I just read your recent newsletter where you make the sensationalistic misrepresentation that the Mormons are saying Brigham only had one wife and polygamy was never sanctioned or practiced by the Church.  I guess you would have your viewers believe that the LDS leaders are akin to the neo-Nazis who want to rewrite the history of WW II and deny the holocaust.  How absurd!  It is misrepresentations of this sort that give your type of anti-Mormon ministry so little credibility among the LDS people and honest and truth seeking Christians.  I invite you to tackle Mormonism on real issues and real differences, rather than figments of wishful thinking such as this.

Sincerely,
Dan Bachman

To Mike Burns
Concerned Christians
Re: Conversations with Mr. Peterson

Mike,

A couple of days ago I was on "Concerned Christians" website and was astounded to see that Jim Robertson was claiming that the LDS church was denying that Brigham Young was a polygamist and that the Church was also denying that it had taught and practiced plural marriage.  I left a note to that effect, then shared that information with some of my friends, one of whom, Dan Peterson, also wrote to Robertson.  For the past couple of days Mr. Peterson has been sharing with me your correspondence with him regarding his message on the same issue I wrote about.

I'm curious why you responded to Mr. Peterson, but not to me?  You accuse him of being demanding and unkind.  I do not believe my message was either of those things--so I'm puzzled why you took up a debate with him and haven't had the courtesy to acknowledge my communication?  Would the fact that he is from BYU and you found him offensive have anything to do with it?

But Mr. Peterson has made two points, neither of which you have addressed directly yet, and which I would like to reiterate for you.

1)  If he is correct in what he is saying, Mr. Robertson and "Concerned Christians" should have the integrity to correct their mistakes and issue a retraction, regardless of how you feel about Mr. Peterson or his messages.

2)  You keep arguing that it is just a difference of opinion between Jim Robertson and Mr. Peterson.  However, Peterson has several times now pointed out that it is a fact that the Church is NOT teaching or rewriting its history to say that Brigham Young was not a polygamist or to deny that the Church taught or practiced plural marriage.  I'm curious why you have not addressed this specific item, but continue to resort to the contention that it is just a difference of opinion?   I think the burden is on you to provide concrete and unambiguous evidence that the Church is engaging in the campaign of which you accuse it.  The opinions of apostates like Valeen Avery and Jim Robertson do not constitute that kind of evidence.  Nor does the manual Robertson and Avery refer to constitute evidence, because there is no statement in that manual where the Church says Brigham had only one wife or that the Church never taught or practiced plural marriage.  Their opinions are based on the silence of the manual regarding these points, as if a doctrinal manual was required to explain the entire history of Brigham Young and include his every teaching on every subject.  This argument from silence does not constitute concrete or unambiguous evidence of the campaign Robertson accuses the LDS Church of.  I invite you and Mr. Robertson to address this single issue directly, without smoke and mirrors about tangential irrelevancies.

Dan Bachman

Dear Dan,

I get emails from people all over the world on a daily basis.  If I took up a conversation with someone else that was meant to be with you, please forgive me.  I can assure you it had nothing to do with anybody's title.  I only replied to the person that wrote me.   For some reason I have received a flurry of emails about this insignificant issue.   Apparently all of you are connected in some manner.  I would recommend that you read the latest response that I gave your friend.  I have many things that I could say in response to this issue in general but will instead refer you to Jim Roberston because he is the person that this is focused around.  I cannot change his mind nor force an apology.  I would very much appreciate it if you re-affix your gun sights on him and not me.  -Grin-  I clearly see that there are two perspectives here and unfortunately I am not in the equation to change either of them.  I spoke to him about writing a statement that you all are so hot around the collar about.  He agreed and I would appreciate it if you would send me a list of all your friends so we can address them all and be done with this.

I think there are far greater problems to take issue with than this one.  I Hope this will satisfy you for now.

Mike Burns

Dear Mike:

> Dear Dan, I get emails from people all over the world on a daily
> basis.  If I took up a conversation with someone else that was
> meant to be with you, please forgive me.   I can assure you it
> had nothing to do with anybody's title.  I only replied to the
> person that wrote me.

Bachman:  He reported to me that he addressed Mr. Robertson through your web page exactly the way I did.  Though your explanation doesn't make sense to me, it is not a big deal with me.

>For some reason I have received a flurry of emails about this
> insignificant issue.   Apparently all of you are connected in
> some manner.  I would recommend that you read the latest
> response that I gave your friend.  I have many things that I
> could say in response to this issue in general but will instead
> refer you to Jim Roberston because he is the person that this
> is focused around.  I cannot change his mind nor force an
> apology.  I would very much appreciate it if you re-affix your
> gun sights on him and not me.  -Grin-

Bachman:  I can understand why you would want to extract yourself from the conversation, inasmuch as it would appear that you don't have a good defense of why Jim Robertson made the charges he did.  However, I would simply mention that it was you who chose to respond to Dan Peterson and take up the defense of your mentor.  Now when the rebuttals are hard to deal with you appear to be forsaking him.

> I clearly see that there are two perspectives here and unfortunately
> I am not in the equation to change either of them.  I spoke to him
> about writing a statement that you all are so hot around the collar
> about.  He agreed and I would appreciate it if you would send me
> a list of all your friends so we can address them all and be done
> with this.

