Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

meh. I don't see the big deal. there's always 2 views to how a conversation went. We now know how tal thought it went, and how this other dude thought it went. there's probably some truth, and some embellishments, to both their statements.

I think "meh" is the appropriate reaction. Perfectly appropriate. What is humorous is the deluded crowing over on MAD.

[_Mister Scratch]

meh. I don't see the big deal. there's always 2 views to how a conversation went. We now know how tal thought it went, and how this other dude thought it went. there's probably some truth, and some embellishments, to both their statements.

I'm sure this is the case, of course, though I fail to see any concessions in this regard on the part of the SP. Furthermore, it seems all-too-clear that the TBMs are using this as an opportunity to discredit and attack Tal Bachman. Just look at who has shown up to post on that thread:

But that's not Tal's story, now is it. And Stake President pretty much denies that that is the case also.

Face it. Tal lied. He counted on the SP either never catching wind or on keeping his mouth shut despite Tal's tall tales. Now, he's caught w/ his pants down with his. . well, never mind that. Point being that Bachman is exposed and we can all see it.

C.I.

Now, this is significant given C.I.'s history. C.I. (a.k.a. "pentatach") was one of the primary instigators in the (later proved fallacious) attack on Tom Murphy. In other words, C.I. seems to live for any opportunity he can find to smear Church critics.

I guess my point is that the Keyes letter needs to be read with a fair amount of skepticism, since the sort of charity and open-mindedness you alluded to isn't likely to be forthcoming.

[_Bond...James Bond]

So did these letters get mailed to Tal or are they just Internet embarrassment posts?

[_Mister Scratch]

So did these letters get mailed to Tal or are they just Internet embarrassment posts?

I'm pretty certain they are just "Internet embarrassment posts."

[_John Larsen]

So did these letters get mailed to Tal or are they just Internet embarrassment posts?

That is a question that I have also. It would appear that the Stake President went first to the internet to "expose" Tal. I would expect decorum to have him try to contact Tal privately first. That may have happened, there is just nothing to suggest it one way or the other.

[_Mister Scratch]

So did these letters get mailed to Tal or are they just Internet embarrassment posts?

That is a question that I have also. It would appear that the Stake President went first to the internet to "expose" Tal. I would expect decorum to have him try to contact Tal privately first. That may have happened, there is just nothing to suggest it one way or the other.

I don't think there can really be any question as to whether or not they were aimed at "exposure." They are referred to (apparently by both Wyatt and the two Keyeses) as "open letters," meaning that the intended audience is anyone who happens to read them.

By the way, I notice some striking differences between Tal's post and the two letters. Take a look:

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.

First, it seems that the same things were said to Tal's wife. Does this mean the Wyatt, the Keyeses, and the folks at MAD think she is a liar, too? Or do they just assume that Tal would lie about what his wife had told him?

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.

(bold emphasis added)

I think you'll notice that the sort of concessional elements which I've bolded are wholly absent from the Keyeses' letters. This lends further creedence to the theory that the postings were intended to discredit and smear.

[_Bond...James Bond]

So did these letters get mailed to Tal or are they just Internet embarrassment posts?

I'm pretty certain they are just "Internet embarrassment posts."

In that case it's probably a futile act meant to make them feel better than to humiliate Tal. I'm betting that Tal isn't going to knuckle under or change his views being an exmormon outside the Mormon chain of command..

[_Mister Scratch]

So did these letters get mailed to Tal or are they just Internet embarrassment posts?

I'm pretty certain they are just "Internet embarrassment posts."

In that case it's probably a futile act meant to make them feel better than to humiliate Tal. I'm betting that Tal isn't going to knuckle under or change his views being an exmormon outside the Mormon chain of command..

You're no doubt right. However, what's striking is the rather low extremes they were willing to go in an effort to score a point.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Also:

This appears to be just another example of reading this board and being too "yellow" to confront directly.

[Guest]

The conversation in and of itself ought to have been seen as confidential, no? What seems objectionable, in my opinion, is that Pres. Keyes is selecting items which are presumably meant to paint Tal in a negative light, e.g.:

I'm afraid I don't share you opinion on this matter. I believe the SP has every right to defend himself against defamation. The SP hasn't revealed anything that Tal hasn't already revealed, thus, I don't see how he broke any code of ethics regarding confidentiality.

I felt that when I spoke of my spiritual confirmations your response was, “Yeah, but what about…” This was a dismissing of my views, and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly.

Here, he is portraying Tal as a rude interrupter who blithely treads over others' points, and, who lies about them to boot.

Well, is it an unfair portrayal?

The feeling I get is that the SP believes Tal misunderstood his points, not that Tal is lying about them.

Regarding your comments about my thoughts of being personally comfortable as a member of the Church, but it not necessarily being for everyone, I meant that not all people are ready for it. Not all people are ready for the commitment, rules and obligations that accompany Church membership.

Here, Tal is being portrayed as the stereotypical apostate who was "too weak" to meet the demands of Mormonism.

This statement wasn't even about Tal, as I read it.

This, Tal, is my position and reality. I trust that you will now afford me the courtesy that I afforded you—to be understood.

This seems the very height of disingenuousness. Obviously, "to be understood" is now completely impossible since Keyes has essentially fingered Tal as a liar and a misrepresenter of the truth.

That's not how I interpret this statement. The SP is pleading with Tal to stop misrepresenting him on the message boards. I see it as the SP giving Tal the benefit of the doubt. Rather than calling Tal a liar, he is stating that Tal has misunderstood him.

I have to wonder: Did Pres. Keyes make an effort to first personally contact Tal? I mean, doesn't that seem like a far more reasonable tactic for a professional therapist to pursue? Why dive right into this Allen Wyatt-operated mud-slinging operation? Do they not know anything of Wyatt's history?

I don't know. Perhaps this wasn't the best way to approach it, but I don't know that it crosses the line into unethical.