Thanks mentalgymnast. Very kind of you. I'm always happy to receive a compliment. As for the other matter, yeah, to me it feels too personal for us to keep wading through it. I hope the involved parties resolve things and that it all dies down, at least from all us outsiders. I prefer to think of the people involved and not how many "points" third parties can score. In that vein, I hesitated to top this thread but wanted to respond to you, mg.
So, what should we talk about instead? :)
TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Hi
Thanks for the follow-up comments. Many of them make sense.
One problem is that I didn't misunderstand him. He could not have made his positions more clear in that conversation, and he did so over and over again. In fact, I could hardly believe what I was hearing a lot of the time, and asked numerous clarifying questions just to make sure I was hearing him right.
Interestingly, he'd gone quite a ways in this direction in other conversations I know of, in particular one he had with my non-Mormon stepmother (who, again, loves Randy) and my dad, prior to ours.
Randy Keyes presents himself in his letter as a true blue devout believer who was merely trying to be empathetic in our chat. He was in fact very sensitive and very empathetic, not least, I presume, because as he himself repeatedly acknowledged in that meeting, he was already clear that Joseph Smith had invented things. But whether he did or didn't, said Pres. Keyes, was "irrelevant" to him. That was his word, and he used it more than once. And it was "irrelevant" because of all the good that came out of the church, all it did for us.
Everyone says things they would like to take back. But taking something back is different than never having said them. I wish Randy felt bound to respect that distinction.
Thanks for the follow-up comments. Many of them make sense.
One problem is that I didn't misunderstand him. He could not have made his positions more clear in that conversation, and he did so over and over again. In fact, I could hardly believe what I was hearing a lot of the time, and asked numerous clarifying questions just to make sure I was hearing him right.
Interestingly, he'd gone quite a ways in this direction in other conversations I know of, in particular one he had with my non-Mormon stepmother (who, again, loves Randy) and my dad, prior to ours.
Randy Keyes presents himself in his letter as a true blue devout believer who was merely trying to be empathetic in our chat. He was in fact very sensitive and very empathetic, not least, I presume, because as he himself repeatedly acknowledged in that meeting, he was already clear that Joseph Smith had invented things. But whether he did or didn't, said Pres. Keyes, was "irrelevant" to him. That was his word, and he used it more than once. And it was "irrelevant" because of all the good that came out of the church, all it did for us.
Everyone says things they would like to take back. But taking something back is different than never having said them. I wish Randy felt bound to respect that distinction.
-
_Trevor
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7213
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm
I have it from reliable sources that in at least some corners of the BYU campus, the unwritten rule is to safeguard the testimonies of the students. In other words, it seems OK for a professor to have profound doubts, so long as he or she doesn't take up the issue publicly, and thereby cause harm to the testimonies of the students. I have also heard that the same applies up the leadership ladder to a certain degree.
I therefore have no problem believing your version of your conversation with Keyes, but I also have no doubt that he is not going to admit to having said what you contend he said until he is ready to give up his position, his membership, or both. That the contingent of apologists does not believe you should not surprise you in the least. I hate to say it, but I think you have made, on more than one occasion, the equivalent of an Obama "guns and God" comment.
Your credibility with apologists is irreparably compromised, not only because you are an ex-Mormon and a critic of the LDS Church, but also because you characterized your past Mormon zeal as comparable to that of a suicide bomber. Regardless of what you were trying to say, and I think I do understand what you were trying to say, this was a gift to everyone who would discredit you. These same folks will not believe your side of the story on the whole Keyes thing.
Rest assured, however, that most all of us who have faced the problems of Mormon history, and have turned away from the authoritarian LDS Church, because we aren't interested in or comforted by the lame excuses that pass for teflon protection against apostasy among those whose will to believe has utterly compromised their judgment concerning things Mormon, likely do believe you.
I therefore have no problem believing your version of your conversation with Keyes, but I also have no doubt that he is not going to admit to having said what you contend he said until he is ready to give up his position, his membership, or both. That the contingent of apologists does not believe you should not surprise you in the least. I hate to say it, but I think you have made, on more than one occasion, the equivalent of an Obama "guns and God" comment.
Your credibility with apologists is irreparably compromised, not only because you are an ex-Mormon and a critic of the LDS Church, but also because you characterized your past Mormon zeal as comparable to that of a suicide bomber. Regardless of what you were trying to say, and I think I do understand what you were trying to say, this was a gift to everyone who would discredit you. These same folks will not believe your side of the story on the whole Keyes thing.
