Midgley Threatens to "Out" Bachman
Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:23 pm
Well, well. It seems that yet again we are confronted with a Church defender who thinks it's okay to publish private emails in order to try and discredit Church critics. (Note that this was culled from the now-infamous FAIRblog Keyes posting.)
But, it gets better:
And lookee at who chimes in with much anger about this:
In any case, I just found all this interesting. It seems that Midgley is more of a "player" within the arena of Internet Mormonism than some may have realized. (He also posted about half a dozen additional items other than the ones I cut-and-pasted.) I also found it intriguing that the "outed" emails are apparently drumming up interested at that scuzzbucket repository of Mopologetic detritus: SHIELDS. In the end, it seems to me that Gad was right about all of this: it is all about agendas, and settling old scores. No one, it seems, carries a grudge quite like someone who's been acquainted with Mormonism.
Lou Midgley wrote: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 Book of Mormon 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 Book of Mormon 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.
Guy Murray wrote: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.
But, it gets better:
(emphasis added)Lou Midgley wrote: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 [sic] and spoil everything. Notice that those who frequent RfM, or who spend day and night maoning [sic] about the Church of Jesus Christ on boards, blogs and lists also hide their identify under handles.
And lookee at who chimes in with much anger about this:
Ray A wrote: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.
In any case, I just found all this interesting. It seems that Midgley is more of a "player" within the arena of Internet Mormonism than some may have realized. (He also posted about half a dozen additional items other than the ones I cut-and-pasted.) I also found it intriguing that the "outed" emails are apparently drumming up interested at that scuzzbucket repository of Mopologetic detritus: SHIELDS. In the end, it seems to me that Gad was right about all of this: it is all about agendas, and settling old scores. No one, it seems, carries a grudge quite like someone who's been acquainted with Mormonism.