TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Analytics -

Yeah, I think you might be right about keeping quiet. That was really well put, thanks.

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


I'd just say, "Keyes has brought these concerns to my attention. Apparently, I misunderstood what he said. I think very highly of Keyes and apologize for talking in public about our private conversation."

Just try to have class and diffuse the situation.


But, wouldn't this be tantamount to admitting that he "lied"? Certainly, it would provide a great deal of fuel for apologists....


I would not assume Tal was lying if he just left the issue alone.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Tal said Analytics' point was well put when Analytics had said, "which you should be high above". Sorry, but I had to point it out.

I like it when there are so many various opinions, Scratch says to out him, Analytics says to refrain. I don't know what the right answer is. But one thing I did want to point out is that I believe Keys was/is a good man. The problem: he's beginning to associate with the wrong crowd. I feel bad for him because this won't end good. The lurking vengeance and hatred of Internet Mormonism will slowly lead him into service of FAIR/MAD/FARMS and they'll just use him. It seems a good deal, the moral support of fellow Mormons online. But he'll pay for it, unfortunately.

Whatever Tal says to "out" him will be nothing compared to the personal torment he'll suffer from the anger and agenda Internet Mormonism will instill in him. Not to mention the inability forgive and love ones enemy that Internet Mormonism subtly teaches.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Gadianton wrote: Not to mention the inability forgive and love ones enemy that Internet Mormonism subtly teaches.

Am I supposed to love Satan? Should I forgive him?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Asb,

If you harbor deep personal feelings against Satan, I would most definitely ask that you at minimum, try and forgive him. It would be better to see a psychiatrist though.
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Post by _The Dude »

Gadianton wrote:Asb,

If you harbor deep personal feelings against Satan, I would most definitely ask that you at minimum, try and forgive him. It would be better to see a psychiatrist though.


LOL!

Or check-in with your local congregation of Scientologists.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Trevor wrote:
I think the optimal outcome here is that both sides (Tal and Keyes) drop it. Water under the bridge.



Well, while I was out running this afternoon and inducing a runner's high I was thinking about this. Here's where I'm at in my thinking.

First, I'm assuming that when all is said and done everyone is interested (except for any guilty party who may be involved) in the same thing:

That truth will/can/should prevail.

Theoretically we would assume that both Mr. Bachman and Mr. Keyes would want the truth to come out because they're both telling the truth...as far as we know at this point. The catch is, there is obviously a lack of full disclosure from either one or both of the parties involved.

I think that the only way for this whole situation to work itself out is for Tal to out Pres. Keyes. Here's why. If Keyes is a hypocritical unbeliever functioning as a SP, he should be exposed to the light of day. He is not worthy to act as a SP if he cannot answer in the affirmative to some of the same questions he's asked hundreds of people in his stake. OTOH, If Randy Keyes is innocent of any duplicity, this should be brought to the light of day. The only way this can be determined with a higher degree of surety is by taking the conversation between the two parties involved to the next level. Tal can make this happen.

At this point we basically have a draw.

Jesus condemned the hypocrites in no uncertain terms. So, if Pres. Keyes is living a duplicitous life...he should be exposed, friend or not.

He would be giving new meaning to the phrase, "lying for the Lord." Especially with his heavy involvement in missionary work in the Victoria, B.C. area.

NOW...on the flip side of the coin, it is also important to come to a resolution/determination as to whether Tal Bachman is a cheat and a scoundrel, or an honest man. His credibility is on the line. The only way at this point in which resolution of the whole matter can occur is by taking things to the next level. If Tal is innocent of any duplicity, he should have no qualms about outing Pres. Keyes. He would actually be doing the church a favor by doing so in helping rid the church of an unworthy/duplicitous leader in high position. If Pres. Keyes is being duplicitous then Tal would be doing apologists a favor by helping route out a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I happen to side with those that consider the words of a known apostate with lesser value than the words of a SP. I'm impressed with Pres. Keyes written testimony. I would like to believe that he is being upfront and totally honest without holding anything back. But it is possible that Tal is telling the truth in this instance even though he purportedly has been known to twist the truth in other situations. He has an opportunity to prove in this case whether he is a truth teller or he is twisting truth as he has purportedly done in the past.

