Tal Bachman Leaves Mormon Church
As Jeremy reported (as did Mark and William), world-renowned musician Tal Bachman left the church. Apparently, it has taken the former Sunday School teacher two years to come to this decision. Technically, he still is a member because he has yet to formally request name removal through a letter to his bishop.
Nevertheless, one thing in the article really caught my attention.
>I came to understand that, much to my shock, many of the foundational claims of the church were not based in reality. I struggled so much with that, and kept trying to un-know what I kept uncovering, that at the end of two years I felt so burdened and so confused and puzzled. I kept going to these church defenders that I’d always trusted and trying to find out what the explanations were for what appeared to be smoking guns. And there weren’t any.
Why is it historical accuracy is such a big issue for so many people who left the Church? Why do they put so much weight in the accuracy of events happening exactly as described?
These same people, for example, often have no problem accepting that the creation of the world did not happen in six 24-hour periods. However, when they’re faced with the fact that Joseph Smith allegedly wrote a couple dozen versions of the First Vision, all of a sudden it’s too much and the whole Church is a sham.
Sigh.
In all honesty, who cares? Who cares if the First Vision was with God and Jesus Christ or if it was three angels? The point is that the heavens that were closed for millennia were now open. The point is that the Lord opened the way for a church run by revelation. Who cares if the world was created in six days, six thousand years, or 4.5 billion years? The point is that it was created.
Some naysayers may read this post and say, “Who are you to question his decision? Who are you to be an expert on questioning doctrines when you’ve lived the sheltered life of Mormonism?” To such things, I respond by saying that my life has been far from sheltered. I have had my share of worldly indulgences. I have had my share of questions.
In fact, I came to the point where my faith was seriously shaken as well. You want to know the difference between my experience and others like Tal’s? When my faith wavered, it wasn’t because I read that Joseph Smith was a boozer or that Brigham Young was racist. It wasn’t because I found what appeared to be inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It wasn’t because my bishop couldn’t answer my questions.
It was because I doubted God’s existence.
That’s right. It wasn’t my faith in a single book. It wasn’t faith in the character of a prophet. It wasn’t faith in the sociability of my home teachers. It was faith in God.
The point is when you question your faith, think about what you’re questioning. If you are offended by someone and decide to never come back to church, think about where your faith must lie. If you come across some abhorrent thing Joseph Smith did and decide to leave the Church, think about where your faith lies.
Think about where your faith lies.
It was a very hard and depressing experience I went through. However, I am very grateful for it. The experience has really solidified my faith and I have become stronger as a result. Because of this, odd events and doctrines that would normally offend or shake someone’s faith no longer phase me. I am now able to question things freely.
Think about where your faith lies.
Popularity: 10% [?]
[More Help]
I can understand what happened. During my investigation in to the church, I had more questions than I got answers. There were too many things that just didn’t make sense and the missionaries and my friends in the church could just not explain. Going to the meetings just didn’t feel right. As another friend who attanded a baptism said, he observed a high “misfit factor”. Everyone who gave their testimony talked about how bad their life was previous to joining. My life is fine. I just didn’t fit in. If you need a place to belong, great. After I decided to stop going, I found out that one of the “missionaries” was given an immediate transfer for carrying on an “inappropriate” relationship with a female investigator. The church tried to cover it up and deny it ever happened. Thus sealing my descision to never go back.
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:43 | Permalink
Nice post, Kim. No doubt there will be a new rule sent down from Church HQ: “Musicians will no longer be called as Sunday School teachers.”
I think people get hung up on history and historicity is because the Church really emphasizes it and FARMS swears by it. So some people become disillusioned when the standard version of Church History is discovered to have gaps and a couple of flat-out misrepresentations. Your personal story is interesting–some people go through a doubting phase or process and end up asking The Big Question, but few self-questioning people start out there. I guess Webmasters think differently. ;-)
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:41 | Permalink
Just wanted to comment on a couple of things. As far as I know the church still doesn’t have an official stance on the “creation of the world in six 24-hour periods.” Most Mormons I know, however, accept this to be not the case.
Historical accuracy is or rather should be “such a big issue” for members and ex-members because the Mormon movement is based upon Joseph Smith’s first vision and the restoration of God’s authority on Earth. If Joseph’s story doesn’t add up — (i.e. he changed it as he went), then in some people’s eyes that would make him an unreliable witness. I think you can grasp the importance of that last statement. So hopefully for the sake of Mormonism he didn’t make it up. It’s also too bad there are multiple incommensurable first vision stories afloat. It does make it harder to know what to believe.
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:42 | Permalink
Hey, Jeff. Glad to see you stopping by. Always nice to have an old classmate comment on my blog.
Exactly. In fact, the same thing could be said about a whole lot of “doctrines” in the Church. That is where much of the problem lies. Members of the Church assuming this or that about something and when their tradition-held-as-scripture is shattered, they fall away.
But that’s the whole point. The Church differentiates itself from other Christian churches by claiming continuing revelation and priesthood authority. That is what is fundamental. How those two thing came about is less relevant.
As I said above regarding the First Vision, the important issue is that Joseph Smith received divine revelation not to join any existing churches. Whether who gave it to him was Jesus Christ or three angels is less important. So long as members of the Church have it the other way around (the means being more important than the end), we’re going to continue seeing people falling away.
Right. As I more or less stated above, that is because they focus so much on the trees that they fail to see they are in a forest.
Or he remembered it differently. Or it was recorded differently. Or the historian who used secondary commentary compiled it differently. The list goes on. Just because there is more than one version does not automatically mean Joseph Smith changed his mind.
Form my point of view, multiple accounts makes it even clearer what I should believe.
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:42 | Permalink
I actually heard about Tal Bachman’s decision to leave the church from one of his relatives. As a professional musician myself and an active member of the church, I can see how it can become easy to let your faith waiver.
Having served a mission for the church as Tal did, you have the first hand opportunity to see this in the mission field. I had two elders in my district that began teaching an investigator who was very informed about the church. As they went to teach him, the tables turned as this investigator befriended them. In his kind way he wanted to present information to the elders about the numerous myth’s and errors the church had in it’s teachings and historical data. He then encouraged the elders to read his evidence and that they should decide for themselves whether or not the church had brain washed them. In 1 week both elders had called the President of the mission to let him know that they planned to leave the mission as well as the church. When the President asked to see them he assured them that they of course had their agency, but in all fairness he wanted to review what they had been exposed to. The elders agreed to share their story. Once the President had interviewed both elders, he found that the time they could have and should have used to devote to personal study of scriptures, was used in other manners. In fact they were studying less than 30 minutes a week, and their time they devoted to local radio station programs and their own persoanl music had increased. So their spiritual foundations were slipping out from under them. When they found the investigator who shared so much light and knowledge with them about the myths of the church, they had no spiritual roots or foundation, and therefore were ready to be washed away like the sand as it were.
Before our President would let them go home he merely asked for 1 week of their time. He asked them to go back to the same schedule and rules that they had agreed to follow when they first entered the mission. So they had to study, pray, ask for guidance, etc. At the end of the week the President said if you can honestly tell me you’ve done this and you still want to leave, you can.
At the end of the week, the president received a call, both elders realized they had sadly been misled themselves, by an effective missionary with his own mission. They devoted so much time to reading anti-Mormon material and nothing else uplifting scripturally speaking, so they became lost. Both elders had spiritual affirmations that they were doing the Lord’s work and that this was indeed his church, and they got back to work.
I’m not Tal’s judge in any manner, however it would be very easy to plant seeds of doubt based on new data or facts that some stories in the church are incorrect. Let me be the first to say I’m human and fallible. Who isn’t. Who hasn’t played the group game at a party called Telephone? You can have a simple story retold and just a few people down the line it’s altered. Whether new parts are put in or old ones left out etc. I think the bottom line is in spite or clerical errors or whatever they may be, James 1:5 says it best. I believe if Tal is seeking truth or what he feels is a true church, he follow the same path that Joseph Smith did. By fasting and prayer I have a testimony he’ll find what he’s looking for.
It always seems (in every case I have found)that someone initially plants the spiritual seed of doubt, whether it’s against being LDS, Catholic, Christian, Buddhist faiths, etc. When the individual nourishes this seed with fear and doubt it will of course grow.
I guess the best thing to do is plant good seeds take good care of them and the rest will fall into place. This doesn’t mean a life of bliss, it just means you setting the stage for a good foundation.
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:42 | Permalink
Hmm, I’ve never been a “Blogger” before, so hope this goes over well. Anyhow, I went to Tal Bachman’s web site to check it out, and to my surprise, discovered that he had a new album! After looking around a bit, I went to his Bio to check it out. I was quite shocked when I found out that he had decided to leave the Church. I had mixed feelings of disappointment and surprise.
Part of the shock that comes from this is the fact that I had, about 4 years ago, met him when he came to my ward (North Bend, WA) for a fireside. Unfortunately I don’t remember all of what he said. However, I do remember that for the most part he talked about what it’s like to be a “celebrity” and a member of the Church at the same time, and some of the experiences that had come with that. He seemed firm in his beliefs. I met him and his wife. I shook their hands. Many of my friends and youth leaders still have their autographed fireside programs and CD’s.
For a large part, I can see how it would be difficult for any LDS celebrity to shelter himself from worldly influences. Satan has his ways of finding our weaknesses. He found Tal’s. I once took an anthropology class, and was exposed to a lot of physical and historical evidence against the ideas of creation. I think that I can associate to a lot of the thoughts that Tal has had. If these kinds of thoughts are entertained, it’s very easy to doubt.
I have a friend who recently decided to disassociate himself from much of his family and the Church. having thought and observed a lot about his situation, I’ve come to the conclusion that many small and or big mistakes in life steadily become harder to fix, and thus it simply becomes easier to give up the fight, even when you know something is true. I know that he’d felt the Spirit testify to him the truth of the church and that he couldn’t doubt it. When I talk to him, I can feel that he wants to be back, but is afraid and unwilling because the path is uneasy.
I think that Tal has gone in a similar direction as my friend. The small and many struggles make it so much easier to give up than to keep fighting. I think, regardless of what he says, he still knows the church is true.
We know that people will deny their knowledge of the truth regardless of their knowledge because of the story of Korihor. He was an Anti-Christ who contended against Alma. He asked Alma to show him a sign to prove the existence of God, and was thus struck dumb. After having received his sign, he “Put forth his and and wrote,… I always knew that there was a God.” (Alma 30:52).
We also know that we can have an influence in (re)bringing these people to the truth. Through prayer, fasting, and faith, we can bring others to the knowledge they may not have or that they may not remember, (Mosiah 27:14).
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:43 | Permalink
What does that mean exactly? Did you expect them to take an ad out in the paper to publicise what happened?
12 Sep 2005 @ 06:43 | Permalink
I came across this site quite haphazardly looking for something else on Tal Bachman and after reading the postings decided I should add my two cents. My big brother Tal has been a fantastic example of spotless living my entire life. He has been the family authority on words of prophets and church historians for years. He is a near perfect example of fatherhood to his eight children, and a person who is genuine and sincere in everything he does. He is also an intellectual and as such had questions arise during his teaching assignment as Gospel doctrine teacher, he couldn’t answer. He studied and prayed over the course of two years with his wife and finally prepared a list of his concerns and took them to his stake president. Imagine their devastation when the stake president candidly said to them “None of us really believe those church history stories exactly, but the church is just the best way to live, it’s that simple”. I understand that to some people the end justifies the means. If the truth came forth again, that is the point and the details are insignificant. To others, the details are of great importance because they need to understand and rectify the entire story.
