TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

[_Sethbag]

It's only regrettable that this becomes Jerry Springer material, when in reality what matters is whether the LDS church is true. The LDS church isn't true even if it were shown that Tal lied (I don't think this has been shown, I'm just saying this hypothetically), and the LDS church isn't true even if were shown that Pres. Keyes was 100% accurate and honest in every word he said.

But the soap opera stuff I find personally a bit off-putting, and I find the mad glee over at MADB about this to be off-putting as well.

[_bcspace]

Where has Tal demanded the SP to be quiet?

Assuming the OP contains Tal's words....

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.

How daft you sound, BC. I don't want Pres. Keyes to keep quiet about the meeting. I just want him to stop falsely accusing me.

And Keyes doesn't want the same from you? C'mon Tal. Put up or shut up.

I vote that you go ahead and "out" him entirely.

Perhaps we are about to see who ditched the ethics.....

[_Tal Bachman]

But if Pres. Keyes really wants to have a big battle royale over this...

Seem like you're the one seeking the battle. .

---Not at all.

While this may be difficult for you to comprehend, I've been defending Pres. Keyes for the past four plus years over this. I like the guy. I feel eternally indebted. If he had confined himself to a bland, vague, "we differ in our respective memories of this event", I wouldn't have had much to say.

But he's now doing things like denying that he admitted his belief that Joseph Smith took sexual advantage of his followers through polygamy, something which he absolutely did say in direct response to one of my questions. I didn't force him to say that, nor did I invent that he did.

I asked him directly at one point about the possibility of Joseph Smith having taken such sexual advantage through polygamy, and Randy Keyes nodded his head and said soberly to me, "Yes.......I think he did", but then went on to say (again) that for him, that was "irrelevant". But you would never get that impression reading his open letter, would you? He denies he ever said that!

Why is he denying this and other things? That is not so difficult to imagine, and in truth, I sympathize to a large degree with those reasons. But since the result of that denial is a false accusation, it's hard for me to restrain myself...and I suppose I am caught between an Aerosmith album and a hard place (rock joke). If I stay silent, it will be as though I can make no refutation of his false accusations, and if I lay it all out, I embarrass him more and hurt his wife more, and probably make myself look weak.

I could muster up a few folks who have heard Randy Keyes say about the same things as I've reported him to say here. Will it matter? Are we really supposed to have a battle over this? I just don't see how there is anything to gain for anyone, and I wish he would stop saying I've incorrectly reported what he said, since the truth is, I haven't, he must know that, and there's more I could report, which would probably embarrass him a lot more, and hurt his wife even more.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

I'm a little unsure what to do. My claims about what Pres. Keyes are not false or exaggerated, and Pres. Keyes knows it.

Yes, that's your story

Yet he is publicly claiming that I'm incorrectly reporting much of what he said that night, and I don't like being falsely accused of things anymore than anyone else.

Yes, that's your version

Yet I like Pres. Keyes, am grateful he was my SP, and don't want to further embarrass him or hurt his wife. So what am I supposed to do?

You can do nothing, as the conversation you had with him was not recorded, the two versions are quite different, and we are left to judge the matter according to our own biases, the general nature of the claims made by both sides, and the characterological attributes, the the degree such can be discerned, of both individuals involved.

This is, as has been pointed out, nothing but a pissing contest.

The truth is that Pres. Keyes made a couple of other comments that night that, at least since I laid claim to my original "Rosebud" RFM post, that I have never repeated in discussions about that meeting, because I always thought they might just be the camel-breaking straws for him if they were ever noised around

And yet, this individual's behavior, after your meeting, as opposed to the claims you make about his beliefs and perceptions of the Church (denying its foundational divine claims to authority) continue to imply complete commitment to the Gospel and acceptance of its truth claims. This, more than anything else, calls your version of events into serious question.

and my point has never been to embarrass him or hurt his wife, but only to tell others what happened to me, so that they can move on from the devastating experience of discovering their lives are built on a fraud.

You may cease patting yourself on the back for your noble and lofty intellectual and moral rectitude in disassociating yourself from the Church and stay on the subject.

So what I would like is for Randy Keyes to stop claiming that I've misrepresented him, when I haven't (nor my wife).

But, uh...we don't know that you haven't misrepresented him. He certainly seems to think so.

By the way, that he should spend time in his letter complaining about some of the trivial issues he did ought to be a big tip-off to people trying to decide what happened that night. Another tip-off should be his phrase "this is my reality", for it was just that kind of language I heard a lot of that night: "for me, Mormonism is right, it's where I belong, but I don't dispute that another religion may be right for others", etc.

