Midgley Threatens to "Out" Bachman

[_Alter Idem]

So then, would it be acceptable if Louis Midgely did not publish the private emails and instead just posted in various message boards his personal recollections of what Tal Bacham "said" in those emails?

But, there is a problem in this, A.I.. I frequently hear TBMs defend missionary and Church history "omissions" based on "intent." I.e., there is nothing wrong with the fact that the Church fails to mention MMM, polygamy, the Book of Abraham, Helen Mar, or any number of other controversial facets of Mormonism, since the underlying "intent" is to lead you to eternal salvation. So, what was/is the "intent" of Tal, and what was/is the "intent" of Lou Midgley? It seems to me that Tal's intent (at least during the time of his first recording his discussion w/ the SP) was one of working out his roiling emotions. I have never had the sense that Tal's intent was in any way to "harm" the SP personally. This is supported by Tal's frequent assertions concerning Keyes's good character, and etc.

Now what about Midgley? What possible good or moral motive can he have? The answer is: None. He is doing this purely for revenge.

You are the ultimate spin doctor, Scratch.

Revenge is the only possible motivation? Pretty simplistic. There are numerous reasons he could come up with.

That's what Tal Bachman did--and you didn't have a problem with that. Bachman never provided the Stake Pres. actual words--good think he didn't tape record the conversation, 'cause if he did, he couldn't make it available publicly without your condemnation, now could he? Instead, Bachman just told everyone what he thinks he heard the Pres. say--so from your line of reasoning, if Louis Midgely wants to avoid crossing a line of what is acceptable, he should just TELL us what Bachman said, but he should not back his claims up with any actual proof.

Personally, I don't care if Midgley "outs" Tal. I would imagine that Tal probably doesn't care that much either. However, none of this changes the fact that Midgley has shown himself to be a petty and vindictive individual.

If you didn't care, why did you speak out against his posting the emails? And as for Tal Bachman caring, his actions prove he does care. When the SP told his side, Bachman tried to threaten him into silence. There's no reason to believe he doesn't care if Midgley talks too. Bachman doesn't like not being in control of what information. comes out about him, so, yes he does care.

You've branded Midgely "petty and vindictive" for his actions--when as far as I know, he hasn't even released the emails? What about Bachman's actions? The things he's actually done? What about his threats? His misrepresenations? His manipulations? What do his actions say about him? Your condemnation of Midgely condemns Bachman as well.

[_Chap]

What about Bachman's actions? The things he's actually done? What about his threats? His misrepresenations? His manipulations? What do his actions say about him?

Like some others who have posted, I don't see why Tal Bachmann had to mention his SP's name in the first place. And you could call it a 'threat' when he says he will publish more material if the SP continues, in his view, to misrepresent what took place; but you could equally well just call it a warning.

But 'Bachmann's ... misrepresentation'? You use the word as if the fact was proved. In fact all we have is a contradiction of Bachmann's account of parts of the conversation, long after the event, by someone who (as has been clearly explained on this board) could hardly say otherwise without suffering considerable personal and family problems. All we can say is that either Keyes or Bachmann may be misrepresenting things. There is no surety which of them is doing the misrepresenting.

(I know which way my vote goes, by the way).

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi everyone

Sorry, been traveling and very busy the past few days. I have to run out soon but just caught this thread and skimmed the first post.

I did get an email from Midgley a few days ago in which he announced he would be publishing our private email correspondence from a few years ago.

Not sure how that would ever "out" me on anything, though - I can't believe I said anything then in private that I wouldn't say in public. My hope is that Midgley posts my emails intact, including my very last one to him in that exchange, but I guess I don't have ultimate control over that.

I am not exactly certain why it might matter so much to the Peterson's and Midgleys of the world what I think or say about Mormonism. They seem desperate for "foes". But...if Mormonism were false, I could no more make it true than they can; and if it were true, I could no more make it false than - well, than pretty much every single researcher from fields as diverse as astronomy, anthropology, molecular biology, linguistics, zoology, botany, psychology, etc. They, after all, didn't "make Mormonism false" - only showed it to be.

But if it were true, Mormonism would, I presume, stand like a shining beacon amidst all the "vain learning of the world", being testified of by "the most potent testator in the universe", God's one true holy spirit. What puny arm could halt the stone cut out of the mountain?

Besides, to hear them tell it, I've always been pretty much unworthy of notice (hm), and now, with Pres. Keyes publicly denying that he said what he said during our meeting, to hear them tell it, I'm also a fantasist or a terrible liar. Even stranger are the ongoing insinuations that I have "misquoted" Peterson and the like. I still await one single example of having done this so that I can apologize for having done so. But I've never seen any examples, and no one else ever has, either, that I know of. But then, Mormons seem to care no more about this lack of evidence, than they do the lack of evidence for Kolobian light borrowing or three two-thousand-year-old men roaming the earth. Depressingly, in my case as in so many others, the mere accusation of smoke is evidently enough to get them all thinking that they "know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a huge fire there".