All religions require us to put a certain amount of concerns “on the shelf”. That is what faith is about. But what if your shelf was so full, it crumbled? What if you honestly prayed and could not get the answers? Instead of assuming this decision had anything to do with being a musician (and it is ignorant to assume such a thing) give him the benefit of the doubt instead of making wisecracks about someone you do not know. Instead of rallying around my brother and his family, he was ostracized by members in the branch where he was serving in the bishopric. He was accused of having affairs and looking for reasons to leave to justify his lifestyle. What lifestyle? A hobby farms with 8 kids and a great wife?
My brother’s family still prays, teaches their children Christ’s teachings and follows the word of wisdom. Our family aches for this chain of events but also sees the harm in dogmaticism and judgement. His search is the truth. That’s all.
22 Oct 2005 @ 11:55 | Permalink
The thing that always has baffled me is that (according to the missionary story earlier) when people read anti-mormon literature they feel bad inside and somehow connect that with the church when (duh) it should be associated with what they are reading.
Now, we should also note, that we keep using the word “versions” of the first vision. What we should say is “accounts.”
Lastly, this church was built on revelation and the Holy Ghost as a testifier of truth. If we can retain in remembrance, those times when the Spirit has testified of truth, we can keep our testimonies strong. It is also important not to let the adversary lead us down a path we are not to go. He is crafty and deceives many.
I am saddened to hear of Tal’s Departure. Any time anyone leaves the church I am pained because how is it that people that have the truth (while billions of those do not)can let it slip away.
We are asked to remember. Remember what has been taught to us by the Spirit. Let’s not assume that historical records can be infallible. Faith, patience and remembrance.
20 Jan 2006 @ 20:59 | Permalink
Keb,
How do you know it was “anti-Mormon” literature he was reading?
20 Jan 2006 @ 23:01 | Permalink
Ah, touché.
I was refering more to the Missionary story that was mentioned in this discussion. Hence, I do not know what Tal was reading.
A Testimony based on the Book of Mormon is one that stands strong. If the Book of Mormon is true, than Joseph Smith was a prophet and the restoration took place, regardless of what “discrepancies” exisit with accounts of the first vision.
20 Jan 2006 @ 23:15 | Permalink
Like the anonymous reply in #8 — a relative of Tal — I knew Tal, his wife and kids. When we were in the same ward in CA, he was preparing to record his first album. He is an excellent husband and father and assumptions about his career ruining his church membership should be ignored as they are completely untrue. I was amazed at how he stayed aloof from the “game” one is required to play in the music industry. He wouldn’t even tour – because of the time it would take away from his family. Tal is smart and deep-thinking. I had a hard time keeping up with him during discussions as I am not at the same intellectual level as he is.
I was disturbed to read of his decision to leave the church with his family. I know that something must have been hard for him to get over. In the end, I know he has a testimony, I know he loves the Lord. Tal is a super person. His leaving the church in no way affects how I feel about him as a person and as a friend. I hope that his other friends and other members of the church will respect his agency and love him as the Lord would.
26 Apr 2007 @ 16:51 | Permalink
The following links are to an interview with Tal Bachman summarizing the events that led to his leaving the church.
A word of warning, the opinions expressed on the website I’m about to link to may cause serious cognitive dissonance. Proceed with care, but if you want I also advise checking out Bob McCue’s interview too.
Talking to Tal part 1 and Talking to Tal part 2
26 Apr 2007 @ 19:55 | Permalink
I listened to it a LONG time ago and wow, I had forgotten how critical the host comes across. If you can get past his obnoxious hatred for all things LDS, the interview itself does offer a look into reason’s behind Tal’s departure from the church.
26 Apr 2007 @ 20:00 | Permalink
This is good. And I for one never judge anyone who decides to leave the church for whatever reason. We are all on our own journey and the Lord knows each of our hearts. It is hard for us, as family members, to see those we love, leave the Gospel when we have strong dedicated testimonies and want to share that with them. I empathise with you sincerely as I have been there (still am). If Tal is truly searching and trying to do what is right (and it seems to me he is) then he will be lead to the truth one day. I wish he and his family well.
26 Apr 2007 @ 20:12 | Permalink
Well I agree that it’s ignorant to assume when people leave the church it’s because they are sinning or want to sin or that they must deep down inside know that the church is still true but it’s just too hard to live up to it. Blah blah blah whatever.
It’s clear that some people are very sincere about seeking the truth and feel geniunely sad when they feel they are finding lies within their religion. They actually grieve over it. It’s not like they are just taking the easy road. I don’t make judgements about why people leave the church anymore.
Personally I am pretty upset about the Seer Stone in the Hat, amongst other things.
But, since the whole foundation of the church is based on the question of what the spirit says to YOU, then I agree with Kim about the mistake of basing your faith on history.
Religion is about spirituality, not about man-recorded history. Faith is faith. Religion is not academia.
28 Apr 2007 @ 17:42 | Permalink
Kim, it’s interesting that you mention your personal struggle with doubt about the very existence of God. When I came under attack in Afghanistan (which really didn’t amount to much, but felt mighty scary as the sirens were going off) I came in touch with my worst fear: that there was nothing after death. I saw that seed of doubt in my mind more clearly than ever before. Over the next few days I thought more and more about how faith is a deliberate belief. If I only believe what the evidence before my eyes tells me, I’m not really exercising faith at all. It’s kind of like what Jesus said about doing good to others in Matthew 5:43–47. If you only do good to those who are good to you, you’re doing no more than what comes naturally to the natural man. What’s that worth? Anyone can do that. It’s when you’re good to those who are bad to you that you’re really becoming more like your Father in Heaven. Likewise, if you only believe what’s proven to your worldly senses, you’re only doing what comes naturally to the natural man. To be more Godlike, we need to surpass that, and exercise faith in what we can’t see.
I don’t know if that little kernel of doubt will be entirely swept from my mind in this life. I do hope I will always exercise faith, and that my faith will grow.
28 Apr 2007 @ 17:58 | Permalink
Isn’t that a strange story? The cliché is that people find faith in those situations — “There are no atheists if foxholes” — not that they find doubt. But there it is.
28 Apr 2007 @ 18:00 | Permalink
Just to elaborate, I used to think that if the church was true, all historical and scientific evidence could be reconciled with it. Many LDS church members (including myself in the past) like to believe that religion and science, and all things academic are one and the same. Perhaps this idea has been propagated out of a desire to feel some intellectual pride. This is unfortunate because sooner or later the church will not live up to this expectation, and people will freak out.
I finally realised that it’s a RELIGION.
And like ANY religion, if one admits it’s about spirituality, they will be OK with the fact that many of their beliefs will appear absurd from an intellectual standpoint (or they are on crack as Rick puts it).
Personal decision I guess. But instead of saying “the church lied to me” or “the church doesn’t stand up to a rigorous historical investigation” why not simply say “I have not had any spiritual experiences that trump my academic findings”.
28 Apr 2007 @ 18:33 | Permalink
ltbugaf, been there, done that. I know what you mean. That’s a scary thought when you lived most of your life believing something happens after death.
nermalcat, that’s basically the conclusion I cam to after my experience. I no longer try to reconcile secular beliefs with spiritual beliefs. I find my mind much clearer now.
28 Apr 2007 @ 18:43 | Permalink
I don’t abandon the effort to unify secular and spiritual knowledge. I think all truth can be unified. But I don’t expect to have everything made clear right now. If it were, we wouldn’t need faith. I don’t see how any scientific knowledge can prove that the Book of Mormon is false, or that God doesn’t exist, or anything else. I believe that revelation is a valid way of finding truth, and science is too. As human beings, we make mistakes in both methods.
28 Apr 2007 @ 19:29 | Permalink
I served in an area on my mission in Argentina with Tal Bachman, I hope that some day I can contact him, and catch up on old mission stories. If you are out there, and read this reach out to me.
1 May 2007 @ 19:21 | Permalink
I too served in the same mission as Tal. He was a good missonary and great example. I cannot say enough good about him. I respect his decision, although I choose to believe differently. After hearing his comments on a recent PBS documentary about his mission, I wonder if some dirty mission politics might have left a distaste in his mouth. Many who served there saw things (not from Tal) on behalf of leadership that was totally contrary to doctrine. I, however separate the deeds of an individual from those of the Prophet. I am not saying this is at the root, but it makes me wonder.
2 May 2007 @ 11:29 | Permalink
I think I’ve typed about 10 responses to this, but I can’t bring myself to submit them.
That be a mighty tall steed you be riding on!
2 May 2007 @ 16:35 | Permalink
I was not referring to Tal but to mission leadership, who I felt was on shaky ground with a few things. Just wanted to clarify.
2 May 2007 @ 17:37 | Permalink
It’s interesting to see how fervent Tal was on his mission. It reminds me of the Three Witnesses, who had literally conversed with angels in the presence of Joseph Smith, leaving the Church. But with them, I believe most of the reasons were personal conflicts and doubts about the Prophet. They very pointedly did not doubt the veracity of the Book of Mormon, as Tal now does.
I hope his life will lead him back to faith in the Book of Mormon.
2 May 2007 @ 17:42 | Permalink
Up until last evening I had never heard of Tal Bachman. While watching the PBS documentary on the Church, I was however, intriqued and touched by his story. It is indeed a profound and heart wrenching experience to lose ones faith. Much has been said about the distinction between faith and science in this thread. They are in fact two unrelated concepts; one dependent on a hoped for reality and the other on mans feabile attempt to explain the world around him. It strikes me that what Mr. Bachman was alluding to was something quite different; the idea of absolute truth. The Church’s appeal is different for different people. I think for most it is a wonderful faith nourishing thing. For a few, however, it literally represents a source for absolute truth; a very real light in the dark world of illusion. For the first time in millenia, God (the embodiement of all Truth), revealed himself and spoke directly to man (the prophet Joseph) in absolute terms. In all of Christianity, Mormon cosmology is unique in this reguard ie. God is a real being; the laws by which he operates are natural,pure and absolutley true. In fact a working knowledge of all absolute truth is what makes him God. “The glory of God is intelligence … light and truth…… Joseph Smith constantly encouraged all to seek after this truth in an effort to become more like God. If you take all of this literally then “the truth” in fact becomes everything. When it becomes apparent that the earthly conduit for absolute truth is playing fast and loose with the facts, it is easy to see why truth seekers become disillusioned. It seems that Tal is a person concerned with what really is instead of just nice thoughts. I applaud him for his courage and hope he finds what his heart no doubt yearns for.
2 May 2007 @ 17:58 | Permalink
In 16 nermalcat said: “Personally I am pretty upset about the Seer Stone in the Hat, amongst other things.”
In 19 nermalcat said: “Just to elaborate, I used to think that if the church was true, all historical and scientific evidence could be reconciled with it.”
In 20 Kim Siever said: “nermalcat, that’s basically the conclusion I cam to after my experience. I no longer try to reconcile secular beliefs with spiritual beliefs.”
