Nightingale wrote:I think it is a very classy response.
Especially the part that LoaP seems to have the most trouble with (quoted in a post above me).
I think it's a veiled threat. I don't have "trouble" with any of it, parenthetically.
I considered, initially, referring to it as a veiled thread, both here and at MADB. But in the end, I concluded that the threat was not veiled at all. Bachman wrote, "Do that, and some of your other comments, like your "spin doctor" comment which I've never repeated, will most likely go with me to the grave . . ." That is not veiled. It is an open threat.
I read it the same way -- Tal just 'upped the ante,' as it were.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
mbeesley wrote:But in the end, I concluded that the threat was not veiled at all. Bachman wrote, "Do that, and some of your other comments, like your "spin doctor" comment which I've never repeated, will most likely go with me to the grave . . ." That is not veiled. It is an open threat.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I read it the same way -- Tal just 'upped the ante,' as it were.
Same here. The letter was not too bad up until that point (generally speaking). It may be well to employ the inverse of the carpenter's rule (measure twice, cut once): write once, edit twice.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
I think this is all very interesting. Could this be interpreted as a "threat"---either veiled or otherwise? Well, yes, I suppose it could, but what, in the end is "threatening" about it? Why should a Stake President be so terrified that someone might make public some of his doubts and questions? What, ultimately, does this say about the LDS Church?
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is all very interesting. Could this be interpreted as a "threat"---either veiled or otherwise? Well, yes, I suppose it could, but what, in the end is "threatening" about it? Why should a Stake President be so terrified that someone might make public some of his doubts and questions? What, ultimately, does this say about the LDS Church?
Whether there is something behind the threat that might affect the SP is almost irrelevant to me - it's the fact that Tal responded with that as a tactic. Does that make sense? He felt that it was an appropriate way to respond "Be quiet about this or I'll reveal more", and dropping what can only be an inflammatory term ("spin doctor") along with it.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is all very interesting. Could this be interpreted as a "threat"---either veiled or otherwise? Well, yes, I suppose it could, but what, in the end is "threatening" about it? Why should a Stake President be so terrified that someone might make public some of his doubts and questions? What, ultimately, does this say about the LDS Church?
Whether there is something behind the threat that might affect the SP is almost irrelevant to me - it's the fact that Tal responded with that as a tactic. Does that make sense? He felt that it was an appropriate way to respond "Be quiet about this or I'll reveal more", and dropping what can only be an inflammatory term ("spin doctor") along with it.
Oh, I agree. I just think it is very revealing in terms of the culture that necessarily arises within the Church. Pres. Keyes is apparently terrified at the thought of his doubts being revealed. Should this be the case, though?
Obviously it is all in the way you read something.
I don't start out thinking that either one or the other is lying. I couldn't possibly know that so how could I say it's true or not?
I agree with the comments that communication is often hampered by people's [mis]perceptions.
I don't necessarily agree that "the truth is somewhere in the middle". That would mean that each party then and now is about 50% right in their perceptions and memory and that is not a given. Sometimes a thing IS pretty one-sided.
I recall that Tal said he wrote down the conversation the next day. That account would constitute at least his perception and memory almost immediately after the event. I would say that is why he can directly quote the SP and can be as accurate now as then on that.
A lot of us in our beliefs depend on "eyewitness" testimony (Bible accounts, BoM-related events). We'd be on thin ice then to discount something merely because it was "only" eyewitness or a personal account.
Given the nature of human interaction and the emotions that were undoubtedly in play at the time of the meeting in question, it is likely that both parties failed to achieve a 100% accurate meeting of the minds. In other words, it is possible that they simply misunderstood each other on some points. A liar this does not make, on either side.
The SP's account of using his therapist's approach, acknowledging what Tal was saying with a "sure, sure" etc as a way to foster a supportive atmosphere rings true to me. But that would come across differently to the other person than the SP making definitive statements, which shocked Tal, relieved Tal, supported Tal, etc. I highly doubt that Tal would confuse the two.
As I said in another post, in my work people are assumed to be truthful unless there is definite evidence to the contrary. I think it is a particularly malignant characteristic to assume the opposite: liar first.
