Midgley Threatens to "Out" Bachman

[_cksalmon]

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...

I'm not one of your "we."

Although I generally try to read your comments as charitably as possible, I think I'm just about over that tendency.

You're more and more like the flabbergasted man in the marketplace intoning, "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'"

Of course, my reaction is exacerbated by your recently stating in chat that I am a, yes, "leftist," ex-mo (yeah, you actually, predictably, called me a "leftist," which, at this point in your recent hx, really is akin to a Smurf using Smurf as an adjective, although in reality I'm a fairly conservative never-Mo, as almost all informed folks either here or at MADB know).

You seem impervious to reality--and I know how that feels, frankly--but it's not real, Coggs.

I'm more and more beginning to understand that your posts are aimed at yourself. No one else, generally, can take you very seriously at this point.

After all, you typically Smurf the Smurfing Smurf, Smurf.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Or, the LDS apologetic coup de grace: This is boring.

CKS

[_Trevor]

Nine out of ten MDB denizens agree. Coggins7 is a...

[_Trevor]

I'm not one of your "we."

Don't misunderstand, cksalmon. Coggins7 is using the royal "We." It is an affectation he picked up in the psychiatric hospital.

[_Coggins7]

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...

I'm not one of your "we."

Although I generally try to read your comments as charitably as possible, I think I'm just about over that tendency.

You're more and more like the flabbergasted man in the marketplace intoning, "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'"

Of course, my reaction is exacerbated by your recently stating in chat that I am a, yes, "leftist," ex-mo (yeah, you actually, predictably, called me a "leftist," which, at this point in your recent hx, really is akin to a Smurf using Smurf as an adjective, although in reality I'm a fairly conservative never-Mo, as almost all informed folks either here or at MADB know).

You seem impervious to reality--and I know how that feels, frankly--but it's not real, Coggs.

I'm more and more beginning to understand that your posts are aimed at yourself. No one else, generally, can take you very seriously at this point.

After all, you typically Smurf the Smurfing Smurf, Smurf.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Or, the LDS apologetic coup de grace: This is boring.

CKS

And, after all the self serving verbiage has been cast to the winds, Tal Bachman still stands exposed as roiling in guile.

End of story, it seems.

[_Trevor]

And, after all the self serving verbiage has been cast to the winds, Tal Bachman still stands exposed as roiling in guile.

End of story, it seems.

So will you leave now?

[_degaston]

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

Why does Tal Bachman come online to forums that discuss Mormonism? Is it for the purpose of gaining credibility as an expert on Mormonism? Or is it for some other reason? I'd appreciate any references you could share on this topic. And please be sure to not take anything out-of-context. My own opinion differs.

My guess is that Tal Bachman comes to forums like this because he's seeking to network with others of similar backgrounds in Mormonism. I assume he's spent considerable time coming to terms with his life experiences in Mormonism. It's helpful to interact with others of the same background who are willing to discuss all the topics without artificial, superficial walls up. It seems like Mormonism was a very important part of his upbringing. His life would've been very different if he would've had a more thorough exposure to information on church history during his youth and young adult years than he got through the church's correlated curricuum.

I can't speak for the lessons Tal got in his Deacon's quorum. But in mine we never learned anything about the Kinderhook Plates, post-Manifesto polygamy, the Limited Geography Theory, the N-Cumorah Theory or any of the other topics that are essential in getting a fundamental education on Mormonism history. Though we wouldn't have understood everything I'm sure it would've been very beneficial to my fellow Deacons and I to gain exposure to the events of LDS history and doctrinal development. That way we would've been able to avoid the pain that comes when one discovers they weren't told the whole truth. And frankly that's painful and goes counter to the church's teachings on Honesty according to the Gospel Principles manual.

I certainly have never gotten into a big email exchange with Lou Midgley like Tal. But I have met Lou Midgley several times. And I once had a pleasant visit with him in his Provo, Utah home to discuss some concerns I had on church history. I remember expressing my concerns over Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 and was suprised to hear that Lou Midgley considered the concerns on that one to be insignificant in comparison to those of the other two facsimiles. However Lou Midgley told me that when he didn't understand an issue that he'd put it up on a shelf to examine at a later date and thus he could carry on in church. I don't have a mental shelf so I keep the issues in my hands and just deal with them and live my life accordingly. I do sincerely believe that Lou Midgley does have a testimony of Mormonism.

[_Trevor]

I certainly have never gotten into a big email exchange with Lou Midgley like Tal. But I have met Lou Midgley several times. And I once had a pleasant visit with him in his Provo, Utah home to discuss some concerns I had on church history. I remember expressing my concerns over Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 and was suprised to hear that Lou Midgley considered the concerns on that one to be insignificant in comparison to those of the other two facsimiles. However Lou Midgley told me that when he didn't understand an issue that he'd put it up on a shelf to examine at a later date and thus he could carry on in church. I don't have a mental shelf so I keep the issues in my hands and just deal with them and live my life accordingly. I do sincerely believe that Lou Midgley does have a testimony of Mormonism.

Lou Midgley sincerely believes in Mormonism. OK. I don't doubt that. What I don't understand is the thought process that justifies acting shoddily in the name of Mormonism.

[_guy sajer]

I certainly have never gotten into a big email exchange with Lou Midgley like Tal. But I have met Lou Midgley several times. And I once had a pleasant visit with him in his Provo, Utah home to discuss some concerns I had on church history. I remember expressing my concerns over Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 and was suprised to hear that Lou Midgley considered the concerns on that one to be insignificant in comparison to those of the other two facsimiles. However Lou Midgley told me that when he didn't understand an issue that he'd put it up on a shelf to examine at a later date and thus he could carry on in church. I don't have a mental shelf so I keep the issues in my hands and just deal with them and live my life accordingly. I do sincerely believe that Lou Midgley does have a testimony of Mormonism.

Lou Midgley sincerely believes in Mormonism. OK. I don't doubt that. What I don't understand is the thought process that justifies acting shoddily in the name of Mormonism.

It's the same or similar thought process that believers have used throughout the ages to rationalize away otherwise "bad" acts in the name of religion.

What I find incredibly curious is what kind of persons the staunch defenders of the Mormon faith would be were the restraints of the rule of law removed, a la some kind of Mormon Theocracy. Would Midgley willingly become an enforcer of the "truth," would Peterson become a snitch, would Schryver actively engage in ferreting out nonbelievers and bringing them to "justice" and so on?

The way some of the apologists appear to view the world as a battle between good (Mormonism) and bad ('anti-Mormonism), one should not be surprised, I think, to find some of them becoming willing enforcers for the Lord should the restraints of law, civility, respect, pluralism, etc. be broken. I have no idea who would (and I make no claims about anyone, with the possible exception of Schryver, who I find downright scary), but I'd bet my bottom dollar that among them are some Torquemada's in embryo.

[_degaston]

What I don't understand is the thought process that justifies acting shoddily in the name of Mormonism.

I don't think he thinks he's acting shoddily.

[_Trevor]

I don't think he thinks he's acting shoddily.

Which speaks to the point that guy is making. And just because he thinks as much does not make it so. It is frightening how the self-arrogated mission from God is made to justify all kinds of immoral and unethical nonsense.