimed and Tal’s exit story would have been pretty much the same. But Keyes has a huge reason to lie here. His reputation is on the line here. He’s a stake president who would obviously want to protect believers from thinking he denied his testimony in a private conversation.
But Keyes isn’t the only church leader to privately admit doubt. This happens quite often in the church, based on the many people I’ve talked to over the years that have expressed doubt to a local church leader. Keyes made the same case that most doubter in the church do, that despite the historical flaws and blatant examples of fraud, the church works for some people.
Nothing either person says will change the opinion of the believer or former believer. We will believe whom we chose to believe. But it’s good we are all talking about this again and its getting attention.
Daniel Peterson Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It’s being suggested elsewhere that I’m the one who “ratted out” Mr. Tal Bachman.
I have absolutely no objection to cluing a person in to what someone else is saying about that person in public venues of which the person may be unaware — recently, the son of an old friend was mocking him on a message board, and I thought my friend ought to know about it (I would have wanted to know it if MY son had been doing such a thing), so, after hesitating for a while, I told him — but I’ve never met Randy Keyes, don’t know Randy Keyes, and have, as far as I’m aware, never had any contact with Randy Keyes.
(As if my saying so will have any effect on inveterate conspiracy fantasists!)
Mr Peterson,
I completely agree with you that folks should be informed of talk concerning them. Beating up on someone behind their back is not an admirable endeavor, and I doubt it was Bachman’s intention. “Ratted out is such a derrogatory term for such a noble act. I assure you that I would not think any less of you had you been the one to inform Randy Keyes. Further, No one should be naive enough to believe that anything said on the internet can reasonably be expected to be kept from anyone. That said, I am a little dissappointed that you, or someone else from this forum, didn’t consult with Keyes when Tal’s story first came out and “clue him in” and inquire as to his version. I’m sure Keyes wouldn’t be that hard to locate and, had I been in your shoes, I would have been more than just a little curious. It seems that you are very serious about defending your beliefs. It seems that knowing the “rest of the story” would have made your job easier. I don’t doubt your denial, but I find it difficult to accept that he wasn’t contacted by someone riding in the same canoe.
But then Keyes probably wouldn’t have talked. After all, that conversation was privileged.
Greg Smith Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I assumed (that is a scarey word)that some contact between Keyes and apologists had also taken place because if I were a defender of Mormonism and I had read such an “incredible claim” as Tal had offered, my first thought would have been to go to the source and hear the other side of the story so I could better refute the “false claims” of a critic and defend the beliefs I held so dear. I am, now a bit dismayed to find that, apparently, none of the apologists are so thorough and conscientious.
In my experience, most “apologists” don’t take much that Tal Bachman says about what other people think/say/believe about the Church very seriously. When one sees him misunderstand and misrepresent the position of others so many times, the credibility dips.
And how much experience had you had with Tal Bachman at the time his report of his visit with Keyes first aired? Apparently substantial in order to be so dismissive…I was under the impression that his “Keyes Story” was the first time he had appeared on the apologist “radar screen”.
Len
Len L wrote:
As hard as it is to believe, most LDS apologists simply aren’t as rabid about tracking down and refuting every criticism of the Church as you seem to believe they are. We have lots of other things to do, and are simply not so obsessed.
Clark said:
It’s undeniably true that in the act of testifying the spirit can come to you and confirm things you didn’t know before.
Here I will respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is undeniable. It’s quite deniable actually. Knowledge (read: facts) that I have about something cannot be overwritten by any amount of burnings in my bosom, even if I desperately want them to be true.
TrevorM said:
Perhaps you would be served, Pseudo, to recognize that a testimony is a statement of belief not necessarily of knowledge. I don’t believe President Packer tells them to say they “know” things that they don’t, he encourages them to express their belief.
I think our testimonies would sound pretty watered down if we used the word “believe” in each case where we had a doubt. Plus, it’s very easy to get from “believe” to “know” if that’s the leap of faith you’re taking.
If I may quote President Monson:
[F]aith precedes the miracle. It has ever been so and shall ever be. It was not raining when Noah was commanded to build an ark. There was no visible ram in the thicket when Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. Two heavenly personages were not yet seen when Joseph knelt and prayed. First came the test of faith—and then the miracle.
Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Cast out doubt. Cultivate faith.
Finally, honesty is the best policy. I learned this truth in a dramatic manner during boot camp when I served in the Navy 55 years ago. After those first three weeks of isolated training, the good news came that we would have our first liberty and could visit the city of San Diego. All of the men were most eager for this change of pace. As we prepared to board the buses to town, the petty officer commanded, “Now all of you men who know how to swim, you stand over here. You will go into San Diego for liberty. Those of you who don’t know how to swim, you line up over there. You will go to the swimming pool and have a lesson on how to swim. Only when you learn to swim will you be permitted liberty.”
I had been a swimmer most of my life, so I prepared to get on the bus to town; but then that petty officer said to our group, “One more thing before we board the buses. Follow me. Forward, march!” He marched us right to the swimming pool, had us take our clothing off and stand at the edge of the deep end of the pool. Then he directed, “Jump in and swim the length of the pool.” In that group, all of whom could supposedly swim, were about 10 who had thought they could fool somebody. They did not really know how to swim. In the water they went, voluntarily or otherwise. Catastrophe was at the door. The petty officers let them go under once or twice before they extended the bamboo pole to pull them to safety. With a few choice words, they then said, “That will teach you to tell the truth!”
How grateful I was that I had told the truth, that I knew how to swim and made it easily to the other end of the pool. Such lessons teach us to be true—true to the faith, true to the Lord, true to our companions, true to all that is sacred and dear to us. That lesson has never left me.
(Thomas S. Monson, “The Call to Serve,” Ensign, Nov 2000, 47–49, emphasis mine)
We may laugh at the foolishness of these young men who thought they could fool someone. But what if they had been instructed that they would “learn to swim only after the leap of faith.” Or what if some portion of them so deeply wanted to believe that they could swim. They imagined themselves swimming and they had heard faith promoting stories about other navy recruits who had taken the plunge and miraculously swam.
It is a logical (if not perfectly analogous) example of how it is not sufficient to merely “cast out” doubt of our ability to swim. Address the doubt by learning to swim.
Clark said:
To add, Trevor’s point is important as well. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I believe” or even “I hope.” (Indeed the Book of Mormon teaches that – see Alma 32 where belief or hope turn to knowledge) There are some things that when I bear testimony I say, “I belief” and not “I know.”
Being deceptive – usually for social pressure – is simply inexcusable.
I don’t know…it seems many would draw a distinction between the “well-meaning self deception” of “I know that the Church is true,” (even though I have serious concerns with, say, blacks and the priesthood, which I have put on the shelf for now…), and the “oh, this is hot chocolate I’m drinking,” (when it’s really a mocha).
I see no evidence that Br. Keyes is engaged in this sort of deception.
I see no evidence that he’s not, but that’s just because neither of us is privy to his thoughts. 🙂
Mike Parker Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Len L wrote:
That said, I am a little dissappointed that you, or someone else from this forum, didn’t consult with Keyes when Tal’s story first came out and “clue him in” and inquire as to his version. I’m sure Keyes wouldn’t be that hard to locate and, had I been in your shoes, I would have been more than just a little curious.
As hard as it is to believe, most LDS apologists simply aren’t as rabid about tracking down and refuting every criticism of the Church as you seem to believe they are. We have lots of other things to do, and are simply not so obsessed.
Mike,
I’m really glad to hear that. You cudda fooled me…. It sure seems to me that the apologist function is to be the shield to ward off and blunt the arrows slung at the organization. Oh well…back to the drawing board.
Len
cdowis Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hey, Tal. Did you talk to the Stake Pres about blowing yourself up, as you indicated on the PBS special.
This state is offered in a mocking manner I believe, but it is NOT as much of a stretch as you apparently believe. Do we not consecrate all we have to the kingdom? In light of Mtn Meadows and the activities of the Danites, it is entirely within the realm of posibility, given the emphaisis on feelings over reason that such a thing could occur. All that is necessary is some words of encouragement from certain leaders to some overly committed and zealous members as some missionaries have been know to be.
Len L:
I have, on occasion, visited the (misnamed) “Recovery from Mormonism” message board. I have found there that the general belief is that the Church has vast powers of surveillance. This conspiracy theory borders on paranoid delusion.
The sad fact is that the Church is not so omniscient, and its defenders are not so rabid.
Len L wrote:
“That said, I am a little dissappointed that you, or someone else from this forum, didn’t consult with Keyes when Tal’s story first came out and “clue him in” and inquire as to his version.”
Len, it’s my understanding (and I could be mistaken) that Tal just recently identified President Keyes by name.
I see several flaws in your reasoning here.
First, I daresay that few atrocities have been committed in the name of “religion” per se. Today’s suicide bombers do not murder for the sake of religion in general; they do so in the name of a particular sect or ideology. By lumping together all believers into the broad category of “religion,” you make it sound as if there is no difference between, say, the Thugee (who committed ritualistic murders in honor of the goddess Kali) and the Quakers.
Second, you have provided no evidence that suicide bombers or others who commit atrocities are typcially motivated by “the voice of god,” as you put it. (Was the lowercase deliberate?) It is my impression that they are more likely to cite some holy book, manifesto, or political ideology.
Third, you fail to note that plenty of atrocities have been committed by people for non-religious motives. For instance, perhaps a hundred million persons were murdered in the 20th century by self-described atheists. (I am not saying that atheists are prone to murder, only that some people will commit atrocities for whatever reason—or for no reason at all.)
Fourth, you have implied that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young either changed their minds or were “shown to be in error.” Although I would not be surprised to learn that they made errors (we do not believe that are leaders are infallible), I am not aware that either one retracted his testimony of the Restoration. Nor has anyone demonstrated that they were wrong about their testimonies.
Actually, I had in mind a slightly different question: How do we know anything?
It is nice to say that people should not act on beliefs unless those beliefs are “supported by reasonable evidence.” But what constitutes “resonable evidence”? Is an angelic visitation sufficient? How about a voice from heaven? A “burning in the bosom?
Mark Beesley Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Len L wrote:
“That said, I am a little dissappointed that you, or someone else from this forum, didn’t consult with Keyes when Tal’s story first came out and “clue him in” and inquire as to his version.”
Len, it’s my understanding (and I could be mistaken) that Tal just recently identified President Keyes by name.
Thanx Mark,
That may be true, and if so would explain why all of his fellow travelers had failed to give him a courtesy “heads up”. I am not familiar enough with the original story to know if names were named. But now that you mention it, that would have been out of character for Bachman.
Len
True, and then you go right into this:
So, based upon your previous statement, I’m assuming that you are speaking your beliefs about the stake president based upon your own biases. Is that correct?
If the stake president was in the habit of “denying his testimony” while in private conversations with those of his stake, why is Tal the only one who has come forward and said that the stake president was a catalyst in their loss of faith?
Perhaps I am speaking from my biases (as D-Con has stated), but such behavior from Randy Keyes just seems far-fetched.
[Aside: D-Con, how come you ignored my earlier questions?]
-Allen
You are mistaken. Randy Keyes was named in all of Tal’s accounts that I have read, going back about four years.
Len seems to be missing the point, however. He puts the burden on the “apologists” to have tracked down Randy Keyes and gotten his side of the story. Why wouldn’t the critics have done the same? After all, aren’t the critics supposedly interested in the verifiable truth?
The fact is, nobody did. Randy Keyes came forth on his own, and I applaud the fact that he did. As I’ve said all along, it is good to have both sides of the story on the record, even this far down the road.
-Allen
Deconstructor wrote:
This makes no sense whatsoever. If Keyes is secretly not a believer, what does he stand to lose by being “outed”? If he is a typical stake present, he’s spending 30 to 40 hours a week running the affairs of his stake without any monetary compensation. Losing his position would give him a considerable amount of personal time back, plus an additional 10% of his income and a lot of personal freedoms.
This bizarre notion that stake presidents are in it for “reputation” is simply too stupid for words.
Tal Bachman, on the other hand, has considerable reason to lie. He has left the Church and needs to justify that decision to himself and the masses at RFM. The best way to do that would be to create the false impression that there are actually lots of Mormons who don’t really believe the foundational stories of Mormonism, but are “in the closet.”
Tal Bachman failed as a rock star, but he has found his celebrity among a small group of bitter ex-Mormons, and that comfort is in jeopardy if it turns out that he has been less than truthful about his experiences.
PseudoMormon,
You wrote,
One definition of fact is “an event known to have happened or something known to have existed.”
If you receive a burning in the bosom or some other spiritual manifestation in response to prayer, does that not become a “fact” to you?
Paul Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Fourth, you have implied that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young either changed their minds or were “shown to be in error.” Although I would not be surprised to learn that they made errors (we do not believe that are[did you mean our? LL] leaders are infallible), I am not aware that either one retracted his testimony of the Restoration. Nor has anyone demonstrated that they were wrong about their testimonies.
Paul,
Young preached doctrine, with full belief that he was giving revelation, which, if you preach it now days, will get you excommunicated. Smith sent folks off to sell a copyright to the BoM, confident that they would succeed because he thought it had been revealed to him.
I think, because in these instances, both of them demonstrated that they couldn’t distinguish revelation from their own thoughts, the value of all other revelation via their efforts is greatly diminished (including their testimonies of the restoration). I view anything they claim to be revelation as extremely questionable. Statements by a “prophet” who can’t tell whether he is prophesying or brain storming are not very reliable
OH, God…god I’m not picky. After all, what do we really KNOW??
Len
.
Why are we talking about changing doctrine of the LDS Church? This post was about Tal Bachman and his SP.
Why has this become Len’s personal gripe session about everything that’s screwed up with Mormonism?
What’s next? Mountain Meadows? Or shall we get a dig in at the Priesthood ban while we’re at it? Maybe a crack about Joseph and moon men would fly well at this point. Whaddaya say?
While there’s a lot to what you say Mike, at the same time I think you ignore social pressure way too much. If someone is older and they lose faith they have lots of family reasons to put on aires. (i.e. their reputation to their family and friends) I think it undeniable that some people do fake belief because of this.
I agree it’s completely irrational and ultimately stupid. But undeniably people do it.
I think, however, that assuming that Keyes is doing that is quite a leap for Tal supporters to make.
I personally had no involvement in apologetics 4 years ago, so I knew nothing about it at all. I can’t speak for others.
Anyone who’s read anything about apostatsy atrocity narratives and the like would find Tal’s account pretty unremarkable. Other examples could be multiplied.
And, in poking around RfM I’ve seen everything from the claim (I kid you not) that “Mormons slurp their soup too loudly,” and “Mormons spread disease to others because they don’t wash their hands.”
I am dismissive of Tal’s version of reality because what I’ve seen of his expression of people I _do know_ something about, and historical interpretation about which I also know something.
And, as I said, his claim that he was ready to suicide bomb himself – – – well, I want a Mastercard becaue that’s priceless.
But, atrocity exit narratives are pretty dubious territory in any case, as any sociologist of religion can testify. (Which is not to say that those which contoct them are lying; they just aren’t really reliable windows into the group.)
It would be a fool’s errand chasing them all down, IMHO.
But, if MY name were used in one, I would probably set the record straight about what I believed, if it came to my attention.
Clark wrote:
There is a difference between faking belief while participating nominally within the Church and faking belief while serving as a stake president. The latter requires an enormous sacrifice of personal and family time, the wisdom to counsel individuals and groups, the inspiration to speak publicly and regularly and make it uplifting, and the ability to give blessings that are powerful and motivational.
Social pressure can keep someone a member of the Church, but it is simply beyond reason to think that social pressure can keep someone a stake president for 15 years (the current typical term of service).
One only has to listen to Tal’s talk at the ExMormon.org conference a few years ago to clearly understand that:
1) His decision to leave the church was not lightly made.
2) Discovering the realities of the church’s history and origin tore him up.
That talk moves me to tears and laughter every time I listen to it. Like many of former Mormons, he served the church with all his heart — and when he discovered the truth, he left the church with all his heart and mind, too.
When people start digging and go to such pains to discredit those who have lost their faith, I get the impression they are doing so to cover up their own crisis of faith, to numb their own questions, to make it appear they are one of the ultra-faithful. Or maybe they do so to feel self-righteous and powerful.
I can only wonder at the amount of time and energy people here on the FAIR board waste in such activities. You’d think they’d be too busy working out their own salvation and relationship with God rather than worrying about Tal’s and the rest of us. Life is so short. I can’t imagine the pathetic lives these people have that make them spend such time on matters that really are not important.
What a waste of time. Even if I still believed the LDS church were God’s true and only church, I would not believe for a moment that Jesus would ever attack non-believers the way the board members here have.
Allen Wyatt Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
MB said: Len, it’s my understanding (and I could be mistaken) that Tal just recently identified President Keyes by name.
You are mistaken. Randy Keyes was named in all of Tal’s accounts that I have read, going back about four years.
Len seems to be missing the point, however. He puts the burden on the “apologists” to have tracked down Randy Keyes and gotten his side of the story. Why wouldn’t the critics have done the same? After all, aren’t the critics supposedly interested in the verifiable truth?
The fact is, nobody did. Randy Keyes came forth on his own, and I applaud the fact that he did. As I’ve said all along, it is good to have both sides of the story on the record, even this far down the road.
-Allen
Allen,
I agree with you, everybody should speak their minds. I have no objection to Keyes telling his version. But as to whether I should have contacted Keyes for verification of Bachman’s story, none of us has time to investigate every account that we hear. If a story meshes with our own experiences and raises no red flags, it is usually not questioned.
Actually, I had heard plenty before I had ever heard of Tal Bachman. When I did read his story months ago, it was so similar to my own experiences with ward officials that I had no reason to question it. It was totally believable.
I don’t base my conclusions about the church on the statements of others, though it is validating to see that the experiences of others so closely parallel my own. I base my current view (that the church is not what it claims to be)on the discrepancy between what the church teaches will occur, and what actually occurs. I gave Moroni’s promise a very good chance to work. I exercised faith and lived the teachings of the church. I went on a mission believing, as I had been told, that when the time came to testify, my beliefs would be confirmed. I don’t claim to ever have been in danger of being “translated” but I was quite sincere and sought a witness. Moroni’s promise came up empty.
This caused me to ponder why and to develop a new model of reality. So far, the new model works much better than Mormonism. But who knows what will happen in the future? I try to keep an open mind, but I must judge claims of personal revelation by others against my own experiences. What else do I have? I find it more believable that folks who claim a testimony are doing as I once did and are banking on a future, expected, event. Not to put time limits on diety, but one can only believe that for a limited time.
Or, Tal’s statement in the Exmormon Foundation’s video Line Upon Line: “There is one constant [in the Church], and that is that you must pledge allegiance to your cult fuhrer.”
Talk about over the top! But, then again, Tal sure knows how to play to his audience, doesn’t he?
-Allen
Doubting Thomasina wrote:
There’s no small amount of chutzpah in that statement, considering the sort of things said about believers on the RFM board. Name-calling and profanity are regularly employed there to describe friends and family who won’t abandon their testimonies. By comparison, this blog has been thoroughly civil.
And consider for a moment that it was Tal Bachman who made certain (false) allegations, and the Randy Keyes is simply defending himself against them.
Seth R. Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Why are we talking about changing doctrine of the LDS Church? This post was about Tal Bachman and his SP.
Why has this become Len’s personal gripe session about everything that’s screwed up with Mormonism?
What’s next? Mountain Meadows? Or shall we get a dig in at the Priesthood ban while we’re at it? Maybe a crack about Joseph and moon men would fly well at this point. Whaddaya say?
I had figured to get through all the “milk” before we got into the “meat”…lol But I think the point wasn’t changing doctrine but the reliability of personal revelation, but of course, you knew that. (nice redirect)
But the point is taken, this is a thread about Tal & Randy. I’ll leave you all to ponder (over and over again) which account you’d like to believe. I think the point has been made over and over that folks will believe which ever account they most identify with. I have no stomach for beating horses, dead or alive.
Len
I have listened to it, actually, and I hear someone playing to his audience. As I said, he does it well.
In other words, he traded in one whole-hearted endeavor for another. He converted to a different world view and now spends a good chunk of his time proselytizing for that world view and pumping up those who share a similar world view.
Isn’t that the same sort of behavior that many critics (including Tal) say they left behind in the Church?
Are you talking about those in the church or about Tal’s efforts since he has left the church?
This is not “the FAIR board.” This is a blog. We read, we discuss, we post. That is what makes a portion of life interesting.
And yet I see, Doubting Thomasina, that you posted your same message–the one that is here–over at RfM. Does that mean that your life is just as pathetic as the rest of ours? Or doesn’t your brush paint that broadly?
No attacks, only observations. The Pharisees and Sadducees were quite outspoken in their opposition to Jesus because he didn’t hesitate for a moment to tell them what he thought about their behavior–on numerous occasions.
Be that as it may, you seem to have no problem accepting the attacks of believers by the denizens of RfM where your first post found a welcome home, now did you?
Pot, meet kettle.
-Allen
I wonder how my comments would have been recieved if I hadn’t admitted I’m now an “apostate”?
I never said I didn’t believe in Christ — I just don’t believe in the LDS church.
Well, I leave it to God to judge all this. Not you.
Doubting,
I wonder how my comments would have been received if I went to RfM and prefaced them by saying that I’m a “TBM?” At least your comments stayed on here, which is something that is not permitted for TBM comments on RfM.
If you go back and read through all the comments, you’ll find many who are “apostates,” and they aren’t all received poorly. Only those who make unfounded statements.
-Allen
Tal Bachman, on the other hand, has considerable reason to lie. He has left the Church and needs to justify that decision to himself and the masses at RFM.
Well, that certainly sounds like the sort of conclusion one might make, if they’re convinced that anyone who leaves the LDS church is an evil person who somehow “knows he’s wrong” and needs to calm himself. Unfortunately, that sort of rhetoric is without basis in fact. You are engaging in the same sort of false (at least completely unfounded) witness that you accuse Tal Bachman of.
Both Keyes and Bachman have their roles to play in this drama and they both seem up to the task. Bachman as the ‘breaker of promises’ feels justified in rejecting an organization that he feels lied to him (that anger carries more weight than any continuously active member of the church can fathom). Keyes as the counselor and listener still extends his invitation of discourse to his former stake member in a magnanimous gesture (and he truly does seek to understand how one conversation has ballooned to such proportions).
Some criticize Bachman for his seemingly veiled threat about revealing more information if the debate continues. They fail to see however, that Bachman knows how ugly the accusations could become and chooses to call a truce. To continue the debate would lead only to contention and bitterness on both sides.
Others criticize Keyes for not responding until five years later without them really knowing Keyes’ reasons for responding at all. To present his interpretation of the events is really the only fair and sane thing to do at this point.
My not-so-deep point in summarizing the events is to show that we will never know what happened. This event therefore should have zero effect on anyone’s testimony of the church or their refutation of the church. It was something that happened between two people only and yet will be played out in countless iterations between church and members. The real question is how will we play the parts when we are in a similar situation?
Those who side with Bachman simply because they share his anger need to examine their own reasons for leaving the church. Those who side with Keyes simply because he holds a title in the church need to shore up their convictions with something more than pomp and circumstance.
Joseph Smith made claims that some call outrageous and others call prophetic—will we accept or deny his words simply because we happen to be on one side or the other? I invite everyone here to renew their own convictions in their own beliefs independent of anything said or written by another human being. These decisions are too important to not make for yourself. Exercising our free will and our right to believe as we choose is something that I think both sides can agree on. Believe in yourself and you will always be right.
Doubting Thomasina wrote:
I don’t doubt that Tal’s decision was a difficult thing for him. But, discovering “the realities of the church’s history and origin?” It would be more accurate to say that Tal held literalist/fundamentalist assumptions about the Church, its history, and origin, and when those assumptions were challenged, he lost his faith.
What seems a better solution to the sort of “cognitive dissonance” Tal faced is to examine one’s assumptions, then look at the facts in a different light. This is exactly what saved my faith a number of years ago. As soon as I saw that I didn’t have to hold to a literalist view of everything in order to be a believing Latter-day Saint, things changed for me.
I don’t have to believe that every single word uttered by a Church leader is correct or divinely inspired; I can accept that very able Church leaders can and have held opposing viewpoints on some major issues; I can accept that the Lord accomplishes his purposes with regard to humanity in spite of human weakness and imperfection, and that human beings can accomplish extraordinary things when they trust in God.
In other words, I lightened up. What Tal criticizes is his interpretation of the Church’s history and origin through his old, fundamentalist assumptions. There is very little that bothers me about Church history anymore, simply because I changed the way I look at it.
Does this mean that you’re off the ward suicide bomber team?
I’ve watched all day as the veracity of these two men has been debated. I’m certain I’m not the first to realize that truth between two people is always colored by the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes and purpose of the person at the time. But only the fly on the wall in the room where they spoke will ever know what actual words were spoken so how can anyone judge their honesty? It isn’t our place.
It seems enough to me that they have both now stated an official position where their beliefs are concerned. There is no question of what they stand for. They are now both on the record.
We do not have to like what they’ve said, but we needn’t spend our time flinging mud back and forth like children. Any good parent would now put us all in a corner until we could learn to speak kindly to each other again.
“Non-cooperation is a measure of discipline and sacrifice, and it demands respect for the opposite views.”
–Mohandas K. Gandhi
That’s it! We’re ALL off the suicide bomber team. 😉
Well said.
That is your evidence? Forgive me if I am underwhelmed. I though perhaps you would cite something important, such as the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, or D & C 76.
It seems to me that your evidence depends on knowing what was in the minds of Brigham and Joseph when they spoke and acted as they did.
I would remind you that Brigham Young is reported to have preached a lot of things that were not and are not accepted by the church. Most were never presented by him as revelations to the church, so neither you nor I can say whether he believed them to be revelation.
Joseph Smith was explicit: A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.
I suppose it is possible that they were unable to distinguish their thoughts from a revelation in the instances you cite, although I am far from convinced. Be that as it may, I cannot agree that the value of all other revelation is “greatly diminished.”
Would you have us believe that Joseph Smith could have been mistaken in his own mind about the First Vision, the angel Moroni, the plates, etc.?
By all means question. No one expects you to take the word of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet.
Nor am I. . . . Well, yes I am. (I’ll try to suppress my urge to edit other people’s posts.) However, I asked because I have encountered quite a few proud skeptics who insist on writing god instead of God. I was trying to determine whether you were one of them. My apologies if you are not.
An excellent question. How would you answer it?
Joel Honea wrote,
Hear! hear!
Normally, I would not jump into this type of foray because there are only two people who were privy to the conversation and each person has his own individual perception of what happened and what was said.
I served as a district court judge for eight years. In court, I often encountered the situation where two people perceived the same event, conversation or circumstance quite differently. More often than not, both witnesses seemed honest and sincere in their testimony yet their statements would contradict one another. The attorneys would often seize on these contradictions to argue that one of the witnesses was lying. But after being on the bench for awhile it became apparent to me that many of these contradictions arose because the witnesses simply had different perspectives as to what happened or what was said based on their individual perceptions and biases. I also began to realize that our perceptions form our realities and become our basis for the “truth”. This dynamic seemed to be particularly true when the witnesses were emotionally vested in the case. The greater their emotional involvement, the chance for discrepancies between the perceptions of the witnesses became more likely.
I even see this dynamic play out in my own relationships. Communication between partners or spouses can easily be misunderstood because of each party’s background, life experiences, expectations, biases and perceptions. I am sure that if you asked President Keyes, as a therapist he would have to agree that each person’s perceptions becomes the truth for them.
Thus, while I tend to agree with the comment that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, I really don’t care what happened or what was said. But what angers me is that Tal Bachman has offered an olive leaf to President Keyes. Yet, most of the posters still want to crucify Mr. Bachman. I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised because these kinds of ad hominem attacks seem to be more and more accepted in our public discourse. All one has to do is tune the radio or television to hate mongers like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter to see what I mean. I would hope that we as Latter-Day Saints and followers of Jesus Christ would rise above this sort of thing. After all is this what Jesus would do?
Paul Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Young preached doctrine, with full belief that he was giving revelation, which, if you preach it now days, will get you excommunicated. Smith sent folks off to sell a copyright to the BoM, confident that they would succeed because he thought it had been revealed to him.
That is your evidence? Forgive me if I am underwhelmed. I though perhaps you would cite something important, such as the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, or D & C 76.
It seems to me that your evidence depends on knowing what was in the minds of Brigham and Joseph when they spoke and acted as they did.
I would remind you that Brigham Young is reported to have preached a lot of things that were not
[you mean to say that someone opposed and contradicted Bro Brigham in his day?? …LL]
and are not accepted by the church. Most were never presented by him as revelations to the church, so neither you nor I can say whether he believed them to be revelation.
