Another question for Mr. Bachman...Tal

[_mentalgymnast]

May I call you Tal?

In your abbreviated exit story you identify a SP from the Victoria, British Columbia stake as being a closet doubter and disbeliever. Apparently, he is the same individual referenced in an article called:

"How to Be a Great Member Missionary" by R. Val Johnson. It is found in the Liahona, August, 2007 edition.

In this article he is portrayed as a missionary go getter type of guy. Let me get this straight. Are you saying this same person is duplicitous to such an extreme? I mean, come on, this guy "has it all figured out" (your earlier comments in regards to a personal interview with him) and yet was at the forefront of missionary work... and as a SP no less?

Regards,
MG

[_Tal Bachman]

May I call you Tal?

In your abbreviated exit story you identify a SP from the Victoria, British Columbia stake as being a closet doubter and disbeliever. Apparently, he is the same individual referenced in an article called:

"How to Be a Great Member Missionary" by R. Val Johnson. It is found in the Liahona, August, 2007 edition.

In this article he is portrayed as a missionary go getter type of guy. Let me get this straight. Are you saying this same person is duplicitous to such an extreme? I mean, come on, this guy "has it all figured out" (your earlier comments in regards to a personal interview with him) and yet was at the forefront of missionary work... and as a SP no less?

---Hi MG

Someone sent me the article you mentioned a few weeks ago, yes.

I have no idea who R. Val Johnson is; I'd never even heard of him before reading the article. We were only in the Victoria stake for a couple of years, and while we belonged to it, we lived on Salt Spring Island, and so never got a chance to meet most of the other people in the other stake. We were all kind of out of the stake loop.

The stake president who, in late 2003, admitted to me (and then, in a separate meeting about a week later, my wife) that he knew Joseph Smith hadn't told the truth about his experiences, but that that was "irrelevant" to him, was named Randy Keyes. I guess he's not the SP anymore.

I don't personally understand staying in a church which you know is a fraud, but I also know that not everyone is like me. I also know that Randy Keyes is a good guy in a lot of ways. He helped me out during the most traumatic experience of my life. I've chatted with him a couple of times during our meeting (while he was still SP, though in non-church situations), and he was always very kind. He'll always be welcome at my house, though I have mixed feelings about his behavior.

For example, about the duplicity you mention:

Literally days after Pres. Keyes admitted to me that he knew that Joseph Smith had invented his stories (if you can believe it, he also admitted that Joseph Smith had "deliberately taken advantage" of girls in his polygamous adventures), he came over to the Salt Spring Island branch to release me from being the second counselor and Gospel Doctrine teacher as per my request.

When I got down from the stand to sit with my wife and after sacrament, the annual primary program started. The SSI branch was relatively sizable - 120 attendees and growing - and we had quite a big primary. So the primary program started, and my wife and I sat there watching the whole thing, watching kids get up and say, "Joseph Smith found golden plates, and translated them", "Jesus came to Joseph Smith and...", and on and on. Pres. Keyes sat there right behind all the kids smiling, as though absolutely nothing in the world was wrong. He sat there, like us, and watched little kids announce, to all those whose admiration they most naturally craved in life, that they knew something, which they didn't know at all. And he didn't flinch. That...I just don't really get.

The emotional end came for me a few minutes later when all the kids started in to "Follow the Prophet", and I just thought, "no - - I can't do it". That was the last time I attended a church meeting, and the last time my older kids did, too, though my wife's gone a few times when her friends's kids were getting blessed.

[_Mercury]

He sat there, like us, and watched little kids announce, to all those whose admiration they most naturally craved in life, that they knew something, which they didn't know at all. And he didn't flinch. That...I just don't really get.

I can't wrap my head around why someone who admits they don't believe it continues to prove otherwise by their actions.

Thoughts words and deeds are weighted differently by others is the conclusion I came to.

[_mentalgymnast]

May I call you Tal?

In your abbreviated exit story you identify a SP from the Victoria, British Columbia stake as being a closet doubter and disbeliever. Apparently, he is the same individual referenced in an article called:

"How to Be a Great Member Missionary" by R. Val Johnson. It is found in the Liahona, August, 2007 edition.

In this article he is portrayed as a missionary go getter type of guy. Let me get this straight. Are you saying this same person is duplicitous to such an extreme? I mean, come on, this guy "has it all figured out" (your earlier comments in regards to a personal interview with him) and yet was at the forefront of missionary work... and as a SP no less?

