On the “Setting the Record Straight” thread there was a comment made by MarkW that indicated that Tracy Bachman, wife of Tal Bachman, had independently corroborated Tal Bachman’s story of what was said by their ex-stake president.
MarkW said: Actually, his wife did speak publicly about this at the exmo conference. So there is corroboration from her. I don’t remember how specific or on-point it was, so we’d have to go back and review that. And while her witness would not be direct corroboration of Tal’s meeting with the SP it’d be corroboration that the SP did say the type of things in question to someone else.
Craig Paxton, in a later comment, also indicated that Tracy had corroborated Tal’s story. I appreciated the tip; I had never taken the time to listen to Tracy’s comments at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference. (She was a member of a panel presentation on Sunday morning, October 15, 2006.) I found her comments very interesting and very moving. Tracy is obviously a person who loves her husband, her children, and at one time loved her life in the Church. During her 30 minutes or so of describing her exodus out of Mormonism, she indicated that Tal had gone and talked to the stake president, and then she said this:
I then went to visit the stake president myself because I thought surely something went awry in Tal’s meeting, and surely the stake president really did not say that; he couldn’t have–although I did believe Tal; I totally had believed him, but I had to see for myself. (That’s my way; I have to find out the hard way.)
As tears rolled down my cheeks, I asked him about all the distortions and problems, hoping he could give me some explanation as to how Joseph Smith could be a true prophet given everything he and I both knew. He unemotionally said “I don’t really know how he could have done these things, maybe it was just magic.”
As I walked out of the office with a broken heart, I realized that all of my most sacred beliefs were just lies.
That’s it; that’s the sum total of her description of talking with the stake president. Since it is nowhere near as detailed as what Tal has been saying for years, I’m not sure that this is the “independent corroboration” that some might view it as being–but more on that in a minute.
Tracy and Tal had read a lot of books before going to talk to their stake president. (Tracy said in her comments that she had read No Man Knows My History, Mormon Enigma, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, and Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith. It was this last one that convinced Tracy, in her words, that Joseph Smith was insane.)
By both of their admissions, Tal and Tracy reached their “it ain’t true” decisions before going to their stake president in separate interviews. In other words, their minds were already made up before they went to talk to him. It is hard for anyone–let alone a stake president–to make a difference against a mind that is already made up.
But, back to the idea of whether Tracy’s comments at the Exmormon Foundation conference corroborate Tal’s story. I don’t think they do because there simply is not enough information provided by Tracy to say that what she thought she heard was really corroboration.
Many purported histories (including, I believe, Brodie and Palmer) use words like “magic,” “folk magic,” or “magik” to describe the environment in which Joseph lived. Does the fact that people in his era believed in magic or practiced magic or felt closer to the divine than we do today make Joseph any less of a prophet? No, I don’t think so. Does the recognition that “magic” may have been involved and that the stake president may have told that to Tracy mean that he believed Joseph Smith was not a prophet? No, I don’t think so.
But I surely understand how Tal and Tracy could have been shocked by what they read in those books. I was knocked on my butt when I first read Mormon Polygamy: A History by Van Wagoner. I felt adrift for some time because the picture of Joseph painted by the author was markedly different from the picture that I had in my head. Right after reading it, in August 1990, I looked up the author’s address and went to his house, then in Lehi. He graciously let me in and, after exchanging pleasantries, I asked him point blank how anyone could learn these things and maintain their testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.
His answer? “I don’t know; everyone has to figure that out for themselves.” (He also signed my copy of his book: “Allen, best wishes in your search for the ultimate truth–that is the most rewarding pathway although not always the safest.”)
I was able to regain my footing through more study (not apologetics–just reading histories), lots of prayer, and lots of faith. It was through that study that I later learned (by going to original sources) that Van Wagoner presented a history that suffered from selection bias. This bias tended to put Joseph in a bad light, even when alternative views of the facts where possible.