{Young stated that he had never preached from the pulpit that could not be considered Scripture. He preached Blood Atonement, Adam/God, and the State of the Black Race from the pulpit. Therefore I conclude that he either thought his material had been revealed to him, or he was lying about it. It matters not to me. The implications are the same. All 3 doctrines are presently disowned by the church. Conclusion: Young’s prophecy is unreliable….LL]
Joseph Smith was explicit: A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.
[David Whitmer said that Smith consulted the Urim & Thummim before revealing that Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page should go to Toronto where they would find a man eager to buy the copyrights to the BoM. When they came back in failure, Smith admitted that not all revelation is from God. Either Smith was engaging in cheap theatrics, or he believed he was giving revelation. conclusion Smith’s revelation is not reliable. LL]
I think, because in these instances, both of them demonstrated that they couldn’t distinguish revelation from their own thoughts, the value of all other revelation via their efforts is greatly diminished (including their testimonies of the restoration).
I suppose it is possible that they were unable to distinguish their thoughts from a revelation in the instances you cite, although I am far from convinced. Be that as it may, I cannot agree that the value of all other revelation is “greatly diminished.”
[Isn’t revelation supposed to be a reliable guide in our lives?? I can’t see how a sane person would rely on supposed revelation that may prove not to be. I liken it to relying on the Farmer’s Almanac weather forecast. A case can be made for it’s reliability. After all, it is right sometimes…LL]
Would you have us believe that Joseph Smith could have been mistaken in his own mind about the First Vision, the angel Moroni, the plates, etc.?
[Bingo!!!!! LL]
I view anything they claim to be revelation as extremely questionable. Statements by a “prophet” who can’t tell whether he is prophesying or brain storming are not very reliable.
By all means question. No one expects you to take the word of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet.
OH, God…god I’m not picky.
Nor am I. . . . Well, yes I am. (I’ll try to suppress my urge to edit other people’s posts.) However, I asked because I have encountered quite a few proud skeptics who insist on writing god instead of God. I was trying to determine whether you were one of them. My apologies if you are not.
[With respect to God or god, I have no idea.. Certainly my expectations I was taught in youth to expect didn’t occur so I lean towards “god”. but it matters to you and I don’t wish to be intentionally abrasive (I do enough of that unintentionally with my poor communication skills) I’ll use the Capital letter…LL]
After all, what do we really KNOW??
An excellent question. How would you answer it?
[I wouldn’t…It was rhetorical… but the implication is that we really KNOW very little. however, life still demands that we make decisions as to how to occupy our time. For this I use the best information available to me. If God spoke to you and clarified all of this, I am happy for you. To me, He (it?) remains incommunicado. I’ll just have to do the best I can with what I have personally experienced, and it has so little to do with the expectations of Mormonism.LL]
I have to admit that I find it a bit amusing to read laments about how cruel people here have been to poor Tal Bachman.
Continually, over the past two or three years, he’s called me a sociopath, unhinged, mad, a horror, a fanatic, an embarrassment to the Church, estranged from reality, a buffoon, a mediocrity, a fraud, a joke, a relativist, a loon, an idiot, insane, a Nazi-sympathizer, and etc. — and that’s just a sampling, off the top of my head.
I don’t believe in responding in kind, and I HAVEN’T responded in kind, but, frankly, I can’t get all that choked up about the fact that some here don’t think his portrayal of President Keyes entirely accurate.
Well, Daniel, if the shoe fits…
. . . I marry the prince and live happily ever after!
But, Zorg, it wasn’t that kind of a shoe, this isn’t that kind of a story, and, anyway, I’m a GUY. Sorry.
As adults, we are capable of placing value on whatever we deem important. Belittling others as “children” who have an interest you do not share does not put you above the fray. I am very pleased that Pres. Keyes has set an example that I hope will be followed by more Mormons who are despitefully used by online axe grinders.
Clever!
I’ve been reading many of the responses (and speculation) here and on Mormon Discussions (so far), so I decided to re-read President Keyes’ statement, and this strikes me:
I hope in the past that I expressed understanding and compassion for your struggles. I perhaps did not do the back half of “…then [seek] to be understood” very well. I trust that these comments settle any guessing that you or others have about why I am an active member of the Church. I do know the gospel is what it claims to be. I cannot comprehend the idea that anyone would believe that a stake president would keep serving if he did not believe the gospel to be true. There is no reason anyone would give this service if he didn’t believe this is, literally, the Church of Jesus Christ. This gospel gives me a fuller life, my involvement in it feeds my soul, and it provides the way for me to worship God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.
In spite of what was said/reported, this makes sense to me. Why someone would break an arm and a leg (metaphorically) and devote his whole life, time and talents to something he believed to be a “fabrication”, doesn’t make much sense. As I previously noted, Tom Ferguson really lost his testimony, and when he did he no longer bore testimony in Church, and he even wrote the Tanners encouraging them in their work, and his private correspondence expressing not only doubt but some negativity towards Joseph Smith was published in Stan Larson’s Quest for the Gold Plates. Here we have numerous evidences of Ferguson’s disbelief, and his stated intention of “returning the spoof”, and calling Joseph Smith “that B*****D”. It is beyond dispute that Ferguson lost his basic faith, but continued to be active in the Church. But even then Ferguson had “wavering moments”, telling his son Larry that “the Book of Mormon is exactly what Joseph said it was”, and in later years he continued to give lectures on the Book of Mormon from a faith-promoting viewpoint. It seems to me that his intellectual versus his spiritual convictions were at odds. It is therefore not inconceivable that Randy Keyes would also have doubts, and may have even expressed them privately, but they are not on the level of Ferguson. I too know many Mormons who have privately expressed such doubts to me, yet were solid Fast Sunday testimony-bearing Mormons. So I’m disinclined to think that President Keyes is a liar, and I’m inclined to think that he was speaking on Bachman’s level during their conversations, in order to help him realise the very things he (Bachman) eventually did, that doubt can be compatible with belief. This is why Bachman was so relieved and felt justified, but his own disbelief had reached a much lower ebb by that time, and he couldn’t continue in the Church, a significant fact. Why we should suppose that Keyes would continue while entertaining the SAME doubts as Bachman (which Bachman takes pains to emphasise), is kind of inconsistent. It’s obvious that whatever doubts President Keyes has, they are NOT on the same level as Bachman. In this case I reject the “lying for the Lord” label that has been applied by some, barring an eventual name-removal request by Randy Keyes.
What we have here is one exchange between Bachman and Keyes, and even if as reported by Bachman that others have also been privy to Keyes’ private doubts, there’s no mistaking his sincerity of belief, and proof of that sincerity by being active in the Church, continuing as a stake president (I can think of easier ways to deal with cognitive dissonance, really), and also relating his spiritual experiences and beliefs in his statement. It would take an extraordinary leap of faulty logic to accept that Randy Keyes could be some Tom Ferguson-like figure, believing it all a fabrication “for the greater good”. One reason I take his testimony at face-value is because he backs this up with real works, not some back-sliding doubter who privately writes letters to anti-Mormons and entertains negative views of Joseph Smith. My own doubts reached a point where I could no longer continue in the Church, much less be a bishop or stake president. This is why I have no problem accepting Keyes’ statements, because he puts his works where his mouth is. The epistle of James comes to mind here.
In conclusion, I now believe it is somewhat unfair of Bachman to try to publicly portray President Keyes as, 1) Having the same level of doubt as he has, 2) Trying to convey the impression that the only real difference between himself and Keyes is that he “did the honourable thing” by “exposing the fraud”, while Keyes continues on in hypocritical “cog. Diss”, while supposedly “knowing” the same things. This is the crucial separation we must all make. Two men look at the same subject, one concludes it’s a blatant fraud and not only cannot continue, but spends an enormous amount of time criticising the Church and calling it a “fraud”. It is not unfair to label Bachman as a “avid critic”. The other continues to publicly affirm his faith, and devotes his life and time to his family, and spends an extraordinary amount of time in service as a stake president. So let me hark back to the old saying. Don’t look so much at what people say, but what they actually do in their lives. In my opinion Keyes passes the test of being a true believer, and this public statement is a motivation and profession of his private and public faith in Mormonism. Bachman didn’t need to use this private episode to convince others of the “fraud”. I was actually impressed with his exit story as posted on PostMo, and to me it has a ring of sincerity about how he lost his faith, and he REALLY lost it. He doesn’t need to drag others into the unbelieving lair by suggesting that perhaps no one REALLY believes in Mormonism – not even President Hinckley. This, to me, is absurd.
Not exactly. According to the Journal of Discourses, what he actually said was the following:
Later, he responded to the very charge that you have made:
Note that Brigham said that his sermons were as good as scripture provided they were identified as revelations and they had been copied, corrected, and approved by him. He apparently did not consider every his sermon as a revelation, or as scripture.
Nor did he believe scripture to be complete or infallible:
Could it be that you have been laboring under some false impressions about revelation? You would not be the first to discover that the things taught in Primary are not sufficient for dealing with the intricacies of the adult world.
Deep down, all people know the difference between reason and wishful thinking. Between logic and rationalization. Between evidence and tradition. But lots of us never reach a deep level of honesty. My guess is that Randy is one of those who will never get there.
Neither Tal Bachman nor any other former mormon has any need to fabricate anything to ‘boost their credibility’, ‘convert others’, or ‘prove a point’. Possibly the most invigorating result of leaving mormonism is the warm glow of intellectual and emotional honesty that one is finally allowed.
Randy, on the other hand, has everything to lose by not presenting himself ‘just so’. Very, very, very sad. An inauthentic life…
So many a priori assumptions and stereotypes, Steve.
*sigh*
Guess I’ll never reach that “deep level of honesty” and enlightenment you promise. Trouble is, for the life of me I can’t see that Tal has reached it, either.
-Allen
I think Bachman’s line of previous interpretations also need to be considered. He believed that because the gospel is true, that it’s the only true church, and that he was under temple covenants, then if ordered by his mission president he was effectively, if necessary, to be a terrorist for Mormonism – to fly planes into buildings if necessary. Of this comment he noted in clarification:
I suggest with all respect, that any devout believer, if they think about this, will realize that my comments were not meant to be hyperbolic at all; and I even think that to suggest such a thing betrays a lack of thought about Mormon (and religious) claims about faith, “the spirit”, sacrifice, devotion, etc.
Then he added:
What else could you possibly get when you add all that up, than that when asked by a voice you deem authoritative – whether from prophet, scripture, or “personal revelation” – you would lay down your life for “the gospel”? Why else, in any believer’s mind, would it be admirable for Abinadi, or Joseph Smith, or Stephen, or Jesus, or Isaac (who some prophets have suggested participated willingly), or any other scriptural character (or for others, David Koresh, or Jim Jones, etc.), to have laid down their lives? A bomb being the means of death is no different in principle from a bullet, bonfire, or poison. When master commands us to die, we die, if we are faithful to him. So, in Mormonism as in other religions, laying down our lives for the faith is explicitly taught as something we should be willing to do if necessary (that is, if asked by master [whoever or whatever we believe to be “master”]).
One commentator noted:
The bottom line is that Tal’s obsessive hatred for the LDS Church blurred his judgment and he made an absurd statement that reflected poorly upon himself and not his target.
http://kvnuforthepeople.com/?p=419
With such things in mind, it’s becoming clearer to me that Tal Bachman may have heard statements and made interpretations he wanted to hear. Making a comparison to the death of Joseph Smith, or Jesus, and then taking a gigantic leap of faith-illogic in suggesting this is no different than terrorists flying planes into buildings, seems to be the work of a mind that sees patterns where there are none. He will insist that his interpretation is correct. For one, I disagree. And I think most Mormons will (I am an ex-Mormon). How he interpreted this may have some bearing on his general thought patterns.
Wow, Steve that is a really lovely psychic reading you just did there of all Church members. Your subjective judgments have an invigorating, warm glow to them. Unfortunately they are ridiculous.
You are stating (at least implicitly, if not directly), that all Mormons are a) intellectually dishonest, b) deep down disbelievers who deceive themselves, and c)emotionally dishonest. d) lead “inauthentic” lives, whatever that means.
This is one thing that drives me crazy about self-congratulatory anti-mormonism, it is a pat-yourself-on-the-back “I am smarter and more honest than you” self-deception. People who embrace such ideology seem to view themselves as graduating from normal society and enrolling in some higher plane of existence where they are magically privy to the mindsets of the millions of people. Certainly there are some VERY deluded church members out there, but this mindset blows them out of the water, takes the cake, and the scones, and the danishes in the “I’m better than you and proud of it” category.
In my life, (mere anecdotal evidence I know) Church members have proven to be in general the most intellectually honest people i know. In my life, if I were to leave the church it would lead me to the most inauthentic, emotionally dishonest life I could lead. I know this from personal experience. While this is not sufficient evidence so suggest that you are always wrong, it is certainly sufficient to overcome the over-arching nature of your claims.
I understand if you feel differently, you must do what you believe to be right. That is perfectly acceptable, but please don’t accuse me, or my LDS colleagues of such crimes as you did above just because you disagree.
All in all Steve, that was a nice troll, look at how mad you got me. I guess I failed this one, huh.
Sorry to come across as a know-it-all. I really feel quite the opposite. I was an active mormon for 38 years where I claimed to KNOW ultimate truths that 99.8% of the world’s population had somehow missed.
I finally decided that I didn’t know those things (which means I now know even less?) and have joined the folks who look at mormonism in the same way they look at Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, etc.
So yes, I am proud of my growth and new discoveries as of late. Can’t take any of the credit myself, though. And I certainly can’t convince anyone else. I’ll just say there’s a wealth of wisdom in the sciences, though. Psychology, sociology, neurology… they all use assumptions, judgments, and stereotypes, too – regarding the ways our minds play games with us; the effects of tradition; the role of rationalization and self deception in maintaining our self-esteem; the techniques, mindset, and effects of cult environments…
I’ve been where both Randy and Tal are – roughly. Have you?
Actually yes Steve, I have. But I reached quite different conclusions than you did.
Hmmm, interesting the way one’s perceptions color how one views this situation. For myself, I don’t see what Tal would have to gain by making this story up. He has been consistent about the story from the beginning and told it very early on after in happened and discussed it with his wife at the time who had a cooroborating interaction with the Stake President.
On the other hand, Pres Keyes has significant reason to not be completely candid if what Tal said was true (or somewhat close to accurate). One can question why, if he has significant closet doubts, he would have acknowledged them in any way to Tal, but as one who’s seen the passion and intelligence with which Tal speaks about his change in belief (and the shock that he was clearly going through at the time) I can certainly see how it might have been difficult for Pres Keyes to resist the power of Tal’s concerns and (in what he expected was a confidential setting) acknowledge to Tal that he had some similar concerns but wasn’t about to turn his back on the Church for a variety of family and social and spiritual reasons. There are certainly many NOMs who stay in the Church for exactly those reasons (altho’ admittedly a SP in that situation would be unusual).
However, just because this doesn’t seem far-fetched to me doesn’t mean that it happened that way, of course. But that seems more likely to me than that Tal made this story up or even that he was simply very confused about what his Pres Keyes was saying. Particularly given the specificity and timeliness with which Tal made his statements.
It’s always amusing to me when former believers condescend to address us with such complacent superiority. I just read an “open letter” to President and Sister Keyes on another message board — their names were misspelled, by the way — that absolutely dripped of such smugness, and now I read Mr. Cox’s letter here.
Pretty funny stuff. It’s hard to stifle a giggle or two when an apostate solemnly informs me of the grand life he now leads, the rarefied heights of honesty and reason that he now enjoys, so far beyond my meager comprehension.
Newsflash: There isn’t anything in philosophy, art, history, science, literature, or any other field that I, a lowly believing Mormon prole, can’t explore. And I’m even permitted to think about what I encounter.
Steve, have you been where I’ve been?
MarkW:
To bring you up to speed, I’ve already brought up possible motivations for Tal Bachman to be dishonest and the unlikely possibility that Keyes is lying. See here, here and here.
Just for the record, I’ll repeat what I’ve said before:
I suspect that Mr. Bachman sincerely believes his claims about President Keyes, just as, despite my repeated public and private protests that he has misrepresented me and distorted what I’ve said, he probably sincerely believes his continual false statements about ME. And the same goes for his false public statements about Louis Midgley and Davis Bitton and several others.
I believe President Keyes, whom I don’t know, because of my personal experience with Tal Bachman.
Mike Parker Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
MarkW:
To bring you up to speed, I’ve already brought up possible motivations for Tal Bachman to be dishonest and the unlikely possibility that Keyes is lying. See here, here and here.
Mike, I read all the comments before I posted. We just disagree. I don’t find your arguments that Tal “desperately needs to demonstrate that Mormonism is a lie” persuasive, for example. Why? Because most everything else he says rings true with my own experience in coming to conclusions about the foundational claims of the Church that shook my worldview after many many years of strongly and faithfully believing in the Church. I understand why others view things differently (particularly Dan Peterson given his interaction with Tal); heck I would have viewed all this much differently a few years ago.
Fine Mark. You believe him because he’s on your team, basically.
I believe Tal. Why doesn’t someone start a poll so we can settle this democratically? BTW, I’m an active, recommend-holding member.
Are you really sure you want truth claims to be settled by popular vote? We could start a poll to settle, once and for all, if your claim to be an active, recommend-holding Mormon is true.
-Allen
Crucify? Not really. And, for the record, Tal was offering an olive leaf with one hand while wielding a club in the other. Read his response again, and you’ll notice that everything after the “And…” is an implicit threat to Randy Keyes to be quiet.
That’s not crucifixion; that’s commenting on what Tal’s own words say.
The discussion here also isn’t ad hominem as nobody on this thread is saying to NOT listen to Tal’s arguments because of anything that is an irrelevant part of Tal’s being. It would be an interesting courtroom, indeed, where a witness’ character and past behavior was not taken into account in judging the veracity of his testimony. That is all that BOTH sides have been doing here–weighing their estimations of both Tal and Randy’s character and behavior, as they know it.
-Allen
Anyone who saw Tal Bachman’s performance on the PBS documentary has got to admit that his relationship with reality is, at best, a little weird.
Allen, are you suggesting that a faithful member can’t or shouldn’t believe the story of an apostate? BTW, the poll comment was tongue-in-cheek (obviously, I thought). Why do people sling barbs at each other so much on these boards?
This is clearly a situation of who you choose to believe. I don’t necessarily agree with all Tal has said or written. However, both he and his wife heard the same thing from the Stake President. It’s pretty clearly established in the Church that two witnesses are acceptable for important matters.
Nope, not in the least.
I didn’t think my response was a barb. I thought it was tongue-in-cheek the same as yours. (Sorry if that wasn’t clear.)
Except we DON’T have Tal’s wife as a witness, now do we? She has never, as far as I know, made her story public. We only have Tal’s comment as to what she WOULD say if she were to say anything.
That’s quite a bit different than having two witnesses, right?
-Allen
MarkW wrote:
There’s no small amount of irony when critics of the Church in one breath tell us we can’t trust Joseph Smith’s stories based on “feelings,” and then, in the next breath, tell us that Tal Bachman’s stories are trustworthy because they “ring true.”
😛
Allen – it is indeed. Thanks for the clarification.
The Deut.18:21,22 test regarding prophecy has not always been strictly enforced in the Old Testament. 1 Kings 13:18 has a prophet speaking falsely in the name of God. But in verse 21 delivers a true revelation from God. If the Lord tolerates the speaking falsely and delivers the true revelation it does not diminish the truth of the true revelation. In the case of the Book of Mormon copy-write issue the Lord simply corrects Joseph Smith by saying something like “Some revelations are of men, others of God, and others of the Devil.”
Where does the above relation disagree with the 1 Kings 13 example?
To me someone like Tal if he left over this prophecy has not studied his Bible carefuly. Plus the law and it rules have been abolished. (Hebrews 8:13) So if the Lord wishes to allow a prophet one or more prophetic mistakes does it diminish the authority of his modern true words? I listen to the modern word through Jesus not Moses alone. And the Lord himself in 1 Kings 13 interpreted Deut.18:21,22 liberally than Joseph Smiths critics do, or he would not have spoken through the guy as a true prophet.
Seth R. Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 am
Fine Mark. You believe him because he’s on your team, basically.
No, Tal credibility in other areas of his exit story and the specificity and timeliness of his story, corroborated by his wife’s own visit with the SP are the reasons I find him credible. I don’t believe someone just because they’re ex-Mormon or disbelieve someone just because they’re Mormon (altho’ that seems to be the trend here wrt this situation – on both sides). I found much of Martha Beck’s story completely lacking in credibility in a number of ways and was disappointed by exmo’s who jumped on her bandwagon despite the obvious and significant problems with her story.
Mike Parker Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I had written:
…most everything else [Tal] says rings true with my own experience in coming to conclusions about the foundational claims of the Church…
And you wrote:
There’s no small amount of irony when critics of the Church in one breath tell us we can’t trust Joseph Smith’s stories based on “feelings,” and then, in the next breath, tell us that Tal Bachman’s stories are trustworthy because they “ring true.”
In my view feelings are not to be completely discounted, but they shouldn’t trump solid evidence. In this case all we have is the word of two people and all we can go on is what they said, when they said it, who they later repeated it to, the context in which it was said and the overall credibility of the rest of that context, etc. That’s how I arrived at my conclusions. Others can and will see it differently, including the two princpals who were actually there. This is not unusual, even in the case of a husband and wife both present at the same event, they’ll sometimes have very different recollections of the same event.
Actually, we don’t have his wife’s story. We have Tal telling us his wife’s story. There is no corroboration unless she tells her own story. And then (technically) it doesn’t corroborate Tal’s story because she was not there when Tal talked with the stake president–she visited the stake president a week later.
Does the fact that there is no corroboration for Tal’s story–except what he says that his wife believes–affect your opinion of his credibility in the slightest?
-Allen
Unfortunately, “solid evidence” is too often lacking in cases such as you describe. It may be impossible to know what actually was said and done; lacking other evidence, we have to rely on accounts by those present, who often remember things very differently. Memories do not improve with time.
If we cannot even be sure what happened in a private meeting that occurred six years ago, how can we know of events and conversations that took place 50 or 100 or 150 years ago?
That is one reason I think it foolish to reject the Church based on historical accounts. The judgements of historians are sometimes wrong and always tentative. The most important questions cannot be answered by the usual historical methods. For instance, no historical method can establish whether Joseph Smith’s First Vision really occurred.
Sometimes, a spiritual witness (which some may discount as mere “feelings”) is the most solid evidence one can have.
Allen Wyatt Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
MarkW said: …corroborated by his wife’s own visit with the SP are the reasons I find him credible.
And Allen said: Actually, we don’t have his wife’s story. We have Tal telling us his wife’s story. There is no corroboration unless she tells her own story. And then (technically) it doesn’t corroborate Tal’s story because she was not there when Tal talked with the stake president–she visited the stake president a week later.
Actually, his wife did speak publicly about this at the exmo conference. So there is corroboration from her. I don’t remember how specific or on-point it was, so we’d have to go back and review that. And while her witness would not be direct corroboration of Tal’s meeting with the SP it’d be corroboration that the SP did say the type of things in question to someone else.
Paul Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
[BEGIN QUOTE]:Unfortunately, “solid evidence” is too often lacking in cases such as you describe. It may be impossible to know what actually was said and done; lacking other evidence, we have to rely on accounts by those present, who often remember things very differently. Memories do not improve with time.
If we cannot even be sure what happened in a private meeting that occurred six years ago, how can we know of events and conversations that took place 50 or 100 or 150 years ago?
That is one reason I think it foolish to reject the Church based on historical accounts. The judgements of historians are sometimes wrong and always tentative. The most important questions cannot be answered by the usual historical methods. For instance, no historical method can establish whether Joseph Smith’s First Vision really occurred.
Sometimes, a spiritual witness (which some may discount as mere “feelings”) is the most solid evidence one can have.[END QUOTE]
My views used to be very much like yours. But my view now is that a spiritual witness is not solid evidence of anything. If it were then the witness of a Catholic or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Mormon would agree on fundamental truths about the nature of diety and our place in the universe. When a Catholic sees the Virgin Mary in vision those spiritual experiences are every bit as real to them as ours are. Neither one is “good evidence” of a fundamental reality behind them or even evidence of any specific religious claim such as that the BoM is an ancient record of ancient American peoples. And when independent multiple lines of evidence contradict a spiritual witness one should not IMO ignore the evidence in favor of the witness.
A couple of thoughts:
1) Evidentiary rules would demand we view everything Tal says that Keyes said are heresay. Further, everything Tal claims his own wife would say is also heresay. Further, everything that Keyes claims Tal said is also heresay. The only thing these people could testify to is their perception of what the person was saying.
2) Publicly defaming others (false quotation) as Tal has seemed to have done automatically opens oneself up to scrutiny. All of the anti’s should remember, when you attack the church, those who believe the church is true have the right (and may have the desire) to defend the church.
3) I feel I have every right to dismiss the authenticity of those who apostatize. Just as I feel I have the right to dismiss any chemist who starts to disbelieve in electrons, or mathematicians who start to disbelieve the pythagorean theorem. From my experience, they are all in the same game, discrediting things that have already been proven.
4) Nick, my own experiences with many inactives has involved much twisting of the data to match their expectations. Forgive the believers for being human, but usually a 95% statistic tends to support a trend. That trend, being taught by general authorities, and scripturally, is that those who apostatize against the spirit (fail to continue in the covenant of baptism, e.i. always trying to keep the commandments, standing as a witness of God) will “kick against the pricks”, will fight against the Spirit. They will try and justify themselves in committing their sin. This is true with a friend who has gone gay, still knows that it is wrong, and is firmly hoping that (eventually) the church will be forced to accept gay marriage by use of non-discrimination acts of Congress. Some apostates call the church evil for denying gays the “right” to marry. Some call the church evil for telling people who act on homosexual sins to repent. Some call the church evil for not allowing wide-spread abortion. Some call the church evil for allowing abortion in cases of rape. I consider all of these apostates (if they have been in the church). If they were never in the church, they’re simply wrong.
Hearsay:
Second-hand evidence, generally consisting of a witness’s testimony that he/she heard someone else say something.
http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm
Solid or not, in some cases it is the only evidence we can possibly have.
Perhaps they are just as real as ours; who are we to judge another’s experiences?
But why do you assume that everyone would agree on the interpretation of spiritual experiences? (People agree on very little else.)
If you disallow personal spiritual witnesses, then there are no “independent multiple lines of evidence” regarding the most important questions of life.
Let’s be specific. Christians generally believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Two questions:
(1) Do you believe in the Resurrection?
(2) What “solid” evidence can you provide for your belief?
Paul wrote:
Solid or not, in some cases it is the only evidence we can possibly have.
Paul,
What happens when the evidence contradicts? In this line of thinking, Muhammad has to be a fraud. And one billion Muslims are worshipping a fraud. Is it Gabriel, or Moroni? You choose Moroni? Through which line of untainted heavenly revelation do you do this? How do we weigh “evidence” in these situations, and how do we separate individual opinion/evidence/revelation which contradict other opinions/evidences/revelations at odds with our own experience?
Paul,
My point was that since spiritual experiences lead people to contradictory conclusions, how can they be considered indicative of anything reliable?
You said: “Solid or not, in some cases it is the only evidence we can possibly have.” I’m not sure if that’s true in principle, or just true wrt evidence currently available. Even wrt the resurrection of Christ there is textual and historical evidence re the claims of the resurrection that we can examine. It’s possible that at some point in the future we could have additional evidence that more conclusively supports or contradicts the resurrection story. Even with the meager evidence we currently have, many New Testament Christian scholars reach the conclusion that the resurrection story is not a literal physical event for a variety of reasons having to do with how the story evolved from the earliest Christians forward through the writing of the Gospels, discrepencies in the story, etc.
Assuming you believe in the resurrection, do you believe it based on a specific spiritual experience or based on a spiritual experience that has testified to you of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith and it along with many other things follow from that?
Do Muslims typically claim “testimonies” in the Mormon sense?
I’ve read a bit about Islam and I know some Muslims, but I’m not aware that they do.
This thread has been the occasion for much venting of opinions not directly or even indirectly related to the question of Talmage Bachman’s now notorious anonymous exit story in which, for reasons that are not clear, he made a fuss about a conversation he once had, after he had ceased to be a believer, with his Stake President. The fact is that Randy Keyes did not cause or contribute to Talmage’s apostasy. Talmage sought him out to give his reasons for leaving the Church. And it seems that Randy listened carefully and tried his best to understand what Talmage was telling him and then also to provide a bit of wise, kindly counsel.
