TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

[_Yoda]

For what it's worth, Tal, I think you did the right thing.

There is no point in continuing down a course that may impact President Keys in a negative way. It's obvious that you have a great amount of respect for him.

What I don't understand is the reaction from some of the TBM's here.

BC, why do you think it is necessary for Tal to continue this banter publicly? It should have NEVER been public in the first place.

We can sit here and argue to death whose fault it is that this went public...some say it's Tal's fault because he posted the incident on RfM initially. However, Tal never used Presdient Keys' name. And President Keys wouldn't have known about the posting at all if a friend of Scott Lloyd's hadn't "just happened" to have come across it, and pointed it out AFTER FOUR YEARS. Talk about manipulative!

Once again, the MAD'ites are giving faithful LDS a bad reputation.

[NorthboundZax]

Liz

The reaction of TBM's isn't so hard to understand. For them, for the controversy to go on is win/win: if it becomes obvious I "misunderstood" or invented the whole story, then someone with the audacity to publicly doubt Kolobian light borrowing looks bad - and (supposedly) "Mormon faith is protected again".

BUT, if it becomes obvious that Randy said just the sorts of things I mentioned he did, then...a closet infidel will have been exposed, and can be removed - and "Mormon faith is protected again". It doesn't matter to these guys that this might cause a rift in the guy's marriage or anything.

Speaking from past experience as a flame-throwing Mormon, nothing matters more to those wholly given over to delusion, than to perpetuate that delusion. It becomes our lifeblood, our identity, our ego, everything. It must be preserved at all costs.

For the moment, I'm happy to allow all those slavering drama queens in thrall to Smith's outlandish tales to think I'm one of the "enemies" their delusions so desperately require. There's no real downside to me, that I can see.

[_mentalgymnast]

So you think that he ought here and now to state everything he knows that might discredit Keyes in the eyes of his fellow LDS? Is that what he ought to do?

He ought to put his money where his mouth is instead of sucking his thumb behind his curtain.

From my perspective, one of the more amazing things about this whole Bachman/Keyes episode is this:

The sycophants here in Shadyville and elsewhere actually believe that Tal is holding some kind of meaningful Trump card close to his vest, which, if he "lowered his standards" and chose to play, would be tantamount to destroying the reputation of President Keyes. And since many of the apologists are calling Tal's bluff and encouraging him to show his hand, Jason assures us it is because we are indifferent to the fate of poor Randy Keyes.

Well, from what I've seen of Randy Keyes, I think he seems more than a match for the bus. And, from what I've seen of Tal, I think he's an amateur propagandist who, if nothing else, knows how to play his audience here in the Shady Acres trailer park.

That's why back around page four or five of this thread I said:

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.

Regards,
MG

[_Dr. Shades]

Once again, I applaud you, Tal, for taking the high road.

It takes a great deal of character to "take a bullet" in order to preserve the well-being of another.

[_Ray A]

Once again, I applaud you, Tal, for taking the high road.

It takes a great deal of character to "take a bullet" in order to preserve the well-being of another.

Yes, Dr. Shades, I couldn't agree more. And no doubt you have been "taking bullets" for others' "well being" for ages. Truth is, you only defend Tali Bachman because you're on the same side as this pathetic loser who has already slandered Randy Keyes for personal gain.

Horse bolted.

[_Chap]

Once again, I applaud you, Tal, for taking the high road.

It takes a great deal of character to "take a bullet" in order to preserve the well-being of another.

Yes, Dr. Shades, I couldn't agree more. And no doubt you have been "taking bullets" for others' "well being" for ages. Truth is, you only defend Tali Bachman because you're on the same side as this pathetic loser who has already slandered Randy Keyes for personal gain.

Horse bolted.

What a nice example of abuse just for the fun of it! But just a moment ...

"pathetic loser": If words have any meaning, you are suggesting that you are in a position to look down on Mr Bachman from the economic, career, or personal fulfilment point of view, or perhaps some combination of all three. I can't recall you providing a great deal of evidence of your qualifications for doing that.


"personal gain": Again, any normal person would read that as suggesting that Mr Bachman made money out of leaving the CoJCoLDS, and it perhaps continuing to by reason of the fact that he maintains his story about his meeting with Mr Keyes in face of the latter's denial. Would you care to substantiate that?

