I’m afraid you might be reading a bit too much between the lines, Nick. I said nothing in my short intro that would lead one to believe what I “automatically assume.” I purposefully left it up to the reader to make his or her own decision.

Whatever motivation you might attribute to both the stake president and Tal, I would think it would be beneficial to have both stories in the wild rather than just one side. Do you disagree?

-Allen

Just one other thought… While Julie Keyes wasn’t present during the conversation between Tal and Randy, I would think that she should know her husband well enough to know when something she reads (in this case something written by Tal) doesn’t match her understanding of the man.

Unless, of course, you think that Randy has been hiding the truth from his wife for 28 years and just happened to spill it all to Tal in a solitary interview five years ago.

-Allen

As yet another person who has been a victim of Tal Bachman’s selective attention and public misrepresentations for a number of years — Paul Simon’s line (”still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”) has come repeatedly to mind when I’ve reflected on his abuses — I’m delighted that we now have the other side of this particular story.

Bravo to FAIR for posting it, and many thanks to President and Sister Keyes for their compassionate, lucid, and even moving responses to this unfortunate situation.

Dan,

If Tal Bachman’s side of the story wasn’t true, would you want to know? And would you be willing to do what it takes to find out?

I don’t doubt that it’s useful to have both Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes’ views of whatever conversation took place, and as I noted, the truth is likely somewhere in between.

While Julie Keyes wasn’t present during the conversation between Tal and Randy, I would think that she should know her husband well enough to know when something she reads (in this case something written by Tal) doesn’t match her understanding of the man.

Allen, I understand where you’re coming from, but please pay attention to what she said: “I know that you have misquoted him because I know my husband intimately and I know he would not make the statements you attribute to him (emphasis mine).” This simply isn’t a useful statement. It would be far better if she honestly stated that she believes Tal Bachman misquoted her husband, because she knows her husband intimately, and she doesn’t believe her husband would not make the statements Tal Bachman attributed to him. Surely you see the difference. The only mortals who can know what was said are Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes, and each of them will interpret what they heard, via their own experience and understanding.

Sad to say, but there are plenty of women in this world who “know” their husbands would never do certain things, only to be met with huge surprises. Think Dorie Hoffman, who had no idea her husband was forging documents and building bombs in the basement. Think the wife of the monstrous man recently arrested in Austria, who police say had no idea he was keeping a daughter and three grandchildren captive in the cellar. Think of all the women who’ve been surprised to find their husbands had affairs.

As I said, I really think the truth falls in between both stories here. If Randy Keyes is well read in LDS history, he knows Joseph Smith did some things that were unfortunate. One doesn’t have to believe Joseph Smith was perfect, or even perfectly truthful throughout his lifetime, in order to believe he was a prophet (heck, Moses murdered an Egyptian). I would not be surprised to find that Randy Keyes acknowledged Joseph’s imperfections along these lines, and Tal Bachman focused in on that, as opposed to focusing on Randy Keye’s overriding faith.

I’m sorry, but I tend to give more credence to a serving stake president than an apostate musician on logic alone.

I don’t think that’s logic, but rather your experience and level of trust. While many (likely most) stake presidents are wonderful individuals, I find there are bad apples in all walks of life. I was trained in the Utah police academy, and rode with officers in rural areas of the state. I learned enough about some of those officers’ encounters with certain stake presidents that I’m not willing to assume every stake president is automatically of unquestionable good character. Perhaps you remember several years ago, when a stake president in SLC had to be released, after he was arrested for soliciting prostitutes. Perhaps you remember George P. Lee, who was excommunicated for apostacy, and then was revealed to have repeatedly molested a young neighbor girl while he was a sitting general authority?

Wow, who to believe? A guy who has demonstrable disdain for keeping vows he made with Heavenly Father, or a man whose spiritual witnesses of the reality of God and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith mirror my own? It’s an easy call.

Bachman has as much credibility today as he had yesterday: Zero.

Kudos to President Keyes for maintaining a charitable and conciliatory tone throughout his tome.

You are reading the title as being telling of my beliefs, but they are a summation of Randy Keyes’ beliefs. He thought the record was not straight–it was incorrect and one-sided–and he decided to set that record straight by his open letters.

The title is a statement of his beliefs about Tal’s statements, not a statement of my beliefs. I’m just the messenger presenting the open letters.

I am glad to have them on the record.

Some musicians have molested neighbors, Nick. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Tal.

Absolutely true, Juliann, and I’m in no way saying that I believe Tal Bachman’s version completely, either. As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.

Nick:
“As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.”

I believe Keyes fully accounted for how Tal may have been misled in his understanding of Keyes position. “somewhere in-between” was clearly expressed by Keyes.

Nick: As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.

So we have a sitting Stake Prez who spends multiple hours a week in a volunteer position not really believing what he bases his life upon… but almost? Is that the “in between” you are talking about? Or do we have a Stake Prez who has spent all those hours successfully duping members but who inexplicably chooses Tal Bachman as a confidant in a moment of weakness? Is that the “in between”? This might work if Pres. Keyes was no longer a Stake President. Of any of this, the most telling element should be Bachman’s need to remove him as a current stake president to make his story more plausible. What is the “in between” on that tale?

Nick: As I said, the truth is likely somewhere in between the two perceptions/versions.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground

The “argument to moderation,” or golden mean fallacy applies.

Unless there’s some other reason to credit the truth in the middle, I see no _a priori_ reason to find Tal’s version particularly credible.

I am not alone in seeing an obvious faith element that is involved in the acceptance of exit tales that equals anything required of a believer in the church.

Exit stories have the disadvantage, though, of invoking living people who can talk back.

I think Church leaders have taken far too much silent abuse from those who misrepresent what they say. I would be happy to see both versions put out if the ex-member chooses to “go public.” This seems to be the trend.

Greg

This is what bugs me about the internet. Any wild-eyed fanatic can come on here and give any biased, out-of-touch, or just plain dishonest version of what he went through and we’re just supposed to take it at face value.

I keep this to myself generally, but I really do believe people troll websites to talk about falsified stories of how their bishop let their husband rape them, or how the Church took their kids away, or, or… it goes on.

I usually try to take internet “testimonials” with a grain of salt.

They always mock us whenever Mormons try to say “I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet.” Why should they expect any different from us when they claim “I know my bishop abused me?”

Nick, I appreciate your generally cordial tone, despite its dissent. Obviously you disagree with most of us who frequent this corner of the bloggernacle, but I am willing to listen to you because you avoid vitriol (at least as much as any of us here do).

In this case I agree that it would have perhaps been better if the wife’s testimony had used the word “believe”. However, this is an extremely small issue to my mind.

I think this was a very wonderful letter and it was nice to hear that President Keyes is willing to speak out so that he doesn’t remain misrepresented. Why let false claims go undisputed?

It’s possible.

But, as one who’s had personal experience with Tal Bachman’s repeated falsehoods — despite my protests, public and private, that he was misrepresenting my position and distorting what I’d said — President Keyes’s claim that Tal Bachman has distorted what he said and is misrepresenting his position strikes me as not only plausible, but all too FAMILIAR.

And President Keyes and I are not alone in this experience. Friends of mine have had precisely the same kind of frustrating, exasperating encounters with Mr. Bachman.

You are reading the title as being telling of my beliefs, but they are a summation of Randy Keyes’ beliefs. He thought the record was not straight–it was incorrect and one-sided–and he decided to set that record straight by his open letters. The title is a statement of his beliefs about Tal’s statements, not a statement of my beliefs. I’m just the messenger presenting the open letters.

Wow. Now I see where your friend, Trevor, gets it from.

Brian, Tal isn’t introducing any new criticisms of the Church or its history. The arguments he presents have all been dealt with more than adequately. IMO, his sensationalizing hurts, rather than strengthens, his arguments. I hope that some he has led astray — including himself — will come back one of these days.

Brian wrote:

While it does appear that Tal has sensationalized the interview (or perhaps even lied about it), does that take away from his overall criticisms of the church or of its history? * * * While I see no point in him needing to distort a five year old interview, even if he did, would that detract from other potentially valid points that he made?

Because Tal’s misunderstanding (or fabrication) of his interview with his stake president is typical of his overall misunderstanding or fabrication of Mormon history, beliefs, and culture.

Absolutely he needs to distort that interview because he desperately needs to demonstrate that Mormonism is a lie and that lots of active Mormons know it but they’re just “going along with it” for social or family reasons. In Tal Bachman’s mind it’s unthinkable that intelligent, rational people could possibly believe in Mormonism — it must be that they really don’t!

Being a denizen of the “RFM” board, Brian, you yourself certainly encounter such thinking on a regular basis.

(Oh, BTW, I removed your link to your repulsive, defamatory web site. Any future links will be treated as abuse and your comments will be deleted.)

Doesn’t Tal also claim he had to dodge crocodiles in Argentina on his mission?

ScottyDoo:

>>>Just for the sake of suggesting it…Maybe Keyes didn’t like being outed on the internet without his knowledge and now he has some serious damage control to do.

It’s possible…>>>>

Don’t you think the SCMC would have been on to this in a flash?

>>>>Could President Keyes be lying about his testimony? Possibly, but there seems to be no reason for him to do so. Stake Presidents aren’t paid much for their services, so money would not be an issue. I suppose the prestige of the calling (such as it is) could be a motive, but only for a time: sooner or later, he will be released as stake president.>>>>

It’s not just money and prestige that would give a doubting stake president reason to publicly stick to the party line. There are unselfish motivations as well.

For example, he may be concerned about the members of his stake. Conflicted as he may be, would he want to be the catalyst for someone in the stake to lose a testimony? It could lead to a whole other slew of problems.

Likewise, he could be concerned about his family. He may fear that expressing such doubts/concerns could cause his spouse or children to suffer. One could argue that he should “man up” and come clean with his family. But in his role, he’s probably seen examples where doing just that destroyed a family.

Or he may feel responsible to the church. Conflicted or not, he agreed to represent the church.

Or he may simply be working things through for himself. He may keep personal concerns to himself while he soul searches and tries to determine whether these concerns are a trial of faith or the beginning of a de-conversion.

Of course, there is no reason to conclude that Randy Keyes is a doubter or that any of these cases applies to him.

It’s just important not to dismiss the possibility of him being a doubter simply because he is a stake president.

The only “fact” we’re dealing with here is one’s testimony. And that’s what President Keyes is defending–his testimony. Why should we rely on someone other than Keyes to learn how Keyes feels about the church? We all know how Bachmann feels about the church–no one is questioning that. So why should we question Keyes’ statement? It’s an incredibly absurd double standard, if you ask me.

I don’t find it implausible that a stake president would have, or would share, testimonial doubts. In my own days of “crisis,” I had friends and bishops share their own past and ongoing struggles with me. Perhaps they wanted me to know I was not alone in my struggles. Perhaps they wanted me to see an example of someone who remained faithful in spite of doubt. Perhaps they were being disingenuous with me, to help me trust them more. Who knows? Maybe there’s a good psychologist out there who can explain why people do this. But for me the bottom line is that it’s entirely plausible that a SP might share his doubts with a member of his flock, even if he hasn’t shared them with his own wife.

As for the truth, it is surely somewhere in between — or maybe outside them both. How many times have I recalled a conversation or event with a third party that my wife also heard or experienced, and we recall it a little differently? Frankly, I would expect these two men to have different recollections of their conversations.

Thus we see another example of “Lying for the Lord.” Randy Keyes has every reason to defend his reputation by denying his statements to Tal Bachman. He does so in the same tradition as Joseph Smith and others that lied in order to protect their reputations.

I doubt Randy’s letter will change anyone’s opinion. Mormons will believe him and Ex-Mormons will believe Tal. That’s what we see in the comments posted here and on the ex-mo sites.

“Thus we see another example of “Lying for the Lord.””

Actually, we don’t.

Deconstructor said: Thus we see another example of “Lying for the Lord.” Randy Keyes has every reason to defend his reputation by denying his statements to Tal Bachman. He does so in the same tradition as Joseph Smith and others that lied in order to protect their reputations.

Just curious, D-con… Is it possible that you could conceive of Tal as being one of those lying to protect his reputation?

Further, how is lying to protect a reputation an example of “lying for the Lord?” Lying to benefit oneself is not an example of lying to benefit another (the Lord). Could you please clarify why you would equate the one with the other?

Then, for good measure, could you please clarify how you unequivocally know that Randy Keyes is lying, either for himself or for the Lord.

-Allen

Those of you who are bashing Tal for coming to the conclusion that the LDS Church is not true or what it claims to be: remember your own 11th Article of Faith. As I interpret the Article, it applies to EVERYONE, rather than to be selectively revoked when the person in question chooses not to believe in the LDS Church or Joseph Smith.

Here is Tal Bachman’s response, from the MormonDiscussions website:

Pres. Keyes,

I am surprised by this letter. I have been posting about my meeting with you, literally, since the day after we had it. The very night we had it, I came home pretty much in shock, and wrote up an account of it in my computer diary, and then posted it under the alias “RB” on a bulletin board (exmormon.org) I found the next day. Yet today is the first time I’ve ever heard of you denying much of what you said that night.

To be honest, I’m not sure how much to say in public response to you, because I feel a deep appreciation for you. You were instrumental in me feeling relief from an exruciating cognitive dissonance. I walked into your office that night feeling like I had a thousand pounds on my back, having found out that I was wrong about everything most important to me in life, bewildered and upset, and I walked out light as a feather. And honestly, I’m not sure that that would have happened if someone else had been sitting in that stake president’s chair. For that, I will be forever grateful to you. I also feel grateful because you did the same thing in a private meeting about a week later for Tracy, in which, according to her, you repeated many of the same things you’d said to me.

I also know from our meeting and subsequent emails how much church life and service mean to you, and I have no particular desire to spoil that for you. I believe that church members are a lot better off with sensitive and candid leaders like you, than with dogmatic, domineering types. I also appreciate the effort you made to empathize with, and hear, Tracy and me. As I said in my original MD post, you’re always welcome as a friend to my house for those reasons. I feel that I owe you big time.

Three of the more trivial matters: I’ve never meant to claim that you said your MP made up stories. In writing, I had in mind the “rah rah” motivational speeches, numbers-announcing, competitions, etc., that you mentioned in the meeting, and which you referred to again in your recent letter. My apologies if my wording was unclear or misleading.

About the Book of Mormon characters you felt you were in the presence of, I remember you speaking of just how real that seemed, as though they were really there with you, and I understood you to say that part of this experience was an element of spiritual communication. Are you saying there was none?

Lastly, not sure if you were misled by an overexcited correspondent, but I said only that I “guessed” you were no longer stake president, because some months ago, an out-of-the-blue email correspondent said she’d heard there’d been a change, and I assumed the average term had expired and someone had replaced you. Not sure what the big deal is on this, though.

These items seem pretty trivial. More important, I suppose, is the question of what you conceded about the truth claims of the church. And on this, you ask how we can have such different recollections of the same meeting. To be really honest….I’m not sure that we do.

And……………..

While a part of me is burning to respond in detail….my deep appreciation for you, and my admiration for your wife and her desire to protect you and all that is most precious to you both, and my sympathy for the hurt she must feel, leaves me feeling that I should stop here.

I understand that my remarks may have put you in an awkward position; but I want to ask that in the future you refrain from claiming I have been incorrectly reporting your comments in our meeting, or that Tracy has incorrectly reported your comments in your subsequent meeting with her. (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…).

I have a deep appreciation for you and wish you all the best. Please do us both a favour now, and stop.

Let me know if you want to hang somewhere where we don’t talk about this anymore. (I’d consider raquetball).

Regards,

Tal

Jim S,

I didn’t get a sense from the postings that anyone is bashing Tal for his beliefs about the LDS Church. The question in this thread revolves around Tal’s representation of someone else’s beliefs–his ex-stake president’s.

The 11th Article of Faith deals with worshiping God, not with representing (or misrepresenting) another’s beliefs.

-Allen

Nick:

Your dismissal of Julie Keyes’ comments is faulty. She would be an excellent character witness. Her husband is essentially accused of being dishonest, either five years ago (when he “admitted” certain things to Bachman, which Bachman then characterized as “duplicity”) or now (when he denies having made these admissions to Bachman).

In the U.S. legal system, “character evidence” (”evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character”) is generally not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. However, if that character trait is brought into question in the litigation, then character evidence *is* admissible.

Pres. Keyes has been accused of lying. His character (his honesty and integrity) are therefore directly at issue. Evidence would therefore be admissible as to Pres. Keyes’ reputation, particularly in the form of opinion testimony by competent witnesses. Julie Keyes is just such a witness. She’s been married to her husband for 28 years. She has a measure of the man. Her testimony would therefore be admissible.

You could, of course, accuse *her* of lying so as to protect her husband. But that accusation would go to the weight, not the admissibility, of her testimony.

In other words, you are wrong to suggest that Julie Keyes’ comments are not “evidence of what [her husband] said, during a conversation when she wasn’t present.” Her comments pertain to her husband’s character. And inasmuch as we have two wildly divergent accounts of the discussion between her husband and Bachman, evidence as to the character of her husband is certainly relevant (as would character evidence for or against Bachman).

As a personal observation, I would say that general human experience militates against Bachman’s version of the events in question, experience that even Bachman acknowledges when he says, “I don’t personally understand staying in a church which you know is a fraud.” I agree. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty unlikely that a person in Pres. Keyes’ position would behave this way. So not only do we have reasonable credulity against Bachman’s account, we have testimonial evidence of a pretty persuasive character witness in favor of Keyes’ version (and against Bachman’s).

As for Tal’s claim that the stake president “waited all these years” to finally speak up.

This is one thing that ticks me off about tell-all internet ex-Mormons. They have free reign to say whatever they want, but the people involved in their disciplinary hearings, their bishop interviews, etc. have an obligation to keep things confidential. So the ex-Mormon gets to say, fabricate, or spin whatever account he or she wishes, while the bishop or stake president gets to say - nothing at all.

This gives ex-Mormons essentially carte blanch to say whatever they want - true or not - with no fear that anyone will ever step up and contradict them.

The fact that most bishops and stake presidents aren’t plugged into the internet in a big way doesn’t help things.

Interesting to see the reaction, once a leader finally steps up to have his say - a panicked request that he remain silent.

What a selfish little coward.

It is simply naïve to presume that church leaders do not have doubts about some of the finer points of church history and its doctrine, not to mention some of the big points of contention. I believe that many have mastered the solution Boyd K. Packer gave to new mission presidents in 1982, to help them deal with missionaries who had difficulty asserting knowledge about something that they felt they didn’t know.

The local church leaders with whom I have spoken concerning my doubts generally respond in one of two ways:

They either profess knowledge about the particular problem, but state that they have been satisfied with the apologetic responses, have shelved the issue, or dealt with it in some similar way. In my experience church leaders will not respond with ” I don’t care about that,” (a repsponse I have encountered more from rank and file members), because to do so would not be productive in the ecclesiastical setting.

Alternatively, albeit less frequently, they will know nothing about the issue, and say so.

The similarity shared by these two reponses is that the outcome is always the same. The leader asserts that the church is still true.

Tal Bachman and Randy Keyes have access to the same information, and have drawn very different conclusions from it, and have made important life decisions based on those conclusions.

At times I am bewildered at peoples’ resolve to stay in the church, despite their doubts. But at least they acknowledge their doubts–to quote Akhenaton: “True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.”

BHodges Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
“How about trusting YOURSELF to think it through and focus on the issues instead of trying to discredit the proponents of one side or the other?”

I don’t see Keyes’ response as intending to “discredit” anyone, rather, to set the record straight as far as his side is concerned.

*****************************

My comments were not directed towards SP Keyes. He certainly has the right to state what he remembers of the interview and what he believes.

I was addressing the discussion that followed his letter . . . . of who is more trustworthy, Tal or Keyes. It seems that people just trust the person who agrees with THEIR take on whether or not the church is true.
And then they consider the other side’s “lying” as evidence to further reinforce their belief or non-belief.

I have absolutely no doubt that Tal Bachman sincerely believes what he says about what President Keyes told him, and that he will continue to believe it, quite sincerely, no matter how strongly President Keyes denies it and no matter how vigorously President Keyes affirms the contrary — precisely as Mr. Bachman has done with me, with Louis Midgley, with Davis Bitton, and, if I’m not mistaken, with others.

“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

His behavior in this regard has puzzled and astonished me for several years.

It’s rather funny, though, to see him ask President Keyes to “stop.” Mr. Bachman has been regaling his audiences for years with a story about President Keyes (and others), and has evidently grown used to the idea of monopolizing the conversation. President Keyes finally gets wind of this, is displeased, and replies. It probably comes as a shock to Mr. Bachman to have his monopoly challenged. Life’s tough, sometimes.

Judges hear two sides of a story every day of their working lives and do not feel obliged to accept that “the truth lies somewhere in between”. In this case, one witness is a self-confessed breaker of promises, the other is a man making a volunteer sacrifice of a significant portion of his life for no discernable reason than the one he gives: he knows his church is true. On this point, credibility goes to the stake president beyond reasonable doubt.