I had, beginning on 4/19/2005 and ending on 6/24/2005, an email exchange with Talmage Bachman in which he sent me sixteen very long, often rambling email messages covering a host of issues. He brought up and described in some detail his interview with his Stake President. He made a big fuss about it. But he would not provide me with a copy of his exit letter, though he was privately circulating it to those on the Recovery Board (RfM). In his messages to me he had much to say about his conversation with Randy Keyes. I found his remarks rather bizarre. To illustrate I will quote one passage in an email from Talmage dated 4/24/2005:
“My stake president, instead of addressing my several questions directly, told me that he had gone to a meeting in the Salt Lake temple as a bishopric member down in Utah, after the Salamander Letter had been released, but before they knew it was a hoax. And he said that Pres. Hinckley (who ran the meeting) had begun his remarks by saying that ‘the claims of no church on earth will withstand the light of historical scrutiny, including ours’, and then concluded them by saying that despite all that, what he did know was that he was a better husband and father because a member of the church. My SP went on to say that he too knew that some of the things hadn’t happened, though, in other remarks, he said that he believed that the BOM characters were real, though he wasn’t certain other times (he said he had recently asked Elder Eyring about the ‘knowledge’ thing on the SP teleconference); and then in other remarks, he said that the bottom line was that because the church helps us be better husbands and fathers, it just doesn’t really matter what happened or not 180 years ago. You can imagine that this was very much unlike what I had expected to hear, and I kept asking him to make sure I wasn’t hearing things. At one point, I even said, ‘So, if Joseph Smith wasn’t actually ordained by Peter, James, and John, or didn’t really have golden plates, and all those things, you don’t think that matters?’, and he said, ‘No’.”
Is there a way of telling whether Talmage has twisted, embellished, or distorted what Randy Keyes must have told him? The answer is obvious. If Elder Hinckley had said what Talmage claims he was told he said, then someone in that Solemn Assembly–there must have been over 500 present– would have mentioned it to someone, since it would have been sensational news–and word of such a opinion would have reached the press. The simply fact is that Elder Hinckley consistently said the exact opposite of what Talmage attributes to him.
I am confident that Randy Keyes tried to convince Talmage that his membership in the Church had hopefully made him a better husband than he otherwise might have been trying to make a living in disgusting pop music world.
Notice that Talmage admits that Randy told him that he believed that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text–that is, that “the BOM characters were real.” I would not be surprised that he also told Talmage that he doubted elements of folk Mormonism. And that he should not make a fuss about such things. I flatly reject much of what Talmage considers “what the Church claims to be,” since it seems to me simple rubbish.
I am now preparing all 35 email messages I exchanged with Talmage so that they can be made available on a web page. This will allow anyone who is intersted in seeing Talmage at his best and away from his adoring fans on RfM.
What seems clear is that Talmage thinks that Latter-day Saints simply do not care, in his words, “if the Church is what it claims to be.” He attributed this opinion to me. But he is flatly wrong. I care deeply about this issue, and I have have from the time I started reflecting on my faith.
Talmage seems to think that, if a Latter-day Saint such as me really cared about that issue, they would instantly see that their faith is among the most demonstrably false of possible beliefs. He assumes that, if one cares about truth rather than merely utility narrowly understood, then one simply cannot be a believer. So it turns out that in the first email message to me in which he mentioned his meeting with his Stake President, Talmage insisted that he doubted if Randy Keyes “would even want to know” if the Church was not what it claims to be. Anyone at all familiar with Talmage Bachman has encountered this mantra. It is for him, it seems, a kind of magic formula. He seems to believe that, as he did, if one ever stops to consider the question of whether the restoration is true, then it will immediately become clear that it is simply false.
Talmage’s recent open letter to Elder Monson contained his famous question. He offered to enlighten Elder Monson, if his answer was yes. Then he would discuss with Elder Monson the contents of three books that Talmage is confident will demonstrate that the Church is not what it claims to be. Here and now I offer to take Elder Monson’s place and discuss on the Fair blog the merits of the three books he brought to Elder Monson’s attention. I would like to begin, if Talmage is willing, with Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. I doubt that Talmage will take me up on this offer. Why? In my exchange with him, I never could get him to read a single essay or engage in a substantive conversation. The reason he always gave for refusing to do so, is that, despite my emphatic indication that I really would like to know if the Church is not what it claims to be, is that it was clear to him, despite what I said, that I simply would not like to know. So there was not reason to have a conversation on such matters with such a one as me.
Talmage also attributed to me the odd notion that I believe that the truth of any and every “religion” is solely its utility as a social cement. The fact is that I have written a long history on that very idea in which I argued strenuously against it. But Talmage would not read that essay. What I discovered in my correspondence with him He really believes, for example, like those on RfM, that Dan Peterson is a liar and an evil monster. Be that as it may, Tamage hears what he wants to hear and believes what he believes. No doubt, Talmage is sincere; he really believes what he attributes to others. He fits what he hears into his own, to me, scrambled understanding of Mormon things.
If you are the Daniel Peterson, then you certainly know a lot more about Islam and Muslims than I do!
You raise an interesting and important point. From my limited experience, it seems that the Mormon concept of a testimony, if not unique, is relatively unusual among Christians. (I do not know enough about non-Christians to say.)
Those Christians who try to convert me tend to dismiss spiritual manifestations as mere emotion. They are more likely to cite the Bible, theology, and tradition as grounds for their faith.
Lou wrote:
Talmage seems to think that, if a Latter-day Saint such as me really cared about that issue, they would instantly see that their faith is among the most demonstrably false of possible beliefs. He assumes that, if one cares about truth rather than merely utility narrowly understood, then one simply cannot be a believer.
One of the ironies I perceive in Bachman’s current infatuation with charging believing LDS with being closet utilitarians is that Mormonism has been historically hostile to the notion of utility absent truth. Indeed, that hostility underlies the famous phrase:
… there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it …
There has always been the recognition that, despite its undeniable utility, traditional Christianity was deficient precisely because it lacked the necessary saving truths that the restoration provides. To suggest that 21st century Latter-day Saints would select Mormonism as their preferred utilitarian vehicle seems illogical when one considers the significantly greater sacrifices of time, talents, and money demanded by Mormonism as compared to other religions that, it could be argued, offer just as much utilitarian value.
Dan Peterson wrote:
Do Muslims typically claim “testimonies” in the Mormon sense?
I’ve read a bit about Islam and I know some Muslims, but I’m not aware that they do.
Dan, they don’t do it in the Mormon sense, but if I ever heard a Muslim testimony, I heard one a couple of days ago. (See my post in the “Seven admirable things about Islam”.) They don’t do it in the way Mormons do, and you should know – ask any devout Muslim what he thinks of Muhammad or the Quran, and where they stand in regard to “the truth”.
B. H. Roberts apparently did not consider Muhammad a fraud, but a prophet raised up by God:
So, what happens when the evidence contradicts? I have not studied the matter in any depth; however, my guess is that we tend to disagree far more about the interpretation of spiritual events than the events themselves.
Hey, not to change the subject, but I have been trying now for almost two days to get onto YouTube to watch more of the FAIR videos and I can’t seem to get to it. Is it down or something?
Paul wrote,
So, what happens when the evidence contradicts? I have not studied the matter in any depth; however, my guess is that we tend to disagree far more about the interpretation of spiritual events than the events themselves.
Paul, considering B.H. Roberts’ statement, does Mormonism qualify under:
God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive.
I don’t think Roberts believed that in regard to Mormonism, which he would say is “the fulness”. The Muslims I have talked too don’t believe that Islam is relative. They believe there is one God (Allah), and one messenger, Muhammad. I’m not sure what the interpretation of spiritual events can yield, and I don’t think those events are even similar, in regard, for example, to how the Book of Mormon was produced, and how the Quran was produced. What I observe is that devoted Muslims have an absolute conviction of Islam, so absolute that it too often produces crazy fanatics, who often distort true Islam. One really has to wonder why God would give one billion people “relative truth”, according to their needs, be it Islam or Catholicism. In this case one could also argue that Mormonism suits the current needs of many, and is in that sense also relative. I know you don’t believe that, but given Roberts reasoning, it has to be a possibility. I realise that the True Believing Mormon (“TBM”) is as disinclined to entertain this idea, as is the True Believing Muslim (“TBM”) 🙂
Actually, I do believe something very much like that. In other words, I believe that Mormonism is true, but it does not (yet) comprise all truth.
Let me offer three quotations in support of this idea. First, consider the Ninth Article of Faith:
Joseph Smith gave us an idea of how little we know:
Then there is the statement of Brigham Young, which I posted here earlier:
Statements such as these lead me to believe that God, as B. H. Roberts wrote, “always giv[es] that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive.” Although I believe in Mormonism wholeheartedly, I expect that God will continue to reveal more according to our readiness to receive it.
Paul wrote:
Statements such as these lead me to believe that God, as B. H. Roberts wrote, “always giv[es] that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive.” Although I believe in Mormonism wholeheartedly, I expect that God will continue to reveal more according to our readiness to receive it.
I believe there is a lot more, a whole lot more, and that it’s not confined to coming from LDS prophets, and in fact at times may even contradict what the prophets have said. The “burning” hasn’t only come to me from reading the Book of Mormon, and I see a common spirituality in human beings, whether one is Mormon or Muslim or Buddhist (and I’ve had very lengthy talks about this with a Buddhist friend as well – I always seem to be attracted to the “religious types”).
My personal regard and respect for Mormonism still remains higher than for any other religion, but I’m afraid my “TBM” status got lost long ago.
Back to the topic of the post, Bachman is still posting, and adamant that he did not misunderstand Randy Keyes. I’m not sure, either, whether Bill Hamblin’s aim to post Bachman’s emails will solve anything in regard to this particular episode with Keyes. As they say, even a stopped clock tells the time accurately twice a day. No matter how faulty or dogmatic his arguments in the past may have been, it’s perhaps wise to retain an open mind to this particular episode. Bachman’s problem with credibility really goes back to his hugely inflammatory comments about Mormonism in the past, including his “Death Cult” post on RFM. He has ridiculed the Church, he has ridiculed Dan Peterson and others, and he has done considerable mind-reading, including some on me. It’s always nice to find out what you really believe, and even more so, what you should believe. When it becomes personal, as with President Keyes, Bachman’s sensitivity antennae stretches all the way out (so far anyway), but he never extended this courtesy to other Mormons. I suppose it’s true that “there are two kinds of people in the world, those you love, and those you don’t know”.
Correction to my above post: It should refer to Louis Midgley as aiming to post the 35 emails, not Bill Hamblin.
Louis Midgley,
I for one would be extremely interested in those 35 emails you are preparing. Please do make them publicly available. Will you be posting them here on the FAIR blog? I look forward to reading them. I’ve found this post and entire commentary fascinating.
I have indicated to those who operate Shields that, if they wished, they could post that entire email exchange. They seem interested. There has been no discussion with anyone at Fair about posting those items.
You may have noticed that Ray Agostini, see above, is fully aware of Talmage Bachman’s rather unseemly diatribes on RfM. He seems to know of one item that I have not collected. Hence the following: “Bachman’s problem with credibility really goes back to his hugely inflammatory comments about Mormonism in the past, including his ‘Death Cult’ post on RFM. He has ridiculed the Church, he has ridiculed Dan Peterson and others, and he has done considerable mind-reading, including some on me. It’s always nice to find out what you really believe, and even more so, what you should believe.” I could not have said it better.
Some who flee the community of Saints just cannot move on. Just as in bad marriages, lust or love often turns into hatred that may last a livetime and spoil everything. Notice that those who frequent RfM, or who spend day and night maoning about the Church of Jesus Christ on boards, blogs and lists also hide their identify under handles.
Louis,
I should qualify that I do not object to what you plan to do, though I wonder if it will have much effect. I have had forum PMs and private email correspondence wistfully thrust into the open by Exmos. Their excuse? I was a defender of Mormons. No, they didn’t tackle my arguments fully, took my words out of context, and they never even understood them in the first place! And I got tired of making clarifications for their prejudiced minds with eyes single to the destruction of Mormonism. The unbridled nonsense that comes from some of their keyboards is a salient lesson in how to stunt your life in obsessive bitterness at a former religion. It’s a “zoo” well worth studying. Tal is now torn because he doesn’t understand the subtle mechanisms that govern belief, nor the spiritual forces that motivate belief, and has tried to exploit any achilles heel he could find. He may well be learning an important lesson here. And that lesson is that his Mormon experience isn’t a universal truth experienced by all. He can’t comprehend why many continue to believe in the face of insurmountable “facts” he sees, including his beloved former stake president. One thing I have to say positively about Tal, his reaction to this shows that he has some heart, and he’s genuinely torn about this. At least that is how I read it. In this sense, inflaming the situation may make it worse. I don’t know why Tal became so obsessed with attacking his former religion, or anything that moves above ground supporting it. Maybe the clapping crowds at RFM beguiled him. More fame was too enticing.
I don’t even bother with message boards anymore.
Back in college, I got involved in a message board on a particular hobby I had at the time. It was fun and all, but the mental level of discourse and, more importantly, the level of civility seemed really lacking. After discovering online Mormonism, I checked out a few message boards. I found that the same mentality held for Mormon-issues message boards that held for hobby message boards: Low-level discourse and a distinct lack of politeness.
If my own experience is at all typical, Seth is right about boards and especially about those on the fringes of the LDS community. For example, a glance at RfM reveals an unseemly jungle among those presumably in therapy in a mighty effort to “recover” from what they imagine is a terrible disease. But I wonder if blogs always avoid this problem. Or is it possible that the nacle might sometimes merely be the latest version of a Hobbesian electronic state of nature–an arena “red in tooth and claw,” lacking in the civility that strict obedience to rules tends to make possible?
Oh, we on the nacle are uncivil our share of the time. All I’m saying is that there seems to be a definite difference in tone on the bloggernacle vs. the message boards.
But then again, this might simply be because the permas aren’t as shy about banning people when they get ugly, or start hijacking the conversation. Whereas the message boards seem to almost enjoy troll-baiting.
”still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”
Still reprising. I’d have to agree, though as to:
Back in college, I got involved in a message board on a particular hobby I had at the time. It was fun and all, but the mental level of discourse and, more importantly, the level of civility seemed really lacking. After discovering online Mormonism, I checked out a few message boards. I found that the same mentality held for Mormon-issues message boards that held for hobby message boards: Low-level discourse and a distinct lack of politeness.
Too often true.
As I say, I’ve found his behavior positively weird.
We are all a little weird to others.
In view of Tal Bachman’s recollection being called into question by his Stake President I thought it would be valuable to post some of Tal’s original posts regarding his meeting with his stake president from 5 years ago. Note that Tal’s posts were made within days of his meeting of his meeting with his former SP while his memory was still fresh. As a lifelong member of the church who was struggling to maintain belief, Tal’s story resonated with me so I saved most of his posts from 5 years ago.
I think it’s important to point out that
#1. Tal’s story remains consistent through the years
#2. He took copious notes following his encounter and
#3. Is collaborated by his wife’s story.
I have left his posts exactly as he posted them 5 years ago…but they may not be posted in the order of their original posting order.
I hope the good folks at F.A.I.R will be fair and allow my post…
**********************************************************************
Unreal. You’d think a guy slandering me (wonder if I could sue…?) could come up with something better than “everything”…lol
But on the other hand, I said and thought a lot of the same kinds of things when I was in church. It’s probably karmic justice. I was just as stupid.
Oh well. Truth is, my “sin” was to volunteer, despite the fact I was also to a significant degree running our branch here, to teach the Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine class, and to really, really study it hard. I was as shocked as I can imagine being turning up problem after problem, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, the totally bizarre and disconfirmed JS Translation of the Bible (yeah, I know it’s not “canonical” – but JS said it was finished, didn’t he, despite what the apologists tell me?), and it just went on from there. Each time I tried to find an explanation for what seemed like a devastating problem, I just found more problems. The witnesses, the DNA, the different First Visions, the revival issues, the changing Moroni/plate stories, the confidence schemes, the out of control sexcapades, everywhere I looked, every way I approached, all I found was more and more to be concerned about, more and more that seemed only to be able to equal “fraud”.
And the only time literally that I went on to the internet for anything was to go the http://www.lds.org or FARMS site – I’ve got a zillion books and articles and wanted to stay away from the “anti-Mormon” stuff on the internet. Little did I know that virtually everything I would much later see on so-called “anti-Mormon” sites I had already found in OFFICIAL church resource books, or histories written by Mormon historians working out of the historical archives.
And of course, what can I say about FARMS that hasn’t already been said? To encounter yet ANOTHER devastating problem, and then to go running so hopefully to those ridiculous FARMS articles and reviews, each time hoping to see the problem solved, but each time seeing, after close reading, that the fundamental problems weren’t solved at all (leaving me to conclude that there really WAS no faith-promoting response), I have to say, was truly agonizing. Even now, they seem to have no clue how bad their stuff is. So be it, I guess.
The first time I ever did look up some non-church or FARMS stuff on the internet was also the last time I would ever sit down at my computer as a still believing Mormon – I went looking for Stanley Kimball’s Ensign article on the Kinderhook test results, and then ran a google search to try to find a copy of the original Wm. Clayton diary entry about the mysterious plates that JS had gotten from Kinderhook, Illinois. I read Clayton’s diary entry – and all of a sudden, everything seemed to melt, and I just knew. I knew like BH Roberts “knew” that Clayton wasn’t inventing the story (see OHC Vol. 5). That was like the 18th smoking gun or something, and all of a sudden, in the most surreal, shocking experience of my life, I knew. The good news – I solved every single problem I had been trying to answer. The bad news was, my entire life seemed to implode…
And you can tell your advisor, if he cares, that very far from being an unwillingness to repent of a sin, or that I had “stopped praying”, I had never prayed more in my life than the two years I was serving as GD teacher and wading through this stuff and helping run the branch. I might be ill-informed about some things, but if I am, it could only be because the men who started the church misinformed me, because it is their words above all that I focused on and took seriously. The sad truth is that taken in totality, they tell a story unlike the official story now, and there’s just no way to make that go away.
Before that moment, I had been very emotionally reserved always. Once it all clicked, I spent the next several weeks crying very easily, to the point where I was genuinely embarrassed, totally mortified. Our entire lives – lives that I had never had a complaint about at all – would change, and the truth is, for the first little bit I wanted to try to get back into the bubble. But you just can’t unsee what you’ve seen, or unknow what you already know.
As I’ve mentioned before, I felt relieved (and nearly as shocked as that Kinderhook moment) when in a meeting with my SP, he said that he felt sure that many of the founding “events” of the church didn’t happen the way they are reputed to have happened, but that that didn’t matter really, since the church made us better people. I even asked him if I should resign my callings now that I knew the founding events hadn’t happened, and do you know, he said, “I don’t see why you should, if you’re willing to stay in the church and try to have spiritual experiences”. That blew my mind. I was the second counselor at the time. Literally, I could be the Branch President right now (the other guy was about to be released when I went) of the Salt Spring Island, BC Branch of the church, called by an SP that knows I know the stuff didn’t happen. But it wouldn’t matter as long as I didn’t make a big deal out of that fact. Or whatever.
But after thinking about it for a week or so, I finally thought, “I can’t live a lie”. So, I left. I guess not wanting to live a lie was another one of my big sins.
I wonder if I’ll really go to hell for actually doing what I thought I was supposed to do – devote probably 20 hours a week to my callings, actually read things like the Official History of the Church, JS’s diary entries, the scriptures, etc., pray more intently than I ever had while holding all my FHE’s, family scriptures, the whole bit, and then, after my Stake President conceded to me that Joseph’s stories very well could all be fabrications, decide I won’t lie to my children, and told them what I had found, and what my SP had admitted.
All I can say is, I’m very much at peace with my decision. I feel as though God could walk in to the room right now and I would be happier to see him than ever; and harbour no doubt that he would feel about the same way most of the six billion people on this planet would on the topic of the truth or falsity of Joseph’s claims.
T.
My story would take an entire book to recount, but in a nutshell…
My entire adult life, since leaving on my mission, I was on the Packer/Benson ultra right wing of the church, and never had a complaint at all. I based my whole life on the church, getting married right after my mission, having seven children, etc.
I became the Gospel Doctrine teacher in January of 2002 (Old Testament), and continued on throughout 2003. As a result of the intense study I undertook in that calling (in order to do the job I thought I was supposed to do), I, to my surprise, kept uncovering more and more disturbing indications that Joseph was not a prophet in the way he was reputed to be. Absolutely certain I would find the answers to the questions that kept popping up, I began in earnest to try to find those answers, consulting all the resources I had (I think I have every notable church book ever published, without exaggeration), all the FARMS stuff I had, all the Nibley stuff, everything; but the more I tried to get the answers, the more I just kept finding more and more problems.
To clarify, when I say problems, I don’t mean “Joseph married a fourteen year old”. I mean, evidences that are devastating to Joseph’s supernatural claims, like, that the eleven witnesses didn’t actually see any plates, ever; that Joseph’s religious stories, as Isaac Hale noted, bore an unnerving resemblance, structurally and stylistically, to the con man stories he told while trying to dupe gullible farmers into paying him for necromancy; that his claims for the Book of Moses are literally impossible; that the Book of Abraham “translation” of the Book of Breathings scrolls, is no such thing; that the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible is shown to be a fantasy by every available ancient Biblical text ; et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Anyway, this went on for two years, until I wound up reading over the Kinderhook Plates incident in the History of the Church. I then tracked down the original diary entry of William Clayton, and read it – and in that instant, everything clicked. In that instant, I knew that William Clayton hadn’t made his account up out of whole cloth, as essentially alleged by Stanley P. Kimball in his bizarre 1981 Ensign article about the forged Kinderhook Plates; but moreover, Joseph’s whole (actual) story clicked, every question mark vanished, and I realized, to my total shock, that the answer to all those otherwise totally unanswerable questions, was that Joseph Smith had not had the kinds of experiences he (eventually) claimed to have had. The church was a fraud. Because of this, my life, based as it was on the church, was something of a fraud. In that instant, I almost wanted to climb back into the bubble, so fearful was I about life on the outside. I never wanted out – all I had wanted was to stay in, and I naively thought that since the gospel was everything I thought it was, that studying would answer questions, not prove that Joseph Smith was just another one of the thousands of charismatic religious geniuses this planet has known.
Distraught, I visited with my stake president, who to my amazement, said that he too knew that many of those stories had not occurred as they were reputed to have, and who implored me to stay in church since it was “a good way to live”!
I considered this for a week or two, but then, once my wife started to crash (she did a bit of research after I dropped the bomb on her, and realized I was on to something), and once I began seeing the church for what it really was, I resigned my callings and never went back. This, though up to that time, I had been the most devout member I knew!
That was last October, I think (one strange thing is that over the course of those first weeks, I totally lost track of all time. I felt so overcome and emotional and upset, that I literally could not tell whether I had met with the stake president a week earlier or four weeks earlier. It was the most surreal time of my whole life…). I have not even been able to remember the conversation I had with my wife, in which I told her it was a fraud. I was in a total stupor of shock for weeks.
I can remember my meeting with the SP with great clarity, probably because I reiterated the entire conversation to my wife over the phone immediately after walking out of his office, and also because I typed up a description of it when I got home, and also, because he said essentially the same thing to my wife about a week later. But beyond that, the weeks between October and December are a total blur. I rarely show emotion, but whenever the church thing would come up with my wife during that period (which it did constantly), I would start tearing up again. It was really embarrassing!
I began posting on here as RB, and then finally, a few weeks ago, I started talking about it publicly. I was flattered that the Globe and Mail, which is Canada’s version of the NY Times, did an article on me leaving the church.
Now, people who were lauding me as a Mormon hero mere months ago, are now accusing me of “going anti”, as if I’ve been posessed or something. But I’m not “anti” at all – the truth is, I couldn’t care less what happens to the church. It’s not what it claims, but so what? I am about as upset about that right now, as I am that the Raelians aren’t what they claim. Bottom line is that I gave my whole heart and life and soul to the church, and my whole adult life is testimony to that; and it stands as all the rebuttal I need to make to those who now are spinning every kind of yarn about my “apostacy”, or who are accusing me of every kind of secret desire to sin, etc. The sobering truth is, the only reason I’m out, is that the church isn’t what it claims. But that’s not really my fault, is it? It’s not really my fault that I found out that Joseph Smith fabricated his tales, anymore that it’s my fault I found out that Paul H. Dunn made up his, you know? How was I supposed to know that (as one might expect if it were fraudulent), the most damning evidences of the church’s fraudulent nature are to be found in its very own literature?
Besides, the church doesn’t need any help from me in destroying “the gospel”; it is doing spectacularly well at that job itself, posting links to totally apostate FARMS articles (which the church funded), on its official website, which contradict the explicit identifications by Joseph Smith – and (supposedly) Jesus Christ himself in the D&C – of Natives as “Lamanites”, etc., revising downward the concept of eternal progression, erasing plural marriage from Mormon theology and history, etc. Who needs an “anti-Mormon”, when Gordon B. Hinckley’s running the church? All the Tanners need to do is stand back and enjoy the show. No, they don’t need me. If anyone’s “anti”, it’s the guy demolishing a century and a half of Mormon theology right before our very eyes, funding the demolition with the tithes of the very people basing their lives on the thing – not me.
What I do care about, though, is that people have access to information relevant to ascertaining whether Joseph Smith had the kinds of experiences he claimed; if they have acces to it, but either choose not to look at it, or look at it and decide to stay in anyway, is really up to them; I have to respect their freedom to decide. Who knows, they may have different needs than I.
But speaking of “anti”, I guess I’m “anti” being lied to, whether those lies are of omission or of commission. I don’t know what kind of institution tells lies to its members, and then when they finally get sick of being treated with such disrespect and disdain and dishonesty and resign, tells THEM that THEY are the ones doing something wrong for leaving, and then tries to scare them into staying in what can only be described as a profoundly abusive relationship. It sounds just like what you hear down at the woman’s shelter every night. I mean, whatever you call that kind of institution, I no longer want membership in it, and I no longer grant it any influence over my life. That I didn’t see it for what it was, was a result not only of my own willful blindness, but of my ignorance of the extent of the deception required to keep things going.
If Joseph Smith, as can be easily demonstrated, NEVER used “the plates” ever while producing the Book of Mormon, but rather, dictated the entire (original rough, grammatically retarded, trinitarian) book while staring at a rock in his hat, why shouldn’t that fact be made known to members?
If, as can be easily demonstrated, the eleven witnesses didn’t actually “heft” any plates at all, but rather, all saw them “in their mind’s eye” or in vision, why shouldn’t that fact be made known to members?
If the Book of Abraham “translation” was a blow-out, ditto?
If the Book of Mormon’s central claim – that American aboriginals are Israelites – is now known beyond any sane refutation to be false, why should that not be made known to members?
After all, if the Holy Ghost is as strong a testator of the truth as is claimed by church leaders, I can’t see why they should have anything to fear from information. If it is in error, shouldn’t the HG make that clear? And if it is accurate, wasn’t the whole thing supposed to be about truth anyway? There is no justification for a church claiming to be “the only true church” behaving in this way. There certainly, however, is an explanation…
Anyway, the point is, why should the survival and growth of “the church” be more important than “the truth”?
That’s a question only church leaders can answer for themselves; but for me, it can not be more important than the truth.
That’s why I resigned.
Best,
Hi Loving Member
Thank you for posting. I appreciate your kind words.
I hope you won’t be upset if I point out that your note, though I know it is well-intentioned, contains among other things the same tone of presumptuousness I have experienced in virtually every communication directed toward me by those who still believe the church is what it claims.
In your response to your assertion of mindreading powers in saying that you “know” I “don’t believe the rumors about Pres. Hinckley”, I would like to ask, “What rumors?” I’m not believing any rumors – I’m believing my eyes. I mean, this is a serious and fair question: If the doctrine of eternal progression does not mean enough to Pres. Hinckley to stand up for (and it has been three times now he has clearly downplayed it, in three different reputable news organs), how can a rank and file member be expected to base his entire life on it?
As for your comments about re-reading the scriptures, it was an intense, and I might add though you’ll disbelieve it, totally sincere immersion in the scriptures over the last two years as gospel doctrine teacher that really made clear to me some of the profound problems with many of Joseph’s claims. Don’t get me wrong – I think Joseph Smith has as much claim to being a bona fide prophet as any man who’s ever lived; it is only that he is not a prophet in the way he or LDS claim.
The Joseph Smith Translation is, to quote another commentator on Mormon scripture, a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end, and that is clearly demonstrable by comparison with the far more ancient Biblical texts we have now. The Book of Moses is a total smoking gun (I posted a piece on the Book of Moses if you’d like to search it out on here), in that Joseph unwittingly restored to its pristine condition the first few chapters of an original “book of Moses” (Genesis), which in fact never existed, and could not have been written by Moses; Genesis, as is the case with the other narrative books in the Old Testament, is a meta-history of the Israelites compiled by a later Israelite historian (probably Ezra) utilizing a number of original histories, which he spliced up and tried to arrange in chronological order.