However, your 'tip off" is completely dependent upon your audience accepting your version of events a priori. If we do not, then the "tip offs" disappear.

Another tip-off for folks ought to be that I wrote down in my online diary details of what he'd said as soon as I got home, when I was still very much considering staying in the church - I had no sinister motives; I was only shocked and confused about how to proceed. And in fact, one reason I ended up posting that diary entry, still considering becoming a T.S. Ferguson-type, under an alias, was to PROTECT Randy Keyes from possible controversy or church discipline. I even changed a couple of my personal details so that no one would know who he or I was.

Ditto.

Like I said, if Pres. Keyes really wants a battle royale over this, I guess that's up to him; but I feel only a sort of dread about it. He's the only one with something to lose, and unfortunately for him, his denials don't magically become reality just because he makes them. He did say what I mentioned he said. And he also said more. Does he really want to do battle? I sure hope not.

Oh my, more less than veiled threats This entire situation has become so abjectly typical of what I've observed among exmos for the entire thirty plus years I've followed their writings and general style.

Move along, but there may be something to see here in the near future: Tal's intellectual and moral credibility immolated in an inferno of his own creation. Critics of the Church have always taken this path and, apparently, will tend to in the future. This will, I think, catch up with him in the end.

[_bcspace]

It's only regrettable that this becomes Jerry Springer material, when in reality what matters is whether the LDS church is true. The LDS church isn't true even if it were shown that Tal lied (I don't think this has been shown, I'm just saying this hypothetically), and the LDS church isn't true even if were shown that Pres. Keyes was 100% accurate and honest in every word he said.

But the soap opera stuff I find personally a bit off-putting, and I find the mad glee over at MADB about this to be off-putting as well.

It all boils down to likelyhoods. If find it more likely Keyes to be correct as he continues to serve despite purported doubts. The comment on the FAIR blog about women finding out nasty things about their husbands as proof that we should not take this SP's word is absolutely disgusting, irrational, and a vivid illustration of the ad hominem comming from your side.

So, let us hear the facts please Tal, as you see them......

[_Tal Bachman]

BC

Are you capable of understanding the difference between a plea that a guy stop falsely accusing you, and a please that he remain entirely silent?

[_bcspace]

Are you capable of understanding the difference between a plea that a guy stop falsely accusing you, and a please that he remain entirely silent?

Tal, are you able to take a dose your own medicine?

You're down to he said/he said and I think it's quite valid to judge this by comparing your antimormonism with his continuing to serve. You lose.

[_Nightingale]

Tal:
"...a part of me is burning to respond in detail."

I take this at face value, meaning that Tal would like to respond to any statements he feels have misrepresented his previous remarks. Something is stopping him, though. I have no reason not to believe him when he says it is his personal regard for his former SP. I believe that Tal has integrity that way.

It is worth noting that some noted participants at FAIR and MA&D have repeatedly stated that Tal has "misrepresented" their opinions. I have asked a few times that someone, somewhere, post side by side their original comments and Tal's responses so readers can decide who is misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what. If they have done so, I have not seen it.


Tal:
"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 don't read this as a threat. I honestly don't think Tal is vindictive. It is more that he already feels he is being misrepresented and if it continues his "burning desire" will need to be satisfied and he will respond point by point. It is true that the SP does have more to lose than Tal does, whether the Mormons involved in this discussion see it that way or not. It has not been my observation that ex-members have an unquenchable need to defend their decision to leave the church. Some may. Many do not. It all depends on your point of view.

I can relate on one level to Tal's feelings about his SP's response during their meeting. After I left the Mormon Church I returned to the denomination I attended before, although a different congregation (which is allowed outside LDS - different congregation, same church, your choice). It is an evangelical church, "mainstream" yet "Bible-believing". That means the congregation (which is who hires the pastor) expects the minister to adhere in his life and his service in the church to the basic beliefs of the church (i.e., literal belief in the Bible). This pastor was renowned for his appreciation of and comprehensive knowledge of the Old Testament and he gave many sermons on it, unlike most other congregations I have attended where more people enjoy the New Testament much more. I had many chats with this pastor about EV belief and living the Gospel, etc. He knew I had been in the Mormon Church briefly and was very interested in discussing various aspects of that experience; in particular, the question of "authority". He gave me a memorable answer in our first meeting, saying, "To a Christian, our authority is the Holy Bible". Our meetings were on the basis of seeker to pastor so there was a certain expectation there from me about his role and the importance of his belief and integrity and honesty.