Louis Midgley has expressed interest in debating me personally on a blog on the topic of Grant Palmer's book. I suggested we discuss it here so that others could join in (Midge doesn't exactly seem like the funnest guy in the world to hang around with. He seems like the kind of guy who yells at little neighbour kids when the baseball winds up in his garden...:P).

Not sure if he has attempted to start that thread here as I encouraged him to do, but if he does, I'll be happy to respond like others.

Gotta run, it may be a day or two before I can get back on here for any length of time.

[_Tal Bachman]

"Threaten" is a strong word, Chap...but maybe it's appropriate, I don't know. I've always liked Randy, but I sure don't want him continuing to put me in a position where to adequately defend myself, I'd have to really embarrass him. I've barely been able to bite my tongue as it is.

[_Mister Scratch]

Now what about Midgley? What possible good or moral motive can he have? The answer is: None. He is doing this purely for revenge.

You are the ultimate spin doctor, Scratch.

Revenge is the only possible motivation? Pretty simplistic. There are numerous reasons he could come up with.

Well then, you should have no difficulty listing these "numerous" reasons. Please feel free to enlighten me.

That's what Tal Bachman did--and you didn't have a problem with that. Bachman never provided the Stake Pres. actual words--good think he didn't tape record the conversation, 'cause if he did, he couldn't make it available publicly without your condemnation, now could he? Instead, Bachman just told everyone what he thinks he heard the Pres. say--so from your line of reasoning, if Louis Midgely wants to avoid crossing a line of what is acceptable, he should just TELL us what Bachman said, but he should not back his claims up with any actual proof.

Personally, I don't care if Midgley "outs" Tal. I would imagine that Tal probably doesn't care that much either. However, none of this changes the fact that Midgley has shown himself to be a petty and vindictive individual.

If you didn't care, why did you speak out against his posting the emails?[/quote]

Because it reveals the vicious and vengeful nature of LDS apologetics and apologists.

And as for Tal Bachman caring, his actions prove he does care. When the SP told his side, Bachman tried to threaten him into silence. There's no reason to believe he doesn't care if Midgley talks too. Bachman doesn't like not being in control of what information. comes out about him, so, yes he does care.

You've branded Midgely "petty and vindictive" for his actions--when as far as I know, he hasn't even released the emails? What about Bachman's actions? The things he's actually done? What about his threats? His misrepresenations? His manipulations? What do his actions say about him? Your condemnation of Midgely condemns Bachman as well.

No, not really. Cf. my explanation vis-a-vis "motive" in my post above.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Tal: If Midgley offers a debate on neutral ground, ie, a blog where only the two of you post, I don't understand why you would pass that up. Posting on this board would be problematic, as anyone could weigh in with their insults and mocking. On the MAD board you might feel hampered in the same way. A blog where only you and Midgley post seems the best alternative.

[_asbestosman]

I wonder if Midgley has ever looked closely at the high-powered, high testosterone culture of high finance. No no to Wall Street, then.

Soldiers are obsessed with getting drunk and getting laid. I guess this means that the military is bad.

Classical musicians have their fair share of perverts. I hear that Beethoven had premarital sex. Stay away from classical music.

Charles Dickens fathered illegitimate children. Better avoid literature.

Of course, Midgley's frame of reference is principally sex (with some alcohol and drugs mixed in). As if the prudish Mormon view of sex, advanced by men who probably think that doing it through the Holy Garment is just whiz bang, is the standard to which everyone ought to aspire.

Does Midgley realize how stupid this statement makes him look?

I'm not trying to undermine Midgley or his argument, but he did happen to bring up one of my pet peeves. I can't stand it when I hear people in the church assert that the stereotypes associated with various activities makes them inherently bad. If we're going to go down that route, we may as well as the stereotype for founders of religious movements--you know the stereotype Sethbag brought up about how founders of religious movements try to shack up with as many followers as possible. Since sex is the point of reference, we can see from this stereotype that founders of religious movements are obviously bad and Joseph Smith should have avoided the "disguisting" religious founder world.

[_Alter Idem]

What about Bachman's actions? The things he's actually done? What about his threats? His misrepresenations? His manipulations? What do his actions say about him?

Like some others who have posted, I don't see why Tal Bachmann had to mention his SP's name in the first place. And you could call it a 'threat' when he says he will publish more material if the SP continues, in his view, to misrepresent what took place; but you could equally well just call it a warning.