So if, as I think will become clear to anyone who takes the time to dive in to study, the Joseph Smith Translation can not be what he claimed it to be, what does that mean about his claim to prophethood, at least in the way we understand prophethood? (and by the way, if the JST is what Joseph claimed it was, why hasn’t the church canonized it? Why instead has the church pointed out explicitly in the LDS version of the scriptures that it is merely an aid? No, it is NOT true that Joseph “never finished it”, unless of course Joseph himself was lying when he claimed to have finished it. I suggest to you the possibility that it has not been canonized because it clearly is problematic in a totally unsolvable way, ie, it is not, and can not possibly be for a number of reasons, an “inspired translation” or restoration of deleted text, and church leaders know it).
I next undertook the Book of Abraham, and no, the Book of Abraham’s original source papyrus scroll isn’t “lost” (as if one day, a papyrus scroll might show up that will be translated by Egyptologists into basically the current Book of Abraham!) – there is just no way to explain Joseph’s “translation” of the papyrus scrolls that even the church quietly admits he used for at least the first two chapters, without admitting the possibility that Joseph’s “translation” was the same as his “translation” of the Bible – an imaginative story from a prodigiously gifted religious genius (who in this case took his cues from Josephus’s tellings of Abrahamic legends – and yes, Joseph had the Josephus book, and even quoted from it).
I should acknowledge the other attempt at explaining how Joseph Smith could have claimed that a very common funerary texts containing instructions on how to make it in the underworld with no mention of Abraham at all, could be the Book of Abraham: that he used it merely as a device or trigger for receiving revelation. The only problem with this theory is that it is contradicted by Joseph Smith himself, who clearly thought and stated publicly and privately that he had translated the hieroglyphics (even going so far as to compile a dictionary and grammar, which by the way, is beneath the dignity of criticism, and a copy of which is available for purchase if you’re interested).
By this time completely freaked out, I sought to prove to myself that the Book of Mormon was indeed an ancient text; but my reading of that provided not answers but an ever increasing amount of questions that did not appear to admit of any answer other than that Joseph had composed it. This is not to say that is it not “scripture” in some sense, or that it is not “inspiring” or whatever – only to say, that it cannot be what it claims to be, an ancient text translated by Joseph from golden plates.
As I read, and re-read, the textual and structural giveaways seemed to pile up higher and higher. And I should add that at the very, very least, Joseph Smith by his own account has to be credited as a co-author of the Book of Mormon, since he revised enough passages, a number of which had important doctrinal implications which he changed, for the second and third editions. And I’m not even getting into the many other issues that all point to 19th century authorship under the hand of a young man brimming with ideas, and completely immersed in frontier America evangelical Christianity (with not the faintest idea of what Israelite religion looked like in 600 BC). Not bad – and to tell you the truth, anyone who can pull what Joseph pulled off, probably deserves to be worshipped (this is what he felt apparently, since the “second anointing” he instituted as part of the endowment ceremony included a woman kneeling before her husband, anointing him, and worshipping and deifying him).
Even the testimonies of the eleven witnesses imploded under the merest scrutiny, as I read several of them recount how that yes, they had seen the plates, although not in any physical way, and at least according to Martin Harris (claimed to be reliable by Mormons), the eight were pressured into signing a document written by Joseph that at least some felt uncomfortable about, since it represented that they had actually physically handled the plates, when in fact nothing of the kind had happened – which is to say, the individual testimonies of all eleven witnesses make pretty clear that none of them ever saw any plates, within the realm of physical reality. And I won’t even explore the fact that the FARMS guys are filling their diapers right now trying to explain away the fact that out of thousands and thousands of samples of Native Americans from North, South, and Central America, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON tested bears ANY genetic affinity with ANY semitic people, let alone Israelites, and ALL show overwhelming Asiatic ancestry. As proof that this is known by the church, I prophesy right now in the name of myself that the claim contained at this moment in your edition of the Book of Mormon stating that the book contains the history of the “principal ancestors” of the Native Americans will be REVISED OUT OF EXISTENCE in the next edition. I further prophesy that the church will continue to revise out of existence the bothersome little doctrine (unfortunately contained in the Doctrine and Covenenats and attributed to Jesus Christ himself, and preached for the last 175 years) that the Native Americans are Lamanites, or Lamanite descendants.
And then, for heaven’s sake, we get into the Kinderhook fiasco, and I’m sorry, I defy anyone on the planet to read the diary entry of William Clayton, a man whose diary is otherwise faithful and reliable enough for the church to base much of its official history on, regarding Joseph’s comments on his preliminary translation of plates the church now admits were part of a hoax, and DISBELIEVE IT. It is not possible. The Stanley Kimball spin job in the 1981 Ensign piece is completely sad – it is not possible to read the comments of Brigham Young, Parley Pratt, William Clayton, look at the broadside Joseph published, READ THE FIVE PAGES DEDICATED TO THIS INCIDENT IN THE BH ROBERTS’ HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, etc., and then deny that Joseph thought they were genuine. He thought they were, just as he thought the Egyptian papyrus scrolls were written in Abraham’s “own hand” (even the church admits now that can’t be true), and just as he thought he was restoring lost scriptures to the Old and New Testament, and just as he thought he had located the actual rocks used by Adam to build an altar in Missouri, just as he thought excavations in the Yucatan peninsula had corroborated his ripping yarn about Jews making it to the Americas, etc.
But, you know, I really don’t mind if you believe it all. I wouldn’t say you were making a mistake. That it is pretty easy to prove that the church is not what it claims doesn’t mean it isn’t a good thing for some people; for you, it might be great, and the question of whether foundational events like the First Vision, Restoration of the Priesthood, the visit from Moroni, and what Joseph’s own words suggest about the nature of these experiences, took place within the realm of physical reality or not, might not be as important as whether right now you are being spiritually fulfilled by church membership. And who can argue with this? I’d even probably agree with you. If this is the best thing out there for you, I say go for it.
I appreciate your concern for my salvation, but I am totally at peace, I feel more spiritual than I ever have, I feel a more intense love for my wife and children than I ever have, I feel a love for God and my fellow men that I never ever have before, and the many inconsistencies within the LDS gospel (I’m talking about the many changes in theology over the years, etc.) that appeared to have no possible explanation, now have one. It’s not the one I ever thought it would be, and it was very difficult for me to come to accept that explanation, since I have been on the “suicide bomber” Packer/Benson wing of the church my entire adult life and have made literally every decision of my life in accordance with what I could gather was the gospel way; but now that I know, I feel really grateful (if still a bit surprised), but mostly really at peace.
I have no animosity toward the church, although I feel that some of what the church does is morally wrong (ie, collecting tithes from people I taught on my mission in South America that were literally sucking on beef bones for dinner, in order to run a historical archive in which documents are kept secret which are, judging from the few that have been smuggled out over the years, completely damning to the church’s claims about itself. If the church is really what it claims, why hide anything? Do the GA’s not believe enough in the power of the Holy Ghost to let people know the church is true despite these documents? It is not right to demand so much sacrifice from so many struggling humans on the planet, and then have men like Elder Packer announce that “facts don’t matter” when Mormons are writing history, etc. And yet, I don’t feel a hatred or anything – it is just that this behavior is not right).
Perhaps to assuage your concern, I should say the following: Did you know, my concerned friend, that I have communicated about smoking gun issues with the First Presidency (at the behest of a member of the twelve), with an apostle, with a seventy, with institute directors, with BYU religion professors, with stake presidents, seminary and institute teachers, with bishops and gospel doctrine teachers, and have blown literally thousands of bucks on every pro-church resource, including all the FARMS and Nibley stuff I could lay my hands on, even making trips to Utah to collect resources, to try to reconcile what ended up as TOTALLY IRRECONCILABLE PROBLEMS? Did you know I’m the only guy you’ll ever have any contact with that took full-time institute classes for an entire semester? You don’t need to worry – this isn’t like I wanted to start smoking or something and looked for a way out.
It is just that………the church is not, and can not possibly be, what it claims. I know you have felt the spirit; I know you feel that that experience has confirmed to you that the church’s claims must be true. It is also true that virtually every human being on this planet has had those exact same kinds of experiences, even the not particularly religious. People have spiritual experiences. All kinds of people, in all kinds of places, within all kinds of religious traditions, and though the words they might use to explain them are different, there is one constant – all of those experiences are absolutely real to the person having them. The Muslims blowing themselves up in supermarkets in Israel feel every bit and more of that burning in the bosom that you feel; and the Christian that responds to the altar call and confesses Jesus feels it every bit or more than you do, and the Jew, looking over the Passover table at his children and grandchildren, participating in a ritual thousands of years old, connecting through that act with his ancestors and his posterity, feels it, too. It is part of being human, and part of searching for the divine within us and above us.
The author of the Book of Mormon essentially claims that feeling moved spiritually is an objective proof that the Book of Mormon is everything it claims to be; if you have surveyed the human family and your own soul and come to the conclusion that this is tenable, I sincerely wish you the best. I do not deny that you had this experience.
I also do not deny that I too have felt incredibly spiritually moved in many different ways, and I feel that a spirit of peace and joy has moved upon me as I have tried throughout my life to really understand what the gospel means, and never more so than now.
My questions about the behavior and motivations of Pres. Hinckley aren’t provoked by “rumors”; they have been provoked by Pres. Hinckley himself, as I have listened to him on television and radio interviews, read transcripts of others, read print interviews, etc. I wasn’t the only TBM puzzled by much of what he’s done; and I feel positive that he’s raised numerous eyebrows among the GA’s themselves. How could he not have? The only way not to be puzzled or concerned is to not actually have listened to him all that much in these interviews. It is hard for me not to wonder if perhaps you might fall into this category.
In any case, the church will become what it will become, and whatever will happen will happen, and as I said, even though it is not and can not be what it claims, it obviously works for you and others, and that’s fine. I wish you all the best.
RB
Tal wrote in his old RFM post:
In any case, the church will become what it will become, and whatever will happen will happen, and as I said, even though it is not and can not be what it claims, it obviously works for you and others, and that’s fine. I wish you all the best.
And then launches a full-scale attack on the Church, that has gone on for five years? He spent hours and hours checking up on DCP’s credentials in an attempt to discredit him as a “pseudo-scholar”. The vitriol against the Church has been unceasing. Even after Craig posted this on Mormon Dicussions, Tal is back at work, with a thread titled, “Defending Mormonism for fun and profit”, with this line:
One classic of amateur Mormon apologetics derives from the risible efforts of guys like Hugh Nibley, Davis Bitton, Richard Bushman, and Peterson (who never seems to have met an apologetic bandwagon he didn’t attempt to hoist himself on to), to cast doubt on the entire enterprise of knowing in the first place.
His bag of insults is never empty, and his obsession with “apologists” is tantamount to stalking. This is how Tal wishes his former brothers and sisters “all the best”.
Tal wrote: As proof that this is known by the church, I prophesy right now in the name of myself that the claim contained at this moment in your edition of the Book of Mormon stating that the book contains the history of the “principal ancestors” of the Native Americans will be REVISED OUT OF EXISTENCE in the next edition.
Wow, that really jumped out at me. This weekend was the first time I have ever even heard of Tal, but that comment is just striking. Seems to me that he really has his finger on something.
I have to wonder if FAIR/FARMS are confident in making prophecies about steps the Church will make in officially recognizing their views? Have they ever had predictions like this come true? From what I haven seen this weekend, it almost looks like the Church is only taking steps to distance themselves from the historical record (kinderhook plates, head in hat, Fanny Alger, etc.)
Angel Jones wrote:
I have to wonder if FAIR/FARMS are confident in making prophecies about steps the Church will make in officially recognizing their views? Have they ever had predictions like this come true?
My Reply: Don’t let Tal’s charisma charm you too much, Angel. He got this idea form the very scholars he debunks. This idea has been floating around since John Sorenson’s monograph An Ancient American Setting in 1985, and even before then.
In 2004 John Tvedtnes wrote:
“Principal Ancestors”
Metcalfe begins by quoting from the Book of Mormon introduction: “The Lamanites . . . are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” To be sure, he couches it in terms of what “most Mormons likely believe,” but why cite the passage without noting that the Review articles he attempts to refute have pointed out that the introduction is a modern statement and therefore not part of the canon itself? Popular beliefs, longstanding or otherwise, cannot supercede scripture. Continuing, Metcalfe claims that a majority of Latter-day Saints
hold this belief oblivious to the fact that over the last few decades LDS scholars at Brigham Young University and elsewhere have substantially altered this traditional view.
Findings from multidisciplinary studies of the Book of Mormon have increasingly led LDS scholars to shrink and dilute the book’s American Israelite (or Amerisraelite) population. Apologetic scholars now recognize3 (1) that Book of Mormon events could not have spanned North, Central, and South America, and (2) that modern Amerindians are predominantly of East Asian ancestry. (p. 20)
As should be clear, the limited geography view did not come about “over the past few decades” but actually began more than a century ago.4 Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve noted in 1993 that he had been taught this view while attending BYU in the 1950s.5 It had been taught in the Department of Archaeology at BYU even before that time and was the accepted view of the University Archaeology Society—later renamed the Society for Early Historic Archaeology—long headquartered at BYU. But antecedents go back even farther.6
In 1917, L. E. Hills of Independence, Missouri, a member of the RLDS Church, published a map in which he placed the hill Cumorah at Teotihuacn, a short distance northeast of Mexico City. He also considered the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to be the narrow neck of land separating the land northward from the land southward, meaning that most of the story of the Book of Mormon would have taken place in Mesoamerica, largely in southern Mexico and Guatemala.7
A number of Latter-day Saint researchers subsequently came to similar conclusions. In 1927, Janne M. Sjodahl proposed the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in southern Mexico, as the narrow neck of land mentioned in the Book of Mormon (although he still held a hemispheric view of Book of Mormon geography).8 Beginning in 1937, Jesse A. Washburn and Jesse N. Washburn suggested that the Nephites and Lamanites lived in Mesoamerica.9 The idea was taken up by Thomas Stuart Ferguson10 and ultimately acknowledged by Sidney B. Sperry in 1964.11 But it had been taught at Brigham Young University since the mid-1940s by such archaeologists as M. Wells Jakeman, Ross T. Christensen, Bruce W. Warren, and John L. Sorenson. Fletcher B. Hammond based his 1959 book, Geography of the Book of Mormon, on a Mesoamerican setting.12 But even these writers were latecomers compared to B. H. Roberts, who, in 1895, acknowledged Mexico as the region in which many important Book of Mormon events took place.13
Tal’s “prophecy” was a rational deduction pioneered by Mormon writers. The problem with Tal is that’s he’s a very selective reader, and he debunks what he doesn’t fully understand.
Oh, good grief. Plenty of people IN the Church (including the “apologetic community”) had been advocating such a change, since it was felt that people were getting the wrong impression from the intro text. There was even considerable in-house debate at the time the statement was written by Elder McConkie as to its appropriateness. He won out, but it’s not like there was some monolithic view that he was right on the money.
And people, had been saying stuff on their own, in General Conference, and in Church pubished manuals for about a century.
See:http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography:Statements
===
And, I fail to see why having an “early” record of Tal’s thoughts makes any difference. I’ve seen Tal misunderstand someone within MINUTES of a message board post, and stick tenaciously to his misunderstanding and misrepresentation ever after. The claim is not that Tal “forgot” what his SP said. The claim is that he persistantly misrepresents people. He did it 5 years ago, and he’s still doing it.
This ain’t rocket science. I prophesy, in my own name, that Tal will continue to misrepresent what people think.
Are you impressed? Why or why not? 🙂
Greg
Right, I don’t think it was Tal’s idea, but he made the prediction about what the Church would do (change it’s earlier official stance). Are you saying that the change in the official stance came about because of campaigning by Sorenson/Ferguson/Roberts/Tvedtnes? Did any Mormon apologist actually predict in print that this change would happen? That is my point, I guess.
Are there other changes in doctrine that the FAIR/FARMS crowd are proposing now that we may see come up in the future? I think that FAIRS/FAIR people generally recognize the head in hat translation method for example (at least that is my impression, and I will admit to having not a lot of knowledge of what FAIR/FARMS teaches); are they prophecizing/promoting/campaigning with the Church to reflect that in official artwork? That would seem to strengthen their legitimacy in the eyes of their critics to be sure, and undercut the power of Tal’s prophecy.
Angel wrote:
Right, I don’t think it was Tal’s idea, but he made the prediction about what the Church would do (change it’s earlier official stance). Are you saying that the change in the official stance came about because of campaigning by Sorenson/Ferguson/Roberts/Tvedtnes? Did any Mormon apologist actually predict in print that this change would happen? That is my point, I guess.
Tal was being melodramatic. If you want to call it a “prediction”, then I suppose you can view it that way. On another site Kevin Barney is quoted:
“I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon’s] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture,” said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. “These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church’s scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion.” (My emphasis)
I suppose Kevin could have become melodramatic and declare, “I prophecy in my name…..”
Excuse my ignorance, and Ray I really appreciate that you have a ready answer at hand for the stuff I asked about already. I know that we are now digressing far from the Tal Bachman story, so I’ll not ask more after this (I just got forwarded a link to this discussion and found it really interesting, even though I am not totally up on all the happenings in Mormon apologetics!). It is good to see that the Church is willing to change the official stance it takes on things in response to scholarship. Kudos to FARMS/FAIR for getting on the forefront of this one.
Are there other issues that FARMS/FAIR are driving to have the Church change the official stance on? Could you point me to some of those?
Angel:
Are there other issues that FARMS/FAIR are driving to have the Church change the official stance on? Could you point me to some of those?
I’ll let FARMS/FAIR writers answer that one. My take is that they don’t proactively “campaign” nor advocate change. As Kevin Barney said, “someone is paying attention”. It’s not my business what FARMS do. I only add my opinionated 2 cents.
I have been hoping that Talmage Bachman would find his way to this blog so he could explain some things in his “My Abbreviated Exit Story,” currently available on something called postmormon.org. He claims that while he was desperately striving to find some way of salvaging his faith, in October of 2003 he happened upon Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins while looking around Amazon. He claims he noticed a customer review indicating that Palmer “acknowledged the problem areas; but Palmer was also still a member, and a CES vet to boot.” Talmage seems to want the readers of his exit story to believe that he thought “maybe….maybe this guy [Grant Palmer] will be able to explain away some of this stuff” that had so deeply troubled his own “increasingly frantic, lonely, desperate search to resolve the problems [he] kept finding.” In his own words he claims that he had “exhausted every single mental trick I was capable of playing on myself to try to maintain some belief in it all, but to no avail.”
Talmage also maintains that he turned to Grant Palmer’s book for help in resolving his quandaries “because the apologists sure couldn’t.” He does not say which apologists failed him during his crisis of faith. But Palmer’s apology for apostasy, despite its serious flaws, which Talmage could have easily discovered, does not seem to have failed him. If we believe the most recent version of his exist story, it was Palmer’s book that finally took away the last vestiges of his faith. It is possible that his current lack of faith rests at least partly on reading Palmer’s book. Be that as it may, would he not even now, as a genuine seeker of truth, be anxious to see what might be said about that book and its author by its critics? Since I am one of these, should he not be anxious to be corrected, if he has been wrong about An Insider’s View? Should he not jump at the opportunity to defend Palmer’s addiction to a Romantic fairy tale about elemental powers?
In his “My Abbreviated Exist Story,” he begins with the following remark: “I’ve never typed the whole thing up before, but here is a somewhat abbreviated version for those interested.” Really? This is a strange statement. Is this a way of saying that “My Abbreviated Exit Story” is the first stab at writing such a thing? Or his first effort to abbreviate a much longer version that he previously fashioned? If so, thanks to what Craig Paxton just posted, it seems that Grant Palmer’s name does not appear in the much earlier and longer version or versions of his exit story, but it plays a very prominent role in the abbreviated tale. When one turns to his earlier account, Palmer is nowhere to be seen.
It seems that at some point in the past–specifically during his long gig on RfM entertaining the RfM crowd, it seems that Talmage became a Palmer disciple. Since he has recently recommended Palmer’s book to Elder Thomas Monson in that bizarre open letter, and has also repeatedly recommended it to those on RfM who were seeking suggestions on a book to help destroy the faith of parents, children, a wife or husband, should he not be anxious to defend that book in a public forum? I have invited him to do so. Will he agree to do this? I doubt that he will. Why? He has already told me in an email message very early this morning that “it kind of seems like the Palmer book’s time has kind of gone…it’s not exactly ‘top of mind’ these days, and like I said, I’m not really sure what else there is to say.” Why then did he recommend Palmer’s book in that letter addressed to Elder Monson? When on the RfM stage and hence performing before adoring fans, Talmage put Palmer’s book ever so high. But when challenged on its contents, he seems to have gone into an evasion mode. He is not, as someone has sung, “taking care of business.”
If anyone doubts the celebrity status that Talmage had and still has on RfM, even his name stirs a kind longing for what might appropriately be called the Bad Old Days. Someone calling herself Enigma, posting on RfM on 24 April, referenced the “glory days of RFM… When folks like Tal Bachman et all [sic] were regaling us with nearly unbelievable stories. Ah… those were the good times. These kinds of posts give RFM a rich tapestry of humanity. The human interest element was what drew me hear to begin with.” “Unbelievable stories” indeed. Comments like this sort of sum up the role Talmage has played with those folks as he brought “humanity” to that crowd with his gift for clever diatribes, laced with sarcasm, innuendo and personal insults directed especially at Dan Peterson. But in an an email to me today me he could hardly recall having said a harsh thing about Dan Peterson. Amazing. And, of course, there is Talmage with a heart who would not mind hanging with Randy Keyes. Even more amazing.
Boy would I LOVE to respond to this line of thought…but I’ll be a good boy and bite my tongue….
Craig,
As long as you are respectful, why not comment? This isn’t RFM; we don’t delete anything that is contrarian–as long, again, as it is respectful and civil.
-Allen
Well…let me take a stab at being respectful.
Brother (can I call you brother?) Midgley seems to want to make this about personalities. None of this is really about Tal Bachman, Grant Palmer, me or any other current or former member of the church. Who really cares if Tal is or is not respected, adored, admired or missed at RFM (dare I say the name). None of this is about Tal Bachman…it’s about the things that caused Tal to lose his belief in Mormonism.
Tal Bachman’s SP decided to speak up after 5 years of being silent…either through ignorance or choice. His time diminished memory (with a lapse of 5 years) of the content of their meeting is quite different then Tal’s contemporary memory of the night in question. So be it. Tal took copious notes immediately following the meeting. His wife had a similar experience to Tal’s when she met with this SP.
So now that both of the parties present at this meeting have publically spoken…all we, the viewing public, can do is weigh which of these two parties’ stories is more credible.
I’m going to take a wild guess and say that you, Bro. Midgley, are going to side with the SP and his time lapsed memory (it does serve your purpose). While those who no longer take the church at face value will side with Tal’s contemporaneous recollection of the events of that night. But please don’t make this about personalities. Bottom line, it’s really about the things that Tal discovered that caused him to lose belief in Mormonism.
Craig,
That was very respectful, and a welcome addition to the continuing conversation.
You may want to see my post earlier today about Tracy’s supposed corroboration of Tal’s statements about his meeting. From what I have seen, the corroboration is not really there; perhaps you know of other corroboration that I don’t.
Thanks, again, for your post.
-Allen
Who on earth takes “copious notes” of a stake president interview?
Strange fellow this Tal…
Who takes notes? Someone who goes to an authority hoping to have their sincere, honest questions answered in a meaningful way.
The note-taking goes to show just how highly Tal thought of his SP, not that he was strange.
That is just my reading, not knowing any of the guys involved.
Like I said earlier, I had never heard of this situation before this weekend, but I am shocked at how uncharitable certain people with names I recognize (Midgley, Peterson) have been in talking about him. I would say that at points their comments have been downright brutal. I would be lying if I didn’t say that I was more than a little disillusioned by their responses. Why make this about personalities rather than the issues brought up.
As one who has doubts of my own from time to time, I come away from observing all this thinking that I had better not ever let my doubts be known to any member of the Church.
Craig wrote:
I’m going to take a wild guess and say that you, Bro. Midgley, are going to side with the SP and his time lapsed memory (it does serve your purpose). While those who no longer take the church at face value will side with Tal’s contemporaneous recollection of the events of that night. But please don’t make this about personalities. Bottom line, it’s really about the things that Tal discovered that caused him to lose belief in Mormonism.
Craig,
I no longer take the Church at face value, either, and if you doubt me you can check out my blog. The issue here is more than just Mormonism, it’s about truth. I lean to the stake president’s account, and I’ll later detail why on my blog. I actually resonate quite a lot with what Tal says about his loss of faith, because I lost mine in the late 1980s and left the Church, from studies which began 19 years before Tal developed his own crisis of faith, which was very similar to mine. I fully understand why Tal no longer believes, and I fully understand why he cannot believe even if he tried. Many exmos talk about “belief bias”, but I also believe there’s something called “unbelief bias”. Very much so, and sometimes I see this in myself, which is why I’m careful to state that I’m “opinionated”, and I don’t “know” some things for certain. In spite of all I have read over 25 years I can’t get my mind around the idea that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I am quite sure that for a brief while I did believe this, but I feel uncomfortable with this position, because it’s not “obvious” to me. Mark Beesley stated on MDB that he was once in apostasy, but came back. Allen has written of his own crisis in 1990 on the other thread. The problem with some exmos is that they think that what they “know” must be universal truth. There is a lot I can’t accept in Mormonism, but it still fascinates me, however, like Tal, I am unable to be a true believer anymore. That doesn’t mean I “know” it’s a “fraud”, things which you and Tal seem to think is a foregone conclusion. So in this regard, I beg to differ. This isn’t only about Mormonism, it’s about truth, and if Tal got his facts mixed up, or engaged in selective hearing, or if the stake president really did say what Tal claims, then we must try to find the truth. By saying this is about Mormonism, you have shifted the goal posts. If Tal really did get this wrong, would you want to know the truth? Or will you let your opinions of Mormonism dominate your search for the truth on this issue we are currently debating? Mormonism is a fraud = the stake president must be lying.
No Angel,
Petersen and Midgely have been pretty civil.
You’re confusing them with other less civil comments like mine and others.
I think Tal is a high-maintenance fruitcake with a remarkable level of childish and immature thinking – topped off with an inability to write a coherent paragraph. But I’m not with FAIR or FARMS either, and I don’t have to be professional.
Because you are late to the fray you are no doubt unaware of a long history—going back years—of rather personal barbs between at least Tal and Peterson. And, I can tell you from being a sideline observer, that it was Tal who started tossing the barbs for many of the reasons that Ray A. mentions.
Even Tracy, in her talk at the Exmormon Foundation, talked about the rather bizarre side of her husband:
So, the side you haven’t seen, Angel (being late to the fray), is the bizarre side of Tal. And trust me—it is bizarre at times.
-Allen
So is Bachman going to step up to the plate when he has such a captive audience waiting for him to enlighten us about Palmer’s book? After all, if Palmer’s book really isn’t true, wouldn’t you want to know?
Angel:
Like I said earlier, I had never heard of this situation before this weekend, but I am shocked at how uncharitable certain people with names I recognize (Midgley, Peterson) have been in talking about him. I would say that at points their comments have been downright brutal. I would be lying if I didn’t say that I was more than a little disillusioned by their responses. Why make this about personalities rather than the issues brought up.
Angel,
Welcome to the Internet. 🙂
Who started all this really goes back a long way. Around 1990 FARMS began replying to anti-Mormon critics of the Church. Before that their focus was primarily on Book of Mormon scholarship, but seeing the onslaught of anti-Mormon attacks, they turned to answering their critics (and not all Mormons approved of this). Dan Peterson was the Editor of the journal which launched these replies, and true enough, they did sometimes do this with some sarcasm, in the same spirit they were being attacked. With the Internet, the replies to anti-Mormons went online, and this is where the “Internet wars” began. Let me tell you, sometimes it’s not a nice place to be, and it can get very nasty. However, I don’t believe Mormons have gone anywhere near as low as some of their critics have. In 2003 I was a critic of Dan Peterson, but I don’t ever recall him once calling me a name, or even insulting me. I was taken back by this, and admired his civility in the face of my taunts. But I have ceased posting on all exmo forums, and I’ll leave you to guess why. But if you want a hint, real dialogue and civility is severely lacking on them (I was banned from RFM, btw, in 2002. Some say I wasn’t, but every post I did was deleted, and that to me is as good as banning. My distinct feeling at the time is that they had nothing to complain about in regard to “censorship in the Church”, because they were just as bad. “Recovery” meant only hearing what a “demonic cult” Mormonism is).