---Hi MG

Someone sent me the article you mentioned a few weeks ago, yes.

I have no idea who R. Val Johnson is; I'd never even heard of him before reading the article. We were only in the Victoria stake for a couple of years, and while we belonged to it, we lived on Salt Spring Island, and so never got a chance to meet most of the other people in the other stake. We were all kind of out of the stake loop.

The stake president who, in late 2003, admitted to me (and then, in a separate meeting about a week later, my wife) that he knew Joseph Smith hadn't told the truth about his experiences, but that that was "irrelevant" to him, was named Randy Keyes. I guess he's not the SP anymore.

I don't personally understand staying in a church which you know is a fraud, but I also know that not everyone is like me. I also know that Randy Keyes is a good guy in a lot of ways. He helped me out during the most traumatic experience of my life. I've chatted with him a couple of times during our meeting (while he was still SP, though in non-church situations), and he was always very kind. He'll always be welcome at my house, though I have mixed feelings about his behavior.

For example, about the duplicity you mention:

Literally days after Pres. Keyes admitted to me that he knew that Joseph Smith had invented his stories (if you can believe it, he also admitted that Joseph Smith had "deliberately taken advantage" of girls in his polygamous adventures), he came over to the Salt Spring Island branch to release me from being the second counselor and Gospel Doctrine teacher as per my request.

When I got down from the stand to sit with my wife and after sacrament, the annual primary program started. The SSI branch was relatively sizable - 120 attendees and growing - and we had quite a big primary. So the primary program started, and my wife and I sat there watching the whole thing, watching kids get up and say, "Joseph Smith found golden plates, and translated them", "Jesus came to Joseph Smith and...", and on and on. Pres. Keyes sat there right behind all the kids smiling, as though absolutely nothing in the world was wrong. He sat there, like us, and watched little kids announce, to all those whose admiration they most naturally craved in life, that they knew something, which they didn't know at all. And he didn't flinch. That...I just don't really get.

The emotional end came for me a few minutes later when all the kids started in to "Follow the Prophet", and I just thought, "no - - I can't do it". That was the last time I attended a church meeting, and the last time my older kids did, too, though my wife's gone a few times when her friends's kids were getting blessed.

So the mention of Randy Keyes in the Liahona article where he is intricately involved in administering the missionary work in Victoria Stake, B.C is after the conversation you had with him, right? If so, how do you think he was able to compartmentalize his life to that extent?

It almost sounds unreal.

Regards,
MG

[_Dr. Shades]

So the mention of Randy Keyes in the Liahona article where he is intricately involved in administering the missionary work in Victoria Stake, B.C is after the conversation you had with him, right? If so, how do you think he was able to compartmentalize his life to that extent?

By using mental gymnastics, as per your screenname.

By remaining a believer in Mormonism yourself, even knowing what you know, can't you fully empathize with the guy?

[_beastie]

three words:

Thomas Stuart Ferguson

[_mentalgymnast]

three words:

Thomas Stuart Ferguson

I was Larry's (the son of TSF) EQP many years ago. Larry was somewhat of a fanatic when it came to the Book of Mormon. He came to me and practically threw himself at me wanting to organize a Book of Mormon fireside with Bruce Warren. We went ahead and did it. It's only been recently that I've come to find the Warren's presentation was probably riddled with holes.

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli ... essiah.htm

I didn't find out until after Larry had moved from the ward what the connection was between him and Thomas Ferguson .

I read "Quest" a number of years ago. It was troubling at the time. I saw Larry years after he'd moved (I'd read "Quest" by then) and I had then found out who he was. I asked him about his father, and he said his dad was a staunch believer in the Book of Mormon till the day he died. Knowing Larry's personality and seeming tendency towards polarized extremes in his thinking processes from having known him previously for a couple of years, I wasn't quite sure what to think. Whether he really believed this to be the case (his dad being a life long believer) or whether he'd manufactured the belief in order to protect his own sanity I don't know to this day.

I would have to agree with you that TSF may be a good example of someone who may have been a compartmentalized thinker. But even here, the jury is still out as far as knowing for sure. TSF made comments that can go both ways...belief/non-belief.

Regards,
MG

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi MG

I only skimmed the Val Johnson thing you mentioned - I didn't even realize that Randy Keyes was mentioned in there until you mentioned it. Send me the link (don't know where the one I got is, probably buried in my email somewhere) if you want and I'll read the article more closely.