Are you suggesting that Tal Bachman & others should ignore the facts and rely on their feelings for spititual truth?
Would this approach be similar to Lehi’s dream where you let go of the iron rod (truth) and follow the voices you hear in the mist of darkness?
How would one be able to distinguish between a person like Jim Jones, David Koresh and Joseph Smith if you strictly relied on feelings?
Perhaps Tal Bachman & others need a little bit of faith (feelings) and a little bit of truth (Iron Rod) in order to have the faith to hold onto the Iron Rod (and move forward) during times when the mist of darkness is upon us.
Does it really matter if Joseph Smith read the gold plates and the Urim and Thummin magically translated the words for Joseph to read or if Joseph Smith read the words magically off a rock in his hat? What really matters is this – Is the BOM really the word of God or did JS make up a really good Science Fiction novel. If the BOM really is the word of God then it would not matter if JS stuck a woodden bucket on his head to read his rock. If JS made it up, then it would not matter if Tal Bachman left the church or stayed.
Believing that Joseph Smith did not need to read the gold plates but would use a rock in a hat to translate for me is harder to believe than the Urim and Thummin magically translated the words off the gold plates into English. I expect there are many who have no problems believing the rock in the hat version.
I expect it would be very hard for someone like Tal Bachman or Steve Benson to overcome their pride and admit they were wrong for not letting go of the truth (iron rod) and rely strictly on the words of others (church leaders). To me it would seem to be very hard for them to become humble and accept the words of church leaders due to the popularity they have received from the ex-mormon web sites and groups.
Sometimes when a person has time to heal, they see where their faith was missing and they were holding so tighly to truth (iron rod) that they were not moving out of the mist of darkness but standing in one spot.
Perhaps a day will come when people who have problems accepting faith when facts conflict will be able to express themsleves without fear of retribution (ex-communication).
6 May 2007 @ 16:53 | Permalink
No. I haven’t ignored any facts. In fact, if anything, I have accepted them. But I don’t try to reconcile them with anything.
I don’t think there is a difference.
6 May 2007 @ 20:10 | Permalink
I don’t know, perhaps obtaining real truth is just not possible in this life.
Faith by it’s very nature will not give you perfect knowledge.
It certainly will not come from Science (eg. These guys predict we will all fry like bacon in 20 years but can’t accurately predict if it will rain next week)
What I do know is that free thought can be theraputic to the soul. I realize that church leadership has an organization to lead and a theology to protect. I just wish sometimes that they would lighten up, be real and admit that they don’t have all the answers either.
9 May 2007 @ 17:23 | Permalink
i have been a member for over 30 years, and have seen and experienced a lot.
i, of course, am very concerned about tal and his family.
i have read some of his comments, and can see that his thinking is in turmoil.
one of the greatest difficulties i can see that tal will have to deal with is the degree to which he is obviously very intelligent. i have seen this to be more of a stumbling block to many more than it is a help. very intelligent people seem to be very talented at faking themselves out i think in large measure because of their ability to process a lot of information, but this is something that they need to be aware of and that is that there are more conditions, situations and missing information regarding the “facts” than any number of humans will ever be able to process in order to accurately come up with a way to tell if the church is true or not based on these accounts. let me add though that there are also a very large number of accounts of early lds history that support the basis of the church.
one thing i keep in mind is that the leaders of the church have to answer the same questions as anyone else in order to get a temple recommend. are they lying to us? what is the chance of that? what is the chance that there is some misunderstanding regarding the comments of his stake president? sounds likely. regarding historical writings, there is wisely a certain amount of taking things with a grain of salt. what accounts do the leaders say are most representative of the truth? who are you going to stand with? i guess that’s the choice we have to make?
does God have the ability to communicate with us?
does God want to communicate with us?
does God want us to know the truth?
what’s the most reliable, the conclusions we reach via that data we have accumulated via our 5 senses and processed on our own and communicate to our psychi or that which is communicated to our minds directly from God. again…another choice.
21 May 2007 @ 13:40 | Permalink
Right.
Tal left the church because he was both too intelligent and couldn’t possibly have studied enough pertinent information in order to make an informed decision.
Get over it. Intellectuals are not the enemy of the church.
He wasn’t interested and he moved on.
22 May 2007 @ 09:03 | Permalink
Rick, I’m not getting that from the previous comment. Where does he say Tal was too intelligent? Where does he say Tal didn’t study enough? Where does he say intellectuals are the enemies of the Church?
22 May 2007 @ 09:16 | Permalink
I also don’t see how you can support a statement like “He wasn’t interested.” Tal was very deeply interested and involved. He loved the Church profoundly.
22 May 2007 @ 09:17 | Permalink
Please fast and pray over your questions and I’m sure you’ll be given answers to everything.
22 May 2007 @ 09:19 | Permalink
I find it telling that whenever rick has no valid response, he falls back on mockery of other people’s testimonies.
22 May 2007 @ 09:33 | Permalink
i have some questions,
nermalcat,
why does the hat story bother you?
pewsitter,
are you saying it is your perception of excommunication as a form of retribution?
22 May 2007 @ 09:45 | Permalink
I find it telling that when ltbugaf demands a response and isn’t given one he refuses to pray about it.
If only you were more prayerful you could be happier.
Are you attending the temple regularly?
It sounds like you need a spiritual pick-me-up.
22 May 2007 @ 09:46 | Permalink
I guess there’s no more hope of getting rick to communicate sincerely. Too bad.
22 May 2007 @ 09:51 | Permalink
ltbugaf, can’t we both agree that a member of the Priesthood such as yourself must conduct himself as a steward of the church, and as such should be working to emulate Christ in all ways?
Let us both work towards becoming as the Lamb and inquire honestly in our hearts if this discourse should continue as it has.
22 May 2007 @ 09:58 | Permalink
Well, we could both agree, if you actually held those views.
22 May 2007 @ 10:08 | Permalink
When you question my faith it merely shines a light on your own lack of spirit.
If you’d only humble yourself enough to earnestly and prayerfully consider my words, you’ll see I’m correct.
22 May 2007 @ 10:20 | Permalink
Alright everyone, let’s try being a bit more civil and avoid the ad hominem.
Who’s going to want to read, let a lone join in on, a conversation of sandbox fighting?
22 May 2007 @ 11:55 | Permalink
It’s possible that excommunication has been used as a form of retribution. It is not a useful way to bring people closer to Christ. It could more likely be classified as a scare tactic or a way to remove those who use their minds and question why. It is very unlikely that Christ ever excommunicated anyone. Cults like to use excommunication to scare their members into obeying.
I do not know what nermalcat thinks but it does bother me that Joseph Smith read a rock in a hat as opposed to reading the golden plates with glass stones like I was taught as a child by church leaders. I would have preferred to have been taught the truth as oppossed to a more believeable story.
22 May 2007 @ 14:44 | Permalink
In my experience in the church, retribution is the farthest thing from those involved in church courts.
If someone doesn’t value their membership in the church, then why would excommunication scare them?
re: the hat.
Remember that there were several instruments and years of tutoring that Joseph received. Does it make sense that it was all to tell him that he takes the rock and stick it in a hat? I recon there’s a little bit more to it than that, don’t you?
22 May 2007 @ 15:28 | Permalink
I’m not sure I believe that statement. Can you give some examples to support it?
22 May 2007 @ 17:23 | Permalink
If you Google ‘excommunication coercion’ you’ll have heaps of evidence that people have viewed threats of excommunication as a coercive motivator.
The threat of excommunication or disfellowship is especially important in LDS circles.
The loss of the ability to attend the temple has numerous serious consequences to the average member, with particular members being even more affected.
Couple with children ready to leave on missions or who are about to get married must be exceptionally sensitive to threats of excommunication.
The real rub with the LDS being the ability to excommunicate or disfellowship a member lies with an untrained lay-member.
In other, larger, church organizations there is potential for professional repercussions should a minister, pastor or rabbi move to excommunicate a member without the proper evidence or due diligence.
In the LDS tradition, it is very possible to dole out punitive, incorrect or biased excommunications or disfellowships with no real downside for the judges. They report to a higher level of administration, but the worst that could happen is that they may lose their status temporarily. The calling is not their profession, and thus possible mistakes, do not weigh as heavily on them.
23 May 2007 @ 16:27 | Permalink
But Pewsitter said cults do this. Are you both categorizing the Church as a cult?
23 May 2007 @ 19:14 | Permalink
…or in other words, Pewsitter seems to be arguing that since cults engage in that practice, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must deserve the same label because, according to him, in engages in the same practice. So I’m looking for Pewsitter’s example of other so-called cults that engage in this practice.
23 May 2007 @ 19:46 | Permalink
Answer to # 49 – The Jehovah Witness religion uses the threat of excommunication and disfellowshipment as a way to control their members. Very much in the manner rick has described above in # 47.
I was talking with a Church of Christ member and they believer they are the one and only true church and according to this person, the threat of not having contact with family members is used to control their members.
“ltbugaf said: …or in other words, Pewsitter seems to be arguing that since cults engage in that practice, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must deserve the same label because, according to him, in engages in the same practice.”
It seems to me that ltbugaf made the leap that the LDS church is a “CULT”. How could the one and only true church be a cult?
Cults use a variety of methods to control their members. One method is the cult teaches that their leader decides if the individual will be allowed in heaven. Just because some LDS believe the local Bishop and SP will judge you in the hereafter does not make the church a cult even though it is one of the items that makes a cult a cult.
There is enough misunderstanding without impling things that were not said.
23 May 2007 @ 20:57 | Permalink
Looks like someone needs to look up the definition of cult…
24 May 2007 @ 04:18 | Permalink
News flash folks… we’re all cults. Every religion.
Now, if you want to re-define the term then you’re on your own.
Personally, I have no problem with the LDS or any church being called a cult. That’s what they are.
24 May 2007 @ 06:37 | Permalink
re:
The threat of excommunication or disfellowship is especially important in LDS circles.
the threat of not making it to the heaven is especially important in lds circles, too.
24 May 2007 @ 15:34 | Permalink
“JM said: News flash folks… we’re all cults. Every religion.”
I don’t believe all religions would fit the requirements to be a cult.
24 May 2007 @ 16:27 | Permalink
Garry, sorry to take so long to respond. Pewsitter in #44 pretty much sums it up. It kind of felt like I was learning that Joseph Smith used a crystal ball in a circus tent or something. Kim is right that it shouldn’t make any difference though, as it is no more improbable than any other miraculous stories about Joseph Smith.
Once again I say we should admit that religion is not an academic pursuit. I agree we should certainly be interested in academia, but if it’s the final deciding factor when it comes to one’s faith, religion will lose.
I like what you said in your final paragraph of # 31.
30 May 2007 @ 00:45 | Permalink
JM, I’m aware that the word “cult,” if properly used, means no more and no less than a system of worship. But since I was trying to respond to Pewsitter’s comment, I was trying to deal with the way in which Pewsitter is apparently using the word. In his comment, he seems to be using it in the common pejorative sense, implying that there is something evil or destructive about it. He seems to be including some religious groups in that heading and excluding others. So I wanted to find out what his examples of “cults” that engage in the described practice are.
4 Jun 2007 @ 12:06 | Permalink
I have a question.
I think it was in the Mormon special Tal made a statement to the effect that even if something is the best thing in the world, but is based on a lie then…
Those are obviously not his exact words, and I am not going to chase them down, but I think you get the point.