Tal had an obsession with denigrating Dan Peterson, and doing everything he could to discredit him, whom he considered the “Chief apologist for the Cult”, and he continually attacked Dan from the protective environment of RFM. When Dan tried to occasionally reply there, his posts were deleted. So he gave up, but kept tabs about what was being said about him. As the insults continued, some return shots were offered, such as the term “Tali-Bachman” ( a reference to his “suicide bomber” comment), and “Tal Tales Bachman”. But this was only after repeated insults from Bachman. And if you ever debate Tal Bachman, you’ll quickly learn that if you disagree with him you can expect some flying jello coming your way. I have never seen Dan Peterson go this low, and I think it’s only human to occasionally respond in kind. I don’t always agree with their points of view, but “Mormon apologists” have been copping insults and attacks for far too long, and perhaps in some sense they became hardened to this. Unfortunately, real debate cannot occur in these circumstances. And it has not been a case of agreeing to disagree, but “If you don’t agree with me, you had better check the number of brains cells you have left”.
Again, welcome to the Internet. It’s not quite like a candlelight dinner.
There was never an “official stance” on the matter of the Book of Mormon introduction. Again, if you look at statements going back a century, people felt perfectly free to disagree or express agnosticism on those points. Including members of the 1st Pres. Including in gen conference. Including in other church published materials.
Elder McConkie supervised that particular project; it’s no surprise that his view is reflected.
FARMS/FAIR wasn’t at the forefront of anything. General authorities beat us by decades.
But, critics like to pretend that this is all something cooked up by FARMS/FAIR to salvage the Book of Mormon. It’s not. We’re just repeatedly shouting about it at the top of our lungs, because the critics won’t take the time to actually read what’s been written over the last century.
So, we collect them in handy collections like here:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography:Statements
But, it doesn’t seem to help. 😉 Tvtednes and Barney were only saying what many others had said for decades.
Most Mormons don’t care, and so didn’t/don’t know. Most critics care less.
Greg
Greg
I appreciate Craig Paxton posting the original and other later RfM versions of Talmage Bachman’s exit story. Yesterday I asked Talmage for a copy of his original exit story and I explained to him that I wanted to compare his initial account with his most recent version of his story, which I assume is the one that has come to the attention of Randy Keyes.
In 2005 I begged Talmage Bachman to send me a copy of his exist story. I offered to send him my essay entitled “The Utility of Faith Reconsidered” in exchange. I had hoped that I could thereby convince Talmage that I do not, has he insited, reduce the truth of religion to its utility as a social cement. He declined to make an exchange, giving various excuses. This morning Talmage indicated that at some point his computer had melted down and he had lost everything. He therefore, he claimed, provide me with a copy of that item he signed “RB.” He also indicated that he was confident that you had preserved a copy and he urged me to contact you. But how was I to do this? He seems to have done this for me.
The first thing I noticed when I started comparing what you posted earlier today with what his abbreviated version is the absense of Grant Palmer’s name in any of the items you have made available. I am puzzled by this, since Talmage has been praising Palmer’s book recently and it plays significant role in his abbreviated exit story. I wonder if you remember or have preserved records indicating when Talmage actually started talking about Palmer’s book.
Thanks to Craig Paxton I just noticed a curious remark by Talmage Bachman in one of those items he posted from files he has on RfM. I noticed that suddenly in the middle of some rambling remarks, Talmage announced that “since I have been on the ‘suicide bomber’ Packer/Benson wing of the church my entire adult life”–that is, presumably until he shifted to his current mode of being in the world. I suppose by “have been” he meant “was.”
This remark fit nicely his curious statement shown on the Helen Whitney special. I am almost ready to believe Talmage when he opines like this. He has a gift for these kinds of statements. I suppose that he imagines that by making statements like this, he actually enhances his authority on all things Mormon, at least with the crowd on RfM.
I almost hesitate to post this, but since exmos have dug into my old posts to try discredit me, here goes, a Tal Bachman post from RFM:
I continue to be torn over the question of what to think about husbands who have decided to keep their mouths shut, for fear of causing divorce, about the cult their children are being raised in – a cult, which as I mentioned in another post a month or so ago, would very literally rather see your son come home dead from his mission, than make public the FACTS about its history which it is currently hiding in its archives, and which are relevant to the question of whether Joseph tales were true or not. Those amiable, avuncular GA’s we like to pretend are so benign, would rather your child get shot than find out it’s a fraud. Why are we deluding ourselves? So we can justify our unconscionable lack of firmness?
But, I’m torn. On the one hand, I don’t want to be judgmental; on the other, I think it is absolutely sick that a grown man would allow his children to grow up being indoctrinated with a whole series of lies, lies which our own flesh and blood will reference for all of the most important decisions of their lives: when to marry, how many children to have, who to marry, who to donate money to, what to do for a living, which university to attend, what to risk your life for, etc. Does that sound macho? Probably. So, I’m kind stuck. It’s lose – lose – lose. I’m either judgmental, or macho, or, if I talk about my own experience, which as it happens, had a happy ending, I might sound boastful, though I’m relieved, not proud.
But since I’ve already done a good job of sounding like a judgmental misogynist anyway, I might as well mention my own experience. Maybe it will encourage some other guys out there to stop being bullied into keeping quiet about the one thing that you should NOT keep quiet about – the mental and emotional welfare of your children.
I spilled my guts to my wife. I offered to go through everything with her, all the church stuff that is, and talk it all over. She did her own research, realized what was up, and basically had a nervous breakdown. A few times she got angry at me for “pulling her out of the Matrix”. As a result of all the up and down stuff, we ended up pretty emotionally estranged by July/August of 2004.
Last night, we went out for dinner. She gave me a birthday card that said, “Thank you for saving my life”. She went on to say that she had felt (prior to finding out about the church) that she “was dying a slow death”, but couldn’t figure out why. The journey out had been terrible, but now she was happier than ever. She teared up.
A few weeks ago, I told her that sometimes I felt as though I hadn’t accomplished much in life. She looked at me and said, “You got us out of a cult”, and then gave me a huge hug. (RIGHT ON!) [SNIP] How much heartache has the world seen because men stood by and kept their mouths shut while other men were preying on the vulnerable, and using fear tactics to scare them into submission? It is in the power of every husband on here to stop this sick cycle in his own home and level, with as much love and understanding as possible, with those who need him the most.
(My emphasis)
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon414.htm
This should give anyone an insight into the sort of character Tal Bachman is.
Ummm…
Ray Agostini, what I don’t think you understand (if I’m wrong please correct me) Those of us who have given our entire lives over to the Mormon church, served tirelessly, given 2 irreplaceable years in 100% dedication, attended hours of mind numbing endowment sessions, paid 100’s of thousands of dollars in tithing, offered countless hours in faithful service, ad infinitum…only to later discover that everything you had established your entire life on was based on a fraud. (My opinion, and not the opinion of most of you here at FAIR) I don’t know…but how would you react if you had come to this same conclusion? With Joy?
Personally I feel robbed! I feel abused! I feel cheated! And knowing that the church continues to misrepresent itself to its membership (of which my own family still remains dedicated to) only fans the flames of pain.
I have a dear friend (who’s identity will remain confidential for fear of BYU’s long arm of retaliation) who is an associate of FARMS. I asked him recently why the church isn’t more honest in sharing its “REAL” foundational history with new converts. He laughingly responded by saying and I quote…”Don’t be silly Craig, if the church were honest about its foundational stories…NO ONE WOULD JOIN THE CHURCH”.
Now maybe he was just ribbing me and my stance on the church or maybe he was being dead on serious. But the fact remains that Christ’s Church would not need to misrepresent anything. And I believe that the mere fact that the church has made a calculated decision to teach its history as it wished it had happened rather than how it actually happened…says volumes to this once dedicated believing member. And I am NOT alone in this belief.
Once you view Tal’s or my comments through the lens of the party knowingly being duped by trusted leaders…I think the context of our remarks take on greater relevancy. (again I acknowledge that this is not your position {I’m trying my best to be respectful} but it is the perspective of those who have left the church based on its history and truth claims)
Craig,
Thanks for posting Tal’s old post on the subject. I think they are the best thing to compare against Randy Keyes’ open letter. At that point Tal was certainly angry and disaffected but not the celebrity ex-Mormon he is now. His personal squabbles with any other internet Mormons were not yet in the picture.
Taking Randy’s open letter, Julie’s open letter, Tal’s response and Tal’s original post, I think the picture is much clearer. I’d say the truth is somewhat in between what each source is claiming.
I thought it was interesting that Tal’s response wasn’t a tick-for-tack rebuttal as most internet dialogue seems to be.
Now for Brother Midgley,
Why all the stress over the Grant Palmer timeline in Tal’s loss of belief? Speaking only for myself…losing one’s belief does not happen because of “one chop of the ax”…it’s literally one straw of disquieting informational revelation at a time. I personally fought hard to maintain belief. It was the accumulation of overwhelmingly credible information that eventually broke “This” camel’s back.
For me the final straw was (as bizarre as it now seems) “Zelph”
I had bought (at huge expense) a first edition of BH Roberts History of the Church. When I read the stories of Zion’s Camp and the discovery of what Joseph Smith claimed were the bones of a white lamanite named “Zelph” … something snapped or perhaps a better metaphor would be “clicked”…a light went on and I saw Joseph Smith in a completely new light…as a great teller of amazing yarns. And this epiphany had a side bonus, every mind bending conflict in my mind completely disappeared. The Gordian knot loosened, my Mormon bubble burst and I was set mentally free.
Boy did I get off the subject or what? But Bro Midgley if you’d like to reach me feel free to email me at [email protected]
For what it is worth, an “open letter” response from Bachman has surfaced on the internet. Here’s his two cents (which he can keep as far as I’m concerned):
Pres. Keyes,
I am surprised by this letter. I have been posting about my meeting with you, literally, since the day after we had it. The very night we had it, I came home pretty much in shock, and wrote up an account of it in my computer diary, and then posted it under the alias “RB” on a bulletin board (exmormon.org) I found the next day. Yet today is the first time I’ve ever heard of you denying much of what you said that night.
To be honest, I’m not sure how much to say in public response to you, because I feel a deep appreciation for you. You were instrumental in me feeling relief from an exruciating cognitive dissonance. I walked into your office that night feeling like I had a thousand pounds on my back, having found out that I was wrong about everything most important to me in life, bewildered and upset, and I walked out light as a feather. And honestly, I’m not sure that that would have happened if someone else had been sitting in that stake president’s chair. For that, I will be forever grateful to you. I also feel grateful because you did the same thing in a private meeting about a week later for Tracy, in which, according to her, you repeated many of the same things you’d said to me.
I also know from our meeting and subsequent emails how much church life and service mean to you, and I have no particular desire to spoil that for you. I believe that church members are a lot better off with sensitive and candid leaders like you, than with dogmatic, domineering types. I also appreciate the effort you made to empathize with, and hear, Tracy and me. As I said in my original MD post, you’re always welcome as a friend to my house for those reasons. I feel that I owe you big time.
Three of the more trivial matters: I’ve never meant to claim that you said your MP made up stories. In writing, I had in mind the “rah rah” motivational speeches, numbers-announcing, competitions, etc., that you mentioned in the meeting, and which you referred to again in your recent letter. My apologies if my wording was unclear or misleading.
About the Book of Mormon characters you felt you were in the presence of, I remember you speaking of just how real that seemed, as though they were really there with you, and I understood you to say that part of this experience was an element of spiritual communication. Are you saying there was none?
Lastly, not sure if you were misled by an overexcited correspondent, but I said only that I “guessed” you were no longer stake president, because some months ago, an out-of-the-blue email correspondent said she’d heard there’d been a change, and I assumed the average term had expired and someone had replaced you. Not sure what the big deal is on this, though.
These items seem pretty trivial. More important, I suppose, is the question of what you conceded about the truth claims of the church. And on this, you ask how we can have such different recollections of the same meeting. To be really honest….I’m not sure that we do.
And……………..
While a part of me is burning to respond in detail….my deep appreciation for you, and my admiration for your wife and her desire to protect you and all that is most precious to you both, and my sympathy for the hurt she must feel, leaves me feeling that I should stop here.
I understand that my remarks may have put you in an awkward position; but I want to ask that in the future you refrain from claiming I have been incorrectly reporting your comments in our meeting, or that Tracy has incorrectly reported your comments in your subsequent meeting with her. (Do that, and some of your other comments, like your “spin doctor” comment which I’ve never repeated, will most likely go with me to the grave…).
I have a deep appreciation for you and wish you all the best. Please do us both a favour now, and stop.
Let me know if you want to hang somewhere where we don’t talk about this anymore. (I’d consider raquetball).
Regards,
Tal
A very wimpy response Tal boy.
What’s with the threats?
Tell us again about how you risked your life on your mission.
Craig:
Earlier you scolded me and claimed that I deal merely with personalities and strictly personal stuff. But when I asked you if you could say when Talmage Bachman encountered Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s View, you replied as follows: “Why all the stress over the Grant Palmer timeline in Tal’s loss of belief?” The reason is obvious. I have invited Talmage Bachman to defend Palmer’s book, a book he highly recommends. Hence it would be useful to know if that book really helped take Talmage out of the Church, or if he came to it later and read it back into his exit tale. If so, then it seems to function only as a prop rather than a peg for his unfaith. You may not know the answer and Talmage may not even remember.
If Palmer’s book played a role in his apostasy, then it turns out, I believe I can demonstrate, that he fled the Church for unsound reasons. Put another way, his passion for truth failed him; he should have wondered whether Palmer got much of anything right and also whether Palmer was ill qualified to opine about Mormon origins. I sort of hoped that you would say that Palmer’s book played a role in his apostasy. If it did, then he could not disown the book in the way he could if he turned to it later. But if he came to it later and recommends it for utilitarian reasons, he should explain why it was not mentioned in any of the versions of his exit tale you have posted.
Please recall that Talmage offered to hold Elder Monson’s hand and lead him into darkness by introducing him to, among other things, Palmer’s book. I am prepared to pull out one peg upon which Talmage hangs his unfaith. Having this kind of a conversation would involve substantive issues and arguments, would it not? And please remember that it is Talmage who keeps harping back to personal matters which end up amounting to stories about the pain–the urge to vomit, the tears, the depression–he experienced when he suddenly snapped be discovering that the Church is not what it claims to be. Keep in mind that his highly emotionl tale of woe involves a story about a staged interview with Randy Keyes. Please explain exactly what this tale has got to do with a substantive issue. It is Talmage who reduces everything to irrelevant personal matters, not me. If you doubt that this is the case, try to explain how anything that Randy Keyes might or might not have said in that interview is relevant to the question of truth about the restoration. If everything Talmage said is true about that conversation, so what? Put another way, how does the story of that interview demonstrate that the Church is not what it claims to be?
Finally, if An Insider’s View is not what it claims to be, would the truth loving Talmage Bachman care to know? If the answer is yes, then I am willing to discuss Palmer and his book with Talmage. But my hunch is that he recommends that book not because it contains the truth but because it is useful in taking Latter-day Saints out of the Church and keeping others from joining.
I find a number of things about Tal’s response rather curious.
Firstly, it seems to have a very passive-aggressive tone to it throughout. Having the appearance of a salutation to a long-time friend, yet incorporating repeated words of warning and hinted consequences.
It frequently hints at some very dark uncurrents, while covering them up with almost sickly-sweet sentiments that ring rather hollow, all things considered. His professed admiration and respect for the man are rendered null and void by his sarcastic invitations (racquetball?) and repeated threats.
It brings to my mind (if I may get scriptural for a moment) the image of a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
Reformed members, I give you your false prophet.
Kinda like those comments that tell you you’re going to hell, that you abuse your family and small animals and then tack a smiley-emoticon on the end.
Like that makes it all better or something.
Craig Paxton wrote:
It’s truly sad, Craig, that the defining moment for you was based on an obscure historical incident that has no connection to the foundations of Mormon belief, and was certainly misreported in the source B. H. Roberts used to compile the History of the Church.
For all its usefulness, HC is over 100 years old, and was compiled in a time when modern historic documentation methods had not been invented. The Zelph story is a perfect example — it was introduced by Roberts and altered by Joseph Fielding Smith, and represents a rather garbled version of what happened.
There are actually ten different written accounts of what happened on that mound in Pike County, Illinois. They have been compiled into a side-by-side table in Ken Godfrey’s very useful 1999 Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article, “What is the Significance of Zelph in the Study of Book of Mormon Geography?” (Unfortunately the online version of that article doesn’t include the table.) Reading the different accounts gives a better impression about how inaccurate the memories of that event were among those who were there.
So Craig’s exit story becomes a rather textbook example of being shocked at the supposed facts of a historic event and leaving the Church in disgust, only to discover too late that the facts weren’t quite what he imagined them to be. In other words, a tragic mistake.
Exactly like Tal Bachman’s experience with Grant Palmer’s book.
Craig wrote:
Ray Agostini, what I don’t think you understand (if I’m wrong please correct me) Those of us who have given our entire lives over to the Mormon church, served tirelessly, given 2 irreplaceable years in 100% dedication, attended hours of mind numbing endowment sessions, paid 100’s of thousands of dollars in tithing, offered countless hours in faithful service, ad infinitum…only to later discover that everything you had established your entire life on was based on a fraud. (My opinion, and not the opinion of most of you here at FAIR) I don’t know…but how would you react if you had come to this same conclusion? With Joy?
What makes you think I don’t understand this Craig? I did all those things, including three years as a bishop, two years as a highcouncilman, and in the end my (Church-originated) marriage ended after 22 years. Then I lost everything, including my children for six months, and ended up with $33,000 in debt, bankrupt. I could have blamed the Church for all this. Instead, I restarted my life by buying a $20 toaster, then working up to a car, selling my house and moving into a one-bedroom flat. I could have cursed the Church for all this, because that is where it all started. Joy? Oh no, it certainly wasn’t joyous going through that, and having the foundations of your life ripped from you, but worse things have happened; I didn’t have to spend 27 years in jail, like Nelson Mandela. Did he come out bitter? Did he curse the South African government for years and years? No, he restarted his life, and ended up president of the country. The choice is yours, Craig, you can choose to feel robbed of your life – or move on and find real peace. I have, and today I’m debt free after five years of working mostly 16 hour days, six days a week. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t still contribute your thoughts, ideas and experiences to others, but what are you trying to do, convince others (Mormons) that they really don’t know what’s best for them? Or, like Tal, keep trying to get them out of the “death cult”? My mother taught me a very valuable lesson when I was very, and it was only a four word lesson that stuck for life – “each to his own”. What makes you happy, or free, isn’t necessarily going to make the other person so.
Well, he did call it a “straw” – which seemed accurate enough to me.
I’ve heard a lot of deconversion stories and my impression is that while a lot of them point to the uncomfortable historical facts as the crucial element of the narrative, that’s rarely the true case. Usually, it’s about their emotional interface with the religion and what it is or is not doing for them based on their own expectations.
The history provides a convenient narrative, but so what?
Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims, pagans, Jews, and others find their religion meaningful despite all the “weird crap” floating around in the history. But they still find the meditation, the ritual, the tradition, the teachings something that adds value to their lives and enriches their world.
Why can’t Mormonism be enriching as well?
Because they feel it betrayed their expectations. And by golly, they’re going to get even!
I’m sorry for the pain you feel, Craig. I really am. If you don’t mind, could you please clarify something for me? You said that “everything you had established your entire life on was based on a fraud.” I don’t know about you, but whenever I see “absolute” words (such as “everything”), my I have a tendency to think that hyperbole has kicked into play.
Do you really mean absolutely everything? If so, I’m wondering how you came to that conclusion?
Yet there are those of us who know the history, inside and out, and don’t feel robbed, abused, or cheated–nor do we feel that the Church misrepresents its history.
How do you explain that?
I suspect that there are a few first-century Pharisees and Saducees that would probably disagree with you. In fact, there are some biblical scholars who now feel that the history we have in the Bible is a misrepresentation of what really occurred.
But, you may not have been commenting in a comparative mode. (Comparing Mormonism to the “Christ’s Church” of the Bible.) If that is the case, forgive me for misunderstanding your intent. If you were not being comparative, then aren’t you illustrating that your problem with the Church is, indeed, one of expectations? You are saying what Christ’s Church should (or should not) do, and then saying that the LDS Church falls short of that expectation.
I agree; you are not alone in that belief. But if you now admit that you could be mistaken in your beliefs before, why should one accept that you are not mistaken now?
I’m not being flippant here; this is a serious question. The same question could be asked of Tal–why should he be believed in his new choice for a worldview when by his own admission he failed miserably in his previous choice of worldviews?
I suspect that the answer (in at least Tal’s case) would be that it wasn’t his fault; he was a victim of what the Church taught him. This, of course, is malarkey; we are all personally responsible for what we choose to learn–which brings us back to my earlier question of how you (or Tal) explain those of us who do know all the history and still flourish in the faith.
That, really, is a question that bears repeating and answering: What is the fundamental difference between, for example, me and Tal. We both examined the history. He felt cheated and robbed. I adapted and incorporated the history into my understanding of the world. Why the difference?
Do you think that the person involved has any choice or responsibility for which “lens” they choose to use?
I appreciate the attempt at respect and civility, particularly when you (as you indicated) feel abused, cheated, and robbed. I have enjoyed your additions to the discussion and hope you understand that I am trying to be respectful, as well.
I just want to understand, and I hope that you can help to shed some light.
-Allen
The fact is that a lot of vocal ex-Mormons were extremists while within the LDS Church. Now that they’ve left – they’re still extremists. The only difference is now they don’t pay tithing and do Home Teaching.
There’s one more thing I’d like to add, Craig. You know what really saddens me? What saddens me is that I’ve tried for so many years to have reasonable discussions with my “exmo brothers and sisters”, but I found that even when I spoke positively of any aspect of my Mormon experience, I’d be shouted down. The anger was palpable and intense, and most of all irrational – blame, blame, blame. “I got sucked in”. The victim mentality over-rode any reasonable discussion. And I hesitate to say it was often like the people in the great and spacious building mocking the true believers.
I don’t have a very high tolerance level for too much religious zeal, and I’m not at home on many LDS boards which is frequented by the over-zealous, so I leave them alone. But it saddens me that so many exmo boards, and so many exmos, are very similar, but just in the opposite way.
Like Allen, I have enjoyed your contributions, it’s just a pity that so many exmos can’t carry on a conversation without the victim mentality.
Craig Paxton, Talmage Bachman’s primary surrogate on this thread, in impassioned language describes the anguish, pain and disappointment he experienced when he came to know that, to use Talmage’s mantra, that the Church was not what it claims to be. All of this is understandable. He pictures himself a victim. And being such a one presumably justifies the rampant rubbish paraded daily on RfM, and it also presumably justifies the immoderate, aggressive, unseemly, even obscene mocking code language now popular among the RfM crowd. I will demonstrate how this works.
Following up that link posted by Ray Agostini, I found an item in which Craig describing his own wife as one who, invoking Talmage Bachman’s magic formula, would not want to know if the Church was not what it claims to be. In the Paxton/Bachman world what this seems to mean is that she is not interested in the truth. This justifies the denigrating label “Uber-Mormo-Nazi-TBM” that Craig applies to the wife he loves dearly. And presumably it justifies all that nasty stuff directed at Dan Peterson. Well his dear she deserves this silly label because she has put her trust in the only one who can possible provide a fulness of life, who she sees as the Truth, Way and Light, and as her Redeemer and Lord. Amazing. Unlike Ray Agostini, Craig and Talmage seem to somehow know with every fiber of their bodies that Joseph Smith was a liar and hence the Church is more than false but also demonic–a “Death Cult,” in Talmages trendy code language.
Highly emotional, passionate secular witnessing or testimony bearing is the order of the day among the RfM crowd. Presumably the liberated ones on RfM are justified in using demeaning labels, ridicule and mockery. In that venue Craig is free from the despotic clutches of the “Death Cult” and hence genuinely free to celebrate his truth without fear of being disturbed by any doubts raised by so-called TBM MORGBOTS.
May I point out, using the language of Leo Strauss, one of my favorite authors, that “indignation is a bad counselor. Our indignation [only] proves [at best] that we are well meaning. It does not prove that we are right.” What is lacking in Talmage Bachman’s world is anything approaching a coherent argument. What takes its place is slogan mongering and violent emoting about feelings.
I don’t care who you are, or what you believe. You don’t criticize your wife online. That’s just contemptible.
Well…If I’m going to swim with the sharks, I better plan on at least being nibbled at if not eaten. But knowing what I was getting myself into by posting here, I decided to wear my super magical protective meshed metal skin covering as a protection. Boy I hope it has enough power to ward off all the psychological analysis.
And thanks goodness (can I say goodness?) for the internet. Brother Midgley can Google (or anyone else for that matter) my entire internet posting history and use every post I’ve ever made as an out of context or in context weapon in the fight against evil. I’ve posted for years as Cr@ig P@xton … do a search if you dare.
I’ve (to the best of my knowledge) never posted on FAIR. But I must admit regret not having done so … I’m having fun. But there are so many of you and I do have a day job, but I would like to address each and every comment sent my way…but oh the time, oh the time…but wait I don’t have to go home teaching…so maybe I might get around to replying…but my goodness (I’m just going to assume that I can say goodness) Where the “heck” (substitute for yet another word) do I begin?
Well since this has somehow totally turned from a discussion about a he said/ he said conversation where in I merely offered information to help clarify the discussion to somehow involve ME I better introduce myself. Those who wish to know my whole story can visit my blog at Cr@igInthe [email protected] But, first a warning for the weak at heart…my blog is my healing place. It is RAW. It is crass. It’s bawdy. It is my place to vent. And it is how I see the world.
But wait, here’s some good news…. I offer not one threat to anyone here because I am a stereotypical, pigeonholed, apostate. I didn’t resign; I was physically kicked out the old fashioned way through excommunication. So I needn’t be taken at face value at all…discount away!
First: Brother Midgley. I’ve got literally dozens of Tal Bachman posts from those heady days, 5 years ago, on RFM…so I’ll have to get back with you on the Palmer question. “Dang” (another replacement word) it’s so hard NOT to throw in an irreverent poke here and there. (all in fun I assure you) Mormonism is so tight laced.
Second: Ray Agostini, Whoa sorry dude…tough stuff. For the record, I too have held the same callings only longer (as if that matters) so Yes it is possible to be both a dedicated as Brother Midgley said Morgbot and turn into a raving apostate still…I’ll not hold my breath in your case however…you feel like a lifer.
Third: Dear Brother Allen, Are you suggesting that I, Craig Paxton, would stoop to hyperbole? PPPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEE
Wait, I need to go out for a smoke be right back… just kidding…I don’t take breaks. Ok ok really I’m kidding I don’t smoke either…but I do need to head home to my Dear loving Uber-Mormo-Nazi-TBM-wife…whom I love with every fiber of my being …so…to be continued
PS: Gosh (replacement word) I hope you guys have a sense of humor still….
Ummm… I see those with more special powers than I hold have chosen to with hold my most recent post…gee and I was trying so hard to be respectful.
Seriously…where is the sense of humor?
Comments are not moderated, although they may be deleted if they don’t fit our guidelines.
Be that as it may, your comment was caught by the Word Press spam filter; I have no idea why. I just released it, so it should now be visible.
Sorry for any confusion.
-Allen
PS: Humor can be a good thing, Craig. I appreciate most types, including yours (so far ;-)).
I’ve got your blog bookmarked, Craig, and I’ll read it in detail later (unfortunately I’m back to a hectic working week tonight and don’t have much time left). I did read your exit story on RFM this morning, and note you served in Australia, and possibly at the time I was a bishop. Your name does have somewhat of a familiar ring to me, but I’m not sure why. Maybe only because I’ve seen it online before. You didn’t specify which mission or date of your mission.
Yes, I am a “lifer”, as in the “Life – Be In It” campaign. I’ve never been one to mull daily about missed opportunities, or Lost Horizons. Maybe you can be a positive pioneer for other exmos not willing to dialogue without looking like a steam train out of control?
I look forward to your further contributions, and especially to reading your blog. I may even comment on it next week after I recover from four nights in the Wild West (as we call our working environment).
BTW…I’m such a sucker for celebrity recognition …. did you all notice that Brother Louis Midgley actually mentioned my name????
OH MY GOSH!!! I think I’m going to faint!
Go back on RFM and tell them Dr. Midgley doesn’t bite (all that hard anyway). 🙂
Ray:
These days I only bite a Pacific Rose apple. Oh, you may not have those on the West Island. If I remember correctly efforts are made to keep dangerous New Zealand products out of your neck of the woods.