But 'Bachmann's ... misrepresentation'? You use the word as if the fact was proved. In fact all we have is a contradiction of Bachmann's account of parts of the conversation, long after the event, by someone who (as has been clearly explained on this board) could hardly say otherwise without suffering considerable personal and family problems. All we can say is that either Keyes or Bachmann may be misrepresenting things. There is no surety which of them is doing the misrepresenting.

(I know which way my vote goes, by the way).

Chap, I will post the information which brought me to the conclusion that Tal Bachman has misrepresented the SP's conversation.

From the MADB board, A poster, Craig Paxton stated that he had saved Tal Bachman's original posts from 5 years ago and he posted some for us to see. This is a post of Tal Bachman's explanation of the conversation with his Stake Pres. shortly after it took place and apparently, Craig said TB kept notes.

As I’ve mentioned before, I felt relieved (and nearly as shocked as that Kinderhook moment) when in a meeting with my SP, he said that he felt sure that many of the founding “events” of the church didn’t happen the way they are reputed to have happened, but that that didn’t matter really, since the church made us better people. I even asked him if I should resign my callings now that I knew the founding events hadn’t happened, and do you know, he said, “I don’t see why you should, if you’re willing to stay in the church and try to have spiritual experiences”.

Now, look at a recent post which Ray A. provided (on the Fair blog) by Tal Bachman from Post Mormon where TB explains the same event;

"To my shock, my SP admitted that he also knew that Joseph Smith had invented his stories, related a personal story involving then-counselor Hinckley in the 80’s, which suggested that Hinckley was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications"

You will see that Tal Bachman claimed the SP AND Pres. Hinckley believe just as he does--that it's all fabrications, hhowever, that is not what he said in the earlier version.

Compare the two versions. Notice that Bachman's earlier version, morphed from "he felt sure that many of the founding "events" of the church didn't happen the way they are reputed to have happened" to "My SP admitted that he also know that Joseph Smith had invented his stories,.....suggested that Hinckley was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications."

And here we see where Tal Bachman has misrepresented the SP because he made a leap of assumption which was wrong. Many informed LDS accept that the way the stories are told are not exactly right--but we don't believe they are "fabrications" or were "invented" by Joseph Smith--Bachman put words in the SP's mouth and attributed thoughts to him that he had not said. As I said on MADB, Bachman is guilty of "transference" or as Analytics called it "Projecting", which is a common problem for someone who is conflicted in their own mind or in crisis over something. Tal Bachman has described himself as an uber-mormon--and from his description, I'd say he was--holding many callings, serving a mission, married in the temple with seven children. If this is true, I would not dispute his description of himself. And so, I'd expect that his losing his faith was a very traumatic experience for him and one he would have wanted to find justification for so that he could live comfortably as a non-believer.

If you look at the two versions, Bachman's first version about the SP is plausible--I'm certain many informed LDS recognize that events could be embellished, misremembered, and include inaccuracies and there is nothing wrong with the SP admitting that "events didn't happen the way they are reputed to have happened--and still have a testimony, still believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet and still feel the guidance of the spirit and not harbor "doubts"--But for Tal B. to start claiming that the SP is a closet unbeliever, lying to the members, living a lie and hiding the truth and encouraging others to live a lie also--as well as the claims he made about Pres. Hinckley admitting to a huge group of men that "it's all fabrications"--that is clearly a misrepresentation from his earlier statements.

Did Tal Bachman misrepresent him on purpose? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say "I don't think so". As I said, I think he is suffering from "transference" or "projection" and he probably does believe his story as it has progressed over time. It makes it easier for him to accept his loss of faith and the subsequent changes to his lifestyle. But I think Tal B. needs to take a hard look at his own actual statements from the past and recognize that he's done a disservice to the SP in the way he's morphed this story.


I would also point out that the SP didn't suggest that TB just stay in the church because it made them better husbands and fathers--he wanted him to not make a complete break, but to stay in the church while he worked through his doubts so that he could possibly have "spiritual experiences" which would help him gain his testimony again. You can see this from the initial post. In the later version, Tal's cynicism shows in that he does not mention that SP's desire that he feel the spirit again--just advice to stay in the church and accept the fact that its not true, but it will make him a better person.

[_Trevor]

But 'Bachmann's ... misrepresentation'? You use the word as if the fact was proved. In fact all we have is a contradiction of Bachmann's account of parts of the conversation, long after the event, by someone who (as has been clearly explained on this board) could hardly say otherwise without suffering considerable personal and family problems. All we can say is that either Keyes or Bachmann may be misrepresenting things. There is no surety which of them is doing the misrepresenting.