When all is said and done, I don't see where there is any danger/risk for Pres. Keyes if he is not being duplicitous. In the end truth will/should/can come out victorious. If Keyes is not holding anything back and his motives/actions are pure, he would end up demonstrating Bachman's duplicity and expose him as a fraud as further information comes to light. The Lord would theoretically support his chosen leader and help expose the apostate for what and who he is.

Again, right now it's somewhat of a draw as far as I can see. Those that would like Tal to hold back at this point may have a bit of reservation as to whether or not he can stand the light of day. The only way to know if he can, and if he is actually credible is to take things to the next level.

Better that one man should perish...

Who will it be? Is there only one way to find out at this point? Seems like the ball is in Tal's court.

I'm sitting on the side of the court with the team I consider to have the home court advantage...a stake president who is serving willingly in a job that requires sacrifice and dedication and who in word and action expresses a testimony of the restored gospel. But if I had to switch sides and walk over and sit on the other side of the court because it was found that the SP was being duplicitous for one reason or another, I would feel it necessary to do so.

OTOH, after saying all this I can see where the easiest thing to do in order to lower the risk of embarrassment or hurt would be to let things drop from here on out. That that would be perfectly understandable.

As DCP said in regards to this whole thing, "Wowzers."

Regards,
MG
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

But if Pres. Keyes really wants to have a big battle royale over this...what then? I don't want to have one of those, more for his sake than for mine (I don't have anything to lose, after all - members probably wouldn't believe it even if I had a videotape of the entire meeting). It's only Pres. Keyes that has something to lose, and...his wife. But I've never wanted to make them lose anything.



If he was good to you and you feel he threw you a lifeline, just let it go. It is more important how you reciprocate friendship than needing to crow about being right. Nothing is served by escalating the matter. It would be more useful to try to put yourself in the Stake President's shoes and imagine what forces came to bear on him to write that letter for FAIR. It could not have been pleasant for him even without the medieval torture devices. He did what he felt he needed to do. It could have been easy because unlike you, he did not start mulling the ideas over immediately and writing about them. Undoubtedly his recollection is not the same because of it.

Just relax and take deep breaths.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

mentalgymnast wrote:Well, while I was out running this afternoon and inducing a runner's high I was thinking about this. Here's where I'm at in my thinking.


I appreciate your optimism, and all of the thought you put into this, but I have little confidence that this is going to become any more productive than it has been (and it has not been very productive).

Tal made a bad decision when he named his former stake president. His former stake president has now had his say. Most critics of the LDS Church believe Tal, and most defenders believe Mr. Keyes. I doubt we will see a lot of people changing their minds, if Tal drops more bombs from the conversation. Sure, you may see slight shifts, but nothing big will change.

The harsher critics of the Church want to see Keyes as a hypocrite.

The staunch defenders want to see in him a man of unwavering faith wronged by an apostate liar.

Neither view is accurate.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Nightingale
_Emeritus
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am

Post by _Nightingale »

I'm impressed you could do so much thinking while engaged in vigorous exercise. I have never found running enjoyable and all my brain is thinking about if I do so is yow, my lungs are bursting and please make it stop.

Even so, I disagree with some of your conclusions. Here's why:

mentalgymnast wrote:
First, I'm assuming that when all is said and done everyone is interested (except for any guilty party who may be involved) in the same thing:

That truth will/can/should prevail.


I think you start with an incorrect assumption. That can throw off the rest of your analysis. As others say, some people, unfortunately, want it to play out along party lines. That is, truth is secondary to scoring points for their side.


mentalgymnast wrote: I think that the only way for this whole situation to work itself out is for Tal to out Pres. Keyes. Here's why. If Keyes is a hypocritical unbeliever functioning as a SP, he should be exposed to the light of day. He is not worthy to act as a SP if he cannot answer in the affirmative to some of the same questions he's asked hundreds of people in his stake. OTOH, If Randy Keyes is innocent of any duplicity, this should be brought to the light of day. The only way this can be determined with a higher degree of surety is by taking the conversation between the two parties involved to the next level. Tal can make this happen.