My impression of Tal from his posts on several boards and from some email exchanges that we have had is that he is very open, much more so than am I or many other people I know. I think that explains why he just puts stuff out there, like the SP's name. If he asked my opinion, which he hasn't, I would advise not to use real names and to avoid using incendiary language (like the "suicide bomber" terminology he chose to express his depth of belief and obedience on his mission). However, Tal doesn't pussyfoot around, I have noticed, so he is far more direct than maybe everyone is comfortable with or than perhaps is altogether wise in certain situations, but that is just my opinion and Tal does his own thing, as he should. I have met him once and greatly enjoyed his company. He is a gifted raconteur; that may not always come across on a tape or in a talk. He is enthusiastic and vigorous and amusing and entertaining. His musician's soul imbues his approach to life with emotion and passion. It would seem that as he lived his faith with these characteristics, so he felt its loss. I get the impression of someone who, rather than squishing down his pain over that, opened his mouth and expressed it (a demonstrably healthy choice, many would advise). A lot of what he says is just expressing his own thoughts and feelings and experiences. I don't see how a person can be faulted for that. It is their reality, after all.
I have no reason to believe that either Tal or the SP lied and so I don't. The best I can say is I don't know and likely never will. We all can only go by impressions and impressions are not facts. Tal has not held back from the beginning in stating these things in his account of how he came to leave the church. It seems the SP only recently read of this and is now giving his response. Of course he is entitled to that. It is my natural aversion to being too open that made me question why it wasn't done more privately, at least at first. I do concede that the SP has the right to defend himself, obviously. I think it's too bad that some Mormons would automatically conclude that Tal is lying but so do some ex-members conclude that about the SP.
I think it's too bad that some Mormons view all ex-members as needing to "justify" or "explain" our exit from the church. Through that filter, you are likely going to get many incorrect impressions. I agree that the SP has a lot to lose if he acknowledges doubts or a less-than-literal acceptance of the basis of Mormonism. That could well make it difficult for him to state his position entirely. Too, this happened several years ago and maybe he doesn't have perfect recall. Or maybe he too made notes at the time? Who knows?
When I left the church and met with the bishop to explain my decision (not in great detail) he reacted in a similar fashion to what the SP describes happened in his meeting with Tal. He acknowledged my points (as in expressed understanding for my position). He repeated several times that the church has helped his family to stay on track and so it's the place for him. My interpretation and perception of our conversation was that the bishop didn't necessarily believe literally in every doctrine and teaching of the church but it offered a standard of behaviour that had helped him and some of his family members (he was a convert too). However, I have no way of knowing that for sure and am always aware that I could not state that as a fact. As my experience in the church was different from his, he and I had a different take on the value of church membership. That didn't make us enemies. As I was leaving, he said to me, "I know you are a Christian woman". I found that to be a most respectful comment and I greatly appreciated it.
I'm just saying that I hear a ring of truth on both sides. I would not call either party a liar.
for what it's worth, I do not read "threat" into Tal's words. That is not an opinion based on just a desire to toe the party line (which I rarely feel) but that's where I guess that the preconceptions one brings to it colour one's interpretation of it.
LoaP: Sorry if I mischaracterized your response by an inaccurate choice of words. I didn't mean anything by it.
I could relate a parallel conversation I had with my SP (which I have, in part). So he circled the wagons because, in reality, he has a little bit of doubt. It takes a bigger man than the SP to admit doubts in public. It's the culture. To be expected.
This tells me Tal knows his claims about what the SP said were false/exaggerated. One does not condescend like this if one has his ducks in a row.
I think it demonstrates the exact opposite. The fact that Tal knows that his quotes from the Stake President are indeed 100% accurate is why he's burning to respond.
And yet he doesn't. At best, Tal is maneuvering for an opening and they only reason Tal has no opening now is because he's been caught in a lie.
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is all very interesting. Could this be interpreted as a "threat"---either veiled or otherwise? Well, yes, I suppose it could, but what, in the end is "threatening" about it? Why should a Stake President be so terrified that someone might make public some of his doubts and questions? What, ultimately, does this say about the LDS Church?
Whether there is something behind the threat that might affect the SP is almost irrelevant to me - it's the fact that Tal responded with that as a tactic. Does that make sense? He felt that it was an appropriate way to respond "Be quiet about this or I'll reveal more", and dropping what can only be an inflammatory term ("spin doctor") along with it.
Oh, I agree. I just think it is very revealing in terms of the culture that necessarily arises within the Church. Pres. Keyes is apparently terrified at the thought of his doubts being revealed. Should this be the case, though?
I don't think he's terrified. However, it makes it hard to do one's calling of building testimonies and aiding in the spiritual growth of others if your congregation hears accusations that you believe none of it yourself.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo