Tal Bachman's Stake President Responds

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

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.

I think it's clear from his other statements and misrepresentation of his stake president that he wasn't serious and that he was engaging in hyperbole for the sake of misleading others.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think it's clear from his other statements and misrepresentation of his stake president that he wasn't serious and that he was engaging in hyperbole for the sake of misleading others.

If I said, "I believe in the Prophet and would do anything he asks within reason", are you comfortable with that statement.

How would you have felt if he said, there are some people in the LDS church who are wacko enough that they would do anything the Prophet told them.

I too think he was playing to the camera's, but I think he speaks for an element of the church. It is that element in the church that is spooky, wouldn't you agree.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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

I've met several apostates that I think still believe, but they feel they were mistreated, and somewhere down the line it grew into an emotional tantrum that they essentially summarize as, "all I tried to do is ask a few questions, and they drove me out!!!"

Then it's my observation that the reason they "still care" is because they have so many ties with the LDS community that they want to clear their names. They want to make it perfectly clear that it was Stake President X and Bishop Y who were at fault.

[SeattleUte]

FTR, nobody mistreated me. Indeed, I never went to some leader and said, "I've discovered all this, please explain yourself" like Benson and Bachman did. I don't know why a guy as bright as Benson would do that; people are complex. I just stopped participating. I slunk away.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I've met several apostates that I think still believe, but they feel they were mistreated, and somewhere down the line it grew into an emotional tantrum that they essentially summarize as, "all I tried to do is ask a few questions, and they drove me out!!!"

Then it's my observation that the reason they "still care" is because they have so many ties with the LDS community that they want to clear their names. They want to make it perfectly clear that it was Stake President X and Bishop Y who were at fault.

I can understand that. Quite frankly if I got a harcore SP that came to me and said, "BYU71, you either stop drinking caffeinated drinks, wear white shirts, attend SS, attend Priesthood on a regular basis and quit questioning things I say or we will excommunicate you", I might do everything he said just to stay socially acceptable to family and friends.

[SeattleUte]

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.

He could have said something brief and dismissive. That would have been fine especially if he employed a little wit. He probably should have directed such a statement to his flock, not posted it on FAIR. From what I've seen I think defensiveness was bred into us and I've learned it is often the least effective way to deal with an attack. But I still very much understand the impulse to be defensive. It just doesn't work. Of all institutions a respected religion should avoid this kind of tit for tat.

[MikeWaters]

The reason the SP replied: pride.

It was bugging him that people might believe Bachman, whether it was true or not.

He should have walked away.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The reason the SP replied: pride.

It was bugging him that people might believe Bachman, whether it was true or not.

He should have walked away.

I also considered that, but feel the other side of the coin is he wants to help the gullible from being led astray. The church is no stranger to giving instruction on very basic common sense issues, such as the recent letter in sacrament meetings about being wise with investments and MLM scams.

Or as Arch would say, maybe his wife wouldn't stop nagging him about it.

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The reason the SP replied: pride.

It was bugging him that people might believe Bachman, whether it was true or not.

He should have walked away.

Exactly - as if people in his stake would have left the church because of what some idiot said about their SP. He shouldn't have posted the letter.

Just let it go, the letter doesn't do any good.

[ute4ever]

Moreover, file leaders are not going to comment on every person who apostatizes, and although this is not a high profile case, it is not the typical low profile case either, and has the potential to keep growing.