Further, the first witness alleges that he alone of the hundreds of people who have inevitably had private interviews with the stake president, heard him deny his faith. The claim is not plausible, it lacks corroboration of any kind, and is convincingly denied. On this point, too, credibility goes to the stake president beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no reason to believe Tal Bachmann, and no reason to disbelieve Randy Keyes. Why do their statements differ so fundamentally? Tal Bachman has a strong motive for self-justification, has shamelessly engaged in self-promotion of his near-celebrity exit story, has exploited the stake president, and has won a personal following by doing so. Until Tal Bachman promoted himself at the stake president’s expense with the clearly stated motive of discrediting his church, the stake president said nothing. His only motive for posting was to sustain the trust in the Church of those who might otherwise be influenced by Tal Bachman.

This case is closed.

BHodges said:

You seem to be one who believes doubt is-in and of itself- a virtue. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not see doubt as intrinsically virtue or vice.

Not exactly, but I see how that might have come across. I simply meant that in the course of studying and learning we constantly expose our current worldview to new information–sometimes requiring a reevaluation of that world view. At times that new information challenges our belief system, and that is the doubt to which I am referring.

Doubt is neither; it is a condition. What we do with doubt is what matters.

Exactly. I am merely suggesting that as soon as we stop incorporating new information into our understanding, we stop having doubts about our worldview. Not being able to embrace new knowledge is what I consider bad.

So yes, doubt is a condition. It’s the condition of learning.

The implicit threat toward the end of Mr. Bachman’s response lent it an especially charming touch, I think.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not know either Mr. Bachmann or Pres. Keyes. I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and my bias is in favor of the church. I am a co-owner of the SHIELDS website, and have written or co-written a number of the items on that site. I do know Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley,and have a high regard for both.

As an example of how something may be misconstrued, consider the following sentence: “Proteins are building materials for the body.” This sentence is a real example from an English class I had in high school eleventy-eleven years ago.

Is the verb “are,” as in the proteins are the bricks (building materials) from which the body is built? Or is the verb “are building,” as in the proteins are engaged in an ongoing action of manufacturing the body’s materials?

Only the originator of the sentence knows what he had in mind when he wrote it. Without additional context a reader of the sentence has no way of detertermining the originator’s intent.

Pres. Keyes is the foremost authority on what he believes, and without further corroboration, I see no reason to accept Mr. Bachmann’s version of Pres. Keyes’ beliefs. IMO, in his open letter Pres. Keyes has provided both a satisfactory and adequate explanation for Mr. Bachmann’s misunderstandings, whether or not Mr. Bachmann has a history of such misunderstandings with others.

However, given Mr. Bachmann’s history of misundertanding others, as testified to by some of those he has misunderstood (who are the foremost authorities on what they believe), IMO the onus is on Mr. Bachmann to provide corroborating evidence for his version of what Pres. Keyes believes, or acknowledge that he misunderstood Pres. Keyes. Simple repeated assertions of his misunderstandings won’t do, and further undermine his credibility as a reliable witness.

Note: I do not accuse Mr. Bachmann of lying. I have not been inside his head to know if he knows his statements are misrepresentations. I am willing to accept that he misunderstood Pres. Keyes, possibly because Pres. Keyes was not clear enough in explaining his beliefs to Mr. Bachmann.

BTW, the 30 or so students in the English class were split about evenly on what was the verb in the sentence. Those tending toward the physical sciences (including me) generally said that the verb was “are.” Those tending in other directions (including the teacher) generally said that the verb was “are building.”

By the way, I don’t find it incredible that church leadership would have doubts. I believe there are at least a couple bishops over at places like New Order Mormons and the like.

I just don’t find Tal very credible, that’s all.

Careful not to equate the two.

Psuedo,

My argument was not that the Church “can’t defend itself.” My argument was the the Church does not choose to defend itself in this fashion and some people take unfair advantage of that fact.

Seth,

I will concede that an official response from the church to an issue as commonplace as this would bring much more attention than it deserves.

I understood your comment to be directed at ex-mormons. I was just saying that I have heard this very argument as a complaint against the church. Because the church does not talk about disciplinary proceedings, it allows the church and its defenders to discredit people like the September Six by saying, “well, that’s just their side of the story.”