I get the impression from this that he thinks, at least somewhere in his mind, the church is the best thing in the world even though he would probably publicly deny it.
My question would be:
In other words
How does he think it got to be the best thing in the world, and
On what does he base his conclusion that the church is not based on reality?
4 Jun 2007 @ 15:03 | Permalink
I don’t think his statement was meant to couple the “best in the world” and the church.
I think he was using hyperbole to augment his example.
4 Jun 2007 @ 15:20 | Permalink
nermalcat said: Garry, sorry to take so long to respond. Pewsitter in #44 pretty much sums it up. It kind of felt like I was learning that Joseph Smith used a crystal ball in a circus tent or something.
Thank you for your remarks.
4 Jun 2007 @ 19:46 | Permalink
The LDS church does fit some definations of a cult. Some Wards and Stakes are more of a cult than others. Being a cult is not in and of itself evil. One could say some pyramid schemes are a form of a cult.
I would say that since Itbugaf suggested being in a cult is evil that he could provide some examples of how belonging to a cult is evil?
I believe the term cult does not always mean evil or destructive.
4 Jun 2007 @ 20:01 | Permalink
regarding 58.
it was in the context of speaking about the church.
that would in and of itself infer the connection.
the connection was never ruled out, however we don’t know what was edited out.
4 Jun 2007 @ 21:52 | Permalink
I didn’t suggest that being in a cult is evil. It appeared to me that Pewsitter was using the word “cult” to refer to something bad.
5 Jun 2007 @ 09:16 | Permalink
I believe you are the only one who has suggested the word “cult” refers to something evil or bad.
Some of the requirements to belonging to a cult including things like dressing to fit into society, believing the same doctrine, following a leaders edicts, sacrificing time and money, investing emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically.
The LDS church wants men to wear white shirts and suits, wear no facial hair, believe what is taught, do what the leaders feel is correct, give time to lessons, home teaching, welfare, etc, pay 10% plus of your income, and be spiritual. Sounds like the LDS church fits this profile of a cult.
Please explain how you made the leap that the word cult relates to being evil or bad as you put it.
My gut feeling is that you are attempting to create discord where none exists.
5 Jun 2007 @ 10:45 | Permalink
What is that profile? How does it differ from the profile of any group? I’m just looking for you to explain your meaning, not to sow discord.
6 Jun 2007 @ 18:51 | Permalink
So do you use the term “cult” to describe any group that encourages people to dress a certain way? Or any group that encourages people to follow the edicts of leaders? or any group that encourages the sacrifice of time or money? Any group that encourages people to make emotional, spiritual or psychological investments?
6 Jun 2007 @ 18:54 | Permalink
I wonder what you are trying to accomplish by using the words any group. I do not think that if a group does one item it would qualify as a cult. I think for a group to be considered a “cult”, the group would have to practice several of the items listed above and perhaps others not listed.
If the church fits the profile of being a cult and the church is perfect and God designed the regulations to belong to his church, why would you suggest the word cult means evil? Perhaps a better defination of cult would be a follower of the LDS religion.
It might be impossible for all people to belong to a cult which is why someone like Tal Bachman would do and say the things he has regarding leaving the church.
6 Jun 2007 @ 21:59 | Permalink
Do you believe the Army is a cult? It does every one of the things you mention in your “profile.”
You’ve said you “don’t believe all religions would fit the requirements to be a cult.” But, like JM, I can’t agree. For example, Merriam-Webster online defines the word cult as
This would include any formal system of worship.
7 Jun 2007 @ 05:34 | Permalink
I’d like to address something else said in comment 44:
In light of this comment, I’m wondering what you think about the following scriptures:
I know it’s a long list; obviously you don’t have to deal specifically with all of them. The thing I’m getting at is that I think these scriptures indicate that God has always directed that some people be removed from his Church.
7 Jun 2007 @ 06:33 | Permalink
Have you read those scriptures, ltbugaf? Of the ones I read, none of them specifically said that God directed the excommunication process.
7 Jun 2007 @ 07:44 | Permalink
The first one does; you have to read verse 14.
The third one does; you have to read verse 1.
In the fourth one, Alma was following the instructions given by God as shown in the previous reference.
The fifth one does; Jesus gives the instruction personally.
The seventh one does, to the degree that you believe this revelation through Joseph Smith came from God.
The eighth one does; the Lord is speaking in the first person in this revelation through Joseph Smith. Ditto for the ninth reference and the tenth reference.
The eleventh reference does, to the degree that you believe this instruction through Joseph Smith came from God. Ditto for the twelfth reference.
The fourteenth reference does; read verse 1 of the same chapter.
The fifteenth reference does; you must read verse 1 of the previous chapter, and understand that this material is a continuation of that.
The sixteenth reference does; you must read verse 1 of the same chapter. Ditto for the seventeenth reference and the eighteenth reference.
The nineteenth reference does to the degree that you believe this instruction from Paul was from God.
The sixth reference does to the degree you believe the practice of the Church as described in Moroni comports with God’s will.
The thirteenth reference just shows that the Church claims a right to excommunicate.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:04 | Permalink
…forgot to cover the second reference. That falls under the same category as the sixth.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:07 | Permalink
That’s my problem. I coincidentally read the 2nd, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th references.
All of which are not the same as saying these scriptures specifically indicate God directed the excommunication. It’s an assumption the reader has to make.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:16 | Permalink
I guess that leaves you with only fourteen of the above-referenced scriptures to support the idea, then.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:19 | Permalink
…although I don’t see why you have a problem with the ninth and tenth, both of which are revelations worded in the first person from God.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:21 | Permalink
…and as for the reference from Thessalonians, I don’t think I’m on very shaky ground believing that when Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, commanded the Saints at Thessalonica in the name of Jesus Christ, he was speaking with authority from God.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:23 | Permalink
Well, 11, since I don’t think the last three explanations you gave in #71 support the assertion that God directed the excommunication in those instances.
As well, when using scriptures in the future to support a claim, you may want to point out other verses that need to be read for context — particularly if you’re including a list of 20 passages.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:25 | Permalink
I meant to include all of the necessary verses. I did in most instances but accidentally omitted in others. I was trying to avoid giving too-large segments to read.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:27 | Permalink
Let me make one other minor point about the second and sixth references: I think if we examine the author’s apparent purpose in describing the activities of the Church, most people would not conclude that these descriptions were given to show the Church was going against God’s will, but rather to show that the Church was following his will.
7 Jun 2007 @ 08:30 | Permalink
Maybe I’m being a bit long-winded here, but let me say just one more thing in response to comment 72: I know that some of the scriptures listed require the reader to assume something else (or at least to believe something else) in order to believe that the excommunications were in accordance with God’s will. However, I think in each of these instances, that belief or assumption is a reasonable one.
7 Jun 2007 @ 09:50 | Permalink
ltbugaf,
Were you a ‘bible basher’ on your mission?
If so, did you get the same success rate then as when you do it here?
If so, maybe it might be time for a different approach? Or, do you expect to keep doing the same thing and get a different result?
7 Jun 2007 @ 12:09 | Permalink
As far as I understand that vague term, no.
What “success rate” are you talking about? How would you define success?
I asked Pewsitter what he thinks about the scriptures I cited. I also explained what I think they mean. I guess if he gives an answer, then I’ll be successful. I don’t know how else to measure whether I’ve been successful in asking a question.
If you explain what you mean by my “success rate” and what you think it is and why, maybe I can answer your questions better.
7 Jun 2007 @ 19:21 | Permalink
By success rate, I mean converting others to your point of view.
You bash your opponents over the head with quotes from scripture and talks by G.A.’s, letting the quotes do all the work for you. You present your position as the only correct one, lacking any degree of empathy. You seek first to be understood, never to understand. If anyone disagrees with your point of view, you never allow for the possibility that you might be wrong.
It’s nothing but a war where you volley scripture after scripture, quote after quote. I’ve yet to see any real dialog or conversation from you. It’s your way or the highway. You always need the last word.
This just reminds me of people who liked to bible bash when I was on my full-time mission. I don’t recall the approach ever actually converting anyone or changing anyone’s mind about anything. All it did was entrench them deeper into their point of view. It became about who’s right, not what’s right.
So, I’m wondering if you actually seek to initiate change with your posts, or if you just like the arguement for the sake of arguement.
8 Jun 2007 @ 04:55 | Permalink
I didn’t ask Pewsitter to adopt my point of view. I asked him to tell me what he thinks.
I furnish quotes from the scriptures and from general authorities because I think they support a certain view, or because they help to answer questions posed. That’s not bashing someone over the head.
I didn’t tell Pewsitter my position was the only correct one. I presented my view and asked what he thought.
This claim seems particularly ridiculous to me, since I asked Pewsitter my question for the express purpose of understanding his point of view.
I don’t see anything I’ve said above that amounts to a claim of infallibility, which is what you’re accusing me of making. I can be wrong. So far I’m not convinced that I am. I invited Pewsitter to present his point of view. He may or may not convince me. Kim asked me to defend my assertion about the meaning or implication of these scriptures, so I did.
Using scriptures to show why I believe what I believe is not a “volley” and I am not engaged in a “war.” I’m sorry if the large volume of scriptures I cited above offends you, but if it does, I don’t think you’re reasonable in being offended.
I disagree. For example, I think the respectful exchange between me and Kim, above, was real conversation and real dialogue.
When someone poses a question to me, or a challenge to what I’ve said, I try to answer it. If you think that’s a bad trait, I guess I’ll have to disagree with you again. Surely, when you post these attacks on me, you’re expecting me to furnish some answer, aren’t you?
Okay.
I suppose I would agree. I didn’t use such an approach, nor do I remember any of my companions doing so. I do remember some people trying to suck us into such a conversation. Once a man we came to visit had two friends “accidentally” show up to ask us a barrage of irrelevant questions. We left.
Generally, I would say that I try to initiate, or prevent, change of one kind or another. For example, in my questions above for Pewsitter, I’m expecting that one or both of us will consider what the other has to say and possibly change his mind. In other instances, such as when people defame President Hinckley with unfair accusations, I don’t expect to convince the proponents of those accusations, but I do hope my answers will help some third party not to be fooled.
I’ll certainly admit, though, that I seem to have a somewhat argumentative nature, and my inner debater is often aroused on this site.
NOW: Would it be all right with everyone if the thread returned to the topics being discussed, rather than JM’s personal assessments of my personality?
8 Jun 2007 @ 13:05 | Permalink
Just let me explain one more thing beter than I did in comment 83: I am, for the most part, trying to convince someone when I post here. But the person I’m trying to convince isn’t always the person I’m addressing. Sometimes I’m posting for the consideration of the general readership of the ‘blog.
9 Jun 2007 @ 11:32 | Permalink
Just to make a comment on the actual article here. I think the point is the essence of the issue. People cite DNA evidence and claim it disproves the Book of Mormon. Yet the most distributed video proffering such criticism has, as it’s ending note, a request to come to Christ, never mind the Book He is tied to runs into just as severe issues, if not more severe, with DNA evidence than you’ll find in any conversation simply touching on The Book of Mormon’s plausibility.
I’m really curious to know what Tal’s position is presently. Does he espouse any kind of faith in anything?
I’ve generally found that the only intellectually consistent dissenters in our (LDS/Mormon) theology are those who become atheistic and/or agnostic, all the others are clearly applying double standards in their logical schema.
19 Jun 2007 @ 22:51 | Permalink
You can communicate with Tal on postmormon.org
He posts on the bulletin boards there pretty frequently.
I’m only mentioning that board because it’s considerably more friendly (to members) than the Recovery board where he also posts.
20 Jun 2007 @ 11:24 | Permalink
I too recommend checking out Tal’s comments on postmormon.org. I think you will gain much insight into Tal’s position, as well as his manner of expression.
20 Jun 2007 @ 14:32 | Permalink
Kim,
Why does a maple leaf appear next to my posts?
20 Jun 2007 @ 14:33 | Permalink
It’s the default image for those without a gravatar.
20 Jun 2007 @ 20:50 | Permalink
The following from Tal Bachman should clarify his feelings concerning the LDS church.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon414.htm
18 Aug 2007 @ 22:35 | Permalink
For all the posts regaling Tal Bachman’s intelligence, I think that someone somewhere forgot to point out that although he may be ‘principled’, he is not exactly smart. Is it mere coincidence that his music career tanked after he left the Mormon church? Or did he not realize that Mormons were his core audience and fan base?
There are post-Mormons with relevant helpful things to say; Mr. Bachman is not one of them.
11 Sep 2007 @ 08:39 | Permalink
Not knowing Tal personally, I cannot verify his level of intelligence. Two comments though.
His career tanked far sooner than before he ever left the church. As you mentioned in the rant on your blog, he was a one-hit wonder and when sales for Tal Bahcman dropped, so did his career.
“She’s So High” would never have been as popular as it was if he had a strictly Mormon fan base.
11 Sep 2007 @ 09:00 | Permalink
True enough, Kim.
As I am want to say frequently, correlation does not imply causation.
11 Sep 2007 @ 09:11 | Permalink
I really don’t think intelligence is at issue here. I have heard talks from and interviews with Tal & he seems like a guy I’d like to hang out with. Aside form all the Anti-Mormon talk we could have some really good conversations. But I wouldn’t like to hang out with someone who’s always talking about Amway either.
There are intelligent, as well as unintelligent Mormons also . . . .just like all of Gods children.
And why do you say his career tanked. He just might be big in Japan. You don’t know that. Well, I don’t know that either but that’s beside the point.
Tal has eight children and he isn’t even 40 yet, maybe he does know a few things about raising kids. And if you have eight kid you need to be raising lots of money. His career didn’t tank but it is continuing in other capacities.
11 Sep 2007 @ 09:50 | Permalink
Eddie Murphy has like seven kids and he can still land big paying roles. Trust me, Tal Bachman is not big in Japan (Popularity-wise; I can’t comment on his physical size relative to your average Japanese person).You can even try googling “taru bakuman” if you don’t believe me.
As far as his music career is concerned, I think someone should have told him that the music business is a business, not an art. You can’t alienate your core demographic. Tal Bachman literally did what William Shatner lampooned in his infamous (yet hilarious) Saturday Night Live sketch. Can’t anyone else see the absurdity in this? He’s a clean-living man who is refusing to sell out to other clean-living individuals because he disagrees with them on historical minutiae so unimportant, most people have no interest in it whatsoever. (Try it. Ask any non-Mormon within 50 feet of you whether they: a) know that Joseph Smith wrote various accounts of his experiences; and, b) whether they care about it.) If he were truly smart, he should have moved somewhere else, quietly discontinued his involvement in the church and continued to make music. Then, he could have made an announcement, a la Richard Dutcher, that he was no longer practicing, take a little flack and then move on. Instead, Mr. Bach decided that he would publish every intimate detail of his painful divorce from Mormonism. I guess if you can’t get noticed for your music, you have to use something else to get attention.
11 Sep 2007 @ 11:58 | Permalink
wow dpc, it makes me wonder why you would spend so much time reading up on an unintelligent, militant anti-mormon. Are you generally this bitter or did Tal break your heart when he resigned his membership?
11 Sep 2007 @ 12:11 | Permalink
I know Tal’s sister and met his Dad. Both very intelligent. If he’s anything like the rest of his family, intelligence has nothing to do with it.
People create music for many reasons. Not all of them to get rich quick. Give the guy some credit. He’s talented and probably has a lot of fun excercising his creativity. Besides, there’s more to the man than music. Just because he isn’t visable in your eyes, doesn’t mean he’s sitting idle, wondering where the next recording deal will come from.
11 Sep 2007 @ 13:41 | Permalink
DCP:
Bachman and the rest of the post-mormon crowd feel like they’ve been lied to. He REALLY did believe and it was like his entire life was robbed from him when he discovered the truth.
Why exactly do you hold this against him?
11 Sep 2007 @ 13:43 | Permalink
Jeff, they aren’t the only ones.
It’s just that for some of us, it isn’t a deal-breaker.
11 Sep 2007 @ 13:48 | Permalink
I guess I should fill in the back story a little bit. When I first came across what Tal Bachman had written I thought it was interesting and well-written. (Even I will admit that he’s a good writer. I’ve never knocked his artistic ability.) But I read a post that he had written in May 2007 that ended up being a WTF moment for me. The cumulative effect of everything that he had written finally hit me bombastically like a proverbial ton of bricks (or tonne, out of respect for the metric system and the fact that this is a Canadian blog). I just couldn’t believe the sheer hubris of what he was actually saying in all his posts. When I looked back over what he had written, I couldn’t help but ask myself, “Is this guy for real?” and “Is this guy really this pretentious and self-conceited?”
Is Tal Bachman the bogey-man? No, of course not. He loves his wife and kids the same as everyone else. But that doesn’t stop him from human frailties. It’s too bad that his self-righteousness didn’t die along within his faith in the Mormon church.
11 Sep 2007 @ 14:33 | Permalink
“I guess I should fill in the back story a little bit [...] But I read a post that he had written in May 2007 that ended up being a WTF moment for me.”
Please “fill us in” what did he actually say?
And what makes you think that Mormons were his core audience and fan base? I’m not saying this couldn’t be true, but please, he was on the radio all over North America. (Even in the Blue States)
I would be surprised if even a small percentage of Mormons outside the intellectual circle even know who Tal Bachman is, let alone that they would have had enough influence either to sustain his music career while he was an active member or to cause it to tank after leaving the church. GIVE ME A BREAK.
It’s hard for any musician to transition from a one-hit wonder to pumping out hits, album after album. And if you think it’s easier for active Mormons to do it, then please fill us into why there aren’t any?
Tal Bachman is a pretty smart and likable guy. I have yet to hear or read anything that makes me think I wouldn’t enjoy hanging out with him.
One other thing, you mentioned that “There are post-Mormons with relevant helpful things to say”. I’d be interested to hear your advice on what exactly you would have Tal say that is relevant, helpful, and not to hubris as a post-mormon.
11 Sep 2007 @ 16:46 | Permalink
Hmmm…
I never thought the day would come when I would encounter a Tal Bachman apologist ;)
The particular words that ‘broke the camel’s back’ so to speak are posted on my blog, as well as a link to his orginial post.
Not all of Tal Bachman’s fans were Mormon, but I believe that Mormon consumers can influence the marketplace, especially when it comes to consuming goods produced by fellow Mormons. Alienating the Mormon sector would certainly not be particularly helpful to his music career at any rate.
By way of an aside, where is the post on Randy Bachman leaving to Mormon church and becoming ‘more spiritual’?
12 Sep 2007 @ 09:27 | Permalink
“By way of an aside, where is the post on Randy Bachman leaving to Mormon church and becoming ‘more spiritual’?”
I think you have him confused with Richard Dutcher.
12 Sep 2007 @ 11:43 | Permalink
There are several posts around the bloggernacle about Tal Bachman leaving the Mormon church, but not a single one about his dad, Randy, who is apparently no longer Mormon and claiming that his family is ‘more spiritual’.
12 Sep 2007 @ 12:11 | Permalink
Perhaps that’s because Randy never went public with it.
12 Sep 2007 @ 14:22 | Permalink
DPC, I just read your post on Tal Bachman, and you’ve got to be kidding me.
For the uninitiated:
An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim.
Might I suggest the man living in a glass house not throw rocks?
Actually, no he doesn’t. Read it again if you are confused. Or are you referring to some other writing and haven’t let us know?
Why are you like that? Do you think people are basically horrible?
Really?
REALLY? I wonder if there is something wrong with me, because I missed any mention of his music in the post you linked.
Are you really that jaded? Your lack of comprehension befuddles me. If you accept the Mormon view of Hell as being a state of mind, then why is it such a leap to consider the possibility of Heaven in the same light?
Or maybe he actually is a rock star and knows what he’s talking about. If I had to guess, I’d predict that women are STILL all over him. Since I don’t know, I’ll just take his word for it.
I’ll let that one stand for itself.
You are one classy guy.
Seriously though, it appears the reason for the personal attacks is that Bachman makes compelling arguments, the likes of which you are unable to debate.
14 Sep 2007 @ 21:20 | Permalink
Jeff, are you Tal Bachman’s bitch or PR wag or something?
As a minor celebrity, Mr. Bachman should thank me for any publicity I bring him. Any publicity is good publicity after all (just ask Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton). For a celebrity, it is by far more preferable to have people say bad things about you than say nothing about you. Besides, if I threw down the gauntlet, then it’s for Mr. Bachman to pick it up. I’m sure that if he wants to, Mr. Bachman is more than able to defend himself without relying on you.
I think you missed the whole point of my rant on Tal Bachman. It was intended as sarcastic commentary and parody. My frustration with Mr. Bachman was the result of initially enjoying his writing and then, after reading a lot of what he said, becoming disillusioned with the overall paucity of anything even remotely resembling a valid or interesting insight into the human condition. The one post linked to on my blog just happened to be the one that made me realize what I had known all along: Mr. Bachman pretends to know more than he actually knows (or he knows more than he actually pretends to know, which is functionally equivalent). A lot of the techniques that I use in my rant are similar to the techniques the Mr. Bachman uses in his writing (from the condescending, holier-than-thou tone, to irrelevant ad hominem attacks), except that mine are more pronounced to enhance the overall comic effect (e.g. the disclaimer). If you missed that, I’m sorry, but jokes are always more funny when they don’t need to be explained.
17 Sep 2007 @ 11:36 | Permalink
Sorry dcp, I too missed any reference to parody in your posting, nor did I find much humour in it.
The post in question reads entirely like a soliloquy of sour grapes on your part.
Maybe that was not the intent, but perception is reality; in this case you just come off looking spurned and bitter.
17 Sep 2007 @ 12:53 | Permalink
“Maybe that was not the intent, but perception is reality; in this case you just come off looking spurned and bitter.”
Which is exactly how Tal Bachman sounds and led me to say the same question Jeff asks above “You’ve got to be kidding me”
17 Sep 2007 @ 13:00 | Permalink
“You’ve got to be kidding me”
And if you really were, then sorry, the humour was completely lost on me.
When you entered the fray you stated that Bachman was “not exactly smart”. When I called you on it, you referred us to a character defamation peice you wrote, attacking him on a personal level.
Again, please forgive me for missing the humour in this. There is probably something wrong with my sense of humour considering how sensitive I am with regard to the disappointment I feel about the church.
I empathized with the honesty and pain in Bachman’s writing and found your attacks petty and intellectually dishonest. You pretend that by admitting your argument is a fallacy that that makes it worthwhile. It does not.
You stated that, “there are post-Mormons with relevant helpful things to say; Mr. Bachman is not one of them.”
I ask again, what exactly you would have Tal say that is relevant, helpful, and not to hubris as a post-mormon. Or am I still missing the point that you’re not in here to add anything relevant, but merely to stir the pot?
P.S. when you refer to me as a bitch and/or PR wag, the humour continues to be lost on me.
17 Sep 2007 @ 23:11 | Permalink
Are we not all Gods Children? What would Jesus say to Tal or dpc for that matter? But if you really want to argue it’s not that amusing to watch the thread.
17 Sep 2007 @ 23:31 | Permalink
Jeff, if you have any more comments regarding this subject, please post them to my blog. If you want to read relevant, well-considered articles by Post-Mormons, I suggest you read equalitytime.blogspot.com and the blogs to which he links.
18 Sep 2007 @ 08:29 | Permalink
I gave the wrong http address. It should be http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/
Sorry for any confusion
18 Sep 2007 @ 08:32 | Permalink
Tal was my Zone Leader for about five months of my mission. We performed in a Christmas pagent together, and he was a fun, creative and caring guy. After the mission, we attended BYU at the same time and he introduced me to his wife one day in the Joseph Smith building. During the release of his first album, I came to see him at Tower Records in BellevueM Washington and he autographed a CD for me and chatted about old times for a while. I knew his kids’ nanny in the Vancouver area, and he performed at a YSA conference I attended in Vancouver. I was profoundly saddened to hear he left the church, and I hope one day he finds his way back.
20 Jan 2008 @ 22:16 | Permalink
i don’t think you all understand the importance of historical evidence or accuracy in what joseph smith claimed. the fact was he claimed that important things were removed from the bible , he claimed he had them, and that he was a prophet. and that all other beliefs were false. the importance of historical data backing up a claim is huge. while the bible has 4,000 years of traceble history. no history teacher will deny.. from the eygptian culture to romans. we know that the lands in the bible are geographicaly sound they existed and still do today. the people are on real history records, thier tombs can be visited even today. now you may not believe jesus was the son of God but he did exist we can prove it through historical evidence. where is this backing up the book of mormon .. the lanquage of the native americans isnt’ semetic like hebrew or egyptian. scientists can trace back jewish DNA for 4,000 years they can tell you if you have even a little bit of jew in you. there has been no jewish DNA ever found in any tribe in the americas none. where are the lands in the book of mormon geographicaly they look like new england but where is the evidence these people walked anywhere there. the maps dont’ line up. the two big battles in the book of morman .. take for instance do you know what kind of impact haveing over two million bodies in one area does. well bones take a lot longer to get rid of as we know by the dinosaurs laying around here. well anyone ever gone to find all those bodies at the hill they say those golden plates were found .. anyone .. not one skeleton ever found. the book of mormon says there were horses sheep , cows, and that these people had steel weapons. guys have you ever talked to an eviromentalist or an anthropologist about the impact that smithing has on the enviroment or the people in the culture. we know that cows. horses , and sheep were brought over by the spanish and other european explorers and settlers. and there is no evidence at all that any type of metal smithing was done by the natives at the time the book or mormon took place. science can be used to prove the bible history can to .. but where is the evidence for the most accurate book where is it. we know that sperm whales can swallow a boat seven to eight feet long and will at times do such. also that when they have problems with thier food they float upbove the water line. the fishing boats of biblical times were about seven to eight feet long .. if you were a whale and swalloed a prophet you think you would have trouble with him.. and might float on the water. just knowing some information about one animal can prove a biblical account ..as for genisus it is a story meant ot try to explain to primitive people how god made the world it isnt’ full of huge details how do you explain to a child like mind millions and millions of years of change in a planet leading to thier creation you might dumb it down a bit might you but look at what the story does offer that primitive people might not know. the sun came first. science proves this. life it says was in the oceans first well what do you know science says that is also true… how about the dinosaurs well the bible says god made the sea’s life then birds .. and that was the end of the 5th day .. well we know that birds are the dinosaurs .. so where is this all going the point is the bible has proof on its side. you want to dismiss that fine but joseph smith said that the bible wasn’t accurate and that he had the most accurate book well where is the proof for this book .. it has none .. none at all .. so when jesus said to test a prophet how can we if you won’t look at the proof .. that is why the accounts are so important. becuase if he was spinning lies wouldnt’ you want to know. and if he was telling the truth why can’t it be proved. you say religion is about faith .. fine that is great faith pleases god but paul believed he was doing good when he killed christians .. he had to get knocked off his donkey to realize that no all faith is founded on God and not all faith is a good thing. ( p.s. i apologize for my sloppy spelling and such i needed to write this fast )
11 Feb 2008 @ 19:04 | Permalink
Oh. My. Goodness.
Drive-by text walled.
…and what does this have to do with Tal, exactly?
12 Feb 2008 @ 09:39 | Permalink
it was just that all the things that drove him to leave were these things, questions that couldnt’ be answered .. and i believe they are valid questions i can’t write those things off and pretend that having faith means ignoring the fact that mormonism might be a lie. i have seriously questioned my beliefs and really went looking for God, it wasnt’ that i ever questioned if there was a God. I knew he existed but did i know him. from reading this i get the feeling most mormons think the rest of the christian world is very currupt like we have our kids and then abandon them. as pointed out by his brother this guy is very strong with his family. i am from a christian household we dont’ drink , smoke , or use bad language. we are very tight knight perfering to spend time with our family and friends. we have home groups and studies we keep very closely connected. we study our bible daily. my husband is mormon i think to a certain extent he was shocked at some of the things i do. he had this impression that other christians were unhappy and lost becuase we didnt’ have the ” true church ” one person pointed out the story about the missionaries that they went back to studying and found all was well. i spend hours studying my bible and i have studied mormon text as well. my husband answers questions the best he can. but to get right down to it the mind blowing lack of evidence the mormon church has is still there. what Tal found was just that. i think he had a huge amounts of courage to come out and voice his reasons for leaving
( again sorry i dont’ get much time i tend just to brain storm type write instead of worry about spelling and such )
12 Feb 2008 @ 10:32 | Permalink
Really? Which journal was the science published that proved Adam and Eve — or even the Garden of Eden — existed? What about a flood that covered the entire earth? How about Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt? How about Moses’s parting the Red Sea? Or that Jesus suffered in Gethsamane or as actually resurrected? Or that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands, and actually brought people back from the dead? Or the literally hundreds of other miraculous claims in the Bible?
Where is the science that proves any of these things actually happened?
12 Feb 2008 @ 11:35 | Permalink
Heather:
i apologize for my sloppy spelling and such i needed to write this fast
Do you only have a few hours left to live or something?
the bible has proof on its side
All the historical issues that you assert prove that Mormonism is not true beset every major world religion, Christianity included. The issues of Mormonism are relatively minor when it comes to the historicity of the Bible (which is the main source of ‘traditional’ Christianity). Perhaps before you rag on Mormonism, you should investigate your own beliefs first. Apart from the Bible, where is the proof that the Joseph was a ruler in Egypt? That David and Solomon ruled an empire? I could go on, but you get the idea. Every religion is based on faith to some degree. Why is your faith better than the faith of a Mormon, Hindu or Jew?
i think he had a huge amounts of courage to come out and voice his reasons for leaving
Yeah, it takes a lot of courage to attack something from which you are disaffected.
12 Feb 2008 @ 11:44 | Permalink
it takes courage to voice any opinion that changes your life. i don’t even know what he believes now i don’t know the guy. i originaly found this by looking up music i like that one song he did.
no science can’t prove everything. there are tons of miricles that we can’t figure out how they were done. but the bible does have history leaning on its side. we have actual historical data proving most of the people existed. and the countries add up. we know that budda existed to ,, you have to remember three major belief structures use the bible and many highschools point to the bible as a hostorical artifact they don’t teach the belief system but the history behind it. i am not attacking mormonism. i am simply pointing the first few comments in this blog about dismissing the importance of historical evidence. i never claimed that i had a more accurate truth. that was joseph smith he claimed that. so he has to prove it. you don’t have to take my words for it. no one does go study everything you can get your hands on study history, science. study it all. dont’ limit yourselves to anything.
as for the parting of the red sea .. there have been studies on the volcanic activity in that region. and at times it will part the sea of reeds. this is sited as being partialy responsiable for the claims of the parting of the red sea. if i made a habbit of attacking mormonism i wouldnt’ have a very good marriage. i am so blessed in my marriage it is amazing. again i state my husband is mormon his family is mormon i love them i would die for those people. i don’t attack them. they dont’ attack me either we exchange ideas all the time. and yes there are still questions about the bible no one can explain .. but for the most part it can back up its historical claims we know the jews were there. we know the area all this is suposed to have taken place we know the romans took census and taxes and recorded a lot of these people being on the earth .. just as i said it is up to someone to beleive wether jesus was the son of god or some guy .. either way we know he did walk the earth. the problem is the book of mormon has no historical proof backing it up .. none what so ever. i just talked to my husband about what was on this blog .. his comment is he is still waiting for the proof as he waits he still beleives in the book of mormon. but he understands why i believe what i believe.
as to not having much time .. i keep having to get up i have two small children and i gotta get my house clean.
12 Feb 2008 @ 12:34 | Permalink
p.s. some of the things i mentioned about explaining miricles were in national geographic about five years ago .. there was the article about abraham the father of the three faiths and then explain miricles .. that is one i can remember i would need to go look back up.
12 Feb 2008 @ 12:49 | Permalink
“many highschools point to the bible as a hostorical artifact”
Oh my goodness, tell me this isn’t so…
heather, I think you’re confusing Tal’s problems with ‘LDS Church History’ with a belief that the Bible is a book of history.
Tal’s problems were very specific to the LDS founders and their actions and, I believe, had very little to do with the Bible at all.
Did you by any chance attend one of these schools that used the Bible as a historical document?
Was it in the South by any chance?
12 Feb 2008 @ 14:10 | Permalink
what would being in the south have anything to do with using a book ..as a historical reference ?