So what does this have to do with Tal and Tracy and their ex-stake president? Quite a bit, actually. In Tal’s subsequent move away from the Church he has often stated that he doesn’t understand how people could learn the “facts” about the Church and Joseph Smith and still not conclude it is all a lie and a fraud. They and other critics invent “reasons” why people would stay in–it is safer, it is more comfortable, great social aspects, etc. Every reason they dream up avoids the one reason that they cannot face up to–that reasonable, intelligent people can examine the same set of facts and still conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church he founded is neither a fraud or a lie.
This, I believe, is where President Keyes was coming from. He could say that, yes, Joseph did some of these things. He could say that, yes, he understands how they may look bad. He could say that, yes, the information is disturbing. He could say that, yes, there may have been “magic” involved. But even with all that, it doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet, divinely called of God to do an amazing work.
Would Tal and Tracy, who had already made up their minds that the Church was a fraud, have understood what the stake president was saying? Doubtful. Instead, they heard what they wanted to hear–validation for all the “bad” stuff they had read and, unfortunately, unintended vindication for the conclusions they had reached before meeting with the stake president.
The continuing thing that Tal and other critics fail to grasp is that it is a long way from “yes, Joseph did some of those things” to “he was a fraud.” There is plenty of room in between for belief and faith, but not for those who already have their minds made up.
-Allen
Like the dissolution of many marriages, the loss of testimony can often be attributed to unmet expectations. We each have in our minds an idea of what a prophet “should be,” and when we encounter information that conflicts with that, some of us are willing to adapt, while others aren’t.
The really sad thing is when people take a difficult historical scenario and interpret it in the least charitable, most vile way. For example, on Sunday May 4th Tal Bachman sent me an email in which he characterized Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages thus:
The leap here from serious commandment of God to practice plural marriage (difficult, I’ll admit) to “homicidal angel” and “forcing sex” is a big one. There are more thoughtful ways to interpret these events that leave room for Joseph Smith to be prophet, but Tal obviously isn’t interested in them.
Pity.
Like the dissolution of many marriages, the loss of testimony can often be attributed to unmet expectations. We each have in our minds an idea of what a prophet “should be,” and when we encounter information that conflicts with that, some of us are willing to adapt, while others aren’t.
So easy. So facile, right? All those eee-vil apostates just set their expectations too high for Joseph, eh? Just like when Allen says:
The continuing thing that Tal and other critics fail to grasp is that it is a long way from “yes, Joseph did some of those things” to “he was a fraud.” There is plenty of room in between for belief and faith, but not for those who already have their minds made up.
After all, if those eee-vil apostates conclude that Mormonism doesn’t hold the exclusive divine “Good Housekeeping” seal, they must be just twisting all the historical evidence, because they’ve already made up their minds that Joseph was a fraud…..right?
In reality, both Mark and Allen are doing precisely what Allen accuses critical former LDS of doing. Note what Allen said:
They and other critics invent “reasons” why people would stay in…
In declaring that former LDS had “too high expectations,” or “had already made up their minds,” Mark and Allen are, in fact, inventing “reasons” why people would leave. Is it beyond their imaginations that they could be wrong to do what they are accusing former LDS of?
Now, naturally, they’ll spin things to say that their behavior is completely different. They’ll reassure the “faithful” that they have deity on their side, and so they know what’s really going on inside the heads of all those nasty apostates. They’ll acknowledge (at least i lip service) that LDS leaders are imperfect, yet they’ll paint the Tal Bachmans of the world as pure evil, and remind the “faithful” that it’s dangerous to think that such people can have anything worthwhile to say. That’s how your game is played, isn’t it boys?
If you find someone’s sincerely held beliefs obviously absurd, then chances are you probably haven’t understood those beliefs with he proper nuance.
It doesn’t mean those beliefs are true, but it probably means that your conception of them is not sufficiently robust.
For example, I once asked a Catholic friend how on earth he could believe in praying to Saints, the Virgin, etc. This struck me as just silly (though, of course, billions of Catholics have not).