Rest assured, however, that most all of us who have faced the problems of Mormon history, and have turned away from the authoritarian LDS Church, because we aren't interested in or comforted by the lame excuses that pass for teflon protection against apostasy among those whose will to believe has utterly compromised their judgment concerning things Mormon, likely do believe you.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
-
_Nightingale
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am
Trevor's last post makes a lot of sense.
I have learned something in all this about "the ring of truth". I think I was expecting the ring to be a constant that everyone would have to acknowledge. Uh, no. It too depends on the filter through which one sees the world.
I admit being somewhat biased because Tal is a fellow ex-member and there is also the fellow Canadian factor. However, I don't harbour any reflex animosity towards an SP, or any Mormon, just because of their religion, which I tried out but it wasn't for me. That isn't my fault and it isn't their fault and to me, it doesn't say anything much about our respective characters (other than if you don't believe it but say you do, which is another story).
I have been talking theoretically, in that it is, of course, possible that either Tal or his SP or both did speak past each other and failed to communicate accurately. My emphasis has been on the automatic "LIAR" charge that people are levelling at Tal. I have been trying to say that at worst Tal could have misunderstood his SP's comments, which does not make him a liar, or anything at all in a negative sense, but rather just human like the rest of us who fail to communicate quite often. I think some Mormons reading about this have leaped to the conclusion that Tal was already an ex-member and "anti" when he decided to bolster his own story by making up unfounded stories about his SP. If you read Tal's account, you can easily see that is not true. He went to the SP while still a member, after having been a devoted member, while wanting to remain a member, looking for answers.
I absolutely understand why Tal wouldn't want to say he misunderstood the SP if he knows that he did not. Despite the Mormon charges to the contrary, Tal is not a liar. I have read many negative comments in that vein in several places. I have yet to read a specific instance that proves this conclusively, despite asking for it quite a few times. I think at worst in those instances it is a case of misunderstanding each other, easy to do in an emotional exchange. It is very unfortunate that the default position by many Mormons is that Tal is lying. The most bizarre of all to me are the continued barbs about his career. What exactly does that have to do with this? And like he wouldn't be lauded as a hero because of it if he were still a member. And like many of us wouldn't love to have gone where he's gone and met whom he's met and made a great income, enough to support his large family, and been able to nurture our creative side rather than dig ditches til we're too tired and sore to break out the guitar.
Back to that ring of truth. Like Trevor says, many of us hear it because we have had similar experiences. I don't even actually understand why people seem to think it is so terrible that the SP would have doubts or would not believe the doctrine and history 100%, as I have said. I spoke to the bishop and an SP after my baptism into the Mormon Church and while I was trying to decide whether to go or stay, due to the fact that it was just a bad fit for me. (Dumb idea for a BAC to join Mormonism, in my case at least). I NEVER said I had a testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon; in fact, I said I did not. However, because of reasons that don't matter here right now I went ahead and joined (after having had what I thought then were a series of "spiritual experiences" that were leading me into Mormonism). I could never pretend to something I did not believe in. My spiritual life was far too important to me for that. I told the bishop from Day 1 what I believed and where I was at with the JS-prophet and Book of Mormon aspects of the church. That is where I heard the "fake it til you make it" mantra, that I later heard a lot from the missionaries. The bishop was the one who decided that despite my lack of belief in some of the essentials of the church, as long as I followed the behavioural code (WoW, LoC, etc) I could take the sacrament, participate in meetings and even go to the temple, first for BoD and then for endowments. He as good as told me too that there were things he (also a convert) did not necessarily buy into and I rarely heard him give the standard testimony and he never did in our numerous private conversations. What he did say was that the church helped his family stay on the straight and narrow and so that worked for him (there was a history of alcoholism in his non-BIC family but after converting to the church, several family members were able to sober up. This was a big deal to this bishop, who had not lived a strict Mormon life in his youth). He as much as told me, too, that I should not reveal my lack of belief/doubts to the SP who had to co-sign my TR, saying, in effect, that if the bishop sees fit to issue a TR, the SP could just rubber stamp it (my paraphrase). I realized, after the fact, that Mormons take it hard that you went to the temple and then left the church. I ask that they try and visualize what it is like to come into the church as an adult, having missed all the early indoctrination and being called to Primary so missing a lot of the after-baptism lessons. Too, being busy in Primary constantly, you don't meet other adult members (at least, I did not, other than in passing some of the other teachers and parents - not my crowd as a single female with no children). So, I missed all the BIC parts of things, didn't have a social life within the church and had never had a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, which first the missionaries and then the bishop knew. They said get baptized, participate and go to the temple anyway. I honestly think the bishop thought "it will come" if I just walked through the program but in that he was mistaken. Then I found that Mormons are disdainful and worse about someone joining, attending the temple, and then leaving, like there aren't much bigger sins that you could commit. All I can say is that it's not a straightforward thing to understand and I (and many others) don't purposely make "covenants" and then casually break them.