Excellent point.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

What about Bachman's actions? The things he's actually done? What about his threats? His misrepresenations? His manipulations? What do his actions say about him?

Like some others who have posted, I don't see why Tal Bachmann had to mention his SP's name in the first place. And you could call it a 'threat' when he says he will publish more material if the SP continues, in his view, to misrepresent what took place; but you could equally well just call it a warning.

But 'Bachmann's ... misrepresentation'? You use the word as if the fact was proved. In fact all we have is a contradiction of Bachmann's account of parts of the conversation, long after the event, by someone who (as has been clearly explained on this board) could hardly say otherwise without suffering considerable personal and family problems. All we can say is that either Keyes or Bachmann may be misrepresenting things. There is no surety which of them is doing the misrepresenting.

(I know which way my vote goes, by the way).

Chap, I will post the information which brought me to the conclusion that Tal Bachman has misrepresented the SP's conversation.

From the MADB board, A poster, Craig Paxton stated that he had saved Tal Bachman's original posts from 5 years ago and he posted some for us to see. This is a post of Tal Bachman's explanation of the conversation with his Stake Pres. shortly after it took place and apparently, Craig said TB kept notes.

As I’ve mentioned before, I felt relieved (and nearly as shocked as that Kinderhook moment) when in a meeting with my SP, he said that he felt sure that many of the founding “events” of the church didn’t happen the way they are reputed to have happened, but that that didn’t matter really, since the church made us better people. I even asked him if I should resign my callings now that I knew the founding events hadn’t happened, and do you know, he said, “I don’t see why you should, if you’re willing to stay in the church and try to have spiritual experiences”.

Now, look at a recent post which Ray A. provided (on the Fair blog) by Tal Bachman from Post Mormon where TB explains the same event;

"To my shock, my SP admitted that he also knew that Joseph Smith had invented his stories, related a personal story involving then-counselor Hinckley in the 80’s, which suggested that Hinckley was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications"

You will see that Tal Bachman claimed the SP AND Pres. Hinckley believe just as he does--that it's all fabrications, hhowever, that is not what he said in the earlier version.

Compare the two versions. Notice that Bachman's earlier version, morphed from "he felt sure that many of the founding "events" of the church didn't happen the way they are reputed to have happened" to "My SP admitted that he also know that Joseph Smith had invented his stories,.....suggested that Hinckley was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications."

And here we see where Tal Bachman has misrepresented the SP because he made a leap of assumption which was wrong. Many informed LDS accept that the way the stories are told are not exactly right--but we don't believe they are "fabrications" or were "invented" by Joseph Smith--Bachman put words in the SP's mouth and attributed thoughts to him that he had not said. As I said on MADB, Bachman is guilty of "transference" or as Analytics called it "Projecting", which is a common problem for someone who is conflicted in their own mind or in crisis over something. Tal Bachman has described himself as an uber-mormon--and from his description, I'd say he was--holding many callings, serving a mission, married in the temple with seven children. If this is true, I would not dispute his description of himself. And so, I'd expect that his losing his faith was a very traumatic experience for him and one he would have wanted to find justification for so that he could live comfortably as a non-believer.

If you look at the two versions, Bachman's first version about the SP is plausible--I'm certain many informed LDS recognize that events could be embellished, misremembered, and include inaccuracies and there is nothing wrong with the SP admitting that "events didn't happen the way they are reputed to have happened--and still have a testimony, still believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet and still feel the guidance of the spirit and not harbor "doubts"--But for Tal B. to start claiming that the SP is a closet unbeliever, lying to the members, living a lie and hiding the truth and encouraging others to live a lie also--as well as the claims he made about Pres. Hinckley admitting to a huge group of men that "it's all fabrications"--that is clearly a misrepresentation from his earlier statements.

Did Tal Bachman misrepresent him on purpose? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say "I don't think so". As I said, I think he is suffering from "transference" or "projection" and he probably does believe his story as it has progressed over time. It makes it easier for him to accept his loss of faith and the subsequent changes to his lifestyle. But I think Tal B. needs to take a hard look at his own actual statements from the past and recognize that he's done a disservice to the SP in the way he's morphed this story.


I would also point out that the SP didn't suggest that TB just stay in the church because it made them better husbands and fathers--he wanted him to not make a complete break, but to stay in the church while he worked through his doubts so that he could possibly have "spiritual experiences" which would help him gain his testimony again. You can see this from the initial post. In the later version, Tal's cynicism shows in that he does not mention that SP's desire that he feel the spirit again--just advice to stay in the church and accept the fact that its not true, but it will make him a better person.

Excellent points.