After we had both gone through quite an intense and difficult experience in this EV congregation (details not important) we met to "debrief". The pastor ended up acknowledging to me that he did not believe literally in at least some of the Bible. This completely floored me. First, his honesty in admitting that. Second, that he would feel that way (a new way of thinking, to me) and third, if any elders in the congregation knew of his stance on this, it could mean his job (and he had a young family to support so that would be harsh consequences for him). At first I was honoured that he would trust me enough to tell me that but then I felt angry as to me, being a pastor who preaches in a "Bible-believing" church, he has a duty to believe likewise or else at least acknowledge that he does not or indicate that there is a different way of looking at things - anything other than let people assume something that is not necessarily true. This is important because people who are seeking faith, people whose faith needs renewal, people who look to a "spiritual authority" to get some answers as they struggle in their own belief/lack of, etc., these people are encouraged to seek the knowledge and strength of the church minister, who has a certain position based on his education and calling. I would say that in theory at least, if you don't believe you should not lead. Maybe there is a lot of "fake it til you make it" or "leaning on someone else's testimony" going on. I am in the crowd that thinks that is not honest. Someone banking on your stated belief and then finding out you're not actually being 100% honest in that can understandably feel quite bereft, shocked, confused and even betrayed by that. I think it could be even more intense in Mormonism where there is a lot of emphasis, rightly or wrongly, on being obedient to leaders and attesting to at least the basic beliefs.

I can relate to the shock it could be for one to find out that a church leader does not toe the party line when it comes to literal belief of some pretty foundational doctrines. Sure, it is somewhat of an assumption to expect certain things from leaders. But leaders, in turn, are duty-bound to have integrity about what they believe, in my view. And what they actually believe and what they SAY they believe should closely align.

Or does that make me too literalist, fundamentalist or unreasonable?

I'm not saying I fault the pastor or the SP. Just thinking these things over and trying to understand how it goes for everyone on either side of any divide.

[_mbeesley]

But he's now doing things like denying that he admitted his belief that Joseph Smith took sexual advantage of his followers through polygamy, something which he absolutely did say in direct response to one of my questions. I didn't force him to say that, nor did I invent that he did.

I asked him directly at one point about the possibility of Joseph Smith having taken such sexual advantage through polygamy, and Randy Keyes nodded his head and said soberly to me, "Yes.......I think he did", but then went on to say (again) that for him, that was "irrelevant". But you would never get that impression reading his open letter, would you? He denies he ever said that!

Thank you for your response. It did help me to understand better how this matter likely played out, and why there is now disagreement about what was said between you and President Keyes.

It is typical of my experiences in LDS apologetics, as well as aruments in court when i was practicing law. One party makes a statement, and the other party agrees. BUT, what the other party who was agreeing heard is not necessarily what the first party was saying. This is often the case because of vagaries of the language, compound and convoluted sentences, and the like. And it is precisely the reason why hearsay testimony is generally disallowed in court.

It seem to me that in the future, before you attribute a quote to anyone, that you should first confirm with that person that you have understood correctly what they said.

Folks on this board have criticized President Keyes for publicly disagreeing with your version of his words, and have suggested that he should have taken up the matter privately with you, even though you initiated the public disclosures. Might I suggest that since you have both had your say in public, that you, wanting to avoid a battle royale, restrain yourself from further public postings about President Keyes and take it up with him privately.

Just a thought.

[_Tal Bachman]

I'm not so sure that we are down merely to a "he said/she said" situation at all.

There is the fact that Pres. Keyes independently has made similar statements to a few people of my acquaintance (including my wife and my non-Mormon stepmother, who LOVES Pres. Keyes and who she credits with saving her marriage), which they would attest to; the fact that he lets slip some of the same sort of thinking which inspired his comments that night in his open letter; the fact that many of the points he made in that meeting were recorded and posted anonymously, with no intention of ever laying claim to them at the time, within 24 hours of the meeting; the fact that even my own fanatically devout Mormon siblings would all attest on here that they've never known me ever to lie; the fact that I genuinely appreciate Pres. Keyes and have an open invitation to him to hang out once this all dies down; the fact that I have had no incentive to invent any of this; and the fact that Pres. Keyes, for the most understandable personal and ecclesiastical reasons, has an incentive to perhaps "revise" in memory what was said that night, or at least take it back. Maybe most of all, the ability that most humans have of discerning "the ring of truth" when everything is laid out on the table, and which I have a lot of confidence in, all make this potentially a lot more than "he said/he said". I actually think all that would make it quite clear just what Pres. Keyes has said not only to me, but to others, in such meetings. That's actually why I'm reluctant to pursue it.

I'm happy to let this lie if Pres. Keyes will. Otherwise, I'll step up to it with greatest reluctance. I just don't see how any good can come of it for a guy I feel I owe a lot to.