I cannot prove what the bishop said. I know what he indicated to me on numerous occasions. This is partly why I never read Tal's account of his experiences and automatically said that makes no sense or that's a lie or anything like that. I can see how Mormons would be upset at some of the statements that this SP said, as reported by Tal, but that doesn't mean Tal was mistaken or is lying. I firmly believe that if he thought there was room for mistake he would admit that.
There is also the possibility that the SP did think that way but has since changed his mind and now devotedly believes again. That could colour his response to this.
I also think it is quite bizarre that many of the Mormons who have commented on this maintain that "the apostate" had to make up stories to somehow justify his exit from the church and to play to the exmo crowd. It just makes no sense that someone would do that. Contrary to what these Mormons seem to think, there is just no need for that. Tal's story can stand, without the SP's comments. The way I read it, Tal was explaining his own thoughts and questions and feelings and reactions after he started having questions about the church. He didn't need to include the SP at all and it is still an emotional, fascinating read and helpful to many who have had a similar experience.
I'd also like to say, again, that just because a person, like me, does not come down on the SP's side, that does not make me or any of us a "Tal groupie", as charged by some. If you apply that across the board, then are they an "SP groupie" because they believe his side of things now? There could be plenty of things I disagree with Tal about so I don't just automatically side with him because it's him. Rather, I am saying I hear the ring of truth in what he says, in that it could very well have happened, as I and others I know and have read about have had similar experiences. I think it's too bad that some Mormons seem to hold out such a strict standard for their leaders as it makes it very difficult for them to be honest about being human and having questions and doubts and moments of weakness. I don't believe that Jesus ever said we had to be perfect; in fact, according to the theology, we cannot be and that is why we need Him. I'd rather have a church leader who can feel free to admit his true thoughts than one that puts on a 100% "faithful" show all the time. I can relate to the relief Tal felt at the SP's expression of doubt - it makes them both human and on a similar wavelength. Much better than having to talk to someone who cannot relate to you at all or will not admit the truth about where they're at in their spiritual life.
The reason I can see that it could at least happen that way is that I believe some conversations with my bishop went that way too. He even acknowledged to me that he heard my concern and confusion about so much focus on the Book of Mormon (at least in our ward) and not much at all on the Bible (a problem for me as a BAC) and assured me every time I saw him after that that he kept the Bible on his (bishop's) office desk now and he was reading it so we could have more chats. He even thanked me for getting him to read the Bible more. As I have said recently, he didn't damn me to Outer Darkness when I left (although he was very upset because "you've been to the Temple!") but said he knew I was a Christian woman (even though I was leaving Mormonism). I have my private thoughts about what he meant by the way he handled my exit interview.
Sorry for this disjointed message and sorry for rambling. I basically wanted to say I can relate to Tal saying he didn't misunderstand the SP and to say that I enjoyed reading Trevor's post as it seems to have hit the mark in every way.
I have learned something in all this about "the ring of truth". I think I was expecting the ring to be a constant that everyone would have to acknowledge. Uh, no. It too depends on the filter through which one sees the world.
I admit being somewhat biased because Tal is a fellow ex-member and there is also the fellow Canadian factor. However, I don't harbour any reflex animosity towards an SP, or any Mormon, just because of their religion, which I tried out but it wasn't for me. That isn't my fault and it isn't their fault and to me, it doesn't say anything much about our respective characters (other than if you don't believe it but say you do, which is another story).
I have been talking theoretically, in that it is, of course, possible that either Tal or his SP or both did speak past each other and failed to communicate accurately. My emphasis has been on the automatic "LIAR" charge that people are levelling at Tal. I have been trying to say that at worst Tal could have misunderstood his SP's comments, which does not make him a liar, or anything at all in a negative sense, but rather just human like the rest of us who fail to communicate quite often. I think some Mormons reading about this have leaped to the conclusion that Tal was already an ex-member and "anti" when he decided to bolster his own story by making up unfounded stories about his SP. If you read Tal's account, you can easily see that is not true. He went to the SP while still a member, after having been a devoted member, while wanting to remain a member, looking for answers.