I was moved when I learned that poor Craig Paxton actually lost two full years somewhere on the West Island. And now he seems determined, much like Talmage Bachman, to spend–that is, waste–the rest of his life in trying to get revenge by raging about all things Mormon. Can one sense an irrational force at work in all this victim blather? Are they not sending, so to speak, from even a modest understanding of their own self-interest, good money after bad money? Of course, a plausible justification for Craig’s passion might be that he was sent–that is, sentenced–to that dreadful Other Shore, rather than to a more luxurious place like Argentina, where Talmage served his sentence. Poor fellow, two totally wasted years on that simply dreadful West Island. The scene is filled with pathos. It seems that the blind forces of inscrutable fate dealt him a rotten hand. I can imagine a fist raised in defiance. And a hard disk bloated with treasured RfM files. Or am I making light of a tragic situation?
Louis wrote:
Or am I making light of a tragic situation?
Louis, The “two lost years” is a recurring theme. I was glad to finish my mission, and glad to get home (and I honestly would not do it again), but there’s one gnawing fact about this: I chose to serve a mission. Maybe some BIC Mormons didn’t fully choose, or may have felt pressured, but I knew many born in the Church who chose not to go. Some later ended up in high leadership positions, such as stake president, and I think even some GAs didn’t serve missions. Of course it’s not only a “lost time mission”, but possibly 20 or 30 years. What does one do when divorce comes after 40-plus years of marriage (as happened to a relative of mine). Lost time? Such is life. You move on and rebuild and hopefully make better life-choices in the future. Viciously turning on a former religion, and for some it’s 24/7/365 (it seems anyway) – isn’t one of them. I confess that Mormonism still fascinates me, and most likely because of my “residual spiritual belief” in the Book of Mormon, and the debates do interest me. Having said that, it’s still interesting to hear what Craig has to say, although the Kinderhook plates isn’t something that gave me incessant, recurring nightmares ending in eternal regret, nor for that matter the Book of Abraham. I do associate with their loss of faith, however, but what I don’t associate with is this need for talk about things like “death cults”, “brainwashing” and “manipulation”, and “Nazi-TBMs”. By some of the posts on RFM you’d think Mormons were monsters. To be fair, many ex-Mormons have, like me, fled the place long ago, and similar venues. There are many decent and fair-minded ex-members out there, who still value what they learned as Mormons, still maintain an interest in it, and have no desire to lead others out into their Heathen Paradise. You’d have to be a masochist to long endure constant “un-testimony-bearing”, however, and 24/7 recordings of “woe is me”.
Tal has said that he loved his mission (unless recollection fails me), and was in the “Packer/Benson mould”, and as devoted as they come. By all accounts, it wasn’t Auschwitz, nothing needing an Anne Frank diary, and the experience certainly isn’t likely to produce any Charles Mansons. I think it would be unrealistic not to think that at some stage, for every ex-Mormon, there would be some regret, just as one might regret marrying the “wrong person”, only to find this out 40 years later. It’s the on-going “catharsis” which actually becomes an obsession. From what I can determine, most exmos are now happy, except those still in transition, and we see that Craig has a sense of humour, so he’s obviously not in the doldrums of despair.
I have two theories, and one may be wrong. The first is that they need to fill their lives with purpose, having lost their Mormon beliefs. It has to be replaced with something, and that something is to “warn others” about the “scam”, the “fraud”. The purpose becomes over-riding, “go ye into all the world, and he that is not baptised, and does not believe, shall be saved”. (Forgive me, but I’m in possibly a too light mode now) These are the professional anti-Mormons who are still “recovering” on RFM after 10 years.
The other theory is that many exmos do really care, and do really want to rectify what they feel was misleading. They don’t shout, but wish for open dialogue. I’m not sure where Craig fits into this, but you might be a better judge of that than I am. It’s important to discern between the two, because the latter are really still seeking the truth, even if they are no longer members, and even if it seems they missed “the obvious”. For them, truth isn’t something that comes in a box from a department store, and Mormonism certainly isn’t a “death cult”.
With therapy, perhaps they will again be able to be contributing members to society.
Hey guys, if you find any good shrinks, send em my way. I really need to get a handle on my blogging habit.
Seth R wrote:
I think they are highly overestimating the value of the other uses they would have put those two years to.
That’s another point I was going to make. In some cases it would have been a loss (career, etc.), but in other cases it was probably a good way of keeping them off the streets, so to speak.
And speaking of streets and people, I’m about to head in that direction (for work). (A mission would do some of them enormous good.)
I think they are highly overestimating the value of the other uses they would have put those two years to.
The other theory is that many exmos do really care, and do really want to rectify what they feel was misleading. They don’t shout, but wish for open dialogue.
You won’t find such types at RfM. Since any “TBM” comment will be deleted or banned, dialogue is a hard thing.
It’s an amazing thing to watch.
What would we think of an alcoholic “support group” that spent all its time railing against Budweiser? That talk incessantly how people who continue to drink alcohol are evil, vile, duped people? Even if they were right–a debatable proposition–how on earth could that be psychologically healthy?
There’s a PhD thesis in there for someone who can stomach it.
One must bare in mind that the stated purpose of RfM is not to debate issues about the church. The purpose is to give exmormons a place where they can go and say whatever they want about the church. Without the moderation, you get all sorts of TBMs coming in and attempting to debate the Exmos. That’s just not the purpose of the site. There are other sites where that is the purpose, RfM is not one of them.
In fact, notice that the very name of the board implies that this is a place not for people who are debating or thinking about Mormonism. It’s a place for those who are “recovering” from Mormonism, not people debating Mormonism.
To continue the above analogy about an alcoholic “support group,” you also would not want beer companies visiting this site and trying to defend the importance of drinking alcohol.
Oh, I know. I’m just saying, anyone at RfM ain’t into “dialogue.” If they were just talking about “the Church” that would be one thing. But, there’s plenty of quite chilling verbal attacks on spouses, neighbors, parents, siblings, etc. who are just “too blind” to see The Truth ™. Very sad. But, of course, such behavior is the fault of the Church.
One might think, though, that if _individuals_ were being attacked, slandered, etc., that letting them defend themselves might be a nice idea for people interested in The Truth(tm). Alas, no.
It is still a deeply pathological place. Fascinating to watch, in the same way that one slows down next to a horrible car wreck. But, “Recovery” it ain’t. Any support group that operated on such principles would be quackery.
Can you imagine a divorce support group where people spent their time maligning their former spouses, talking about how stupid their children, in-laws, etc. were for continuing to associate with the divorced partner, rehashing all the partners faults and foibles (“Mormons slurp their soup!”; “Mormons don’t wash their hands and spread disease!”)?
Such a group might well find a large audience. But, healthy? Budweiser would be safer….
The word “recovery” implies that the individuals who are recovering were either addicts or victims of abuse. If such is the case, any responsible therapist would be appalled at the methods the individuals at RfM are using to “recover.”
If anything is going on at RfM, it’s certainly not “recovery.” More appropriate words that come to mind include “wallowing”, “lashing out”, and “infantilization”.
If you honestly feel your LDS experience has been abusive, then seek professional help that will allow you to take control of your life in a positive, proactive manner. But don’t pretend that RfM has anything to do with “recovery.”
I appreciate seeing Michael Bailey’s effort to provide an apologia for the Recovery Board. He makes a few good points. The fact is that on the main page of sponsor for RfM, we read the following (which I have edited slightly to fit this format): “Recovery from Mormonism [is] a site for those who are Questioning their faith in the Mormon Church[,] and for those who need support as they transition their lives to a normal life.” Two purposes are mentioned: (1) to help those with questions to avoid or leave the Church of Jesus Christ; and (2) to “transition” to a “normal life” those presumably harmed by faith in God.
There is, as he points out, no debate over the whether the Church of Jesus Christ, to invoke Talmage Bachman’s code language, is what it claims to be. It is just assumed as proven beyond any possible doubt that having some contact with the Church somehow prevents a presumably “normal life.” Presumably those Bailey label “exmormons” already know that the Church of Jesus Christ is not what it claims to be. They need no coaching on that issue. Instead, they need “a place where they can go and say whatever they want about the church.” Why? They are angry and wounded, and desperately in need a place where they can ventilate their hostilities. Why? This was impossible while trapped in a “Death Cult”?
Bailey then asserts that, “without the moderation [at RfM], you get all sorts of TBMs coming in and attempting to debate the Exmos.” Without what? What Bailey calls “moderation” turns out to be censorship. And exactly what is moderate about an endless parade of tasteless, often loathsome, rhetorically violent, mockery and ridicule? How does any of that assist in healing all those often deeply troubled souls who are genuinely desperate for meaning and peace in their tragic lives? If one has dirty hands, one does not get them clean by washing in a sewer. My heart goes out to many who end up posting on RfM. They genuinely need help. They really do need to recover.
I notice that Bailey uses a the ritual RfM code language to identify those who are not welcome on RfM. Bailey points out that on RfM no “debating or thinking about Mormonism” is permitted. That is quite an admission. The “moderation” on RfM prevents those evils and hence protects those who are recovering. I wonder if Bailey can identify any who have actually recovered while posting on RfM. What exactly is this wonderful “normal life” to which RfM is dedicated? Can we get at least a glimpse of it by glancing at what get posted there each day?
It turns out that what Bailey calls the “stated purpose” of RfM is simply a ruse for all the nonsense that gets posting on that board about virtually every possible aspect of the Church of Jesus Christ. Who are the therapists? What qualifies them to heal the vast number of sick and afflicted who frequent RfM. Do they themselves lead “normal lives”? How can we tell?
Even a casual glance at the main page where the so-called “stated purpose” is displayed indicates that the entire enterprise is engaged in a total war against the faith of Latter-day Saints. Those in mission control at exmormon.org and the unRecovery Board seem to realize that they face obstacles. Hence the following item: Is FARMS, the Mormon funded apologetic group, credible? Those who rant on RfM know that they are shielded from external criticisms. Knowing this, one can understand why Talmage Bachman and others are free to engage in violent personal attacks on, for example, Dan Peterson, who is the very symbol of evil for those who mill and shove on that dreadful board. From my perspective, RfM is a kind of asylum in which the chief lunatics are in charge. And it peddles a confused and confusing secular religion that offers exactly no hope here or hereafter for any of those whose hearts and minds it controls and corrupts.
But the fact is that there are many who go to that board with, among other things, very serious emotional problems, with all sorts of genuine troubles, with clearly damaged lives. They are often filled with hatred, some of which boils over into self-loathing. There are many who struggle to make some sense out of anything, who lack accurate information about much of anything, and who are truly hurting. I admit to being deeply, profoundly concerned about those folks.
What exactly does Talmage Bachman’s various accounts of his staged interview with his Stake President offer any of those desperate souls? Or what has any item posted by Talmage on RfM done to improve anyone’s life?
I am sorry that you look upon us as “troubled souls.” I am sorry that you think our lives are so messed up. For your information, I am quite content with my life. I am happy. I have a good job. I have good friends. I am not troubled.
I’ll tell you exactly what people like Tal Bachman have done to improve the lives of people on the RfM. It’s said to people like myself, “you’re not alone.” I cannot begin to express the value of this discovery for myself and countless others. I do not believe in the church. I would love to believe it’s true, but I don’t. For years I felt that I was alone. I felt that I was the only one who had these doubts. That was when I was a “troubled soul” and felt “self-loathing.” But, discovering resources such as the RfM and Mormon Stories helped me see that there are many other people like me. It allowed me to shut out the voices that surround me on a daily basis which tell me that because I’ve lost my faith, I’m evil and am going to hell.
Your labeling us as “troubled” is an example of the very thing that drives people to places like the RfM. I live in Utah and have to live with hearing horrible things said about people like myself. It hurts to hear people saying I’m going to hell and that I’ve lost the light of Christ and so on. It especially hurts because I haven’t done anything wrong. My great sin is that I cannot believe in the Church. I still live basically the same as I did as a TBM. So, it is nice to go somewhere that I can say exactly what is on my mind.
Oddly enough, you guys also don’t seem to know that much about therapy. Though I do not wish to claim that the RfM is technical therapy. The recovery part of the name does not refer to literal recovery in the psychological term. But in therapy, you are encouraged to share all of your negative feelings. The therapist does not censor those feelings, even when they are very unpleasant and negative. That is one reason people go to therapists. They are able to actually share all those thoughts they are forced to suppress in public.
As to your stated profound concern, with all due respect, we don’t want your concern. Unless your concern is displayed in the form of a hug and the acknowledgment that we are in fact good people, we’re not interested. From the sound of what you think of us, I doubt we’re interested in your profound concern.
Lastly, you guys love to give that one quote about leaving the church but not leaving it alone. One could say the same of you guys, “You can leave the world, but you can’t leave it alone.” If what people are saying at the RfM is bothering you, then don’t go there. I don’t visit Evangelical Christian bulletin boards to listen to them bashing atheists.
Folks,
If we can’t stay on track here, then it might be time to close comments on this thread. This thread isn’t about RfM or how disfunctional it may or may not be. It is about a difference in view between two people to the same event–those people being Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes.
Let’s try to remain focused, shall we?
-Allen
Allen has “Refocused” this thread…where do I go to respond to those comment directed to me?
Craig,
I think that the comments “related to you” were only related to you as a surrogate for Tal. For whatever reason, Tal has not decided to come here and answer for himself. While that is fine (it is his prerogative) it does leave many questions about the “mindset” exhibited by Tal. You seem to share the same feelings, and have pretty much have stated the same. The questions directed to you, in Tal’s absence, are asked with the hope of better understanding the mindset.
What I don’t want to see happening–and which was quickly becoming the case–is to start “bashing” RfM. Quite frankly, it is what it is. While an examination of RfM might be a worthy subject for another blog post (or a PhD dissertation, as Greg stated), it is not germane to this thread.
Please–go ahead and answer the questions which were asked of you, if you see fit. I, for one, want to understand better the “lens” (your words) through which folks like you and Tal see their former Mormon world. I also would like to understand why folks like you and Tal feel abused, betrayed, etc. by the “facts” you’ve discovered when others (such as myself) do not feel the same way when we discover the same information.
Answers to questions such as these can only help; bashing RfM will not.
-Allen
Michael, i don’t think anyone was trying to suggest you are a “bad person”. If they were, they were certainly out of line. But I think that you have to be able to see that members fo the LDS are regularly misrepresented attacked and maligned, often in the most juvenile of ways and that it is hurtful. I don’t believe you see the church as a death-cult or dangerously subversive, and if you did, I’m sorry to say you would be wrong. The people here devote much time to scholarship defending the church against criticism. Criticism that has proved in many cases to be highly dishonest (and if not dishonest, very ignorant). Can you really blame them for being defensive and protective? I can’t. Much of my experience with subjects like these has subjected me to bitter personal attacks, certainly people at FARMS and FAIR return with some measured sarcasm and mockery of their own (which I, perhaps to my discredit, truly enjoy). Such things, while perhaps not ideal, fit the context of the dialog in which they are involved.
Tal’s out story perhaps is not truly important to FAIR’s work, as it is generally anecdotal, except where he references books as justification for leaving. But President Keyes’ letter is germane tot he subject because it is about not letting perceived misrepresentation go unanswered.
I have a question. Do places like RFM look down on FARMS and FAIR so much because they view them as: A)Evil and Dishonest? B) Supporting a Church they hate? C) Challenging their reasons for leaving the church? (for example if one apostatizes over Godmakers and then discovers it’s malarkey)? D) attacking their beliefs? or E) some other reason?
I’m really hoping that you all really do have a sense of humor… 🙂
I have tried my best to refrain from any personal attack…so I hope what I am about to say won’t be taken as such. Just interjecting a little fun into the dowdy old FAIR BOARD. I know there is an aversion … to dare I say … Loud Laughter…but at the risk of being censored let me lovingly say…
My dear Brother Midgley, prior to posting here I had been forewarned that you were a worthy adversary. I knew you carried a “sharp” pen and an even sharper wit and knew how to use them both. I would expect nothing less from a paid professional apologist for the mega-truth LDS church. After all, you wouldn’t expect any scrimping from the high growth multi-billion dollar corporation that is Mormonism.
But despite those kind acknowledgements of mine I’ve come to see an even more sinister antagonist.
Using only my own experience here at FAIR and speaking only for myself, I view you as the sweet grandmotherly (yeah I know, I know you’re a guy, but flow with it for my sake, I’m not smart enough to come up with another metaphor)lady living in the ever so inviting gingerbread house. You are so kind and so inviting and disarming…yet hidden there in the backroom of your apologist home is that oven pre-heating away…awaiting it’s prize.
But honestly what bothers my apostate goat the most is the quiet Mormon arrogance of KNOWING that you are right no matter what evidence might cause a thinking person to move to some other conclusion. And this is the hardest part of attempting to have a discussion with a Mormon apologist. It pushes me into a more rigid position when you won’t even acknowledge the fact that the church has been less than honest with the general membership of the church regarding its foundational stories.
Take myself as a prime example. I was born into the church, attended church every week with my active family, seminary grad, institute grad, full time mission, Temple marriage, bishopric, high council etc etc etc I mean come on…I’m NOT the guy the church is supposed to lose …yet I am exactly the kind of guy the church IS losing…and it is losing people like me or better in droves all over the industrial world…so is it really ME…or could it be something the church failed to tell us?
Why else would they fail to include the many wives of Brigham Young, a KNOWN polygamist, in his biography a few years ago when the Sunday school lessons where on his “Selected” words? Or why was it that after attending church my entire life I had NEVER been taught how the Book of Mormon was really dictated or Oliver? I mean come on I didn’t invent this stuff? I couldn’t invent this stuff…it’s too unbelievable!
Yet as my good friend at FARMS so honestly told me…”don’t be silly Craig, No one would join the church if we told the truth”
Now I say this in the most respectful, kind and loving manner an evil loathsome apostate can muster. It’s my way of paying you a compliment Brother Midgley … you should take great pride in my flattering words. (OM Gosh, did I just cause some Book of Mormon prophecy to come true with my use of flattering words?)
Please feel free to cut and paste my words and reformat them into some more flowery font. Have them blown up and mount them in your office at BYU. I can think of no greater witness for your fellow professional apologists to get lathered over than my words on a plaque on a wall in your office. Wouldn’t that be marvelous? Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
Ok Whewww…
(Is anybody still reading this post…Or did I offend everyone?)
Now let me comment on my mission to Australia. Let me try AGAIN to put it in a proper context. As a believing Mormon, my mission was one of the greatest experiences of my life. I LOVED my mission, I LOVED Mission work, and I was an Uber-Mormo- Nazi-Missionary. Extremely straight laced and straight arrow. I not only lived the letter of the law but the spirit too. I served in every leadership step on the Missionary leadership ladder, including 6 amazing months as Assistant to my wonderful Mission President whom I still have the highest regard and love for. (Now I share my leadership positions since it demonstrates the depth of my dedication, I care not a whit for Mormon perceived glory in leadership). I loved Australia for the people, the work, the church, the experience etc etc etc. I have not one regret for going. And I went because I wanted to go…I had done so since as far back as I can remember. Even as a non-believer in all things Mormon…I still have very fond memories of my mission.
HOWEVER, that’s in capital letters…those 2 years, in hind sight, were a total waist of my time…because Mormonism is a fraud. (hey just my opinion)And ONLY because of this reality… can be nothing more than a waist of my time. To borrow something from Tal, the church might be the greatest thing ever invented by man…but if it was invented…it’s not worth our involvement. PERIOD!
Hey look on the bright side…I’m sure I’m putting a smile on someone’s face today with my post…
Ok Rip away…
I just want to add…I’m not Tal Bachman’s water boy. I respect Tal’s views. I saw his integrity being questioned here at FAIR and thought his early posts might shed some light. Call me nieve’… but I thought it might help shed some light. But I think our two camps are too entreanched. I believe (maybe falsely) that we can try to understand each other. I feel, having been where some of you are, I can understand your mind set…I once shared it…but I’m sensing that many of you just don’t get us non-believing former active members of the church.
I for one would gladly return if I felt (oops should never interject feelings) Ummm “thought” that Mormonism was all it claimed to be…but those beliefs have shattered into a million pieces. I have tried to make them fit together again…knowing what I know and understand to be factual (hey I could have it wrong) and the pieces just don’t fit…at least not for me. And I don’t know HOW to reinvent my religion to accommodate all this new understanding.
You do know there is no longer a “FAIR board” and hasn’t been for well over a year, right? This is a blog—quite different from a message board.
No aversion at all among some of us. We laugh quite regularly (and heartily) at some of the arguments made by some of the critics. 😉
Gotta love that sense of humor. Sort of like you used to be a paid professional minister when you were in a bishopric, right?
What’s the difference between a bishop and an apologist? If you are a bishop you get a certificate, hugs once in a while, acknowledgment by Salt Lake, and released in about five years. None of which happens with apologists. (We are all self-selected volunteers who get nothing for what we do.)
Perhaps there is reason for goat getting on both sides, then. It would seem that implicit within your statement is the assertion that thinking people invariably move to other conclusions. That, however, is not the case–whether critics understand it or not.
There are only a few things that I absolutely KNOW, and I am not arrogant about any of them. In fact, the knowledge routinely humbles me.
Because the stories aren’t told the way you would prefer that they be told, does that equate to dishonesty?
Hyperbole again? If not, could you please define “droves” and how you know this?
It was the priesthood/Relief Society manual, not Sunday School. And, to answer your question directly, it could be because the manual was never intended to be a biography. It was a manual designed to teach people how to apply gospel principles to their lives through the words of Brigham Young.
Did you not know this? I know some critics who have been told this, yet they still try to use this as an example of the Church “covering up” its history.
Now, if the Church really had published a biography or history of Brigham Young and failed to note that he practiced polygamy, that would be a different story entirely, and you may have a stronger case.
The position of the Church has always been that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. Is that what you were taught? Is that what you feel was dishonest? What, exactly, is dishonest about such a statement?
Assumptions, assumptions. (You know what they say about assumptions, right?) Lou has been retired from the PoliSci department at BYU for years now. He doesn’t have an office there.
I smiled. 😉
-Allen
Ok here’s some more understanding on a non-believers mindset.
Mormonism once dominated my lives. It had complete and total mental power over me. I could not imagine life without the church. Once one withdraws from that domination there is an urgent need to establish proper boundaries and reclaim power and authority over your own life.
Trust me…it’s an exhilarating experience…. I NEVER realized how much power Mormonism had over my life until it no longer had any power in my life. So I can’t imagine that the faithful Mormon would ever even know what I am taking about or could relate. I’m sure you do not think that the church has this type of power over you…but (only my opinion) trust me it does and the only way you can realize this reality is by taking back power over your own life.
What I don’t think many of you here understand is that…it’s just not that we no longer believe, it’s actually surreal that Mormonism ever made sense in any capacity.
Non-believers use many metaphors to describe what we go through during this awakening process. “The Matrix”, where we awake from a false reality into a hard but rewarding world or having lived a life in “The Village” Where life outside the wall is taught by so called loving elders as an evil dangerous place in order to keep the masses in line. Oh I could go on and on…but each of these metaphors applies to former believing members once they are free of the Mormon mental mind games. The reality is that life on the outside of Mormonism is really wonderful. Live outside the Box is amazing.
Doubtful. For if it did, by definition, you would not have been able to leave it–otherwise it wouldn’t have been “complete” and “total.”
This, I believe–because you never had lived outside the Church, so it was beyond your capacity to imagine. However, many of us have lived portions of our lives outside the Church. Some of us even lived those portions not knowing what a Mormon was, as we had never heard of them.
In my view this only happens if one has not gone through the rigorous personal exercise of understanding and setting personal boundaries. This can happen in or out of the Church. If a person “defaults” to the Church and abrogates their personal responsibility for their own boundaries, then I imagine suddenly throwing out those boundaries could be a bit frightening.
Do you not see that such a statement is stereotypical? It exhibits that you paint all Mormons with the same brush and cannot imagine that any Mormon’s personal experience is any different than what you went through before you left.
This, I can assure you, is not true. As much as you may want them to be, Mormons are not a homogeneous bunch of folks who all experience and think the same things.
But I do have power over my own life. I’ve lived outside the Church. I’ve lived inside the Church. I was responsible for my life in both situations. (And to say that the things of which you speak are beyond my capacity to understand is…dare I say it…a bit arrogant on your part.)
Life is wonderful and amazing if we make it that way. I’m glad you are succeeding at that. (But don’t try to assert that the life I am living is neither wonderful nor amazing.)
-Allen
Allen Wyatt Said: You do know there is no longer a “FAIR board” and hasn’t been for well over a year, right? This is a blog—quite different from a message board.
Nope didn’t know that thanks for updating me…
Allen Wyatt Said: No aversion at all among some of us. We laugh quite regularly (and heartily) at some of the arguments made by some of the critics.
Glad to hear it… in all honestly My reception here has been more then fair…
Allen Wyatt Said: What’s the difference between a bishop and an apologist?
Hey I have no fear of being corrected…if Bro Midgely is NOT paid for his thoughts here…I stand corrected.
Allen Wyatt Said: Perhaps there is reason for goat getting on both sides, then. It would seem that implicit within your statement is the assertion that thinking people invariably move to other conclusions. That, however, is not the case–whether critics understand it or not.
Yes, I believe that thinking people, void of an agenda…do move if the information leads them to…
Allen Wyatt Said: Because the stories aren’t told the way you would prefer that they be told, does that equate to dishonesty?
Yeah Gosh Darn it….I want them told exactly the way I want them told. See this is exactly what I am referring to…you won’t even acknowledge that there has been a concerted effort on the part of the church to…Ummm…”enhance its history”? Ok I didn’t really expect you to concede this point…but I can’t see how you can’t see this… the church is not being honest.
Allen Wyatt Said: Hyperbole again? If not, could you please define “droves” and how you know this?
Gee Allen didn’t you know that hyperbole is the ONLY tool an apostate has?
Allen Wyatt Said: It was the priesthood/Relief Society manual, not Sunday school. And, to answer your question directly, it could be because the manual was never intended to be a biography. It was a manual designed to teach people how to apply gospel principles to their lives through the words of Brigham Young.
Yeah sorry I don’t go to church anymore…you are correct it was the priesthood/relief society manual…but my point was that in the “BIOGRAPHY section they DID list his one wife……I wonder how all his other wives would have felt being sacrificed at the alter of leaving the impression that Dear Brigham was a momogamist?
I have a very good friend who sat on the committee that assembled the manual. I know that when it was initially submitted to the church GA’s for approval it DID include a full biography including BY’s wives…he told me that the GA’s removed them…what other reason can you offer for them to do this?
Allen Wyatt Said: The position of the Church has always been that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. Is that what you were taught? Is that what you feel was dishonest? What, exactly, is dishonest about such a statement?
I remember lessons in SS regarding lying by commission and omission. Leaving out the fact that Joseph used Rocks he found at the bottom of a well he had help dig and then placed them in his hat…might go a long way to discredit the credibility of his “gift and power of God” claim. But hey that’s just silly non-believing me.
Allen Wyatt Said: Assumptions, assumptions. (You know what they say about assumptions, right?) Lou has been retired from the PoliSci department at BYU for years now. He doesn’t have an office there.
Thanks for the info… yeah I taught that on my mission Ass/u/me
Dang that’s a lot of formatting work…I won’t be doing that again…whew… and look it didn’t even go through Argggggg…
Please excuse me while I go bang my head up against a brick wall…..
Craig,
Sometimes trying to get the formatting right makes me want to bang my head against the wall, too. 😉
-Allen
LOL…actaully Allen it is YOU that makes me want to go bang my head on a brick wall… 🙂
Do you expect me to concede a point I don’t agree with? I do agree there have been times when some Church leaders have been less than honest about some things. I don’t think that the foundational stories are one of those things.
I also think that the Church (like any organization) has every right to present its foundational stories in any way it desires.
Why? What you are talking about is assumptions about what is appropriate for a prophet to do and what is not. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with looking into stones to translate. The argument can be made that such behavior is consistent with how God talked to some prophets in the Bible.
But, so what? Regardless of the method of translation, it was still by the gift and power of God. I don’t believe that the method discredits the message or the messenger. You do believe it does–which I honestly have no problem with–but you take it one step further and assert dishonesty. It is that extra step that I have a problem with and take issue with.
That is where many believing Mormons (and, particularly, apologists) have a problem with critics–they take the extra step and attribute motive when there is no reason to do so.