Anyway, yes, it must be him. Nor do I think it is all that surprising, knowing Randy, that he would participate in missionary work even knowing that Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth.

All I know about Pres. Keyes's state of mind vis-a-vis Mormonism is what he told me, both in private in his office and in other less formal conversations. To get a better sense, I guess you'd have to ask him directly. I can elaborate if you want on what he told me.

He said that he personally felt "most comfortable in Mormonism", but that he thought it wasn't necessarily right for other people. That shocked me. He said that while he knew that Joseph Smith hadn't told the truth about his experiences, that he felt that membership in the church made him "a better husband and father", and that that is what he valued. He said the fact that Joseph Smith invented his stories was "irrelevant" to him. He even cited the example of my old institute teacher, Ken Godfrey, who happened to be Pres. Keyes's mission president, saying things as MP which Keyes didn't think were exactly right; he said that when he voiced his concerns to Pres. Godfrey, that Godfrey had replied, "a lot of these missionaries need to hear those kinds of things to do the work". Pres. Keyes then suggested that, similarly, maybe Joseph Smith had to invent the stories he did to get people in those days to "pay attention".

He also claimed - though I have no idea to what degree this might have been an accurate recollection - that in a meeting at the Salt Lake Temple in the 80's with local bishoprics, after the Salamander Letter came out but before it was discovered to be a fraud - that Hinckley had told him and the rest present, that "the claims of no church would withstand the light of historical scrutiny, including ours", but then talked about how he appreciated the church for the same reason (that he felt it made him a better husband and father).

Pres. Keyes also mentioned a spiritual experience he'd had prior to his mission, in which he felt that Book of Mormon characters had communicated with him. This was enough to make him feel that he "belonged in Mormonism", though he repeated several times that he didn't think this was the case for everyone.

There was quite a bit more, but it was all along those lines: a detached, purely utilitarian defense of participation in Mormonism (and that's the guy vetting people for the temple, asking them if they really believe "Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration"!).

The truth is that I only went to this meeting out of respect for my branch president, Ted Baker, on Salt Spring Island. While Pres. Keyes had seemed pretty liberal about things in our chats prior to this - in particular, he'd once mentioned that he thought the church leaders needed to revise their teachings on gender roles - I NEVER imagined I would hear anything like what I heard that night. I was fully expecting the old "pray and fast" or "put everything on the shelf" speeches...I was really surprised. Even my wife could hardly believe it...that's probably why she wanted to book her own appointment with him. She went to see him a week or so later, and he repeated many of the same things to her (you can hear her mention this meeting at her exmo talk, which I think is available online).

At the end of my meeting with Pres. Keyes, I felt a mixture of emotions. Primary was relief that I wasn't nuts, or possessed by Satan. Another one was bewilderment - I had no idea what to do next. Mormonism was all I'd ever known, I'd loved "the gospel", and had based my whole life on it - and it was all a fraud. Now Pres. Keyes had admitted that the church's truth and authority claims were baseless, but argued that that was "irrelevant", and had made a plea on purely utilitarian grounds for me to stay in. I am embarrassed to say that I actually considered this for a few days.

Anyway, at the end of the meeting, I said - like in these exact words - "So, now that I know this stuff didn't happen, do you think I should resign my callings?". And if you can believe it, Pres. Keyes said, "I don't see why you should, as long as you are willing to stay in the church and have good experiences in it".

At that time, Pres. Baker had been serving as the Branch President for, if I remember right, seven years, and was about to be released. I was his second counselor and had been GD teacher for almost two years...The other counselor was a doctor and had long hours, whereas I was totally self-employed and lots of free time, a lot of which I spent doing church stuff.

So where I'm going is, I think if I had decided to stay in, that there is a good chance that Randy Keyes would have called me to be the next Branch President, knowing full well that I knew Joseph Smith had invented his stories!

I find that totally bizarre...yet I think he would have done it, based on his comments to me. I actually think it took him very much by surprise when Tracy and I decided to split. He even asked us in for another meeting, in which he tried - pretty hamhandedly, to be honest - to take back a few things he'd said to us (don't know if word got out and he was feeling heat, or what). He said in the follow-up meeting on Salt Spring, "I don't know if I made it clear, but I DO think that Joseph Smith was a prophet".

I said something to the effect of, "Well sure - but a lot depends on what we mean by 'prophet'. Is he a 'prophet' in the way members think, when as we both know, he didn't have the kinds of experiences he claimed to have? And what would mean he wasn't that kind of prophet to you?".