Tal has questions i made the intial comments on teh board becuase of the statment
” Why is it historical accuracy is such a big issue for so many people who left the Church? Why do they put so much weight in the accuracy of events happening exactly as describedmade
I think people get hung up on history and historicity is because the Church really emphasizes it and FARMS swears by it. So some people become disillusioned when the standard version of Church History is discovered to have gaps and a couple of flat-out misrepresentations
these statements i was trying to answer why history can be very important. it isnt’ what you believe but if you claim you have the real deal the “truth” then wouldnt’ you expect to have to back that up. i mean there are so many claims on beliefs if you just want to go off your feelings fine good it dont’ really matter to me. but some people want to make sure thier faith is at least somewhat founded on something real .. not just a chicken running around claiming the sky is falling.
now as for the bible in schools .. it isnt’ a text book but it is a record of history. we also study the vedas and the upanishads. ( spelling ) they are from hindu culture and oh yeah i remember studying the eyptian book of the dead as well. the bible itself is full of journey’s through actual places the desert and africa and the rest of the middle east. one person said did david and soloman run a kingdom .. well the cities are still there to check out .. you can actualy go there. hebrew is still a spoken lanquage. all the places talked about in the new testament are there to .. all those greek cities in question. my brother who served in the military has been to them all he went on his own history trek. there are plenty of historians that will say yes the lands and the people of the bible did infact exists. you guys i think are missing the point. i was trying to explain why history is so important. without that kind of witness nothing we believe in makes any matter faith without a foundation. as for schools do they teach the beliefs that the bible has to offer no .. they teach that it is a hostorical and cultural document that has survived time. again it as best as it can tracks the jewish culture from its very begining.
and the problem is the book of mormon hasn’t got any historical data to back it up at all. no cities , no lanquages , no evidence. so if Tal came and had a problem with things not being accurate or consistant in the stories of the foundations of your church. and then the leaders even admited they didnt’ beleive them. and he couldnt’ find anything in history to back up the claims joseph smith made about the book of mormon. then he might have been faced with one of two choices to keep believing the sky was falling. or Go find a more reliable source of information on God
12 Feb 2008 @ 14:53 | Permalink
Hi
Just found this blog when I was searching for something else, and thought I’d post something since some people seem interested in my story.
I left the religion I’d devoted my life to because I realized, much to my horror and sorrow, that it wasn’t what it claimed to be. That is, I discovered that Joseph Smith hadn’t told the truth about his experiences.
To stay in and “pretend”, like so many others do (as I’ve come to find out in the past few years), just isn’t me. I’d given my whole heart and soul to Mormonism, based every important decision of my life on what I thought was the truth, done my best to raise my (then) seven kids in it, given them all Mormon names like mine (Talmage), everything…and when I found it wasn’t what it claimed, I couldn’t just close my eyes and pretend. To paraphrase what I said on the PBS special – Mormonism might be a million things, even a million good things; but in the end, if it’s not what it claims, then…it’s no more worth living for, as it is dying for.
I appreciate the friends I made while a member, and I presume that for some people at some periods of life, Mormonism, like other religions, can serve an important purpose. If one has to make a choice between, say, Mormonism (or Moonie-ism or Catholicism or whatever) and heroin addiction or a life of crime, I’d vote for the first.
But…I’m not in that desperate situation. I’ve always hated drugs and have no desire to try them. I’m happily married to a wonderful woman and have eight beautiful children…and, in terms of whatever utility Mormonism might have, I don’t see how it would be worth the cost of my precious children being taught, say, to claim publicly that they know something to be true, that they don’t know at all. I want them to be honest and self-respecting, intelligent and genuine.
Anyway, by nature I’m not like the guys who went along with Mormonism because it was their “heritage” or because “they like it”, and so stick with it even once they realize JS didn’t tell the truth. I was the most devout Mormon I could be because I honestly thought it was all it claimed; so once we knew it wasn’t…we did just what we would have done if we’d been Scientologists or Moonies and found out the same thing: we left.
Feel free to email if you’d like. My email is: herrbachmann@gmail.com.
28 Mar 2008 @ 01:08 | Permalink
Thanks for commenting, Tal. Based on what I’ve read about your experience, I did not have any impression of why you left that was different from what you state here.
By the way, I know your Uncle Tim and your cousin Paxton.
28 Mar 2008 @ 04:32 | Permalink
I really appreciated those thoughts, as they sum up many of my thoughts.
I have had people say to me…”Well can’t you just go, and pretend, for your kids sake, and then do what you want when they graduate and move on?” Well, what would I be teaching them if I did that, and what does that say about many of the “fence sitters” in the church that may be doing just that.
I am not a pretender. I have to keep it real. I am open and honest with myself, those around me, and especially my children.
Thanks again Tal.
28 Mar 2008 @ 19:53 | Permalink
I admire honesty in choices rather than pretending and it amazes me that people would want you to be hypocritical. Children aren’t idiots either, and they would know if you were sincere or not. Only myself and one sister out of seven children are active in Church. They are honest with their choices, those who don’t attend anymore and I prefer that to the people who pretend to be active members and their hearts are cold towards the gospel in reality.
30 Mar 2008 @ 17:56 | Permalink
I thought I’d throw my two cents in to this discussion since half of my family already has (Hey Rick and Dar).
As an active member of the church living in Southern Alberta, or as I refer to it “The Mormon Triangle: Where rational and independent thought disappear with out a trace.” I can’t help but shake my head at many of the opinions posted here.
First of all let me state that like Rick, I was born and raised in the south as a non-member (sorry quick tangent – but could we be anymore alienating to others by using the terms member and non-member, how about simple LDS and not LDS). It wasn’t until I travelled far, far, far from here that I was able to separate the people from the doctrine and joined the church. I’ve since been married (in the temple), somehow stayed active, and am doing my best to raise my children to be honest and true individuals.
Enough history – here are my thoughts. Clearly Tal is still a great person, a loving husband, and a kind and caring father. Most important he is honest and true to himself. Now, correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure you will) but isn’t his faith and testimony and issue between our Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Tal. Based on my experiences with all of the hippocracy, self-rightoues, arrogant, holier-than-thou, and “Hey look at me, I’m sooo righteous” individuals that profess to be Latter-day Saints, don’t we have bigger personal issues than trashing others for their personal decisions. Personally, I’m busy trying to make the right choices myself, I haven’t time to critize others.
Personal convictions and personal beleifs are just that – personal. Anyway, if Tal ends up going on a killing spree or spending months in rehab, then I’ll be concerned about him. I’d rather spend time with an honest non-LDS person than with someone who goes to church every Sunday just to keep up apperances and to look righteous.
To paraphrase (and rather loosley at that) Chris Rock – I hate Mormons … but I love Latter-day Saints.
In other words I truly love and appriciate those LDS people who truly are humble and just trying to do their best everyday.
4 Apr 2008 @ 00:21 | Permalink
Sorry about the typos – some how i posted before I had a chance to proof-read.
4 Apr 2008 @ 00:24 | Permalink
Kim wasn’t making a judgment call on Tal or anyone else. f course it is between Tal and the Lord. Our Thoughtss is a forum where posters post their thoughts and opinions for discussion, which is what Kim was doing.
For the record though, I agree with you. Hypocrisy has never sat well with me.
4 Apr 2008 @ 04:20 | Permalink
One would think so. If that were true then, why would Tal bring it up in an interview with a newspaper reporter? While promoting his new album no less.
4 Apr 2008 @ 04:36 | Permalink
Oh and I should add, not all thoughts are necessarily opinions of the writer.
4 Apr 2008 @ 05:41 | Permalink
I enjoyed reading the majority of these posts. A lot of you had some fantastic insight and I thank you for sharing it. I read a letter of Tal’s and was interested to read why he was so bitter and angry towards the church. He got tired of living righteously. He nit picked just about every part of the word of wisdom, the law of chastity and other aspects of the gospel that aren’t always easy to live. I’ve seen people time and time again make excuses as to why they want out of the church or want nothing to do with it. I wish people would come out and say, “I’m lazy and no longer willing to live gospel standards”. My cousin doesn’t go to church or really affiliate with the church in any way. He said he doesn’t because he’s not ready to live a life worhty of it but he hopes that some day he can. Kudos to him for being truly honest.
21 Apr 2008 @ 03:41 | Permalink
“I’m lazy and no longer willing to live gospel standards”
Wow, I think you’ve completely missed his points.
21 Apr 2008 @ 23:21 | Permalink
There’s something I don’t understand about many who decide to leave the LDS Church. On the one hand, ex-mormons like Tal Bachman, often talk about how, now that they’re no longer LDS, they live lives free of guilt and unhappiness. But then, you read their comments on ex-mormon websites, and often it is filled with nothing but hatred, bitterness and abrasive or filthy language.
Sure, I know. People need some kind of mental release after going through such a painful process as leaving their church. That’s a given. But how much of a mental release does one need? Steve Benson, for example, left the LDS Church 15 years ago, and he still continues to post comments online, taking shots at any and all prominent Latter-day Saints. Please tell me, where’s the joy in this? Where’s the happiness in this?
I’ve read many of Tal Bachman’s online comments concerning the LDS Church, and while I don’t know him personally, I can’t help but wonder if he, like many others, has simply become a prisoner of his hatred for the LDS Church.
It isn’t that Bachman simply criticizes LDS teachings or doctrine. Instead, he ruthlessly head slams anything and everything having to do with the LDS Church. Often, his words leave me with the impression that becoming an ex-mormon means becoming a ever more frustrated and bitter individual.
Some people might say that while these people might be negative on the Internet, when you meet them in real life, they’re not so bad. Sad to say, this hasn’t been my experience. In the past, I’ve left several jobs because of ex-mormon co-workers who never wasted an opportunity to mock, belittle or harass their LDS co-workers.
I would be much more open to understanding the criticisms of ex-mormons like Tal Bachman, if such criticisms weren’t laced with such insulting and belittleing rhetoric, and if the attitudes of these ex-mormons didn’t leave me with such a sick taste in my mouth.
People can attack the attitudes of lifestyles of LDS Church members all they want, but the pot calling the kettle black leads nowhere.
13 Jun 2008 @ 01:32 | Permalink
Clark
All I can say is I agree. I see it even in my own family.
13 Jun 2008 @ 04:18 | Permalink
Like Clark I have read quite a lot of Tal Bachman’s writings since he left the church. The “letter” he wrote to this thread is calm and reasonable. The other writings are not. I agree with Clark – if someone is leaving simply because they want to leave there would not be this bitterness and hatred and this – almost compulsion – to denigrate everything that this faith means to so many of us. I do not agree with some other religions at all – but I would never, ever speak of them the way Mr. Bachman speaks of my religion. I’ve known a few people who have left this church, and most of them have left with dignity and respect on both sides and with none of the bitterness that Mr. Bachman flavours his writings with.
13 Jun 2008 @ 09:43 | Permalink
We aren’t all bitter.
13 Jun 2008 @ 10:31 | Permalink
Jeff,
Yes, that’s true. Unfortunately some are, but you will find that anywhere.
13 Jun 2008 @ 10:47 | Permalink
Sorry Jeff – I wasn’t aiming at you (or others I know) but at the people who do leave and then rip the church apart publicly and privately. I left the church for several years in my early thirties and it was my choice, so I understand (perhaps) the feelings. I just don’t understand the compulsion to hurt.
13 Jun 2008 @ 13:09 | Permalink
Do you think this is in some respect an echoing of the treatment they got while being members?
I can’t speak for Tal or any other exmormon, but my thoughts would be there is a direct correlation between the amount of (to their mind) abuse they took while members and the amount of vitriol they exhibit when no longer members.
For some exmormons, I would imagine that life in the church would have been close to unbearable once they’ve decided to leave. Gays, lesbians, members of African lineage and converts being the most obvious examples.
Not to be forgotten would be the firmly entrenched ‘elite’ families of Mormonism. Resigning one’s membership while being a member of one of these families must be excruciating. Tal, I believe, would fall into this group.
15 Jun 2008 @ 15:43 | Permalink
You’re kidding, right Rick? Tal’s dad is a convert. I’d hardly call him in the “elite” or “entrenched” of the church. Based on the anecdotal reports I have heard, he doesn’t go to church much himself.
15 Jun 2008 @ 19:00 | Permalink
…anymore.
15 Jun 2008 @ 20:02 | Permalink
From what I understand he didn’t much to start with. Certainly not enough to be considered elite or entrenched.
15 Jun 2008 @ 20:55 | Permalink
Up until he quit, he was a dedicated member his whole life. That’s pretty entrenched, and plenty of time and energy invested in something that turned out to be not what he thought.
15 Jun 2008 @ 21:04 | Permalink
Are you talking about Tal or his dad?
15 Jun 2008 @ 21:05 | Permalink
I realized that wasn’t clear after I posted. I was talking about Tal.
“entrenched ‘elite’ families” might be hyperbole but he was definitely a strongly convicted member.
Speaking only for myself… leaving the church is not an easy thing to do and once you do it, you feel both a great loss and a great weight lifted from you—the bitterness doesn’t necessarily set in until you realize the mental back flips you’ve been putting yourself through were for nothing.
15 Jun 2008 @ 23:39 | Permalink
I might be willing to concede the point as to Tal’s ‘elite’ness, but it’s certainly applicable yo Steve Benson – who still gets crazy emails from members. That guy’s spite I can completely see validated.
16 Jun 2008 @ 00:58 | Permalink
I was talking about his dad, Jeff.
16 Jun 2008 @ 04:29 | Permalink
Rick said:
“That guy’s spite I can completely see validated.”
So let me get this straight. Steve Benson and Tal Bachman can go on the Internet and write page, after page, after page, of the most disgusting, juvenile, bitter, spiteful and hate-filled comments they can about the LDS Church and its members, and if somewhere down the road, one or two Latter-day Saints respond with “crazy” e-mails, that somehow justifies everything Benson and Bachman have written and will continue to write?
If ex-mormons are so happy and so uplifted, then why do they feel the need to stoop down to the level of the very people they most vocally despise? Often even going lower.
18 Jun 2008 @ 19:40 | Permalink
Until I’ve walked a mile in Steve Benson’s Inbox, I’m unprepared to determine absolutely whether his vitriol is justified.
I think it’s completely understandable that a person who went through what Mr. Benson went through during that particular transition in his life, would be upset. Given his family associations, I can imagine that things gall him that would not bother the average post-mormon.
18 Jun 2008 @ 22:16 | Permalink
Family associations make no difference, I can tell you from experience (knowing people who have a worse response whether they have family with ‘high connections’ or not. It’s the individual rather than the circumstances that indicate the type of response).
19 Jun 2008 @ 04:17 | Permalink
Oh, I’m not saying it was the ‘high connections’ that shaped his response. I think it’s just more likely for someone with a notable member family to have a bad time transitioning out of Mormondom. Whereas there would be less embarrassment, or external pressures on the family to keep their son/daughter attending church from a less notable LDS family.
Sure, the personal makeup of the individual is going to flavour their reactions more than any of what I’d been discussing on a case by case basis; I was attempting to paint with a broad stroke and say i could see why it *may* be more difficult if you had a distinguished lineage in the church or were a member of a high profile family.
19 Jun 2008 @ 08:39 | Permalink
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: A Converts Testimony
To begin, I do not speak for the Church as a whole, but I speak as one member who can strongly testify of the truths thatI have come to know with my whole heart.
I never knew true happiness until I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have been a proud member of the church for almost nine years now. It was once said by President Gordon B. Hinckley that “the church is the great teacher and builder of values. Its precepts are designed to lead men and women along the way of immortality and eternal life, to make their lives more complete, more rich and happy while moving through this vale of tears, and in preparing them for the beauties and wonders of that which lies ahead.”
I have learned much by being a member of the church which has made my life as President Hinckley has said more complete, more rich, and happy which will prepare me for the beauties and wonders of that which lies ahead. However, for now, I would like to focus on what I know to be true.
First and foremost, I know that the Book of Mormon is a true book. How do I know this? I sincerely prayed and asked my loving Heavenly Father, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, He made it known unto me. The feelings of peace, happiness, and joy that overcame me as I read this great book was Heavenly Father’s way of letting me know by the power of the Holy Ghost that not only was the Book of Mormon a true book but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was and is a true church and that the prophet Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. By the power of the Holy Ghost, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ .
Secondly, I know that our living prophet today is President Thomas S. Monson. I know that families can be together forever. I know that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross for the sins of the world . I know that He rose in three days. I know that He restored His one and only true church through the prophet Joseph Smith. I know that after searching for God’s true church, I found it, and no power under heaven can make me let it go.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit has testified of all of these things to me personally as I sincerely asked my Heavenly Father. I shout from the very depths of my soul to the four corners of the world that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the one and only true church on the face of the earth!
Lastly, I hope that you can feel the strength of my unwavering testimony. If anyone would like to know as I do, I challenge you to sincerely ask Heavenly Father. If you are truly sincere with real intent to act upon the knowledge that you will receive, I testify to you that you will get an answer. I say these things in the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
27 Jul 2008 @ 19:05 | Permalink
So what exactly was the point of that drive-by blogimony?
27 Jul 2008 @ 21:41 | Permalink
Fruit from the Ballard tree.
28 Jul 2008 @ 08:01 | Permalink
So, what exactly is the point of a blog if not to allow people to express their views and feelings?
30 Jul 2008 @ 21:39 | Permalink
Ltbugaf,
There’s nothing wrong with people sharing their view and feelings. We just like it if they have something to do with the topic of the post where they commented.
Anglia’s testimony is fine, but in a thread about testimonies perhaps. It’s anachronistic in a thread discussing Tal Bachman’s departure from the church. Unless she was try to win Tal back with her testimony, which she didn’t make clear.
31 Jul 2008 @ 04:43 | Permalink
Actually her comment is a post she made on her own blog. So perhaps it was a way to get people to come to her blog.
31 Jul 2008 @ 06:19 | Permalink
Interesting discussion. I can understand Tal’s faith journey as I have also had questions about my own Anglican faith. I have come to realize lately that I have tried to understand in my own power and not in the power of the Holy Spirit. I have realized that if I let go of my own opinions and embrace God’s revelation that my home and family is blessed and I thank Him every day for that.
12 Aug 2008 @ 19:40 | Permalink
Selwyn
Very profound words and truth. Yes, that has been my experience too. Having faith is not an easy thing, and it sometimes takes a lifetime to come to this understanding.
13 Aug 2008 @ 08:17 | Permalink
When I read in “Rough Stone Rolling” that reliable witnesses confirm that Joseph Smith dictated most of the Book of Mormon while peering at a stone in his hat, I was fascinated and delighted. In no way did it diminish my belief that the Book of Mormon is holy writ or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer, and revelator. It may even have increased my faith. I mean I can’t look at a stone and dictate a 500-page book.
That my primary teacher 45 years ago may have explained the process (of translation) slightly differently is not germane in the least. She was a lady of faith that lived down the street and not some professional historian.
Later, on my mission, I taught that the Book of Mormon was translated by the “gift and power of God.” The hat and stone business merely verifies it.
26 Aug 2008 @ 11:34 | Permalink
I guess if using a rock to translate the Book of Mormon doesn’t bother you, where he got that rock probably wouldn’t bother you either.
26 Aug 2008 @ 12:50 | Permalink
I don’t care if he dictated it standing on his head under a waterfall. However God told him to translate it, he translated it. With a rock, through a curtain, in a hat, whatever. It’s the Word of God. That’s all I care about.
26 Aug 2008 @ 16:29 | Permalink
Me too (re #164)
26 Aug 2008 @ 17:31 | Permalink
“However God told him to translate it, he translated it.”
Is that true? Or did he switch, without God’s instructions, to using his seer stone instead of the Urim and Thummin?
My apologizes for being completely off-topic—but since this is something I want to discuss, should I create a new thread?
26 Aug 2008 @ 21:25 | Permalink
Maybe – for whatever reason – he couldn’t use the Urim and Thummin. From what I understand (and I am no expert on this topic) he used various methods. Whatever worked for him on that day, I’m happy with. So in the end, it’s a moot point for me. Others feel differently. I’ve asked God for myself and He has assured me that this is His Work. I’ll take Him at His Word. He hasn’t let me down yet!
27 Aug 2008 @ 07:32 | Permalink
The first 3 years after Tal’s ‘escape’ were filled with a ton of guile that was flung to the four corners of the earth via any media he could get his hands on. That’s not to say that everything he said was just plain bitterness, but rather that most everything he said concerning the LDS Church were coated with some unappealing flavour.
But I think non-LDS Tal v.2 is more inline with who he was before his whole escapade. He’s way more bearable and much more fascinating to read. His insights are seen clearly rather than through a cloudy layer of extreme opposition.
So I think he deserves some credit for how far he’s come. I’ve certainly noticed the difference in his postings on some message boards).
23 Sep 2008 @ 17:23 | Permalink
The rough road of uncertainty could lay ahead for any one of us. We need to be careful basing our actions on heresay, modern day interpretation of past events, or the emotion-filled explanations of those who hold a grudge. (and I don’t deny that at times people have good reasons to hold those grudges – one of the problems of a Church made up of ordinary people)
Instead we should exercise our own faith and receive our own answers, remembering that we are here to walk by faith and that the existence of uncertainty in any areas of Church History gives us wonderful opportunities to do just that. When we demand that there must be a clear explanation of events we limit the scope for the spirit to influence our lives. Just like each one of us the Church (through the early leaders) too had to go through a period of learning and implementing the will of the Lord – line upon line – and just like in each of our lives errors were made, repentance occurred and the appropriate corrections were made.
4 Oct 2008 @ 06:14 | Permalink
In the late 1980’s I was an investigator of the LDS church and have investigated it in spurts every several years since. Maybe I would have joined if it hadn’t have been for a very nice elderly Southern Baptist woman sharing several books with me. I only remember one title she loaned me and the book title is “The Maze of Mormonism.”
I think the most important thing to do with Tal Bachman and his family is to simply love them, pray for them, and do good works for them. The same as what you would do if they had never left the church… Being a former UMC member, that is what catches my attention with that denomination and the way they’ve been to me since I left in January.
We’ve always heard the saying, “God works in mysterious ways.” Be God’s love to them in many ways.
7 Oct 2008 @ 03:13 | Permalink
I have met a few (and only a few) people who have left the LDS church and it does make me happen that while they had problems with errancy within the book of mormon or in the historical accuracy therein their experiences didn’t cause a lack of faith in Jesus or in the historical accuracy of the Bible.
15 Oct 2009 @ 23:21 | Permalink
And here we have it. As always, religion tells you not to check the facts, and distracts you with psychology in an attempt to make you feel guilty. Religious people are the most nosy and judgmental people you will meet, and they are all trained to automatically respond with how they are “persecuted” by the rest of the world – that’s how they can lie to themselves about what they are doing at every moment, remember, it’s not the other person being persecuted, it’s you, because you are so clearly in the right.
If there is a God that lies as openly and often as any religious person I have encountered, I want nothing to do with Him. Call me a hater all you want, I don’t hate religious people, but I know what I’m seeing. If their pathetic doctrines were the only reason to believe in God, I would be an atheist.
1 Dec 2009 @ 06:16 | Permalink
Huh? How did you get that from what I said in my post?
1 Dec 2009 @ 09:14 | Permalink