I absolutely understand why Tal wouldn't want to say he misunderstood the SP if he knows that he did not. Despite the Mormon charges to the contrary, Tal is not a liar. I have read many negative comments in that vein in several places. I have yet to read a specific instance that proves this conclusively, despite asking for it quite a few times. I think at worst in those instances it is a case of misunderstanding each other, easy to do in an emotional exchange. It is very unfortunate that the default position by many Mormons is that Tal is lying. The most bizarre of all to me are the continued barbs about his career. What exactly does that have to do with this? And like he wouldn't be lauded as a hero because of it if he were still a member. And like many of us wouldn't love to have gone where he's gone and met whom he's met and made a great income, enough to support his large family, and been able to nurture our creative side rather than dig ditches til we're too tired and sore to break out the guitar.
Back to that ring of truth. Like Trevor says, many of us hear it because we have had similar experiences. I don't even actually understand why people seem to think it is so terrible that the SP would have doubts or would not believe the doctrine and history 100%, as I have said. I spoke to the bishop and an SP after my baptism into the Mormon Church and while I was trying to decide whether to go or stay, due to the fact that it was just a bad fit for me. (Dumb idea for a BAC to join Mormonism, in my case at least). I NEVER said I had a testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon; in fact, I said I did not. However, because of reasons that don't matter here right now I went ahead and joined (after having had what I thought then were a series of "spiritual experiences" that were leading me into Mormonism). I could never pretend to something I did not believe in. My spiritual life was far too important to me for that. I told the bishop from Day 1 what I believed and where I was at with the JS-prophet and Book of Mormon aspects of the church. That is where I heard the "fake it til you make it" mantra, that I later heard a lot from the missionaries. The bishop was the one who decided that despite my lack of belief in some of the essentials of the church, as long as I followed the behavioural code (WoW, LoC, etc) I could take the sacrament, participate in meetings and even go to the temple, first for BoD and then for endowments. He as good as told me too that there were things he (also a convert) did not necessarily buy into and I rarely heard him give the standard testimony and he never did in our numerous private conversations. What he did say was that the church helped his family stay on the straight and narrow and so that worked for him (there was a history of alcoholism in his non-BIC family but after converting to the church, several family members were able to sober up. This was a big deal to this bishop, who had not lived a strict Mormon life in his youth). He as much as told me, too, that I should not reveal my lack of belief/doubts to the SP who had to co-sign my TR, saying, in effect, that if the bishop sees fit to issue a TR, the SP could just rubber stamp it (my paraphrase). I realized, after the fact, that Mormons take it hard that you went to the temple and then left the church. I ask that they try and visualize what it is like to come into the church as an adult, having missed all the early indoctrination and being called to Primary so missing a lot of the after-baptism lessons. Too, being busy in Primary constantly, you don't meet other adult members (at least, I did not, other than in passing some of the other teachers and parents - not my crowd as a single female with no children). So, I missed all the BIC parts of things, didn't have a social life within the church and had never had a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, which first the missionaries and then the bishop knew. They said get baptized, participate and go to the temple anyway. I honestly think the bishop thought "it will come" if I just walked through the program but in that he was mistaken. Then I found that Mormons are disdainful and worse about someone joining, attending the temple, and then leaving, like there aren't much bigger sins that you could commit. All I can say is that it's not a straightforward thing to understand and I (and many others) don't purposely make "covenants" and then casually break them.
I cannot prove what the bishop said. I know what he indicated to me on numerous occasions. This is partly why I never read Tal's account of his experiences and automatically said that makes no sense or that's a lie or anything like that. I can see how Mormons would be upset at some of the statements that this SP said, as reported by Tal, but that doesn't mean Tal was mistaken or is lying. I firmly believe that if he thought there was room for mistake he would admit that.
There is also the possibility that the SP did think that way but has since changed his mind and now devotedly believes again. That could colour his response to this.
I also think it is quite bizarre that many of the Mormons who have commented on this maintain that "the apostate" had to make up stories to somehow justify his exit from the church and to play to the exmo crowd. It just makes no sense that someone would do that. Contrary to what these Mormons seem to think, there is just no need for that. Tal's story can stand, without the SP's comments. The way I read it, Tal was explaining his own thoughts and questions and feelings and reactions after he started having questions about the church. He didn't need to include the SP at all and it is still an emotional, fascinating read and helpful to many who have had a similar experience.