"I don't know, maybe if he killed somebody", said Pres. Keyes.

In light of those who, foolishly, believed in Joseph Smith's knowingly false claims about malaria-infested Nauvoo swampland, or who were murdered or otherwise died because of their devotion to tales both Pres. Keyes and I knew had been fabricated, or perhaps in light of some of the Danite shenanigans, I pointed out that something of a case might be made to that effect. Whereupon Pres. Keyes looked down and then said quickly that he "didn't want to get into that". I said, "how can you 'not want to get into that', when we're talking about whether this guy was what he claimed or not?". But, he didn't want to talk anymore, and our meeting ended shortly thereafter.

I emailed Pres. Keyes afterwards to ask him how he could continue to participate when he knew it wasn't what it claimed, and in his reply, after mentioning that he thought the church "did a lot of good", he specifically mentioned that he enjoyed serving as the stake president and wanted to continue on in that role. As in, "please leave me alone" lol. So, I left him alone after that. We bumped into each other once at the mall (he was with his wife), and we had a nice little chat...and I almost ended up wondering if like, for a lot of guys that figure it out, one big motivation for staying in and keeping his mouth shut (publicly anyway) was his wife. But heck, I don't know. It's his life - he can do what he wants. I'm just grateful he was honest with me, to tell you the truth. I felt like a massive weight was lifted from my shoulders after that first meeting. I'd felt like vomiting for weeks; I kept bursting into tears; I felt totally disoriented and totally freaked out; but when I walked out of his office that wintry night in late 2003, I felt light as a feather. It was the first time I could perceive that things would be okay, that there was life after Mormonism, that I could recover from the hurt and sadness and disorientation.

Back to your original question, one thing I do know is that the sensitivity of individuals to the psychic pain caused by cognitive dissonance varies greatly. While I was at University College London this past fall, I read a bunch of recent research articles looking at how the thought processes and psychological reactions of political liberals and conservatives differ, and I think there must be a valid extension when it comes to religion, too. A lot of people can believe a lot of things, even contradictory things, and can even consistently do things which are totally at odds with what they claim to believe (Eliot Spitzer, etc.).

One person can be okay going along with something that "isn't what it claims", if he deems it as "overall, a good thing". Another guy - me, for example - can't. It's like I can't even force myself. I applaud what good the church does...but I can't devote my life to it just because of that, and overlook that it cannot be what it claims. For some reason, I just can't; it's not in me.

Anyway, the strange truth is that Pres. Keyes is not really that unique. I've heard personally from numerous people serving in ward and stake leadership positions over the past few years who make comments just like Randy's. One came from an old mission buddy (he was a great missionary and we had loads of great times together - once, we almost got killed together, but that's another story); he said he'd realized it was all a fraud in late '93 early '94, but he just felt like he couldn't leave because "Mormonism is my heritage", and his wife loved all her friends at church. He had six kids, was serving in a leadership position, no doubt was doing missionary work - and it just didn't matter to him that Joseph Smith invented his stories. He had never mentioned to his wife or kids that it was all a fraud, and he said he never would. During our exchanges, he said several times, "I just can't leave".

I guess everyone's different.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG

I only skimmed the Val Johnson thing you mentioned - I didn't even realize that Randy Keyes was mentioned in there until you mentioned it. Send me the link (don't know where the one I got is, probably buried in my email somewhere) if you want and I'll read the article more closely.

Anyway, yes, it must be him. Nor do I think it is all that surprising, knowing Randy, that he would participate in missionary work even knowing that Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth.

All I know about Pres. Keyes's state of mind vis-a-vis Mormonism is what he told me, both in private in his office and in other less formal conversations. To get a better sense, I guess you'd have to ask him directly. I can elaborate if you want on what he told me.

He said that he personally felt "most comfortable in Mormonism", but that he thought it wasn't necessarily right for other people. That shocked me. He said that while he knew that Joseph Smith hadn't told the truth about his experiences, that he felt that membership in the church made him "a better husband and father", and that that is what he valued. He said the fact that Joseph Smith invented his stories was "irrelevant" to him. He even cited the example of my old institute teacher, Ken Godfrey, who happened to be Pres. Keyes's mission president, saying things as MP which Keyes didn't think were exactly right; he said that when he voiced his concerns to Pres. Godfrey, that Godfrey had replied, "a lot of these missionaries need to hear those kinds of things to do the work". Pres. Keyes then suggested that, similarly, maybe Joseph Smith had to invent the stories he did to get people in those days to "pay attention".

He also claimed - though I have no idea to what degree this might have been an accurate recollection - that in a meeting at the Salt Lake Temple in the 80's with local bishoprics, after the Salamander Letter came out but before it was discovered to be a fraud - that Hinckley had told him and the rest present, that "the claims of no church would withstand the light of historical scrutiny, including ours", but then talked about how he appreciated the church for the same reason (that he felt it made him a better husband and father).

Pres. Keyes also mentioned a spiritual experience he'd had prior to his mission, in which he felt that Book of Mormon characters had communicated with him. This was enough to make him feel that he "belonged in Mormonism", though he repeated several times that he didn't think this was the case for everyone.

There was quite a bit more, but it was all along those lines: a detached, purely utilitarian defense of participation in Mormonism (and that's the guy vetting people for the temple, asking them if they really believe "Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration"!).

The truth is that I only went to this meeting out of respect for my branch president, Ted Baker, on Salt Spring Island. While Pres. Keyes had seemed pretty liberal about things in our chats prior to this - in particular, he'd once mentioned that he thought the church leaders needed to revise their teachings on gender roles - I NEVER imagined I would hear anything like what I heard that night. I was fully expecting the old "pray and fast" or "put everything on the shelf" speeches...I was really surprised. Even my wife could hardly believe it...that's probably why she wanted to book her own appointment with him. She went to see him a week or so later, and he repeated many of the same things to her (you can hear her mention this meeting at her exmo talk, which I think is available online).

At the end of my meeting with Pres. Keyes, I felt a mixture of emotions. Primary was relief that I wasn't nuts, or possessed by Satan. Another one was bewilderment - I had no idea what to do next. Mormonism was all I'd ever known, I'd loved "the gospel", and had based my whole life on it - and it was all a fraud. Now Pres. Keyes had admitted that the church's truth and authority claims were baseless, but argued that that was "irrelevant", and had made a plea on purely utilitarian grounds for me to stay in. I am embarrassed to say that I actually considered this for a few days.

Anyway, at the end of the meeting, I said - like in these exact words - "So, now that I know this stuff didn't happen, do you think I should resign my callings?". And if you can believe it, Pres. Keyes said, "I don't see why you should, as long as you are willing to stay in the church and have good experiences in it".

At that time, Pres. Baker had been serving as the Branch President for, if I remember right, seven years, and was about to be released. I was his second counselor and had been GD teacher for almost two years...The other counselor was a doctor and had long hours, whereas I was totally self-employed and lots of free time, a lot of which I spent doing church stuff.

So where I'm going is, I think if I had decided to stay in, that there is a good chance that Randy Keyes would have called me to be the next Branch President, knowing full well that I knew Joseph Smith had invented his stories!

I find that totally bizarre...yet I think he would have done it, based on his comments to me. I actually think it took him very much by surprise when Tracy and I decided to split. He even asked us in for another meeting, in which he tried - pretty hamhandedly, to be honest - to take back a few things he'd said to us (don't know if word got out and he was feeling heat, or what). He said in the follow-up meeting on Salt Spring, "I don't know if I made it clear, but I DO think that Joseph Smith was a prophet".

I said something to the effect of, "Well sure - but a lot depends on what we mean by 'prophet'. Is he a 'prophet' in the way members think, when as we both know, he didn't have the kinds of experiences he claimed to have? And what would mean he wasn't that kind of prophet to you?".

"I don't know, maybe if he killed somebody", said Pres. Keyes.

In light of those who, foolishly, believed in Joseph Smith's knowingly false claims about malaria-infested Nauvoo swampland, or who were murdered or otherwise died because of their devotion to tales both Pres. Keyes and I knew had been fabricated, or perhaps in light of some of the Danite shenanigans, I pointed out that something of a case might be made to that effect. Whereupon Pres. Keyes looked down and then said quickly that he "didn't want to get into that". I said, "how can you 'not want to get into that', when we're talking about whether this guy was what he claimed or not?". But, he didn't want to talk anymore, and our meeting ended shortly thereafter.

