Midgley Threatens to "Out" Bachman

[Guest]

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."

There is an appearance of contradiction which can probably be explained by a change of emphasis and emotion. I do not see a real contradiction here at all, but two facets of the same conversation. How we interpret past events and their impact on us changes over time. Look at the First Vision for Pete's sake. I would say this is pretty crummy evidence for Tal having misrepresented anything.

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.

I largely agree with you here, but this is different from conscious misrepresentation, as in a deliberate attempt to twist the SP's words in order to deceive.

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.

Tal's interpretation is his interpretation. I don't find the second version inherently morally dubious because it is not flattering to the SP. How the experience impacted him over time may have changed. His interpretation could have evolved. This is no more a lie than Joseph Smith's later First Vision accounts are lies.

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 mostly agree with this, although I think Tal's later representation of the event is not necessarily false because it takes a different tone.

[_moksha]

Remember, this is the man who drove up to SLC just to heckle Grant Palmer at a book-signing.

For those who have not read Dr. Midgley's review of Grant Palmer, here it is (look at the methods he uses):

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=514

His title Prying into Palmer is uncannily accurate.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

“My stake president, instead of addressing my several questions directly, told me that he had gone to a meeting in the Salt Lake temple as a bishopric member down in Utah, after the Salamander Letter had been released, but before they knew it was a hoax. And he said that Pres. Hinckley (who ran the meeting) had begun his remarks by saying that ‘the claims of no church on earth will withstand the light of historical scrutiny, including ours’, and then concluded them by saying that despite all that, what he did know was that he was a better husband and father because a member of the church. My SP went on to say that he too knew that some of the things hadn’t happened, though, in other remarks, he said that he believed that the Book of Mormon characters were real, though he wasn’t certain other times (he said he had recently asked Elder Eyring about the ‘knowledge’ thing on the SP teleconference); and then in other remarks, he said that the bottom line was that because the church helps us be better husbands and fathers, it just doesn’t really matter what happened or not 180 years ago. You can imagine that this was very much unlike what I had expected to hear, and I kept asking him to make sure I wasn’t hearing things. At one point, I even said, ‘So, if Joseph Smith wasn’t actually ordained by Peter, James, and John, or didn’t really have golden plates, and all those things, you don’t think that matters?’, and he said, ‘No’.”

Is there a way of telling whether Talmage has twisted, embellished, or distorted what Randy Keyes must have told him? The answer is obvious. If Elder Hinckley had said what Talmage claims he was told he said, then someone in that Solemn Assembly–there must have been over 500 present– would have mentioned it to someone, since it would have been sensational news–and word of such a opinion would have reached the press. The simply fact is that Elder Hinckley consistently said the exact opposite of what Talmage attributes to him.

This is an "outing" alright, in every sense of the word. Bachman now stands exposed as, what at all events is a flat footed deceiver, freely embellishing and concocting, out of whole cloth, whatever in necessary to justify his weakness of soul.

But of course, we've seen this all before, so many times...

[_Coggins7]

Good heavens! The exmos...gypsies, tramps, and theives. This thread is nothing less than exhibit 'A' of just what the intellectual and moral composition of all too much of the "exmo" world is really like at its malodorous core.

All Bachman needs to do, at this juncture, to further skewer his credibility, is just keep posting, and just keep writing letters.

Oh, what a tangled web...

[_beastie]

Good heavens! The exmos...gypsies, tramps, and theives. This thread is nothing less than exhibit 'A' of just what the intellectual and moral composition of all too much of the "exmo" world is really like at its malodorous core.

All Bachman needs to do, at this juncture, to further skewer his credibility, is just keep posting, and just keep writing letters.

Oh, what a tangled web...

Oh, look, the poser is back.

[_Coggins7]

OK...everyone out of the pool...

[_Coggins7]

Oh...oh, what a tangled web...

[_Trevor]

Oh, look, the poser is back.

Is it time for Coggins7 to change avatars?

[_Coggins7]

Curfew Trevor...curfew.

[_beastie]

Is it time for Coggins7 to change avatars?

snicker