Understood. 😉
-Allen
With regards to Tal responding to President Keyes, I’m sure we can expect a response in about five years. (I hope someone else hasn’t already made this joke) 🙂
Our faith [as Christians] begins at the point where atheists suppose that it must be at an end. Our faith begins with the bleakness and power which is the night of the cross, abandonment, temptation and doubt about everything that exists! Our faith must be born when it is abandoned by all tangible reality; it must be born of nothingness, it must taste this nothingness and be given it to taste in a way that no philosophy of nihilism can imagine. – Jürgen Moltmann (Catholic theologian), ”The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ As the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology” (SCM Press, London, 1973), as quoted in Ronald Rolheiser, ”Forgotten Among the Lilies: Learning to Live Beyond Our Own Obsessions” (Hodder & Stoughton, 1991), 138.
You might be surprised.
So, the argument is:
1) Joseph was a fraud
2) Joseph wanted to convinced people that he was a prophet, delivering a religious message
3) Joseph was able to produce the Book of Mormon on his own steam.
4) Because of #1 and #2, Joseph needed to make #3 look like divine work.
5) To accomplish #4, he picked a frankly bizarre method (seer stones! In a hat! With his face buried in it!) that (as you conceed) cannot enhance–and may very well hurt–his credibility as a prophet.
Why? If Joseph can do without the stones and the hat, why fake it with them? They just make him look silly, open him up to abuse, fly in the face of popular ideas of how prophets should get revelation, etc. Why didn’t he just go all trance-like and dictate?
For a fraud, Joseph is quite a foolish one.
I am pleased that Craig Paxton has chosen to voice his opinions. I think this has been good for all those following this thread. I am, however, disappointed to see the word adversary in one of his remarks. Why am I his adversary? Because I defend my faith? Well, in a real sense Craig defends his religion, which is profoundly adversarial, since it essentially consists of a series of negations. He defends his new religion with an apologists passion. His is an essentially secular religion. And it is entirely a human manufacture.
I wonder if Craig would like his old faith to be true or whether he would prefer a wholly negative answer to life’s great questions. The answer to this question would tell us something about what governs his soul. Perhaps he thought about such matters. If not, I invite him to do so.
I was again wrongly described as a paid hack because I once taught the history of political philosophy at BYU. (What I did for all those years was intellectual history. And that is mainly what I continue to do now.) I might be a hack, but I have never been paid to defend my own faith. I retired from BYU in 1996. From January 1999 until November 2001, my wife and I directed the Lorne Street Institute of Religion as LDS auxiliary missionaries. During those two years I continued to write essay explaining and defending my faith. You see, it is my faith–it was not something thrust upon me.
The academic journal I help edit–the FARMS Review–has in twenty years published essays by at least 220 authors, many of them never employed by BYU. None of them were paid to write for us. The notion that no one would witness for or defend the truth of the Restoration, including especially its crucial founding history, if they were not paid to do or somehow forced into it, is simply rubbish.
And the idea that I cannot possibly imagine the mind-set of those who entertain doubts or who have rejected their faith is also rubbish. From the very moment I started university, and right on through my academic career, I sought out the most radically competing ideologies to see what I could learn from them and also exactly how my faith could stand up to them. My own research and teaching was grounded in the notion that whatever one believes about anything really worth having an informed opinion on ought to be tested in the fire of radical doubt. I have always had a host of doubts swirling around inside of me. Why? I fear being the dupe and I resent being manipulated. In this struggle, if one’s opinions happen to survive, they will obviously be modified and refined.
I believe that Talmage Bachman’s problems with the faith of the Saints rest primarily on a naive, primitive set of Mormon folk beliefs that never went through the refiner’s fire. This also explains why Talmage thinks that what I and others write in defense of the faith, since it goes far beyond his version of folk Mormonism, will drive people from the Church. Some may resist having their dogmatic ignorance challenged, but many, if not most, appreciate what we do.
I want to thank Craig for his courage in setting out his opinions.
See this is what I mean Brother Midgely….you ar so nice and respectful in your msot recent post….you yull me in…but I know that you also have a sharp pen and a keen mind…and I also know I am plying the part of your rube here…a part I’ve had some fun with…and again I must say you’ve been a good sport.
To answer your question regarding my old faith. Of course I want Mormonism to be what it claims to be….but faith as well intentioned as it may be must be built on facts…faith in fiction is a damnable false hope…so said a very smart man…Thomas Edison…and to me Mormonism is built on fiction and fictional stories not based in reality. Oh how I wish they were true.
lol sorry for my typing I’m watching the Jazz game they’re losing Argggggg
I have little time as I’m in the midst of a big working week, but I have a question here for Craig: Do you honestly feel that exmo forums like RFM could tone down a bit in the attacks on the Church, and especially personalities in the Church?
Do you believe that this might help dialogue, and cause Mormons to offer a more compassionate ear. Or is it all a fait accompli, the “fraud” just needs to be exposed? The latter is the impression I get from many who post on forums like RFM.
Would you say that “arrogance” isn’t limited to those who assert “religious truth”?
Back to work.
“faith in fiction is a damnable false hope”
I don’t think that’s true at all.
Ray Agostini Says:
I have a question here for Craig: Do you honestly feel that exmo forums like RFM could tone down a bit in the attacks on the Church, and especially personalities in the Church?
Seriously?
NO. RFM is not the place for toned down discourse between TBM’s and Exmo’s. As stated in another post above, it’s a place for healing for those who have come to the conclusion that Mormonism in not what it claims to be.
Several years ago, I was a regular on RFM, my post were filled with anger, frustration, pain…I said and needed to say some things that your run of the mill TBM would find extremely offensive to help me come to terms with my Mormon life and the discovery that I had been sold “Snake Oil Elixir” (see below) Since that very painful period in my life my pendulum has started to swing back to a much more calm and peaceful place. I now find great humor in my former religion. I used to take it all so seriously… But I dare say that if not for RFM, I wouldn’t be the man (carful, no editorializing) I am today. RFM served its purpose of helping me to heal from the abuses of Mormonism. (Now before you all tear into me…I acknowledge that your experiences have been beyond wonderful in Mormonism…You’ve somehow been able to keep all the fractures pieces of your Mormon puzzle intact.)
Ray Agostini Says:
Do you believe that this might help dialogue, and cause Mormons to offer a more compassionate ear? Or is it all a fait accompli, the “fraud” just needs to be exposed?
Personally, I think the church has a real problem. It may want to have understanding with the likes of me and other former believing Members…but really how can it? It can’t compromise…hell you guys can’t seem to even acknowledge even one of my points here on this board…how could the church?
The church is painted into a corner. It CAN’T apologize for polygamy, failure to give blacks the priesthood, heck it can’t even teach its own history correctly. If it acknowledges any wrong it exposes itself as NOT being what it claims. I mean come on, the average member of the church actually believes that President (see I’m being nice) Monson actually walks and talks (like you or I might) with Christ. If he were honest and dispelled the myth…it would diminish his power. So the ruse continues
Ray Agostini Says:
Would you say that “arrogance” isn’t limited to those who assert “religious truth”?
Of course… there arrogance on both sides… it’s like a game of scout camp “Steal the Flag” Each side is vigorously protecting its sacred positions. However, again only speaking for myself, I remember the day I broke down crying after realizing that the so called enemies of the church were more (at least to me) credible than the church of my birth. I never wanted the church to be anything other than what it claims to be.
Seth R. Says:
“faith in fiction is a damnable false hope” I don’t think that’s true at all.
Obviously…You’re a Mormon…You wouldn’t…but if I might help explain it to you in another manner. Suppose you buy a medical elixir from a snake oil salesman claiming that his elixir and his alone can cure all of your medical ills. You buy into his claim of wonderful medical miracle cures and pay your money. You go home take the elixir exactly as instructed…you have great faith in this salesman and his product, believing that his claims are true. But when the desired cure never takes place…you go to get your money back….but the salesman has skipped town with his fictional claims and your money…you were sold a fiction, and despite your faith…it never was going to be anything other than fiction with no chance of ever delivering on its claims. You were sold a false hope and the salesman never had nor intended to make good on his promises.
The false hope in Mormonism is its ability to pass off to the NEXT life all of its (ok ok give me some room here as I know you all have such wonderful lives here in this so called existence) big pay offs. The REAL rewards don’t arrive until your dead. When I suggest none of us will have the ability to ask for a refund…Mormonism is a false hope with no intention of ever being able to make good on its promises.
Now I have heard many a TBM saint claim that that’s ok…the rewards of Mormonism in this life are good enough and if when they die they discover that it was all a fraud…this is OK with them. I beg to differ. Living an entire life in a fraudulent religion…is living a false hope when life offers so much more.
I fail to see which of life’s joys or intrigues is denied me simply because I’m a member of the Church.
What am I missing?
But, many bear witness–as I do–that the cure _has_ taken places, and continues to. Now, we might well be mistaken (placebo effect) but it rings a bit hollow when the woman who has an issue of blood twelve years, has spent all her living on other physicians and come up empty, touches the hem of His garment, and is healed. I suspect that woman won’t be much persuaded by cries of “Snake oil!” 😉
So, you’re claiming by this analogy that the members and leaders of the church know that they’re selling you false hope and “snake oil,” and yet do it anyway? Call for references.
How can you read the mind of the salesman? Even if his product did not work–an assertion as yet unproven–could he not have been sincerely deceived? Why must you assume bad faith and ill intent?
I am delighted to have Craig Paxton (and also Michael Bailey) join in this conversation. I believe that their contributions have, for several reasons, been significant. With passion, if not fully or with precision, they have set our the ideology espoused by Talmage Bachman. Especially Craig has described for us the ideology that Talmage adopted when his world turned sour and he was desperate and angry, and in tears and ready to vomit and so forth. Talmage saw himself as having been sold a “Snake Oil Elixir” that the salesmen knew was phony. And the dupes, who often include wives, husbands, children and parents, who have bought this stuff turn out not to even care if it “what it claims to be.” They do not want to know if their faith is true, since all they really care about it its immediate utilitarian value.
In my earlier email exchange with Talmage, he refused to read a thing I had written until or unless I convinced him that I really would like to know if I had been sold what Craig labels a “Snake Oil Elixir.” Now of course I would like to know. The question of the truth of the Restoration is the focal point of my life. I have argued as well as I can that, if the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient text and hence the Word of God, and if Joseph Smith was not a genuine seer and prophet, all we have is one more in the long line of fraudulent bits of utter nonsense. I have become famous or notorious for arguing with as much passion as I can muster that on the crucial question of whether Joseph Smith’s story is or is not true there is no middle ground. So those who confront the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s truth claims must decide either yes or no or perhaps undecided.
But Talmage simply would not believe me. I could not find the words to convince him that I do not reduce the whole thing to a question of the utility. I regret not quoting to him the words of Leo Strauss, to which I subscribe: “A wish is not a fact. Even by proving that a certain view is indispensable for living well, one proves merely that the view in question is a salutary myth: one does not prove it to be true. Utility and truth are tow entirely different ideas.”
But why would Talmage not believe me? Why did he read my every effort to say yes to his question as a no? Was it that he has a deep need to believe that the Saints simply don’t care if they have been sold a “Snake Oil Elixir”? If so, how could that be?
I am not alone in discovering that Talmage has an uncanny ability to creatively misunderstand what one says when he has a need to rationalize his own emotionally moving description of the emergence of his current unfaith. It seems that Talmage went into that staged interview bound and determined to discover additional evidence for his belief that the Saints just don’t care about truth, but only utility. So he heard what he wanted to hear. And what he claims he heard was that not only his Stake President did not really believe that the founding stories are true, but that President Hinckley also did not believe them either.
I am not saying that Talmage is a liar, or insincere. His clearly is sincere. I am arguing that his profound emotional needs drive him to see things in ways that validate and vindicate his apostasy. Perhaps when his own narrow, naive understanding of folk Mormonism failed him, for the first time he asked himself whether what he had unthinkingly believed might not be false.
I have wondered if his failure to have God bless him with wealth and fame after he had sacrificer so much for the Church, including even a very valuable guitar to pay what he called his tithing bill, might not have rustled up the first doubts he ever entertained. I have tried to imagine his frustration and disappointment when his agent would not return his calls after his one so-called “hit” was over. When he started to realize that his obvious desire to be a rich and famous Rock Star were doomed, he may have felt that God had deserted him or that his naive faith was unfounded. Remember that he described himself as a kind of suicide bomber type of Mormon. Well, of course that was a crude understanding of being a faithful a Latter-day Saint.
Instead of sensing that in this world we face tribulation but that the Holy One of Israel has overcome this world, Talmage may have imagined moving up what Craig called the ladder right to the top. Please note that he still has a high opinion of himself as a Latter-day Saint. He has never, he reminds us, met a better one.
Are we not, I wonder, constantly warned of such things as pride or vain ambition? Do we not see this world as probation when much grinding and polishing and teaching is going on as well as a hard testing? With no make-up exams or extra credit. So it could be that it was Talmage who always believed merely in the utility of Mormonism rather than in its truth. And hence he was able to genuinely project that idea on others, including his Stake President and also me. In my case, I had published a long essay highly critical of the very idea he was sure I entertain.
Now please notice that Craig, exactly like Talmage, describes the gospel of Jesus Christ as a false hope that those who have sold this opiate actually know is false. So presumably the Brethren are either liars or themselves deceived by their own nonsense.
Now please notice that Craig, though not an entire clone of Talmage, on the crucial issues talks the same way. So he claims that he has “heard many a TBM saint claim that…the rewards of Mormonism in this life are good enough.” John Dehlin is the only one I can think of who seems to hold this very strange opinion. I have never ever once heard anyone say that, “if when they die they discover that it was all a fraud…this is OK with them.” If the gospel of Jesus Christ is not simply true, then when we die it will be all over. I would like the names of these many Latter-day Saints who hold this, to me, very odd opinion.
I sort of agree with Craig when he says that “living an entire life in a fraudulent religion…is living a false hope when life offers so much more.” I wonder, however, what he thinks the much more is other than merely gratifying one’s ambitions and satisfying one’s appitites or avoiding as much evil as possible until the worms gets us. So I would phrase his point in a slightly different way. Living with a confidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud, that there is no God, and in the end nothing has meaning or purpose might turn out to have been a fraudulent religion. Why? If in the end all of this, to paraphrase someoe, is merely sound and fury signifying noting, then all these discussions are pointless. Why? Becasue everything is ultimately pointless.
For me the gospel offers something much better. But to enjoy its blessing then and there we must here and now during our probation constantly repent–turn or return to God, and strive to keep his commandments. This includes loving the other one. But none of us manage to do that. So we all need to repent now. And we should not fool ourselveswith the false hope of being a celebrity. Or with the effort to mock others as mere dupes–think of the pejorative label MORGBOT. And think of labels that include the word Nazi.
I hope that Craig, in the noticeable absence of Talmage Bachman, will indulge us by continuing this discussion. And I urge him or others from RfM to invite the disaffected to come and have a look at the civility that is possible in other venues when a real exchange of views takes place.
Louis,
I hope you understand why it is deeply offensive that you must find some sinful reason (i.e. pride or vanity) for people leaving the church. Could it possibly be that we have simply looked at the same data and have honestly come to a different conclusion?
If I get to the other side and Mormonism turns out to be true, I have no fear for my eternal salvation. For I have confidence that a loving God will know my heart and see that I was actively striving to be a Christ-like person.
The point is, as I read Lou, that Tal or someone else might well come to a different conclusion about the evidence. But, how can they come to a different conclusion about what Lou M believes and desires? Yet, Tal won’t take Lou’s word for the fact that Lou doesn’t believe what Tal claims he must believe.
Since Lou is presumably the expert on what he believes, this cries out for explanation–and, one plausible explanation has been offered: Tal has emotional, non-rational reasons for insisting that Lou doesn’t know his own mind, or won’t express it honestly.
Why else would he cling to saying Lou believes something when Lou insists in word and in print that he doesn’t believe that?
Motives are irrelevant if one speaks the truth. When one insists on an indisputable falsehood being true (i.e., on what Lou “really thinks” when speaking to the one person who ought to KNOW!), then motive becomes not only interesting, but perhaps necessary to understanding.
Welcome to intellectual history….
Greg
Paul too would have found it very strange:
Oh I’m having such a good laugh right now having just finished reading Brother Midgleys most recent post. You really do put a smile on my face. 🙂 I’m sure that in some normal life setting…Brother Midgely and I could be good friends. You have such a pleasant manner and ability to slowly slip the knife in before the turning begins. You are gracious and kind and disarming…yet hold on to that sure knowledge that your church is all it claims to be out of all the tautologies ever created by man throughout the wide expanse of time. It’s a shame that you’ve devoted such talents to the shoring up of Mormonism. But hey we all must have our wicked pleasures.
Brother Midgely seems to like to psychoanalyze his antagonists…cutting his subjects into tiny little pejorative pieces so that they can be managed and pigeonholed into more manageable yet emotionally charged pieces.
Take your analysis of Tal:
Louis Midgley Says: “I am arguing that his profound emotional needs drive him to see things in ways that validate and vindicate his apostasy. Perhaps when his own narrow, naive understanding of folk Mormonism failed him, for the first time he asked himself whether what he had unthinkingly believed might not be false.”
Wow…”profound emotional needs? Validate – Vindicate – Naïve? Talk about assumptions. Do you know Tal this well? None of these words describes the Tal Bachman I know. Have you ever read his essay on the Book of Moses or his analysis of Mormon apologetics? You diminish your argument by stooping to such dyslogistic psychiatry.
And then once your knife is inserted…you start to turn it ever so slowly…
Louis Midgley Says: “I have wondered if his failure to have God bless him with wealth and fame after he had sacrificed [sic] so much for the Church, including even a very valuable guitar to pay what he called his tithing bill, might not have rustled up the first doubts he ever entertained. I have tried to imagine his frustration and disappointment when his agent would not return his calls after his one so-called “hit” was over.”
Thomas Payne said…”To argue with a man who has renounced reason is like giving medicine to a dead man.”
Brother Midgley has been a good sport and reasonable but has he renounced reason? Does he have the desire to help people find what is true? Or are the ties to his Mormon religion to strong to allow for rational reason?
There is an old saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees…suggesting that sometimes we are so close to a situation that we are not able to clearly see things for what they are. I purport that Brother Midgely is literally blinded by the depth of his fondness for all things Mormon. But hey what do you expect me to believe?
So I ask you, my dear Brother,
Why is it wrong to criticize your leaders even when they are wrong?
How can the bronze aged Book of Mormon Island be what it claims in a sea of stone aged America?
And why can’t you admit that the church you hold onto is less than honest with its general membership regarding it foundational history…a history I will only guess you are fully aware is NOT taught to the general membership of your church.
Louis Midgley Says: Now please notice that Craig, though not an entire clone of Talmage, on the crucial issues talks the same way. So he claims that he has “heard many a TBM saint claim that…the rewards of Mormonism in this life are good enough.” I would like the names of these many Latter-day Saints who hold this, to me, very odd opinion….
I have personally heard this same excuse from my own TBM wife’s lips as well as her stake president, bishop and a current sitting General Authority…but these admissions are always couched in the form of an excuse to maintain belief rather than depart the church. “Come on Craig take a bullet for us…isn’t the blessing of church membership in this life enough to hold you untill you are given more knowledge after you die? Ummm…bending over to pick up my jaw off the floor…NO! It isn’t. And I’d dare say Brother Midgely that in your own ward, if members felt free enough to voice their true feelings…you’d find similar views there as well as well as throughout the church. But the truth is that within the walls of Mormonism Doubt is discouraged if not fround upon…in fact although I have NEVER heard a member publically voice doubt. in a F & T meeting…purhaps you have.
But the peer pressure that even you, if you are being honest and reasonable, must acknowledge is for active members to claim that they ‘KNOW” something to be true even if they don’t know any such thing. After all the receiving of a testimony is in the giving of a testimony…in other words…if you say you Know something long enough even if you don’t…you will eventually be won over by stating truth claims.
Louis Midgley Says: I hope that Craig, in the noticeable absence of Talmage Bachman, will indulge us by continuing this discussion. And I urge him or others from RfM to invite the disaffected to come and have a look at the civility that is possible in other venues when a real exchange of views takes place.
Well time is at a premium…but I’ll stick around until either you or I tire of each other. But this place is the big leagues…and I’m really just a little leaguer.
I have been asking the same question for years, Michael. And, yet, it does not seem to be in the cards, for people on either side of the theological fence. Consider, for example, Craig Paxton’s insistence in his last several posts that LDS “can’t admit that the church [they] hold onto is less than honest with its general membership regarding its foundational history.”
In other words, Craig (and Tal, because I have seen it from him) cannot conceive that anyone can look at the foundational stories and not see dishonesty from the Church. Such a definitive analysis is far from your question as to people looking “at the same data and have honestly coming to different conclusions.”
So do you, Michael, find yourself at odds with Craig and Tal? Is it possible for people to look at the facts relative to the foundational stories and honestly come to different conclusions? Did you really mean what you said?
Or do you think that dishonesty on the part of the Church and on the part of apologists is the only explanation for not seeing the world your way?
-Allen
I meant exactly what I said. Two PhDs in economics may look at the economy and come to completely different opinions as to the appropriate course of action for the nation. Does this mean that one is stupid? Does it mean that one is dishonest? No, it means that two highly intellectual people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.
I know you are not lying. I am sure that you believe the church is true. Good for you. I respect that. I hope that you also can respect me. I hope that you can accept that I also am a good person, just like you. I have not left the church because I have been beguiled by the devil, just as the devil has not beguiled you into staying.
I believe in a world where we can have differing opinions. I hope for a world where being understood and seeking to understand supplant the desire to convince.
So, having answered the question myself, I turn the question back on you all. Can you look at me and accept that I have come to an honest conclusion at odds with your own beliefs? Or do you assume that I have, in some fashion or another, enlisted the spirit of the devil? I think I know what the answer is, but I honestly, sincerely hope I am wrong.
I can accept that you’ve come to a conclusion at odds with my beliefs. Millions of faithful people all over the world have come to the same conclusion; why not you?
-Allen
Thank you
Michael Bailey wrote:
So, having answered the question myself, I turn the question back on you all. Can you look at me and accept that I have come to an honest conclusion at odds with your own beliefs? Or do you assume that I have, in some fashion or another, enlisted the spirit of the devil? I think I know what the answer is, but I honestly, sincerely hope I am wrong.
Michael, I can’t answer for others, but I can accept why someone would come to this conclusion, because I’ve been “at odds” with points of LDS doctrine for 20-plus years now, but not always the same ones you or others may be, which I’ve outlined elsewhere. I have no problem accepting that someone can come to very different conclusions, and it seems that Allen also accepts this.
The idea that one who comes to different conclusions is “led away by the adversary” is a common idea in the Church, I’d say very common. That in itself can be irritating for one who has simply lost faith through study. One who has lost faith isn’t likely to continue living strict LDS Church standards, and hence members may (wrongly) conclude that they “just wanted to sin” (and perhaps in some cases this is true, which is why many inactives go inactive but don’t attack Mormonism – ex-bishop with a 75% inactivity roll speaking here).
Where Mormons can justifiably be forgiven for thinking that exmos have “enlisted the spirit of the devil” is very well summarised by Dr. Peterson in his essay Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism, where he lists “blood-curling” examples of demonstrable hatred against the Church in the name of “recovery” (don’t know if you’ve read this). I take the word of Craig Paxton that this was therapeutic for him, at least for a while, and I know others who felt the same, including yours truly for a time. However, even I was disturbed at the level of some of the vitriol, and certainty. I’ve commented on the extent of this before, for example even ex-Mormons like Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel have been considered as “apologists” for Mormonism by many on RFM. So even exmos can’t throw any part of Mormonism in a positive or objective light, it must of necessity all be fake, fraudulent, Nazi-like, and “take no prisoners”. Vogel has been criticised by apologists for his “pious fraud” theory, and outrightly condemned by many on RFM. Because Joseph can’t be a pious fraud, he must be an outright fraud, a charlatan and a calculating deceiver who took advantage of others for gain. Do you blame Mormons for thinking that the devil inspires this? The sort of vitriol hurled at Mormons would lead any ordinary person to think that something evil was at work here, not necessarily the devil. Where Mormons take offence is when what you call a “different conclusion” (on the part of believing Mormons) is called “lies”, “fraud”, “delusion” and “dishonesty”, and the “Chief apologists” for the Church is portrayed as a standing joke and ridiculed to kingdom come on boards where they do not accept “different conclusions” as being legitimate. So there can only be one conclsion – the “Chief apologist” has to be a sociopath and pathological liar.
I hope you also recognize that I can match every negative example you provide of “anti-Mormons” with examples of “Nazi-Mormons.” I do not mean to say this to excuse these actions in any way. Both are inappropriate. Both are evil. I simply hope that you recognize that bad ones exist on both sides of the fence.
Michael:
I simply hope that you recognize that bad ones exist on both sides of the fence.
I do. And for this reason I don’t post on “TBM” boards, like LDS.Net (where I had my account deleted), where there is not such much vitriol (Mormons are no where near as unkind as their anti-Mormon opponents, in my opinion), but comments suggesting that I can solve all my doubt and disbelief problems by prayer, obedience, and letting the Holy Ghost back in, and, to me, a distinct air of “mainly milk please, there are some tender souls here” (see my forthcoming post, time allowing). If only it was that easy. I haven’t been personally attacked by Mormons with anywhere near the viciousness I have by ex-Mormons.
To paraphrase Manning Clark (a notable late Australian historian who was agnostic): “I’m agnostic and an unbeliever, but I feel much more comfortable with dialogue in religious communities than atheist communities.” I was a member of the Rationalist Association of NSW in the late 1980s, but resigned after I found their dogma and intolerance worse than anything I’d encountered in religion, and, to boot, their mockery.
Craig Paxton wrote:
NO. RFM is not the place for toned down discourse between TBM’s and Exmo’s.
It is, Craig. No one became an “exmo” without first being a “TBM”, yourself included, and it’s dialogue between TBMs and exmos which often facilitate the exit process. The question is whether reliable and balanced information is being communicated. Real choices, or just the “fraud mantra”. In effect, what you are saying is that it’s a place where people who have decided to leave Mormonism come for validation, not to read reasoned argument from both sides. There shall be no reasonable or too persuasive arguments presented in behalf of Mormonism, because the budding exiters are too tender to hear them while in such a delicate state, and have to be “eased out” by being exposed to “universal truth”. I’d be just as wary of someone joining the Church through this process (and I’ve argued investigators need more exposure to LDS history so they can make real choices rather than being “eased in”), as someone leaving it.
Personally, I think the church has a real problem. It may want to have understanding with the likes of me and other former believing Members…but really how can it? It can’t compromise…hell you guys can’t seem to even acknowledge even one of my points here on this board…how could the church?
I acknowledge several, including your legitimate loss of belief.
The church is painted into a corner. It CAN’T apologize for polygamy, failure to give blacks the priesthood, heck it can’t even teach its own history correctly. If it acknowledges any wrong it exposes itself as NOT being what it claims. I mean come on, the average member of the church actually believes that President (see I’m being nice) Monson actually walks and talks (like you or I might) with Christ. If he were honest and dispelled the myth…it would diminish his power. So the ruse continues
Too many points here that would need more involved discussion, and I’m too busy with work to reply in detail now. But briefly, the Church doesn’t need to apologise for something it still believes, ie, polygamy, at least “in principle”. My argument is that it could be much more forthright about it. Sanitisation no doubt goes on, otherwise Elder Packer couldn’t be an apostle, or at least taken seriously, because he openly advocated it in 1981 to Mormon educators, and condemned “open history”, or unbalanced history (which meant not seeing the hand of the Lord in every moment) or what was initially called the “New Mormon History”. This doesn’t excuse ignorance.
Of course… there arrogance on both sides… it’s like a game of scout camp “Steal the Flag” Each side is vigorously protecting its sacred positions. However, again only speaking for myself, I remember the day I broke down crying after realizing that the so called enemies of the church were more (at least to me) credible than the church of my birth. I never wanted the church to be anything other than what it claims to be.
And as I’ve said above, I acknowledge your legitimate loss of faith. The kinderhook plates isn’t the only or even real issue (even if it was the final straw), but what you encountered in toto. I don’t find that difficult to understand.
I’m sorry that you’ve met such intolerant atheists. I wish you could meet the many very tolerant, friendly atheists with whom I have had the pleasure of associating. For example, myself. 🙂
Michael, I’d second Ray. I’ve seen some real nasty examples of intolerance on some atheist forums.
The problem is, while there are some atheists who simply stop believing in God in a polite and reasonable fashion, there are many others who don’t.
The increasing feeling I’m getting is that the “TBMs” (as the word is used insultingly on the internet) and the strident ex-Mormons are actually the same people – the same personality types – just on different sides of the line.
