Tal Bachman's Stake President Responds

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why does who care? Bachman or the Stake President? If you're talking about the Stake President, then I've already given a reason why he justifiably should have responded.

Bachman. I don't know why apostates still care.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why can't the stake president be permitted to refute a false claim made by Bachman regarding the stake president's testimony? If Bachman had limited his comments to his doubts about Joseph Smith and not pretended to speak for his stake president, the stake president likely would have never responded.

I think those under the stake president's stewardship are entitled to know the truth vis a vis the stake president's testimony of the Restoration and of Joseph Smith and that he isn't telling one story to them in public and a different story behind closed doors to someone like Bachman.

As soon as he wades into that tall grass he loses. Way more dignified for a high ranking leader of a world religion to ignore stuff like that. Apparently it wasn't even newsworthy. The fact he writes this long epistle compounds the problem He could have dismissed him in three lines I guess.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As soon as he wades into that tall grass he loses. Way more dignified for a high ranking leader of a world religion to ignore stuff like that. Apparently it wasn't even newsworthy. The fact he writes this long epistle compounds the problem He could have dismissed him in three lines I guess.

The letter was a little long, I agree. But if he's being misrepresented, I don't see a problem with him clarifying.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

A better question is why Church officials can't just ignore the Tal Bachman types (I haven't read any of this; can someone synopsise? Thanks in advance).

The bulk of these men ignore them for good reason. However, these men are men too, with emotions, egos and concerns. And Tal Bachman is not your typical apostate, he's a low level rock artist with a bit of a floor that the average apostate does not have.

So I imagine the stake president did not want people to believe that the stake president wasn't committed to the Church. Tal had apparently insinuated that the stake president had confided in him that the stake president knew Joseph Smith was a fraud and it was okay to leave.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As soon as he wades into that tall grass he loses. Way more dignified for a high ranking leader of a world religion to ignore stuff like that. Apparently it wasn't even newsworthy. The fact he writes this long epistle compounds the problem He could have dismissed him in three lines I guess.

I don't have a problem with the SP responding. I do find it interesting in the case of say the baseball player who was kicked out of BYU, it was policy that the SP and Bishop not respond or tell their side of the story. I actually hear that often, that because of privacy, BYU or leaders in the church can't really tell their side of the story.

Maybe this SP got a waiver.

[MikeWaters]

no need to get in the mud and tangle with a POS like Bachman.

Bachman was the dude who risked his life in terrible conditions on his mission and would be a suicide bomber.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As soon as he wades into that tall grass he loses. Way more dignified for a high ranking leader of a world religion to ignore stuff like that. Apparently it wasn't even newsworthy. The fact he writes this long epistle compounds the problem He could have dismissed him in three lines I guess.

The SP responds to a misrepresentation of his words, SU says it's beneath him.

If the SP doesn't respond to a misrepresentation of his words, SU would say it speaks volumes.

Based on SU's policy that if somebody doesn't respond to his posts it denotes implicit agreement, I say he's trolling here.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

no need to get in the mud and tangle with a POS like Bachman.

Bachman was the dude who risked his life in terrible conditions on his mission and would be a suicide bomber.

I am not a fan of Bachman's by any stretch. I personally think he should just go his way.

However, why are so many people bugged he talked about being of a mind to do anything the Prophet would ask him to do. You really don't think there are people amongst us who feel that way. Isn't it possible at one time he felt that way or do you think he was just doing it to belittle the church.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by YOhio

The SP responds to a misrepresentation of his words, SU says it's beneath him.

If the SP doesn't respond to a misrepresentation of his words, SU would say it speaks volumes.

Based on SU's policy that if somebody doesn't respond to his posts it denotes implicit agreement, I say he's trolling here.

I'm on pins and needles wondering whether or not SU responds.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I am not a fan of Bachman's by any stretch. I personally think he should just go his way.

However, why are so many people bugged he talked about being of a mind to do anything the Prophet would ask him to do. You really don't think there are people amongst us who feel that way. Isn't it possible at one time he felt that way or do you think he was just doing it to belittle the church.

Either way he's a dick. Suicide bomber? If he's serious, then good riddance to that kind of thinking. If not, then his purpose is obvious.

The guy tries to corner the market in hyperbole.