TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

[_antishock8]

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.

The spirit of Christ is strong with this one...

[_Yoda]

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.

The spirit of Christ is strong with this one...

OK....as a fellow "Star Wars" fan, I just spit Pepsi all over my screen. LOL

[_William Schryver]

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.

Gag me!

Shades, you have reached a new low in sycophantic self-humiliation -- even by your standards.

Why don't you give him a bath and massage while you're at it?

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

Notice, O accusatory one, that I "allowed" Tal to make the original gaffe of revealing his former Stake President's real name, too.

I am nothing if not consistent.

What's the difference here? The difference is that Tal Bachman is an inveterate anti-Mormon!

Wrong, O rancorous one. The difference is that I applauded Tal whereas I did NOT applaud your own accusers.

I am nothing if not predictable.

That's why Shades defends him, because he knows that the truth is that Bachman DISTORTED what he thinks he heard.

No, O obtuse one. The reason I defend him is for precisely the reasons I say I defend him.

Wow, that!

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.

Wrong again, O mindreadingly-challenged one. My ONLY aim is precisely what I said it was.

Boy, I'm just full of earth-shattering revelations today, aren't I?

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.

Coming from you, O perpetually-angry one, I take that as a great compliment!

Shades, you have reached a new low in sycophantic self-humiliation -- even by your standards.

Why don't you give him a bath and massage while you're at it?

Hmm. Forgive me, but being lectured on "sycophantic self-humiliation" by someone who boisterously sings out "Praise to the Man" every few Sundays comes across as a bit . . . misplaced.

But since we're on the subject of sycophantic self-humiliation, let's do a little comparison:

Chances of Dr. Shades singing "We thank thee O God for Tal Bachman" in the near future: 0%.
Chances of William Schryver singing "We thank thee O God for a Prophet" in the near future: c. 100%.

So the case can be made that William Schryver is c. 100x the sycophant that Dr. Shades is.

Here's another little exercise:

EXHIBIT A: Dr. Shades applauds Tal Bachman, even though Tal is guilty of revealing his former Stake President's real name.

EXHIBIT B: William Schryver reveres Joseph Smith, even though Joseph is guilty of glass-looking, bank fraud, adultery, custodial misconduct, treason, destruction of the press, theft by deception, inciting a riot, escape from official custody, antiquities fraud, etc.

Now, will someone please remind me just who is under the pall of "sycophantic self-humiliation?"

[_Mister Scratch]

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"?

Welcome back, Ray. Are you ready to cough up an apology yet? Either to me, or to Shades? I know that I certainly haven't forgotten the false accusations you leveled against him.

It is NOT revealing private and confidential stuff, which could "damn" Randy Keyes.

How would it "damn" him? And, if it could legitimately "damn" him, who or what is really at fault---Tal Bachman, for telling the truth, or the Church itself, for encouraging an intolerant culture?

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.

Wow, Ray. You just need to calm down. It seems that you are cycling once more. Some of your posts on the Allen Wyatt blog were rather calm. So, what happened? Are you just displaying more of your "many faces"?

by the way: I came across some more evidence that you desperately crave recognition and attention. You mentioned that Gene England (sp?) had mailed some books to you, and that you were giddy over the thought that someone such as he would be "interested" in your impressions. You really do need to have your ego stroked, don't you, mate?

[_Trevor]

a total disgrace to any logical arguments against Mormonism.

Well, at least you admit that such arguments exist. That is real progress, no matter how you slice it.

[_mbeesley]

. . . relating the story of an Israelite desert nomad named Abraham . . .

Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob, who was later called Israel. Thus, Abraham could not have been an Israelite.

Perhaps less passion and more quiet contemplation as you compose your posts . . . . ?

[_Nightingale]

There is plenty to be said for "quiet contemplation", 'tis true.

Re mbeesley's remark to Tal about Abraham (known among other names as the Father of Israel) not being an Israelite:

Excerpt from this article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/n ... ast/roots/

2000-1800 B.C.E. Abraham leads Israelite nomads from Mesopotamia into Canaan. Famine eventually drives his descendants into Egypt.

1250-1200 B.C.E. Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt into Canaan, defeating Canaanites and Philistines.

Abraham did, indeed, according to Biblical claims, lead Israelites, widely acknowledged by religious and secular sources.


Excerpt from this site:

http://christianactionforisrael.org/index.html

Under this subheading:

http://christianactionforisrael.org/jud ... chap1.html

"The first person to actually be called an Israelite was Jacob, Abraham's grandson. He was called Jacob at birth, but God changed his name to "Israel" at Peniel, when He said to him:

Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed (Genesis 32:28).

The nation which traced its ancestry back to the twelve sons of Jacob was variously referred to as "Israel" (Genesis 34:7), "the children/sons of Israel" (Genesis 32:32), or "the tribes of Israel" (Genesis 49:16). Again, we must keep in mind that Jacob was not a Jew.

The term "Jew" originally described an inhabitant of Judah (II Kings 16:6) and as such was employed in contemporary Assyrian texts (Laudaia) dating at least from the eighth century B.C. The New Bible Dictionary indicates that "the term `Jew' was commonly used by non-Jews to refer to the Hebrews, or descendants of Abraham in general." By New Testament times the plural "Jews" had become a familiar term for all Israelites. The feminine form,
"Jewess," is used in Acts 16:1 and 24:24; and the adjective "Jewish" is found in Galatians 2:14 (NIV) and Titus 1:14.

For all practical purposes, therefore, we can use the terms Hebrews, Jews and Israelites interchangeably to mean the same people." (emphasis mine)

Most things are not as black/white as they may seem. It pays to parse carefully, especially if wanting to point fingers at someone else.

[_beastie]

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.

Is this a reference to the fact that your former threat to the ZLMB mods: "YOUR F***ING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" - was revealed on this board?

How you imagined you could get away with ranting and raving about the danger "angry exmormons" pose to Mormons with this skeleton in your closet is unfathomable to me.

[_harmony]

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.

I think this point hasn't been discussed enough, as it relates to the good people of the stake. It matters little to me how this discussion affected Tal. I don't doubt that the discussion took place as Tal remembers it, from Tal's point of view. The SP may remember it quite differently. However, the crux of the matter is clearly... what does the SP believe? And has been pointed out repeatedly here, it's not in his best interest to reveal anything but belief in the standard line of the LDS church, given his present circumstances (his calling, his wife's worship of him, his family situation). But his letter doesn't tell us what he really believes in his heart. It simply gives the standard line expected of a SP, and given the circumstances under which he wrote it, that's not surprising. It doesn't verify it's accuracy though.

That said, if the SP really is a closet doubter, then knowing this information can only help the LDS church. No matter how nice he is, if he doubts the basics of the church (notice I didn't say the basics of the gospel), then he needs to be released from his calling. He's in the position falsely. His leadership isn't based on faith, but rather on his skill and his training. We've seen reports of stakes led by less-than-spiritual men (the Montana child abuser comes to mind quickly), but a man with high integrity (which this particular SP is trying to radiate) would ask to be released from his position rather than continue with doubts.

So either Tal completely misunderstood him, or Tal was right. Either way, the only thing Tal did that I would condemn is reveal the SP's real name. That was not well done. The rest is certainly fair to post and certainly has some interesting cultural aspects to examine. Unless, of course, it isn't important for a SP to have a testimony of the truthfulness of some of the church's claims. In that case, that's quite another subject altogether.