I used to think that every leader, every member with a calling, every seemingly-committed member sitting in a pew regularly and certainly every member who formally gave their testimony had a staunch belief. That is the only way I could participate in a church, for my own satisfaction and to avoid being hypocritical in my own eyes, and I just assumed that everyone would be the same. I have come to see that it is more complex than that. My experience, singular as it is, was that it is an accepted part of the culture in the Mormon Church to "fake it til you make it" (I heard that phrase a lot and, indeed, it was advice given to me before my baptism and when I got baptized and I know missionaries who admitted they did that in order to stay on their mission) and also to "lean on the testimony of others" until you find your own. I guess people can reasonably expect that a leader such as bishop, SP, etc would have already worked out any questions or doubts or falterings they may have but it isn't always true. Maybe after someone has accepted a calling they start having questions or seeing things they are having trouble resolving. That doesn't mean they would automatically draw attention to themselves and decide they were not worthy to continue in their calling. To the contrary, actually, I would think/hope it would make them more sensitive and compassionate in their leadership duties and in counselling and helping other members. In fact, I think it is more honest to admit you have questions than to insist that "the truth" is obvious. I much prefer to acknowledge the elephant in the bathroom than to avoid it and pretend it isn't trumpeting its presence and requiring attention.

I have come to see that there are likely many members with questions who continue to participate in Mormonism. Everyone has their own reasons for doing so. Undoubtedly, it is the same in other churches. People may not believe 100% of the doctrine and may not participate in all the activities but for whatever reasons they continue to count themselves among the members. The difference is that in many other churches, one is not required to have a certain set of beliefs to which they must regularly attest. In Mormonism, this is not always the case and so what you believe, and that it conform, is more of an issue.

In my view, the problem is not with *even* an SP having questions, it is with cultivating an environment wherein questions are not welcome. This was my experience in the ward I attended and I realized after I left there that it is similar in many other wards. One example is that once in Gospel Essentials class I asked for clarification on who exactly Mormons worship. I did not realize this was a difficult or disallowed question but it brought me a lot of dark looks and hostility, for reasons I could not fathom. In any other church I have attended, it would not have seemed so strange that a member or visitor asked about a point of doctrine. In an environment where people are apparently not encouraged to discuss doctrine and a lot of emphasis is placed on lockstep belief, I imagine that at least some people would keep their questions to themselves.

Is it expected that a leader should have 100% devotion and 0% thoughts? If so, maybe a leader with thoughts could be considered a "hypocrite", although that seems quite harsh and unreasonable. Much better to admit there are questions and try to resolve them than to pretend that all is always well, which is not reality in anybody's environment.


mentalgymnast wrote: Jesus condemned the hypocrites in no uncertain terms. So, if Pres. Keyes is living a duplicitous life...he should be exposed, friend or not.


I would not call this "duplicitous". Rather, it is (perhaps) someone who doesn't believe every doctrine or some parts of church history 100% but has found a way to reconcile that such that he can continue his membership and his calling. I would not think that is outrageously uncommon.

Too, I don't think that it is at all an ex-member's responsibility (or desire?) to "out" a church leader (unless perhaps for gross misconduct?) But really, why is it anybody's business what an SP's personal thoughts are?


mentalgymnast wrote: ... it is also important to come to a resolution/determination as to whether Tal Bachman is a cheat and a scoundrel, or an honest man. His credibility is on the line.


No. I see only that there is a possibility that he may have misunderstood some of the SP's comments, although he seems quite clear, even on second/third reflection, that he did not. A "scoundrel" this does not make.


mentalgymnast wrote: If Tal is innocent of any duplicity, he should have no qualms about outing Pres. Keyes. He would actually be doing the church a favor by doing so in helping rid the church of an unworthy/duplicitous leader in high position. If Pres. Keyes is being duplicitous then Tal would be doing apologists a favor by helping route out a wolf in sheep's clothing.