I'd also like to say, again, that just because a person, like me, does not come down on the SP's side, that does not make me or any of us a "Tal groupie", as charged by some. If you apply that across the board, then are they an "SP groupie" because they believe his side of things now? There could be plenty of things I disagree with Tal about so I don't just automatically side with him because it's him. Rather, I am saying I hear the ring of truth in what he says, in that it could very well have happened, as I and others I know and have read about have had similar experiences. I think it's too bad that some Mormons seem to hold out such a strict standard for their leaders as it makes it very difficult for them to be honest about being human and having questions and doubts and moments of weakness. I don't believe that Jesus ever said we had to be perfect; in fact, according to the theology, we cannot be and that is why we need Him. I'd rather have a church leader who can feel free to admit his true thoughts than one that puts on a 100% "faithful" show all the time. I can relate to the relief Tal felt at the SP's expression of doubt - it makes them both human and on a similar wavelength. Much better than having to talk to someone who cannot relate to you at all or will not admit the truth about where they're at in their spiritual life.
The reason I can see that it could at least happen that way is that I believe some conversations with my bishop went that way too. He even acknowledged to me that he heard my concern and confusion about so much focus on the Book of Mormon (at least in our ward) and not much at all on the Bible (a problem for me as a BAC) and assured me every time I saw him after that that he kept the Bible on his (bishop's) office desk now and he was reading it so we could have more chats. He even thanked me for getting him to read the Bible more. As I have said recently, he didn't damn me to Outer Darkness when I left (although he was very upset because "you've been to the Temple!") but said he knew I was a Christian woman (even though I was leaving Mormonism). I have my private thoughts about what he meant by the way he handled my exit interview.
Sorry for this disjointed message and sorry for rambling. I basically wanted to say I can relate to Tal saying he didn't misunderstand the SP and to say that I enjoyed reading Trevor's post as it seems to have hit the mark in every way.
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Hi amigos
Mental Gymnast, I paid close attention to your arguments and I want to thank you for your fairness. It is stomach-churning in a way to see the shark feeding frenzy from some of your buddies. I've got Midgley (can someone get this guy some anger management classes?) emailing me now trying to get me into the FAIR ring, no doubt to finish me off once and for all! lol
I'm not so sure the Victoria Stake would be better off without Randy Keyes, even though - hate to say it - his open letter to me was misleading, shall we say. I actually feel quite hurt over this; though, when I am really honest with myself, in a way I have a hard time blaming him...even though, at the same time, I just can't see his denial as the right thing to do. Don't know if that makes any sense (sigh).
Anyway, Randy Keyes is a quiet, kind guy, who I think, would probably never have gone out of his way to take issue with my account if he had not been put on the spot to do so. I also know for a fact he has helped many people in the stake through real emotional crises (including my wife and me). And I want to cite one thing in particular here that I really appreciate about Randy.
It is a sad fact, yet a fact nonetheless, that some Mormon spouses end up feeling disenchanted with non-Mormon or less active spouses, because they are not faithful enough. Sometimes, in particular, Mormon women who have married outside the church begin to worry if they have not jeopardized their eternal salvation by marrying some non-Mormon guy.
It is also a sad fact that (if a mass of anecdotal evidence counts), that members, including bishops and stake presidents, have sometimes directly or indirectly encouraged along divorces in such situations so that the member can "reap the benefits of a temple marriage", get set for the afterlife, etc.
I brought this issue up to Randy once when I was helping run the branch on Salt Spring Island. He said that he had had numerous people in, usually women, asking him whether he thought they should divorce their non-Mormon or less active husbands. He said that he always told the women to keep their marriages intact if their husbands were otherwise good men, and that they shouldn't worry about the afterlife - that the Lord would help them work everything out.
Now - I actually have a severe loathing of divorces (barring for safety issues) when there are aware children. My own parents split up the summer I turned eleven, actually primarily because my mom didn't see my dad as "righteous" enough, and it was a horrible experiences, which begat so many other horrible experiences in the ensuing years. The truth is that my siblings still bear emotional scars from all the stuff that went down. So, I have an instinctive aversion to break-ups. And I have a REAL instinctive aversion to church members who, though with good intentions, encourage family break-ups for theological reasons, even when the spouse in question is otherwise a good person.
Randy Keyes felt very strongly about encouraging such couples to stay together. I know people in the stake respected his view. So how many little kids didn't turn out like the six little Bachman kids, in the Victoria Stake, because of Randy Keyes? I used to hear my little sisters crying themselves to sleep at night after the divorce, and I'm talking, literally, for years afterwards. How many little kids in Victoria didn't go through that because of Randy?
A word or two differently from Randy...some intimation that, yes, the scriptures do appear to say that to avoid becoming a ministering angel, you need to marry someone in the temple in this life...and who knows what happens? Maybe some of those sisters, like my mom, dynamite their families because they wind up convinced that's what God wants them to do.
Now, let's just assume for one moment, Mental Gymnast, that in fact, Randy did say what I wrote down in my journal that night. Let's say that I have correctly reported Randy's ultimate indifference, as he expressed it to me, to whether Joseph Smith told the truth or not. Let's say that he does not say from the pulpit what he says in private about his personal religious beliefs. Let's say that maybe, to use that harsh word you used (which I don't think I would use), Randy is a hypocrite.
But, on the ground, let's say, he has a unique talent for saving marriages...he doesn't leave teenage boys feeling like murdering themselves for having touched themselves one night...he doesn't leave people feeling like freaks for doubting one of Joseph Smith's outlandish tales....he tries insofar as he can to bless people's lives from within Mormonism, even if, deep down, he is a Bushmanesque agnostic on whether it's all it claims to be, or even knows Joseph Smith fudged his stories...
Doesn't the good stuff on the ground have some weight against the distasteful dissembling? I don't know - I'm just asking.
See, like what I'm wondering is - get rid of Randy because he's a closet agnostic or heretic, and who do you get in his place? Some friggin' "flaming believer" loser like the guys who helped drive my parents apart? Someone who actually believes that it matters what it says in D&C 132: 15-16? And we favour the new guy just because he's a McConkie-ite, a true blue believer? What importance should merely having the "correct" private opinion have, in light of the human beings any stake president affects?
I'm not convinced that I or anyone would be helping out the people of the Victoria state by doing something to get Randy Keyes ousted. I think Randy, at least where the rubber hits the road, is probably the best stake president I know of, in terms of just pure helping out. And I'm saying that as someone who's credibility has just been wrongly impugned by him - that's how much I believe that.
I feel sad that I've probably lost a friend forever. Maybe it was mostly my own fault.
Anyway, this is probably all moot anyway, because no doubt your dream of full, painful exposure will come true sooner or later.
Mental Gymnast, I paid close attention to your arguments and I want to thank you for your fairness. It is stomach-churning in a way to see the shark feeding frenzy from some of your buddies. I've got Midgley (can someone get this guy some anger management classes?) emailing me now trying to get me into the FAIR ring, no doubt to finish me off once and for all! lol
I'm not so sure the Victoria Stake would be better off without Randy Keyes, even though - hate to say it - his open letter to me was misleading, shall we say. I actually feel quite hurt over this; though, when I am really honest with myself, in a way I have a hard time blaming him...even though, at the same time, I just can't see his denial as the right thing to do. Don't know if that makes any sense (sigh).
Anyway, Randy Keyes is a quiet, kind guy, who I think, would probably never have gone out of his way to take issue with my account if he had not been put on the spot to do so. I also know for a fact he has helped many people in the stake through real emotional crises (including my wife and me). And I want to cite one thing in particular here that I really appreciate about Randy.
It is a sad fact, yet a fact nonetheless, that some Mormon spouses end up feeling disenchanted with non-Mormon or less active spouses, because they are not faithful enough. Sometimes, in particular, Mormon women who have married outside the church begin to worry if they have not jeopardized their eternal salvation by marrying some non-Mormon guy.
It is also a sad fact that (if a mass of anecdotal evidence counts), that members, including bishops and stake presidents, have sometimes directly or indirectly encouraged along divorces in such situations so that the member can "reap the benefits of a temple marriage", get set for the afterlife, etc.
I brought this issue up to Randy once when I was helping run the branch on Salt Spring Island. He said that he had had numerous people in, usually women, asking him whether he thought they should divorce their non-Mormon or less active husbands. He said that he always told the women to keep their marriages intact if their husbands were otherwise good men, and that they shouldn't worry about the afterlife - that the Lord would help them work everything out.
Now - I actually have a severe loathing of divorces (barring for safety issues) when there are aware children. My own parents split up the summer I turned eleven, actually primarily because my mom didn't see my dad as "righteous" enough, and it was a horrible experiences, which begat so many other horrible experiences in the ensuing years. The truth is that my siblings still bear emotional scars from all the stuff that went down. So, I have an instinctive aversion to break-ups. And I have a REAL instinctive aversion to church members who, though with good intentions, encourage family break-ups for theological reasons, even when the spouse in question is otherwise a good person.
Randy Keyes felt very strongly about encouraging such couples to stay together. I know people in the stake respected his view. So how many little kids didn't turn out like the six little Bachman kids, in the Victoria Stake, because of Randy Keyes? I used to hear my little sisters crying themselves to sleep at night after the divorce, and I'm talking, literally, for years afterwards. How many little kids in Victoria didn't go through that because of Randy?
A word or two differently from Randy...some intimation that, yes, the scriptures do appear to say that to avoid becoming a ministering angel, you need to marry someone in the temple in this life...and who knows what happens? Maybe some of those sisters, like my mom, dynamite their families because they wind up convinced that's what God wants them to do.
Now, let's just assume for one moment, Mental Gymnast, that in fact, Randy did say what I wrote down in my journal that night. Let's say that I have correctly reported Randy's ultimate indifference, as he expressed it to me, to whether Joseph Smith told the truth or not. Let's say that he does not say from the pulpit what he says in private about his personal religious beliefs. Let's say that maybe, to use that harsh word you used (which I don't think I would use), Randy is a hypocrite.
But, on the ground, let's say, he has a unique talent for saving marriages...he doesn't leave teenage boys feeling like murdering themselves for having touched themselves one night...he doesn't leave people feeling like freaks for doubting one of Joseph Smith's outlandish tales....he tries insofar as he can to bless people's lives from within Mormonism, even if, deep down, he is a Bushmanesque agnostic on whether it's all it claims to be, or even knows Joseph Smith fudged his stories...
Doesn't the good stuff on the ground have some weight against the distasteful dissembling? I don't know - I'm just asking.
See, like what I'm wondering is - get rid of Randy because he's a closet agnostic or heretic, and who do you get in his place? Some friggin' "flaming believer" loser like the guys who helped drive my parents apart? Someone who actually believes that it matters what it says in D&C 132: 15-16? And we favour the new guy just because he's a McConkie-ite, a true blue believer? What importance should merely having the "correct" private opinion have, in light of the human beings any stake president affects?
I'm not convinced that I or anyone would be helping out the people of the Victoria state by doing something to get Randy Keyes ousted. I think Randy, at least where the rubber hits the road, is probably the best stake president I know of, in terms of just pure helping out. And I'm saying that as someone who's credibility has just been wrongly impugned by him - that's how much I believe that.
I feel sad that I've probably lost a friend forever. Maybe it was mostly my own fault.
Anyway, this is probably all moot anyway, because no doubt your dream of full, painful exposure will come true sooner or later.
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
I think there are a lot more doubting members, even leaders then many believers want to imagine. I know several personally. These doubters I am quite sure are managing their questions and doubts as best they can, and put issues "on the shelf," or find ways to expand their paradigm to allow for some sort of belief. I know several people who do not care if the church is really true or not, they find it has nice standards and is a good culture to raise their children. So they continue on.
Sometimes the situation is such that there are no good alternatives to coping... one either comes clean and loses one's family, friends, community, maybe even career but feels internal peace, or, they remain a closet doubter, resigned to do the best they can to manage in a religion that feels less than truthful, and keep their family whole and happy.
It is just not a good situation and folks find all different ways to manage.
Some teachings don't make sense, they realize there are some "issues," things don't add up, and yet Mormonism is their way of life.
I feel badly for Randy if indeed he has some questions, knowing he is faced with either denying his statements and remaining in his current position, keeping his family together, and remaining in the church, OR admitting he has had some questions and breaking the heart of his wife, possibly destroying his family, and maybe getting Xed.
I don't know what I would do in his situation (if he indeed has wondered about certain things), but I don't really blame him for his choice.
Tal, I'm thinking, to live in one's highest good may mean to allow Randy to keep his family together and remain in the church, In other words, letting it go.
I'm not saying it is easy, but you both know what happened and how the conversation went down. You have really nothing to lose if more information comes out that supports your assertions, Randy has EVERYTHING to lose. Seriously EVERYTHING. Your reputation is not going to change at all... the same people who do not like you will continue to dislike you. (smile). Randy's whole life could be in shambles.