These people were close-minded, juvenile extremists when they were in the Church, and now that they’ve left, they are still close-minded, juvenile extremists. All they’ve done is changed hats. But the head is still full of the same idiocy. Extremist then, extremist now. “Nazi” then, “nazi” now.
Seems that regardless of whether they are in or out of the Church, they just can’t let a day go by without making the world a more miserable place for the grown-ups.
So Ray…I have to ask… where in Oz do you lay your head? Where’s home? Email me privately if you’d like at [email protected]
With respect to the use of the word “Nazi” A very charged word indeed. When I use it, it’s a term of loving endearment however… lol. It suggests blind obedience…members of a common belief, marching lock step in white shirts and modest dresses to discharge the orders of their unquestionable –uncriticizable leaders. (sounds familiar?) More hyperbole? I don’t think so, any organization that suspends the free exchange of ideas in public settings and requires its members to keep their private thoughts private or face excommunication (I’ve been warned several times before I told them all to go take a hike, also think of all the BYU folks who have been threatened with reprisal if they choice to participate in public forums) deserves the title of “Nazi”. But I also believe that church members don’t want to be thought of as a group that must keep their public pronouncements within strictly defined boundaries at the orders of its beloved leaders…but reality clearly shows Mormonism as a hierarchal man led organization with no financial accountability to its membership, with no transparency…Heck now you can’t even write and ask any of the Big Guys anything…they’ve completely removed themselves from any accountability on any level what-so-ever. Oh except of course to their God. And of course because the church is true…that’s enough accountablility for members. But it doesn’t make my claim false…
Seth, seconding Ray, has made a good observation. Though often what we see with apostates is merely a shifting form one ideology to another where the same passions prevail, the same certainties govern and so forth. The one is a sort of inverse mirror image of the other and nothing has really changed other than the brand name. Now think of Talmage Bachman boasting about being in what he called a suicide bomber wing of the Church of Jesus Christ, and notice how structurally similar his current ideology is where it is easy to see the substitution of a weird, depraved, dogmatically held version of secular anti-Mormonism for an equally odd suicide-bomber folk version of Mormonism.
But I hope that all of this is not always entirely or merely the work of fixed personality types. Why? I like to think of all of us as responsible moral agents who can, if we really want to, fight and eventually win, with the help of God, a battle with our base desires and personality proclivities. This cannot, of course, happen when we desperately want to be validated, to be proclaimed honest, or to have made and honest or wise choice in our rebellion against God. My experience is that it comes, if and when it comes, only when we begin to doubt our understanding, our knowledge of much of anything, and hence our own opinions, our place in the world and so forth. It comes if and when we genuinely seek to be reborn–to cast away the carnality that goes with being merely natural. Only God can save us from our carnal selves, and this is possible when we begin to desire to see the old stuff burned out of us and replaced by a new being.
Until and unless we submit as a slave once did in the biblical world to his master by doing faithfully what he had been commanded to do, this new birth cannot begin to genuinely take place. Unfortunately young kids sometimes go on LDS missions, follow all the little rules, strive to look good and climb up the ladder to–gasp!–assistant to the President or as a big time baptizer of people who had no idea of what they were getting into and for whom there was virtually no communal support. And a few years later, not having genuinely absorbed or having in the bustle of life forgotten the message they once were called to present, this fellows and gals have a bit of a crisis of faith and leave the Church and thereby reject God.
But they may even continue to believe, despite becoming functional atheists, that when they get to heaven, if they ever get there, the God they have imagined will understand their honesty in rejecting him because they have merited this understanding by living Christ-like lives as passionate anti-Mormons. Those on RfM seem to me to be primarily functional atheists. But they may be very confident that, if it turns out that they were just wrong, the God they have imagined will be like a friendly old gent in the neighborhood who gives candy to naughty kids because he is such a kindly old gent. Am I the only one who has met this kind of person? I doubt it. They can be identified when they begin to insist that Latter-day Saints must agree with them that they honest, good people.
If I am not sure about my own worth, I am certainly not going to be passing favorable judgments upon others who I hardly know just so that they can feel validated and, of course, justified–not guilty of any sin. I would also like to feel justified, but I am not sure that I am not guilty of sin, and hence I renew my covenant as often as possible, hoping thereby for divine assistance and mercy.
“When I use it, it’s a term of loving endearment however… lol. It suggests blind obedience…members of a common belief, marching lock step in white shirts and modest dresses to discharge the orders of their unquestionable –uncriticizable leaders. (sounds familiar?) More hyperbole?”
That’s not “loving” Craig. That’s outright contemptuous.
Louis,
How dare you pass judgment on me! How dare you presume to know my heart! How can you people not see Brother Midgely’s words as anything less than hateful?! Unbelievable! I find it hard to believe that a loving God would care more about what we believe than the sort of person we are. My favorite was when you said “If I am not sure about my own worth, I am certainly not going to be passing favorable judgments upon others…” What if you just follow the admonish of Christ and “judge not that ye be not judged?”
As to the suicide bomber notion put forth by Tal Bachman, I don’t understand why people balk at this so much. I think it’s an accurate description. Years ago, after reading about Moses commanding the Levites to kill the people who had worshiped the golden calf (who’s on the Lord’s side, who?), I contemplated what I would do. I thought, what if the prophet were to tell me to kill someone I loved, would I do it? I realized that I would not. I resolved to build up enough faith that I would be capable of doing such a thing. A few years later I considered this same issue again and realized that I had enough faith that I would do it, not happily, but I would do it.
Another example, I posed the above question to another friend recently. She’s a wonderful, sweet, very thoughtful person. She said that if the prophet commanded her to kill me, she would do it.
Another example, speaking with a roommate once regarding 9/11 he said that he was torn about the issue. On one hand he knew that this was a horrible travesty. On the other hand, he had a lot of respect for the perpetrators for their faithfulness. He wanted to emulate them in their willingness to do as they believed God had directed.
I should emphasis that all of the above people are really great people who would never want to hurt anyone. These are not “Nazi-Mormons.” They are close friends of mine whom I love very much. I emphasis this to show that you don’t have to be crazy or fringe to be a “suicide-bomber” type of Mormon.
Is this any surprise though? Look at what we see in the scriptures (especially the Old Testament). We regularly talk about Abraham’s obedience and how we should emulate this. As mentioned above, we see the example of the Levites in their willingness to slaughter friends and family because Moses commanded them to do so. The Israelites committed genocide on returning to Canaan. Even Nephi kills a man who is asleep and no immediate threat. There are lots of examples of this sort of thing.
Fortunately, the leaders of the church are not madmen, so it is unlikely that the above faithfulness will ever be fully tested. Hopefully it never will be.
Lastly, I just wanted to say that I’m not going to respond to any more posts on here. I’ll be sure to read any responses to this post, but don’t expect a response. I’m spending too much time here and I’m getting really frustrated with the things some are saying. I am trying to remain very respectful, but I do not feel that others are responding in kind. (I hope that doesn’t sound childish)
Seth R. Says:
That’s not “loving” Craig. That’s outright contemptuous.
Seth, if it quakes like a duck and walks like a duck…sorry Seth, but it’s a duck…even if the duck doesn’t want to be a duck…it’s still a duck
NOW PLEASE I’m NOT equating Mormonism and the blind faith exhibited by its membership to the “atrocities” perpetrated by the German Nazi Régime. Only the lock step, blind, unquestioning, uncritizing nature of your faith.
What term would you use to describe a member of an unquestionable, undoubtable organization? A cult perhaps?
Seriously I’m only having fun with yeah…relax… If you’ve ever publically proclaimed doubt or questioned Mormon authority in public…I sincerely apologize…you’re not a Mormo-Nazi. (Which I use in the most loving of terms)
Oh and if it makes you feel better…I was once in the Mormo-Nazi-Wing of the LDS Church. (I think the Church actually has a Mormo-Nazi Committee at the COB) I NEVER Questioned, ALWAYS Wore a White shirt on Sundays…NEVER wanted to know where my tithing receipts went…so don’t feel so bad.
Have I overstayed my Kind FAIR Welcome? Hey if your going to entertain the devil…
PS: I hope not cuz I’m having fun…
I just went back and checked, and Lou didn’t pass judgment on you at all. He didn’t mention your name; he didn’t address the message to you at all. He didn’t use absolute inclusionism in his statements–they didn’t cover all critics, just some.
So why do you take such umbrage?
But weren’t you the one who said, a few posts back, that you were athiest? Doesn’t that mean, by definition, that you can’t imagine of any God (he doesn’t exist)? And, if you could imagine one that was acceptable you wouldn’t, by definition, be athiest?
Besides, it our beliefs that define the sort of person we are because it is our beliefs that motivate our thoughts and actions. Ergo, God judges by our beliefs–by our hearts, in scriptural terms.
Sure you understand that one cannot get through life without making judgments, right? You, for instance, have judged the Church to be a fraud. How is it OK for you to make such judgments and yet not OK for others to make judgments that may disagree with yours?
And, yet, others don’t. How do you explain that?
You need new friends.
You definitely need new friends.
I don’t think it sounds childish. But I suspect that you are frustrated with Lou. I suspect that the frustration is borne of (1) taking the things he says personally even when they are not directed at you and (2) not understanding how “intellectual history” works.
It is this second issue which people seem to not understand. What Lou does with examining the writings and behavior of people such as Tal (or Grant Palmer, or whoever) is a valid scholarly endeavor. He looks at people’s public pronouncements, puts them in context, and tries to both document them and make sense of them.
And yet, those who don’t understand “intellectual history” find fault with such endeavors and say that someone like Lou is mean and (to use your word, Michael) “hateful.” I can assure you that he is neither of these, but he engages in a formal manner what each of us feel very comfortable engaging in in a less formal manner. There have been those on this thread who have examined and found fault with the teachings of Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson or Boyd K. Packer, and they aren’t afraid to say so. Is that mean or hateful? No, it is life–we make judgments about others and then act upon those judgments. The only difference between such mundane, run of the mill analysis done by many here and (more prolifically) at RfM is that Lou has been professionally trained in the field of intellectual history and the rest have not.
And yet he is judged as judgmental, hateful, and somehow lacking in good graces.
Go figure.
-Allen
I think it is important that everyone will not know the truth.
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
(Alma 12:9)
I was also ready a book tonight and found the following:
“No doubt Professor Jeremias and Professor Aland were each brilliant men. Each, perhaps, was sincere in his belief. Each reviewed the same sources, but each came to totally opposing conclusions on all five points. Such a state of affairs is a powerful reminder that genius and reason are insufficient, in and of themselves, to discover spiritual truths. SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW, ONE MUST PAY THE PRICE TO RECEIVE A SPIRITUAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUTH.”
(Tad Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy, pp. 225)
MD
So… I just blew 20 minutes of my life on that. Why all the discussion, people? The answer is clear:
TRIAL BY ORDEAL
Tal and the Stake President meet in single combat; whoever consumes his opponent’s heart first is obviously the favored of the Lord. The winner is vindicated and the loser is dead enough not to write any more posts or letters about this. Seems simple to me.
(The above was an attempt at humor. I am not bitter, and nobody forced me to read the post. I do not actually advocate “Trial by Ordeal” … Except for one called “The Deadly Morsel,” ’cause that’s just too cool.)
Craig Paxton, in response to my insistence that he provide evidence that faithful Latter-day Saints admit that the historical foundations of their faith are bunk, while also holding that it does not matter, since doing everything that Latter-day Saints do has some utility despite the bunk, cited no literature in which this opinion is set out. Instead, he claimed that his wife, as well as former Bishop, Stake President and one of the Brethren, presumably called in by his desperate wife in an effort to revive his faith, appealed to the utility of faith rather than its truth. Of course they must have mentioned the fruit of repentance, which is here and now valuable for the believer. But was not their way of saying that faith in God is merely useful bunk. It is exactly the opposite. Craig hears from his wife and others what Talmage Bachman charmed him into believing is the standard LDS response to the question of whether the foundations of the faith are true.
There are, however, those who make the kind of argument that Craig attributes to his wife and others. For example, one employee of Signature Books has made quite a public fuss about how he has ceased to believe, but still attends Church meetings, listens to prayers, hears sermons and lessons, even perhaps takes part in what others believe are sacred rituals, while not believing a thing except that it is pleasand to attend Church meetings. He enjoys, for example, the Boy Scouts activities. He does so because his Ward provides a nice environment in which to raise his kids, allows him a pleasant social experience, gives him something wholesome to do and so forth. But the faith is, he thinks, merely bunk. He sees some utility in going through the motions despite not submitting all aspects of his life the Jesus as Lord, and not seeing Jesus as his Redeemer and so forth. His is a version of a cultural Mormonism that one can find on the fringes of the community of Saints. Faithful Saints, of course, tolerate such antics in the hope of winning such a one back to Christ. They become Ward projects. Bishops and many others hope, exactly like Craig’s wife, Bishop, and Stake President that this fellow will somehow allow the Holy Spirit to revive whatever faith he may have once had.
A merely cultural or nostalgic attachment to a faith no longer genuinely held is, of course, very common among Christians, Jews and, in some places, Muslims. But it is to this point not common among Latter-day Saints except among those I label cultural Mormons. This is an expression I fashioned from the Protestant liberal movement found in Germany that sometimes went by the name “cultural Protestantism.” The label has caught on. The most extreme manifestation of this kind of limp religiosity can be seen in the pastors who helped form the secular humanist movement. Many of those folks were blatant atheists who had not yet gotten out of the habit of going to church. The Church of Jesus Christ remains vital primarily because it has to this point avoided these lapses. Instead, what we see is a remarkably high level of hostility, born of guilt, among dissidents and apostates, rather than a mild cultural attachment or indifference one now commonly found among all brands of Christianity in Europe.
When we find, as we have seen expressed by a few on this thread, the same kind of hostility towards the faith of the Saints that is commonly displayed by those on RfM, what we have is solid evidence that those folks fear that they might have made a terrible mistake and that Jesus understood as the Messiah or Christ is actually the Way, Light and Truth. We certainly do not thereby find indications that the faithful are not concerned with the truth of the crucial historical foundations of their faith. And the Bachman-like claim that they do, is merely one curious way of dealing with dissonance. The common observation that those who leave the faith simply cannot leave it alone seems sound. Instead, they may even insist on justifying or rationalizing their hostilities as a form of therapy for the pain that they experienced when they were–shudder–MORGBOTS (or whatever other silly, disgusting, pejorative, mocking label they choose to use to describe the hated Other).
Part of this dynamic, as we have seen, is the demand that the Saints validate their apostasy by granting that it was honest, rational and hence fully justified. As we have also seen, they may even insist, even though they have become atheists, that God does not now and will not beyond the grave find their rebellion against him at all offensive. And they insist that their atheist friends are nice people, and being nice, whatever that means, is what really counts. They sneer at efforts of the Saints to place a broken heart and contrite spirit on the altar in an effort to find favor with God. They are likely, instead, to reinforce their malevolent passions by constantly telling lurid tales about those they saw as the worst Mission President, Primary or Sunday School teacher, Bishop, parent, Stake President, or Apostle they ever encountered. But, for these very nice folks, the very worst of the worst are those dreaded apologists and the consummate embodiment of evil and stupidity is none other than Daniel C. Peterson. And of course, those who defend the faith, are so clumsy that they are actually driving away thousands each day with their perfectly ridiculous efforts. So take that Fair.
It should be noted that Talmage Bachman, a veritable star of unrecovered hostility towards his former faith, who highly recommends Grant Palmer’s notoriously bad book, will not discuss its merits with me either in private or in public. Why? Well, of course, I am not concerned, he is certain, with truth but merely with the utility of what he believes on the basis of Palmer’s book is bunk. So much for Talmage Bachman’s credibility, which has been, despite all the drifting, the focus of this thread.
I do not see the LDS Church as needing to admit wrong for polygamy, or not ordaining blacks. Or even apologize for not teaching its history fully to everyones satisfaction. I do not think it diminishes the truth of any religion to have aspects of history outsiders or persons in that church do not like. LDS did not ordain blacks because the policy was felt by them inspired. If outsiders want to join the LDS church they will have to get over what they don’t like if it is an obstacle to faith. Its a fact of life living stuff which me may not like, but to function in life we live with stuff.
Louis Midgley Says:
Craig Paxton, in response to my insistence that he provide evidence that faithful Latter-day Saints admit that the historical foundations of their faith are bunk, while also holding that it does not matter, since doing everything that Latter-day Saints do has some utility despite the bunk, cited no literature in which this opinion is set out.
Craig’s Response:
Come on Brother Midgley…Hope and Faith ARE the only foundation in Mormonism…there is little else a truly believing Mormon CAN build a belief system upon, since its real history is a manufactured myth…It is a history of masterful fiction that has been taught as Mormon authorities wish it had occurred rather than how it actually did occur. (Some on this thread have admit such, but somehow justify the fraud) Thus Mormonism remains nothing more than the false hope sold by the snake oil salesman. Of course the snake oil salesman is NOT publish literature admitting to his “Marks” the fraud. The myth MUST continue.
Louis Midgley Says:
Instead, he claimed that his wife, as well as former Bishop, Stake President and one of the Brethren, presumably called in by his desperate wife in an effort to revive his faith, appealed to the utility of faith rather than its truth. Of course they must have mentioned the fruit of repentance, which is here and now valuable for the believer.
Craig’s Response:
Yeah crazy huh. Don’t stand for anything…merely go on faking it since the utility of the faith has value.
Louis Midgley Says:
Craig hears from his wife and others what Talmage Bachman charmed him into believing is the standard LDS response to the question of whether the foundations of the faith are true.
Craig’s Response:
Oh Brother Midgely…it would be so simple if only I had been ‘Charmed” by Tal. But that conclusion discounts my path. I would love to be able to pass off responsibility for my loss of believe to Tal, but I’d prefer to lay it squarely were it belongs, I lost my faith in Mormonism when I discovered that the church had not been honest in its foundational stories…that they had changed so called scripture, had manufactured foundational stories, had enhanced and edited its history. I lost my faith when I concluded that Mormonism’s antagonist were more credible than Mormonism’s defenders.
The rest of your post is merely your attempt to gift wrap this thread up in a pretty summation with fancy wrapping paper and an attractive bow. It would be nice if loss of belief were as simple as “hostility, born of guilt”. Oh that we “apostates” were as shallow as you make us to be.
Isn’t it wonderful for the Mormon Apologinista’s to have the RFM’s of the world to point “down” to?
Louis Midgley Says:
The common observation that those who leave the faith simply cannot leave it alone seems sound.
Craig’s Response:
Oh that is such a tired assumption. Speaking only for myself (but feel it is a common sentiment among non-believers) we will leave Mormonism alone and believe me we want to leave it alone…WHEN it leaves us alone. But I accept my fate that as long as I live in Utah, I will always be a Mormon Project, despite my very frankly stated pleas to be left alone…
Louis Midgley Says:
Instead, they may even insist on justifying or rationalizing their hostilities as a form of therapy for the pain that they experienced when they were–shudder–MORGBOTS
Craig’s Response:
Yeah funny huh…that an abused individual might need therapy to recover from an abusive relationship. Reclaiming one’s life after Mormonism IS a difficult process, but it is possible. Removing oneself from the collective, thank goodness is possible.
Brother Midgley, you may find this hard to believe…but I respect you. I believe that you are a very good, well meaning man, confident in your belief that Mormonism is all that it claims to be. But what I have also discovered by participating here at FAIR is that as a church apologist, you cannot concede a single inch of ground to someone from my camp. My perspective will always be out of focus to your view. I will always be wrong…you will always be right. For you to compromise ground would to be to concede defeat and that can never happen in the Mormon mind set. There will never be a middle ground. The church will always be true no matter what conflicting information may be discovered. It is impossible to nail Jell-o to a wall. There is NOT a single historical or scientific fact that can overturn Mormonism’s claims in your mind. I dare say that even if Jesus Christ himself were to appear and state it was all a fraud, you would question His validity.
So I would like to ask you a simple question, by what standard could someone know that Mormonism was not true? Or is that a question in futility? In the real world, truth claims can be tested and scrutinized. Truth claims must stand up to the most rigorous of examinations. Yet on that standard Mormonism has failed completely. So many of its claims have been demonstrated to be nothing more than wishful fantasies. Adam and Eve, universal flood, death being introduced 6,000 years ago. The Mormon shelf of questions unanswerable in this life are too numerous to mention. And as more and more years pass, Mormonism will face ever growing Tsunami of conflicting, unbelievable (except to Mormon’s) information.
I mean if it is not even possible to know if it is not what it claims to be…if it is true no matter what the conflicting evidence may be…If there is NO TEST to know that it is not all it claims to be then Mormonism has failed completely…for its message should be overwhelmingly accepted by those “sincerely” seeking truth. And yes I’m aware that you have an “out” with this argument, narrow path… few find it blah blah blah…but I want a real answer.
The circular reasoning truth test found in Moroni 10 seems to place all blame of negative confirmation on the seeker. The truth seeker didn’t ask sincere enough, they didn’t seek long enough, they weren’t worthy enough…it’s always the seekers fault…never the message’s. And Mormonism message is being rejected by truth seekers ever single day.
for the seeker to conclude that the Book is NOT true…is never a possibility in Mormonism…
But what if it is “Not True”
Louis Midgley has done more with his comments to make me want to run away from the LDS Church screaming than all the anti-LDS material in the world could ever do.
Angel:
Don’t just opine. Instead, try to identify what exactly I have written that is for you all that confused, inaccurate, or wrong? Please, don’t merely opine or emote sloppy sentimentality.
A question for Craig:
Do you believe that the Catholic Church, which claims to be the “only true Church”, with the only authority on earth to speak for God, with singular apostolic authority bestowed by St. Peter – is a fraud? (I’m coming from a different angle than Dr. Midgley here.)
Pertinent to this discussion too (about truth and knowledge) is this excerpt from President Keyes:
The personal improvement I get from living the gospel is only one aspect of my testimony. There are many layers and dimensions to what I know and am a witness to and I continue to learn spiritual truths with time. The knowledge that matters is the first-hand knowledge we receive from God. The constant invitation in the Church is to ask God and get your own witness. There is no compartmentalization in my gospel understanding. There are things I know and things I believe, things I hope for, and some things I don’t have answers for yet; it is a connected continuum. We worship with both knowledge and faith. (My emphasis)
It seems to me that Keyes was wide open to misunderstanding, and it’s not at all difficult for me to understand how Bachman with his either/or approach could read things into his statements that were not there. “Knowing”, in the testimony sense, doesn’t mean knowing all the answers. The scenario Bachman presents is if a man who “knows” it’s all a “fabrication” and, essentially, lives a double life because it makes him a “better husband and father”.
This makes no sense to me, as a former very liberal believer in the latter years of my sporadic activity in the Church. I certainly wasn’t active in a Church I thought was a fraud or a fabrication, even though I would have been sympathetic to Bachman’s views as well.
Ray,
I don’t know where you’re going with the catholic question…but I give no validity to any religion built on a foundation of unsupportable faith claims.
Craig,
My approach is essentially the Joseph Campbell one, which I realise is completely out of sinc with “TBM” belief. I don’t view religion as an either/or proposition (notwithstanding the strong Mormon emphasis on this), and therefore I don’t see them either as “frauds” or “only true beliefs”. There are many LDS revelations in which I see truth, but which are, for me, unconnected to “only true” claims. In other words, I’ve become well imbued with “the philosophies of men”, such as Campbell. (Who, I might add, was no idiot.)
Craig is at least willing to accept that he is responsible for his own decision to leave the Church. Why do you feel you have to blame someone else?
-Allen
Not saying I am leaving because of anybody. But I came here to read different sides of an issue, and on one hand I find people who seem to be sincerely strugling with a loss of faith and looking for compassion and understanding, and on the other I see people mean-spiritedly belittling them. I don’t want to be associated in any way with those mean-spirited people. That is all.
I am sure now that Allen and Louis Midgley will now tear into me, but I think that this needed to be said.
Angel, if you add to your description of
“people who seem to be sincerely struggling with a loss of faith”
the words
“and feel the need to ridicule those still in the faith”
Then, it describes Tal Bachman. Just felt that needed to be said too.
I am in the Victoria, BC, Canada Stake. I am LDS, not practicing, but my girlfriend is and last night on May 24th, 2008, Pres. Keyes addressed this breifly in an adult Stake Conf. (I only attended because my girlfriend went). I don’t care to say who I am, I’m not into the drama all that much that some EXMO’s and current LDS’s might be up for. I will say that I do know Randy, Julie and their kids. I have Randy’s # in my sell phone and his email address. I also know Tal and Randy Bachman, but know even better Bob Jr. and Rich McCue.
But back to Randy’s comments. He said something like “I found outthat there’s a rumour on the internet that I don’t have a testimny of this gospel. … I was talking my the Area President and he said I should address this to the saints of the Stake… if someone comes up tp you and asks whats up with your SP you can tell them that “I have heard him myself bear testimnoy” and he bore testimony.
Three things:
1) my remembering of what he said last night isn’t verbatim and he didn’t mention the sourse of the rumour.
2) I know Randy pretty well for over 20 years and I can say with out a doubt that he belived every word he uttered.
3) For me myself I don’t know if the church is true or if I’m just not up for living the gospel. I have talked to Pres. Keyes about the gospel, my “sins”(pretty serious ones) and my doubts on and off for a better part of 5 years. Not once, has he EVER eluded to anything like Tal has said. And never have i ever felt judged or “less than”.
My guess is that Tal heard what he wanted to, Randy’s open letter is Randy’s view on what happened.
Randy or any SP saying the church is true or isn’t true doen’t make it so. Tal saying the church is true or not true doesn’t make it so either.
SO why did I write? Well not only have I heard PRes. Keyes bear his testimony of the gospel last night I have several times over 20 years. I have had many many many many more converastions than Tal has ever had with Randy or even Julie and their kids for that matter. Tal talks about one conversation as if that one eqauls more than all teh others he has had with hime or more importantly then Randy has had with hundreds of others, especailly his own wife.
I’m not more or less converted because of last night, but I certainly not all persuaded by Tal on any level.
To: Pres. Keyes IS my SP
Thank you for “setting the record straight”. I take your post at face value, unless otherwise refuted. What some ex-Mormons need to understand is that Tal Bachman isn’t God, and always right. As I’ve said from the start, Bachman read into President Keyes what he wanted to hear. He distorted it, and used his stake president to justify his apostasy. He didn’t need to do this. His “death cult” post was enough to assure us of that. It might have been comforting to Tal to think that all Mormons are closet unbelievers, but this is pure fantasy. I think Randy Keyes should be taken at his word on this issue, and if he says he’s a true believer, I have no problem with that. And it still makes no sense to me why he’d devote his whole life to something he thought is a fraud, and ONLY revealed to Tal Bachman.
Go back to singing, Tal. Because your credibility on this issue is in tatters.
The LDS church is true and Joseph Smith is a Prophet. I know that by revelation. I could elaborate on ‘how’ I came to ‘know’ but I won’t. Yes, ‘Google’ has provided me with a lot of fascinating additional pieces of info, a lot of it true or based on truth, but nevertheless, the church is still true. Once you ‘KNOW, thats it, there’s no going back to ‘I don’t know’. I also know that many members/leaders/scholars pretend that they know the church is true but privately doubt or indeed have views very different from the official LDS gospel. Tal Bachman has obviously lost the Spirit and his way, if he ever had the Spirit or a testimony. But somehow I don’t buy the SP, Randy Keyes, story. I think his open letter, and that of his wife, are damage limitation exercises. When he said ‘As I said to you and your wife, I do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet’ it sounds like he’s saying well, inspite of what else I may have told you, I still believe that Joseph is a Prophet. As strange as it may seem, apostates prefer to base their attacks on real events and details rather than fabricated ones.
In saying what I have said above, I really do hope that I’m wrong and that Pres. Keyes does have a testimony or at least a sincere belief in the restored gospel and teaches such in private as well as in public.
But somehow I don’t buy the SP, Randy Keyes, story. I think his open letter, and that of his wife, are damage limitation exercises. When he said ‘As I said to you and your wife, I do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet’ it sounds like he’s saying well, inspite of what else I may have told you, I still believe that Joseph is a Prophet. As strange as it may seem, apostates prefer to base their attacks on real events and details rather than fabricated ones.
So you are saying that President Keyes is an apostate? Because he doesn’t “know” as you do? How did you come to this conclusion? By “the spirit”? A poster has offered his intimate knowledge of Randy Keyes from personal experience (if we can take this at face value), yet by reading what he (Keyes) said, you “think” this is “damage control”? On that premise, why should I believe YOUR testimony?
In saying what I have said above, I really do hope that I’m wrong and that Pres. Keyes does have a testimony or at least a sincere belief in the restored gospel and teaches such in private as well as in public.
It looks to me like you might be magnificently wrong, and your contribution to this debate, utterly presumptious.