See above. Also, it is possible for Tal to be "innocent of any duplicity" and still not want to "out" the SP.


mentalgymnast wrote: I happen to side with those that consider the words of a known apostate with lesser value than the words of a SP.


That is quite a statement. You have no way of knowing which one, if either, is lying and yet a "known apostate" is of "lesser value" to you. for what it's worth, people leave the church when they no longer believe. This is a position of strength, not weakness. They are avoiding being hypocritical. This is admirable, not worthy of censure. This does not automatically make a person a liar or less trustworthy. In fact, I view them as people who stand up for what they believe, and do not believe. I find that admirable.


mentalgymnast wrote: ...it is possible that Tal is telling the truth in this instance even though he purportedly has been known to twist the truth in other situations. He has an opportunity to prove in this case whether he is a truth teller or he is twisting truth as he has purportedly done in the past.


Whoa. Need examples on this one. Hostile people saying that Tal has lied does not translate into "he has been known to twist the truth". I have seen this charge frequently. I have asked numerous times for examples of this. To my knowledge, no-one has yet come forward with even one example to back up this claim. I think it is really low to keep repeating it without giving any substance to the charge.

My impression of Tal is that he is a truth-teller. At least, as he sees truth. Of course, you and other Mormons may not agree. But he does not lie. In fact, he has strong opinions and he doesn't hold back expressing them. That is what has caused a lot of attention to come his way at times and what has likely caused him some problems. It is what would make him a zealous missionary (which would be admired, as long as he was inside the church) and an equally passionate teller of truth - as he sees it - since he has left the church. You can disagree with his viewpoint but that does not make him a liar. Please, someone, give me a concrete and obvious example of any time that Tal "lied". Otherwise, it is grossly unfair to keep repeating the allegation.


mentalgymnast wrote: When all is said and done, I don't see where there is any danger/risk for Pres. Keyes if he is not being duplicitous. In the end truth will/should/can come out victorious. If Keyes is not holding anything back and his motives/actions are pure, he would end up demonstrating Bachman's duplicity and expose him as a fraud as further information comes to light. The Lord would theoretically support his chosen leader and help expose the apostate for what and who he is.


Not in this instance, I don't think, because the worst you could conclude from this is that one or the other of the two participants in this little chat misunderstood or don't remember each other's remarks. That doesn't make one a liar or the other duplicitous. More like two human men who each have their own take on the same conversation.


mentalgymnast wrote: ... right now it's somewhat of a draw as far as I can see. Those that would like Tal to hold back at this point may have a bit of reservation as to whether or not he can stand the light of day. The only way to know if he can, and if he is actually credible is to take things to the next level.


No. I think your logic is leaping a step too far there. Believe it or not, one could hope that Tal will hold back without being afraid he will be proven to lack integrity. Maybe a lot of ex-members were in the same position as the SP may be, not having 100% belief in the way some members think they should, or maybe even "apostates" have hearts and don't wish to see a man come to grief just so one side or the other can score senseless points.


mentalgymnast wrote: ... after saying all this I can see where the easiest thing to do in order to lower the risk of embarrassment or hurt would be to let things drop from here on out. That that would be perfectly understandable.


It would be worth remembering that the "risk of embarrasment or hurt" goes both ways, the SP just as much as Tal.

I certainly wouldn't want this played out publicly just to feed the voracious appetite of the curious masses. To me, the whole issue is largely a matter of a dedicated church member having questions and ultimately losing his faith and a church leader who tried to help him. There has already been hurt, perhaps on both sides. Neither of the men owes it to anyone or anything to continue to play it out in public.
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Nightingale, your response shows another way. It is a good way. I don't have any qualms with it. At this point it is best for those of us in the peanut gallery to go on to other things and let things play out as they may.

by the way, I enjoy reading your comments on other topics. Very thoughtful/insightful.

Regards,
MG
Post Reply