He said that he thought of it as treating the Saints as friends–just as he’d ask his friends on earth to pray in his behalf when he had troubles, there was no essential difference between someone dead and alive.
Do I now agree with petitioning the Saints? No. Do I understand it and see how an intelligent person could find great solace, and even intellectual satisfaction in it? You bet.
My initial understanding was too shaped by Protestant polemic, and not enough by how real Catholics (who, let’s be honest, has surely thought of everything I could say against it and more) understood it.
A valuable lesson.
Nick,
Your condescending reply was off the mark. I never called anyone an “evil apostate” (much less an “eee-vil apostate”), nor do I believe that all (or even most of) those who leave the Church are evil.
My original point is that we all have a certain paradigm, and when that paradigm is challenged, we either have to adapt or discard it. I think discarding a paradigm that allows the restored gospel to be true is a shame. You obviously disagree.
Wrong. You are trying to draw a stereotype out of what I wrote, and none was intended. It was Tal and Tracy that said (in Tal’s case, numerous times) that he had already made up his mind before visiting with the stake president. I just pointed it out; take it for what it’s worth.
Again, don’t draw stereotypes from my comment. I do not paint all critics with the brush you try to put in my hands. I simply point out what Tal and Tracy said that they did, and nothing more.
Actually, no it isn’t.
-Allen
Considering Allen’s comments, I think it’s important to once again re-post what Tal wrote in his exit story:
He asked me to visit with the Stake President, since I wouldn’t go into any detail with him. I consented, though I already knew I knew. To my shock, my SP admitted that he also knew that JS had invented his stories, related a personal story involving then-counselor Hinckley in the 80’s, which suggested that Hinckley was as aware as he was that his stories were fabrications, but then invited me to stay in church on grounds it made us “better husbands and fathers”. (My emphases)
That’s quite a leap from:
“I don’t really know how he could have done these things, maybe it was just magic.”
Nick,
Yet aother data point in the trend of those who leave the church but can’t leave the church alone… Priceless.
Reading the blogs, 2 hours, seeing prophetic fulfillment of Joseph Smith, Priceless. Thanks for the antics. I think you may be getting a few people to leave the church with them…
Once upon a time the editors of the FARMS Review got a nice message from Nick indicating that he had undergone a dramatic life-style change and had left the Church. As I recall that message, he assured us that he was not a bitter apostate anxious to make war and so forth. I understood him to be saying that he would not, as some others who have undergone a similar radical changes in their life-style and beliefs, be engaged in attacking the faith and the Saints. This pleased me until I noticed a curious little “yet” at the end of the key sentence. I think that “yet” is now upon us. This saddens me. Why, I wonder, can’t one who ceases to believe just move on? Why is it ever necessary to rationalize one’s defection in public by engaging in a not so subtle campaign against one’s former faith?
Nick, Nick, Nick,
We love you brother. We truly do. I’ve seen your comments at ByCommonConsent, at MormonMatters, and several other locations. Generally you are insightful, intelligent and until recently respectful. What happened?
As a psychologist I’m going to say this just once: everyone, in and out of the church, suffers from selection bias when it comes to interpreting the facts of church history. The facts that we gather, the facts that we consider, the facts that we admit may be true. For those in the church it is difficult to accept certain facets of polygamy or the seer stones or what have you. It doesn’t always fit with our ideas of a prophet. So we ignore them. Sometimes we see them, latch onto them and can’t let go, and some people that do that leave the church and still can’t let go.
Those outside the church have their facts about the church that they can’t let go of, and that’s the truth. It’s a shame, but it is true. That’s just the way it is. It is part of being human. Eeeevil apostate or eeeevil Mormon. Weevils as well.
You can try to overcome this, and you should, but it is hard, and if you ever think that you have completely conquered it, you are in trouble, because you haven’t.
I first noticed this “yet” change with his response to the prophetic insistence that church members insist that gay marriage is wrong. I suggest all members reread 1 Nephi 13 and 14 and Stephen Robinsons Jan 1988 Ensign article with this in mind. It has made so much clearer for me.
