Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

Is this molested neighbors part something from outer space? Who is this Juliann?

Guilt by association is one of the primary weapons of the worst of LDS apologists.

[_Trevor]

Yet if Tal is misrepresenting the SP, then it is Tal who is doing the smearing. One does not have to be vitriolic to smear and some of the best liars use honey and sugar exclusively. At worst, the SP is merely responding with his version of events. Tal has made this a public and personal issue and the response is merited. Bravo the SP and his wife.

If you believe that Tal is consciously misrepresenting the SP, I suppose you might argue that. As I have written above, and no one has bothered to respond to, Tal consistently represents the SP as a potential ally. For Tal, it would seem that the most negative thing about the SP is that he stayed firmly in the church, not that he shared some of Tal's doubts or like Tal saw a particular GA as an insensitive clod.

Personally, I think it was imprudent of Tal to use the SP's name, because the use of his name was clearly a bad thing for Keyes. Keyes was forced to respond. And, I do not believe he had the option of giving a full account of his interactions with Tal. Most likely such an account would have irreparably tarnished the SP's credibility with the Mormon leadership and flock. The only thing he really could do is say that Tal invented the specific doubts that Keyes raised. Such a refutation is most likely technical, as it can easily be read as a refutation of the specific words Tal uses and not the notion that the SP had real doubts.

I would agree that Tal has said some truly hyperbolic things about the LDS Church and its leaders. His characterization of Keyes is in no way consistent with his vitriol against both. I would call his use of Keyes' name an imprudent action or a mistake, but one that was quite harmful to Keyes as a member of the LDS Church. If I were Tal, I might respond to Keyes and yet apologize to him for using his name. But, I am not Tal, and I cannot tell him what to do.

[_Trevor]

Again, I referred you specifically to that one post by coggins. This thread, by and large, is laughable. There have been some people here that speak reasonably, however. The simple issue is Bachman made comments about a Stake President in public. The Stake President explained his side in public. Regardless of other people seeing this as "evidence" that Tal is a liar is beside the point. (I don't really see Tal as a liar, I see him as more of a fanatic. The "TBM" version of ex-mo's. But that is beside the point.)

Again, I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE IDENTITY OR MOTIVES OF MR. SCRATCH. I also would not characterize most of this thread as laughable. I and others have offered some reasonable interpretations of Keyes' open letter. To me, this is the meat of the thread, no matter how the whole thing started or will end. I completely agree with you that Keyes was in a position where he had to respond. I do not think his response constitutes an effective refutation of Tal's account, but it is obviously enough to satisfy the folks at MA&D.

Tal has never given me the impression that he is a liar. Tal is a bright and creative autodidact--a much better one than Coggins, by the way--who gets carried away. Still, I am impressed with his intelligence and writing style. I also think that his Salamander Society submissions are hilarious. I am envious that they are better than my few contributions.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is a real classic:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/05/01/sett ... t/#more-80

Somebody (perhaps Allen Wyatt) has apparently been snooping around, reading the messages here on MormonDiscussions.com, because there are now a pair of letters posted to the FAIRblog accusing Tal Bachman of being a liar.

I have not read all the posts in this long thread, but I have read the letters/posts at issue, and this is my $.02, for what it's worth.

Because Tal revealed the SP's name and directly quoted him from their private meetings, I think Randy Keyes had every right to respond publicly and give his side of the story. Keyes did not reveal anything confidential Tal said during the meeting that Tal hasn't since disclosed in public. Nor do I think Keyes defamed or disparaged Tal, but rather, was giving his side of the story. None of this means Keyes was being truthful, and his letter does sound an awful like "CYA." Why the wife posted a letter makes no sense to me, because her absolutist position supports the belief that if Keyes does harbor doubts or nonbelief, he would not disclose them to his uber-TBM wife (many men in the Church do the same thing, simply because the 'all or nothing' attitude of the Church can very effectively hold a man's family 'spiritual hostage'). At the same time, both sides could be telling the truth, and simply have interpreted the meeting differently. I've had plenty of experiences where people in the same meeting or experiencing the same circumstance later have utterly opposite interpretations or recollections of the event. At the same time, Tal mentions a few things that are consistent with Keyes's story:

1. Tal's wife later met with Keyes and heard similar things -- I'd love to hear her recollection of that meeting.

2. Keyes agrees with Tal's "most comfortable in Mormonism" quote, but Keyes puts a little different spin on what he meant.

3. Keyes agrees with Tal's mention of Keyes "communicating with Book of Mormon characters," although Keyes refers to them as "prophets" and uses "presence" instead of "communication."

4. I know of many who have stayed in the Church not because they believe the restoration claims, but because they believe the Church does more good than harm and provides a nice way to raise a family. Tal's suggestion that Keyes sees it this way, is not out of the ordinary.

5. Tal acknowledges that Keyes later backed off and made it clear to Tal that he does believe Joseph Smith is a prophet (what Keyes says in his letter).

Where does the truth lay? Probably somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. But I don't think we can call either side a liar.

[_John Larsen]

Here is my favorite post on the MAD thread concerning this topic from juliann:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208420617

Kinda makes me wonder who he would strap it on for now.

I know I am probably taking it out of context. But it is the best line I have ever read at MAD.

As you were, citizens.

[_John Larsen]

Hi

I have a deep appreciation for Pres. Keyes for all the reasons I mentioned. And I admire his wife for trying to stick up for him. I feel bad that this has hurt her. She's a doll.

I just sent a letter to Dr. Shades for him to post on MAD about this. I think he's going to post a link.

Send it to me, I'll post it.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

2) Your experience with and knowledge of the peer review process at FARMS Review

I just received confirming information that 2 specific recent FR articles or reviews were submitted blindly.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Ha! Gee, thanks, Bob. You know, it's funny---LoaP wants to deny his "upsetness," and yet what do we see? A parody thread, ala Wade, Coggins, and all sorts of other TBMs! It seems to be a kind of "stress release valve".

Actually, it's an all-too-easy parody; it's virtually impossible to avoid.

Furthermore, my dear LoaP, you *never* supplied evidence of "blind submitting articles." Your best evidence was your Kevin Christiansen examples, and in the end you were finally forced to admit that you didn't know whether any conversation had taken place beforehand.

Then let me be quite clear. I personally corresponded with KC on this subject this week and discovered that not only had he submitted articles "blindly" as you say (several accepted, one rejected) but he also knew of another specific person who had done so (even though I didn't ask for that information.) Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt blind-submitted a recently published review.

So we have at least two recent examples. I'm 100% certain you will dismiss them, however. That's fine. The other readers on the board can judge for themselves.

Things got rough for you, and so you had to "take a leave of absence." You went to recuperate on MAD, and now you're back, smarting yet again, and so bent out of shape that the best you can offer is parody threads. So sad!

A leave of absence? Only in your imagination.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Instead, he has laid 100% of the blame at the feet of Tal.

No he didn't. He was explicit in saying why he thought Tal may have gotten the impression he did.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Marg is correct. When in doubt, look for who benefits the most.

Trevor is also correct. We "remember" the past not necessarily as it was, but through our own filters, and our filters are invariably more sympathetic to ourselves than they are to the Other, whoever that may be.

And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?