Mister Scratch wrote:Who Knows wrote:Confidential Informant wrote: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.
Whatever else someone wants to say about Tal, he is not a stupid man. Also, far from being a liar, he comes across to me as painfully honest as well as self-deprecating even, in some ways. Indeed, if he were less honest he might still be a Mormon. It was precisely because he felt he had learned things about the church that didn't add up to him that he had to leave. I can't imagine any more of a TBM than Tal was, as at least one MA&D Mormon has acknowledged. And from what I have read of Tal's journey out, he would not have chosen for his lack of belief to happen and was not looking for a way out, contrary to what many seem to want to believe. In fact, he was desperately looking for a way to stay IN, if only he could square it with his mind and heart and conscience. That is what I mean by being honest - he could no longer believe and his conscience wouldn't let him fake it, so he left. What could be more honest than that?
Why do so many Mormons think that non- or ex-members are LIARS? There are a lot of gradations between fact and lie; i.e., someone could have misheard a statement, misread a fact, misunderstood what was said, forget what they read, brought some misperception to the analysis or unconsciously put their own spin on things (which most of us are prone to do) or been subconsciously influenced by any number of other perception-warping forces, none of which equate to LYING.
How are Tal's former SP and his wife any more resistant to such human foibles and external forces, hence being more likely to be stating the facts than Tal is? The fact that two people in a conversation have different impressions about what went on does not mean that one is repeating truth and one is lying. That is extreme black/white thinking. Rather, as has been mentioned, you have two perceptions of the same thing and actual fact is likely somewhere in the middle - unless one side or the other is deliberately lying. But why automatically assume that is the case? Why not acknowledge that there is at least a chance that both parties are misperceiving the other's thoughts and statements at least somewhat, just the way ordinary human communication goes, without either party necessarily having any ulterior motives?
In some of the work I do, people give a personal history for the purposes of medical/legal reports and the examiner goes on trust that unless there are compelling reasons to believe that a person is lying, they should be taken at their word, unless proven conclusively by objective evidence to be unreliable.
Why assume that Tal is lying? Unless you live by the mantra that ex-members are despicable people who cannot be trusted to tell you the right time?
Over and above all of the angles to this, what I find very sad and un-Christian is the crowing that goes on in this instance and in others over someone's plight or loss of faith or struggles. How on earth could a person who calls themselves Christian be delighted by someone else's problems or misfortune? That I just do not get. (I'm pushing the Christian aspect because LDS are Christians, according to them. I am fully aware that many non-Christians bless the world with their compassion). Compassion - the great human attribute that I don't find a lot of in Mormon circles, in my experience, and not much displayed, at times, at MA&D.
I don't automatically believe Tal just because he is an ex-Mormon and so am I or just because he is Tal. I have no reason not to believe that he is being truthful, at least as far as his own experiences and perceptions go. I don't believe for a second that he would make up such potentially explosive statements that were ostensibly uttered by his SP and just hope that somehow the guy would never be asked about it so would never come out and contradict Tal's remarks. That is really stupid. Tal is not stupid. I believe he honestly did at least think that he was quoting the SP accurately. Now, what the SP actually said is another thing entirely, that will never be proven in a he said/no he didn't approach. Too bad Tal didn't tape it. But at the time, Tal was not *wanting* to leave the church. Au contraire - he was actually desperately looking to find a way to stay in (if I have read and understood and remembered his story correctly). It is possible that he misinterpreted what the SP said or indicated. It is equally possible that he did not. Either way, that is not a LIE.
I don't understand why this SP had to post this letter on a blog. Why not just email Tal?
I do agree, though, that as Tal had mentioned him by name he does have a right to respond. I guess we'll have different takes on what the best approach would have been. (By respond, I don't mean divulging confidential information).
I wonder what precipitated this move though. I guess Tal wrote something that someone didn't like? I'm disheartened by how often it seems that rather than respond to issues, the unseemly tactic of smearing a reputation is used instead.
I read in one of his posts here that Tal was going away on a trip. I guess that means he may not respond for a while, if he even chooses to engage on this.