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.