Anyway... for what it is worth, I don't think you or Randy have anything to prove. My heart goes out to both of you.
~dancer~
Sometimes the situation is such that there are no good alternatives to coping... one either comes clean and loses one's family, friends, community, maybe even career but feels internal peace, or, they remain a closet doubter, resigned to do the best they can to manage in a religion that feels less than truthful, and keep their family whole and happy.
It is just not a good situation and folks find all different ways to manage.
Some teachings don't make sense, they realize there are some "issues," things don't add up, and yet Mormonism is their way of life.
I feel badly for Randy if indeed he has some questions, knowing he is faced with either denying his statements and remaining in his current position, keeping his family together, and remaining in the church, OR admitting he has had some questions and breaking the heart of his wife, possibly destroying his family, and maybe getting Xed.
I don't know what I would do in his situation (if he indeed has wondered about certain things), but I don't really blame him for his choice.
Tal, I'm thinking, to live in one's highest good may mean to allow Randy to keep his family together and remain in the church, In other words, letting it go.
I'm not saying it is easy, but you both know what happened and how the conversation went down. You have really nothing to lose if more information comes out that supports your assertions, Randy has EVERYTHING to lose. Seriously EVERYTHING. Your reputation is not going to change at all... the same people who do not like you will continue to dislike you. (smile). Randy's whole life could be in shambles.
Anyway... for what it is worth, I don't think you or Randy have anything to prove. My heart goes out to both of you.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
_bcspace
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18534
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm
Dear Tal---
I vote that you go ahead and "out" him entirely.
Well.....?
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
truth dancer wrote:Some teachings don't make sense, they realize there are some "issues," things don't add up, and yet Mormonism is their way of life.
I feel badly for Randy if indeed he has some questions, knowing he is faced with either denying his statements and remaining in his current position, keeping his family together, and remaining in the church, OR admitting he has had some questions and breaking the heart of his wife, possibly destroying his family, and maybe getting Xed.
I don't know what I would do in his situation (if he indeed has wondered about certain things), but I don't really blame him for his choice.
Tal, I'm thinking, to live in one's highest good may mean to allow Randy to keep his family together and remain in the church, In other words, letting it go.
I'm not saying it is easy, but you both know what happened and how the conversation went down. You have really nothing to lose if more information comes out that supports your assertions, Randy has EVERYTHING to lose. Seriously EVERYTHING. Your reputation is not going to change at all... the same people who do not like you will continue to dislike you. (smile). Randy's whole life could be in shambles.
~dancer~
---Truth dancer, you wanna talk on the phone about this? I'm seriously conflicted; every five seconds I feel like doing something different.
Send me your number and I'll give you a buzz, or vice versa if you want.
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Tal Bachman wrote:truth dancer wrote:Some teachings don't make sense, they realize there are some "issues," things don't add up, and yet Mormonism is their way of life.
I feel badly for Randy if indeed he has some questions, knowing he is faced with either denying his statements and remaining in his current position, keeping his family together, and remaining in the church, OR admitting he has had some questions and breaking the heart of his wife, possibly destroying his family, and maybe getting Xed.
I don't know what I would do in his situation (if he indeed has wondered about certain things), but I don't really blame him for his choice.
Tal, I'm thinking, to live in one's highest good may mean to allow Randy to keep his family together and remain in the church, In other words, letting it go.
I'm not saying it is easy, but you both know what happened and how the conversation went down. You have really nothing to lose if more information comes out that supports your assertions, Randy has EVERYTHING to lose. Seriously EVERYTHING. Your reputation is not going to change at all... the same people who do not like you will continue to dislike you. (smile). Randy's whole life could be in shambles.
~dancer~
---Truth dancer, you wanna talk on the phone about this? I'm seriously conflicted; every five seconds I feel like doing something different.
Send me your number and I'll give you a buzz, or vice versa if you want.
This is the same comment I made to Dan: When in doubt, don't. Don't screw up someone else's life. It's not quite the same situation, but it's the same result.
-
_Gadianton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
If Tal does decide to go through with it, and it does hurt Mr. Keys, then all I can say is that I put the blame entirely on FAIR/MAD. And I hope they will be happy with the outcome (not that they would care, as their temporary apologetic cheap shot was served). I think it's possible that Mr. Keys might really believe he didn't say the things that he did. You know how it is, you get all honest in the moment, and then when the consequences reveal themselves, it's like another you is taking over.