I write, by the way, as someone who feels that Mr Bachman made a significant misjudgment in naming his Stake President in the first place. But that error does not mean that everyone who needs someone to sneer at can declare open season on him.

[_Ray A]

What a nice example of abuse just for the fun of it! But just a moment ...

You mean, like insinuating that a stake president is really an apostate?

"pathetic loser": If words have any meaning, you are suggesting that you are in a position to look down on Mr Bachman from the economic, career, or personal fulfilment point of view, or perhaps some combination of all three. I can't recall you providing a great deal of evidence of your qualifications for doing that.

You sound like a damned government bureaucrat. Can you speaky in plain English?

"personal gain": Again, any normal person would read that as suggesting that Mr Bachman made money out of leaving the CoJCoLDS, and it perhaps continuing to by reason of the fact that he maintains his story about his meeting with Mr Keyes in face of the latter's denial. Would you care to substantiate that?

"Mr.Bachman" has many avenues of money flow, and even a website devoted to boosting his vain ego, where his lapdogs lick up every word he has to say (like here). No doubt he's also an "authority" on Mormonism, having studied it for a whole five years.

I write, by the way, as someone who feels that Mr Bachman made a significant misjudgment in naming his Stake President in the first place. But that error does not mean that everyone who needs someone to sneer at can declare open season on him.

I wouldn't care if you wrote as Snagapuss.

[_Ray A]

Once again, I applaud you, Tal, for taking the high road.

It takes a great deal of character to "take a bullet" in order to preserve the well-being of another.

So let me just revise this again, for clarity. Dr. Shades praises Tal Bachman for "taking the high road". And what is that "high road"? It is NOT revealing private and confidential stuff, which could "damn" Randy Keyes. Yet, "Dr. Shades" had NO PROBLEM in revealing, or allowing to be revealed, private and confidential "stuff" I wrote five years ago, even though I had sorely repented of it. What's the difference here? The difference is that Tal Bachman is an inveterate anti-Mormon! That's why Shades defends him, because he knows that the truth is that Bachman DISTORTED what he thinks he heard. Don't for one minute think that Shades has "benevolent" motives here. His ONLY aim is to protect Bachman from exposure to his misrepresentations of Randy Keyes.

Shades, you stink. Your whole anti-Mormon site stinks. Both you and keene. You, and all the bitter ex-Mormons who post here, are a total disgrace to any logical arguments against Mormonism.

[_gramps]

Hey, it is good, no great, to have you back, Ray!

[_Chap]

What a nice example of abuse just for the fun of it! But just a moment ...

You mean, like insinuating that a stake president is really an apostate?

No. If it really is the case that a stake president has stayed in post despite having no belief in important claims of the CoJCoLDS, then stating publicly that this is the case is not 'abuse just for the fun of it', but a relevant statement of an important fact about Mr Bachman's exit from the CoJCoLDS.

"pathetic loser": If words have any meaning, you are suggesting that you are in a position to look down on Mr Bachman from the economic, career, or personal fulfilment point of view, or perhaps some combination of all three. I can't recall you providing a great deal of evidence of your qualifications for doing that.

You sound like a f*****g government bureaucrat. Can you speaky in plain English?

You sound like a person with a vocabulary so limited that you find long sentences without expletives threatening. Or worse (and more probably the case) you sound like a someone who deals with arguments they can't answer by making rude noises in the hope that his opponent will give up in disgust. It is the verbal equivalent of what skunks do when threatened.

"personal gain": Again, any normal person would read that as suggesting that Mr Bachman made money out of leaving the CoJCoLDS, and it perhaps continuing to by reason of the fact that he maintains his story about his meeting with Mr Keyes in face of the latter's denial. Would you care to substantiate that?

"Mr.Bachman" has many avenues of money flow, and even a website devoted to boosting his vain ego, where his lapdogs lick up every word he has to say (like here). No doubt he's also an "authority" on Mormonism, having studied it for a whole five years.

So you can't substantiate your implication that Mr Bachman left the CoCJCoLDS in order to make money by so doing? Well, just repeat it a few times with more choice expletives and no-one will notice.

I write, by the way, as someone who feels that Mr Bachman made a significant misjudgment in naming his Stake President in the first place. But that error does not mean that everyone who needs someone to sneer at can declare open season on him.

I wouldn't care if you wrote as Snagapuss.

I think you will find that's 'Snagglepuss'.

But welcome back to the board.

[edited once for typo]