It is frustrating, and well within the rights of the church to do so (unless subpoenaed or otherwise legally compelled). But it won’t stop people from trying to have intelligent dialog about it.

In my struggles to come to grips with a nonexistent testimony, that by all rights should have been forthcoming, I have had many conversations with Bishops. I was in the service and moved frequently, so I had contact with Bishops of many wards. Each made it his business to know the details of my inactivity. To a man, they all conceeded (in private conversations) that they, at times, had doubts about the church’s unlikely version of history. These doubts, however, never kept them from declaring, in testimony meeting, that they “knew with every fiber of their being” that “the church was true”. You can imagine how this compounded my confusion.

I think that (1) we have to distinguish between having doubts and having disbelief. They are not the same. I can have doubts about a position while still believing it. This happens all the time in science for instance.

I also think it very important to distinguish between (3) having doubts and struggles with belief in ones past and (4) having doubts today. Most members struggle with testimony at some time in their lives. Even people who may in the past have had a strong testimony and even people who now have a strong testimony. Some of my best SPs were inactive in their past and my MP spent most of his life inactive.

It seems to me that you’re conflating those positions in your comment.

I do strongly feel that if you don’t at that time know you shouldn’t say you know. If you do you are lying. It’s wrong and there’s no excuse for it. If you have those kinds of doubts and you are in a leadership position you should tell your leader about it (SP or Area President). And let’s recognize that we’re talking about doubts about the core of the Church beliefs and not doubts about things like the doctrinal correctness of the King Follet Discourse or authorship of Isaiah or the like.

For a leader to try and help someone with doubts by simply saying they don’t believe in unconscienable in my opinion. It’s certainly not the worst thing a leader can do. But I consider it an abrogation of their leadership duty and highly unethical.

Malin Jacobs said: Pres. Keyes is the foremost authority on what he believes, and without further corroboration, I see no reason to accept Mr. Bachmann’s version of Pres. Keyes’ beliefs.

Excellent point, Malin. Randy Keyes is the expert on Randy Keyes’ beliefs. Many seem willing to take Tal’s comments at face value, but disparage Randy’s comments because he is a member of the Church and has the audacity to be a stake president.

But, then, I suspect that there are some groups who would disparage Tal’s comments because he is a professional singer and (gasp!) Canadian.

-Allen

“I’m sure that this is simply a case of Randy Keyes not being as obsessed with Tal Bachman as Bachman is obsessed with Keyes.”

Good point. My personal experience suggests that this is true: Tal Bachman has been telling untruths about me, insulting me, distorting what I’ve said, and misrepresenting my views — very publicly — for YEARS now. He has continually brought me up when I had nothing to do with the conversation, on message boards where I don’t participate.

As I say, I’ve found his behavior positively weird.

Unfortunately, I have less of a life than President Keyes probably does, so I’ve occasionally responded. But not nearly as much as I could have.

I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t admit that there is a sense of quiet satisfaction in seeing one of Mr. Bachman’s self-serving tales publicly contradicted.

Clark said:
I do strongly feel that if you don’t at that time know you shouldn’t say you know. If you do you are lying. It’s wrong and there’s no excuse for it. If you have those kinds of doubts and you are in a leadership position you should tell your leader about it (SP or Area President). And let’s recognize that we’re talking about doubts about the core of the Church beliefs and not doubts about things like the doctrinal correctness of the King Follet Discourse or authorship of Isaiah or the like.

Clark,

I agree with you that it is dishonest. Nevertheless, Boyd K. Packer advocates doing precisely what you (and I) assert as dishonest:

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

To speak out is the test of your faith.

(Boyd K. Packer, “The Candle of the Lord,” Ensign, Jan 1983, 51)

I think that lying with the “honest intent” that what you say will be true in the future, is still dishonest. If you hav successfully trained yourself with autosuggestion it can help you put a lot of doubts on the proverbial shelf.

Mike Parker Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Len L wrote:

I find suspicious that (apparently) it took 5 years for Pres. Keyes to find out that Tal had posted his version of their meeting on the internet, and to decide to defend himself.

I’m sure that this is simply a case of Randy Keyes not being as obsessed with Tal Bachman as Bachman is obsessed with Keyes.