NoS,
Haven’t read Robinson’s article but those 1 Nephi passages are only relevant if you assume that gay marriage advocates are a part of the Whore of Babylon from the start. In short you are assuming the very conclusion you are arguing. Logically, it just doesn’t work. I don’t find your argument particularly convincing and I doubt Nick does either.
Note: I oppose gay “marriage,” but I don’t think your argument on 1 Nephi cuts it.
Nick got a little snitty, which is not usual for him in my experience. I’ve been a bit short-fused myself lately. We all have our moments I guess.
Allen,
I believe you hit the nail on the head with this one. Great analysis. It sounds like your journey of faith has been much like my own.
Once again, great post.
Seth R.
My assumption wasn’t “gay marriage is evil”-That’s a conclusion.
My assumptions, are the same that all LDS people should have.
1) There is a right and wrong, a good and evil.
2) When the prophet and the quorum of the twelve apostles send out a letter, and claim it to be what latter-day Saints should do, we should do it.
3) When the prophets decry gay marriage, then it is wrong.
4) Ergo, even LDS who don’t support the Church, and the prophet, do not support Christ.
5) Those, who actively oppose the church’s view on gay marriage (even “within” the church) are actively fighting against the Lord and the Lord’s annointed.
6) 1 Nephi 13/14 fits in.
Those who have ears to hear. You’d need to read Robinson’s article (although he never alludes to gay marriage) before you could understand.
It is the mormoliberalbloggocrats (MLBC) who invent false gospels.
False gospel 1) Gay-Marriage is a human right.
False gospel 2) Health-Care is a human right.
False gospel 3) I, the MLBC, know better than the prophet about Mormon doctrine.
NoS,
I agree that gay marriage is wrong. I just thought your argument stunk that’s all.
Alles Klar, Seth.
I actually wasn’t making an argument against. That was the backdrop (context) to much of the snippy comments Nick has recently been making.
Here’s the particulary pertinent portion of Robinson’s article.
“The result was a synthesis of East and West, a melting pot of popular culture that was virtually worldwide. In the realm of religion, however, synthesis means compromise, and when we speak in terms of the gospel, compromise with popular beliefs means apostasy from the truth.”
AFter reading Shipp’s “Stranger in the promised Land,” I’ve recognized many ways in which cultural Mormonism has changed in the last 60 years. Some of these ways are extremely disturbing. Especially on the blogs, I’ve seen many who hide the teachings of Babylon, by couching them in (incorrectly used) gospel terms. “We should be tolerant.” “We should be loving.” Although it is true that we should be both tolerant and loving, we should not change the definition of marriage from what it has always been and what God has always intended to a viewpoint that is more pleasing to the itching ears of the world. Unfortuenately, this viewpoint is ALL TOO common on the blogs, by otherwise TBMs.
Well OK, that’s better.
However, I haven’t encountered very many in the bloggernacle who think that “gay marriage” is a good idea. I’ve seen plenty in favor of civil unions. I’ve also seen some who don’t think there is a government role in regulating marriage – usually from some sort of libertarian stance.
But I’m not sure the tolerance fad runs as deep on the nacle as you are saying it does.
Seth, definitely less so at Fair, but BCC certainly has enough. If I ever encounter the viewpoint where you’re taking part, I’ll certainly point it out.
How did this thread go from Tal Bachman/Randy Keyes to gay marriage?
Back to the point, please.
NoS,
If prophets are not perfect, and many of the things that prophets have said in the past (like about blacks and other doctrine) has turned out false, why should we immediately accept anything that comes from the prophet? Shouldn’t we give it a fair amount of credence, but also think it out pretty heavily in our minds. Were the people who disagreed with Brigham Young in his era regarding Adam/God and other incorrect doctrine at fault for disagreeing? This is something I have have wondered ever since I found that people are willing to accept fallibility in the teachings of prophets.