I emailed Pres. Keyes afterwards to ask him how he could continue to participate when he knew it wasn't what it claimed, and in his reply, after mentioning that he thought the church "did a lot of good", he specifically mentioned that he enjoyed serving as the stake president and wanted to continue on in that role. As in, "please leave me alone" lol. So, I left him alone after that. We bumped into each other once at the mall (he was with his wife), and we had a nice little chat...and I almost ended up wondering if like, for a lot of guys that figure it out, one big motivation for staying in and keeping his mouth shut (publicly anyway) was his wife. But heck, I don't know. It's his life - he can do what he wants. I'm just grateful he was honest with me, to tell you the truth. I felt like a massive weight was lifted from my shoulders after that first meeting. I'd felt like vomiting for weeks; I kept bursting into tears; I felt totally disoriented and totally freaked out; but when I walked out of his office that wintry night in late 2003, I felt light as a feather. It was the first time I could perceive that things would be okay, that there was life after Mormonism, that I could recover from the hurt and sadness and disorientation.

Back to your original question, one thing I do know is that the sensitivity of individuals to the psychic pain caused by cognitive dissonance varies greatly. While I was at University College London this past fall, I read a bunch of recent research articles looking at how the thought processes and psychological reactions of political liberals and conservatives differ, and I think there must be a valid extension when it comes to religion, too. A lot of people can believe a lot of things, even contradictory things, and can even consistently do things which are totally at odds with what they claim to believe (Eliot Spitzer, etc.).

One person can be okay going along with something that "isn't what it claims", if he deems it as "overall, a good thing". Another guy - me, for example - can't. It's like I can't even force myself. I applaud what good the church does...but I can't devote my life to it just because of that, and overlook that it cannot be what it claims. For some reason, I just can't; it's not in me.

Anyway, the strange truth is that Pres. Keyes is not really that unique. I've heard personally from numerous people serving in ward and stake leadership positions over the past few years who make comments just like Randy's. One came from an old mission buddy (he was a great missionary and we had loads of great times together - once, we almost got killed together, but that's another story); he said he'd realized it was all a fraud in late '93 early '94, but he just felt like he couldn't leave because "Mormonism is my heritage", and his wife loved all her friends at church. He had six kids, was serving in a leadership position, no doubt was doing missionary work - and it just didn't matter to him that Joseph Smith invented his stories. He had never mentioned to his wife or kids that it was all a fraud, and he said he never would. During our exchanges, he said several times, "I just can't leave".

I guess everyone's different.

Interesting story. Thanks for sharing. A few years ago I was talking to the bishop of our ward and we started going off on a tangent. I remember him saying something to the effect that even if the church wasn't all it was purported to be he would still remain a member because of the priesthood training and opportunities it gave to his boys and the cohesive influence it was for his family. As far as I know, he's a believer and remains so to this day, but at the time I thought it was an interesting comment.

And I think you're right, some people are able to function fairly well living a life of compartmentalization and/or duplicity. Others are just not rigged up to do so. Some are caught somewhere in between.

Regards,
MG

[_Tal Bachman]

Interesting story. Thanks for sharing. A few years ago I was talking to the bishop of our ward and we started going off on a tangent. I remember him saying something to the effect that even if the church wasn't all it was purported to be he would still remain a member because of the priesthood training and opportunities it gave to his boys and the cohesive influence it was for his family. As far as I know, he's a believer and remains so to this day, but at the time I thought it was an interesting comment.

---There is a sort of psychological "twilight space", it seems, for some people (like Pres. Keyes and your friend) where the either/or states "I believe that Mormonism is all it claims" and "I DON'T believe that Mormonism is all it claims" do not exist. They just are not there.

I noticed with Pres. Keyes, for example, in both my first meeting, and then in our follow-up, that he seemed to get uncomfortable whenever I would put things this starkly or dichotomously. For example, I asked over and over in my first meeting (since I could hardly believe what I was hearing), "so...you already know this stuff didn't happen?". And while he would nod quickly and say things like "sure", he would then quickly say, "but that' irrelevant". He didn't want to dwell on this. He wanted to get back to "Mormonism works for me", "I think the church does a lot of good", "the church helps me be a better person", "I feel like I belong in Mormonism", "the church may not be for everyone", or - one he mentioned several times - "just take what you need from the church and ignore the rest". He seemed uncomfortable thinking along the lines of the Hinckley formulation from his 2003 "Loyalty" talk: "either the church is a fraud, or it isn't". All that, for Pres. Keyes...whether it was or wasn't...just didn't matter somehow.

And I think you're right, some people are able to function fairly well living a life of compartmentalization and/or duplicity. Others are just not rigged up to do so. Some are caught somewhere in between.

---Seems like it, yeah.