Keyes strikes me as one of the 99% of people who have access to the Internet who do not spend every waking moment on it, tracking people they may have met or had conversations with. People who spend time on web message boards — like Mormon Discussions and Recovery from Mormonism — are part of a unique subgroup. It should not be assumed that everything that goes on in these fora is widely known.

In short: Randy Keyes has a life.

I find it a bit unlikely that, with all the admitted dialog, on this subject, between Tal and apologists in this thread, that none of the apologists (out of brotherly love and a sense of fair play) bothered to “clue in” Pres Keyes that he had been “misquoted” until about 5 years after the fact. Blissfully unaware…. Amazing!!

Len L. said: I find it a bit unlikely that, with all the admitted dialog, on this subject, between Tal and apologists in this thread…

There has been no dialog between Tal and apologists on this thread. Indeed, if history is any indicator, Tal is no longer interested in having a dialog with apologists because he views them as somehow dishonest. (Which is interesting, since Tal apparently doesn’t see himself as an apologist for his own position. Anyone who stakes out a position and defends that position is functioning as an apologist.)

Len L. said: …that none of the apologists (out of brotherly love and a sense of fair play) bothered to “clue in” Pres Keyes that he had been “misquoted” until about 5 years after the fact. Blissfully unaware…. Amazing!!

And yet such things happen. Why would you assume that within the past five years any apologists would have had any communication at all with Randy Keyes?

-Allen

PseudoMormon said: I agree with you that it is dishonest. Nevertheless, Boyd K. Packer advocates doing precisely what you (and I) assert as dishonest:

I suspect there is something more at play in what you quote than what you presume from the wording. Note in your quote that BKP says:

“Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!”

It is implicitly acknowledged in this phrasing that a missionary cannot give that which he (or she) doesn’t have. They can only give what they have, meager as it may be, and have faith in the Lord to provide the rest–a witness that what they have provided is true. This is the increase to which he speaks.

Besides, it is a good thing that the bar for missionaries was raised about 8 years ago (and 17 years after the cited BKP article). Missionaries are specifically supposed to have testimonies before they are recommended for missions; their mission is not a place to find their testimony.

-Allen

Allen Wyatt Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Len L. said: I find it a bit unlikely that, with all the admitted dialog, on this subject, between Tal and apologists in this thread…

There has been no dialog between Tal and apologists on this thread. Indeed, if history is any indicator, Tal is no longer interested in having a dialog with apologists because he views them as somehow dishonest. (Which is interesting, since Tal apparently doesn’t see himself as an apologist for his own position. Anyone who stakes out a position and defends that position is functioning as an apologist.)

Len L. said: …that none of the apologists (out of brotherly love and a sense of fair play) bothered to “clue in” Pres Keyes that he had been “misquoted” until about 5 years after the fact. Blissfully unaware…. Amazing!!

And yet such things happen. Why would you assume that within the past five years any apologists would have had any communication at all with Randy Keyes?

-Allen

My words may have been a little confusing. I apologize, I am a carpenter by trade not a communicator. I dind’t mean that the dialog had taken place in this thread between Tal and the apologists. What I said was that dialog had taken place between Tal and some of the apologists (that were posting) on this thread
Several, Daniel Petersen for one, have mentioned, in this thread, dialoging with Tal. That is where I got the idea that such dialog had, indeed taken place.
I assumed (that is a scarey word)that some contact between Keyes and apologists had also taken place because if I were a defender of Mormonism and I had read such an “incredible claim” as Tal had offered, my first thought would have been to go to the source and hear the other side of the story so I could better refute the “false claims” of a critic and defend the beliefs I held so dear. I am, now a bit dismayed to find that, apparently, none of the apologists are so thorough and conscientious.
Len

Perhaps you would be served, Pseudo, to recognize that a testimony is a statement of belief not necessarily of knowledge. I don’t believe President Packer tells them to say they “know” things that they don’t, he encourages them to express their belief.

testimony

To add, Trevor’s point is important as well. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I believe” or even “I hope.” (Indeed the Book of Mormon teaches that - see Alma 32 where belief or hope turn to knowledge) There are some things that when I bear testimony I say, “I belief” and not “I know.”

Being deceptive - usually for social pressure - is simply inexcusable.

It happens of course, although I think it far rarer than some suggest.

I see no evidence that Br. Keyes is engaged in this sort of deception.