Michael:
I have two observations:
1. Your remark, see above, does not address the question of whether Tracy Bachman has really corroborated her husbands various rather bizarre tales about what his Stake President said to him in that staged interview. This is what is or should be the topic addressed on this thread. It is, I believe, rather common for people read a blog and get the urge to opine on some wholly unrelated issue. I suspect that Mike Parker was urging people to address the question of Talmage Bachman’s credibility. Your remarks, whatever else one might say about them, are not on topic.
2. Instead they seem to me to be banal reflections on the what follows when one discovers what one should always have known–that prophets are fallible. Of course they are, like everyone else. Why? The word “prophet” does not entail inerrancy or infallibility.
With books like Mormon Enigma, and Mormon Polygamy a History i do not see these books as reflecting badly on Joseph Smith. I am Reorganized LDS, and traditionally the church has held Joseph Smith was not involved in polygamy. I sometimes defend the view myself if i see the person abusing the list of 33 wives to abuse me, or LDS people. Joseph Smith 3rd held his father had been sealed to all or most of the women possibly for the eternity. I like him do not see Joseph Smith as involved with 33 women even if he was with some of them.
I see the quotes in these books as not a problem, but the authors explanation and interpretation of the evidence. I have grown less impressed with Mormon Enigma than i used to be when i first read it. I have a large stack of such books i read regularly because i find polygamy and Joseph Smith issues thrown at me regularly on message boards. I am anti-polygamy in my views and unlike Tal, or his wife the subject does not bother me.
Sexuality in these 33 cases cannot be established as happening in all 33 cases. In fact Todd Compton who wrote In Sacred Lonliness expressed his doubt it happened in the marriage of Joseph Smith and Helen Mar Kimball. But Mormon Enigma is misleading because it links women’s names with Joseph Smith as if he was involved with each one of them. Todd Compton was the first scholar that atleast acknowledged the platonic possibility for some of Joseph Smiths plural marriages. Although i think he has a flawed case for some of the marriages where he thinks sexuality was included. So i usually persue the platonic explanation in cases where he does not as i disagree with thim.
I was bothered by reading such books originally. But on years of further reflection on the quotes i find i am not bothered now at all. But Ex-LDS who are stuck with these books as part of their exit story won’t be able to work through it as i did. But running into stuff you had never heard can be a problem. Some of the issues can be pretty tough nuts to crack. FAIR does pretty good at recruiting volunteers to sort through issues my ingenuiity isn’t good enough to come up with my own.
If one thinks Joseph Smith was guilty i suggest caution in not making him more guilty than he was.
A few thoughts: The Lord will not allow the President of the Church to lead the Saints astray. Brigham Young was personally tutored by Joseph Smith. There was no doctrines revealed or taught by BY other than those which he claimed to have been personally taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. What is applicable in 1850 may not be applicable in 1978. God is a living God and revelation is ongoing. Prophets may have incorrect personal beliefs and may hold incorrect ideas but if they lead the church astray they will be removed. BY was not removed. If he was an apostate then we have all inherited that. He was not and we have not.
This argument has kind of been used as a strawman, to the issue of the fallility of Prophets ever since Wilford Woodruff first declared it. From the outset this comment assumes that the Prophets were called of God and the Church was true in the first place. I suppose a question could be raised by some concerned members about whether the Church could fall into apostasy again, hence many of the modern polygamist groups today that claim Mormon origins. For most people however the assumption is that God restored the Church and his true gospel through Joseph Smith with the attendant revelations which state that this gospel shall not be taken from the earth again…sons of levi…yada, yada, yada. Even without the revelations stating such, I think most peoples general expectations are that God is logical and therefore would not allow anyone to dink around with his Church built up in the latter days for the ushering in of the Second Coming and millenial reign of The Saviour. So when most people find inconsistencies about the Church, or Prophets, etc, they don’t usually question whether the Prophet is leading the Church astray, rather they begin to question whether the whole thing was true in the first place.