Bachman:  I only know of two people engaged with you at the present time--me and Dan Peterson.  If others have written, I know nothing about it.   Moreover, I don't see why you would need a list from me if you have received e-mail from others, because all you need to do is cc the message to them.

> I think there are far greater problems to take issue with than this
> one.  I Hope this will satisfy you for now.

Bachman:  As I said, you chose to reply and defend Jim Robertson.  I don't share your view that it is unimportant for the following reasons.

1)  It is a factual error found on a site which explicitly targets Mormons or those thinking of becoming Mormons.  Being a Mormon I think I have every right to call the misrepresentation to your attention and ask for a correction, since both the site and issue regards my faith.
2)  The issue is provided as an example in an article that has as its focus the accusation that the Mormon Church is guilty of deception and rewriting its history.   These are common, well-worn old workhorses of the anti-Mormon community.  But they are not insignificant accusations to place on a Church and/or its leadership.   Robertson is accusing the religious leadership of 10 million people of dishonesty, hypocrisy and duplicity--very serious allegations those!  But they are bolstered by a factually incorrect example.  So rather than trivialize its importance, thereby minimizing his misrepresentation, in the interest of the integrity of your organization and its representatiave newsletter, you should labor with Jim to correct the error and then take the Mormons on, on real issues with real evidence.  It is not Mr. Peterson and Dan Bachman who are dealing with unimportant matters.

Dan Bachman

Dan,

I am not defending anyone.  If you read the emails that your friend copied you on, you will find I made statements to the effect that, I am not sure what article you are commenting on, or I have not read this Salt Lake Tribune therefore I can't comment on it other than what you say, or I have been told.  It really is very unfair of you to try to force me to engage in a dialogue which from the beginning I have clearly stated I am not familiar with and am only speculating.  Jim is not my mentor, I am simply his techy web programmer.   I don't understand how you are making these assumptions, and as I stated before Jim will respond to your requests.  So please stop hassling the Web guy.......I am only trying to facilitate you getting your questions answered.  Is that fair enough?   Sit back, relax, and I will send the info you are requesting as soon as I get it!

Thanks,
Mike

In response to yours below:

>Dan,

> I am not defending anyone.  If you read the emails that your friend
> copied you on, you will find I made statements to the effect that, I
> am not sure what article you are commenting on, or I have not
> read this Salt Lake Tribune therefore I can't comment on it other
> than what you say, or I have been told.

DWB:  Choosing not to defend Jim Robertson at this juncture of the discussion is probably one of the wisest things you have done.  I have a copy of the Tribune article if you would like one, so you can be better informed on the issue you have been debating with us.

> It really is very unfair of you to try to force me to engage in a >dialogue which from the beginning I have clearly stated I am not
>familiar with and am only speculating.

DWB:  Pardon, me Mike, but I believe it was your choice to respond to Mr. Peterson in the first place, then to follow that up by responding to me.   I've continued the discussion because I believed you were not facing the issues which were being presented to you head on.  I think it is wise for you to pass it back to Jim.  It will be interesting to see if he hits it head on.  However, I was told today by a friend that I'm too old to hold my breath....

>Jim is not my mentor, I am simply his techy web programmer.

DWB:  And you appear to be a pretty straight up techy at that.  Given Mr. Robertson's track record for misrepresentation and dodging the truth, I think you are wise not to have him as your mentor.  The world doesn't need another "ends justify the means" type of a guy.

> I don't understand how you are making these assumptions, and as I
> stated before Jim will respond to your requests.

DWB:  You responded rather quickly to the two of us when we wrote to you.  You say it wasn't a defense, but from this side it certainly took on the character of one.  But no matter, the point is, if you think about it, you may be able to see why I assumed you were defending him and he was your mentor.  You've cleared that up, for which I'm grateful.  Promise Jim will respond?  I don't think I'm as old as those guys think I am.  Maybe, I will try holding my br.......

> So please stop hassling the Web guy.......I am only trying to >facilitate you getting your questions answered.  Is that fair enough?

DWB:  Hassling the web guy?  You chose to respond and thereby drew yourself into the discussion.  But I will respect your wishes and your wisdom in not defending the indefensible.  On facilitating...though I don't think you made that clear until this message, nonetheless, fair enough.

> Sit back, relax, and I will send the info you are requesting as soon
> as I get it!

DWB: Remember my age now, and that (gasp, gasp), I'm trying to hold my breath....

>Thanks,
>Mike

DWB:  You are welcome.

Sincerely,
Dan Bachman

Dan,

Don't hold your breath.  I told Jim not to bother responding to you in particular.  However, you may visit our web site and read our statement regarding your concerns.  You may also be lucky enough to have one of your friends that are less sarcastic and abusive share our response with you.

Best wishes to you,
Mike Burns

Mike, my response to your latest...

>Dan,

> Don't hold your breath.  I told Jim not to bother responding to you
> in particular.

DWB:  I've been told lately by several people who have had direct contact with Jim, that that is his MO--when faced with the facts, he runs.  I'm only sorry that he has found it convenient on his web site to have his techy lacky running interference for him.  But I can see why you wouldn't want him to talk with me.  What you call sarcasm and abuse can also be seen as direct, hard hitting facts -- something which you have been unwilling to deal with so far.  Apparently you think he isn't capable of dealing with it either, else why shield him under the guise of protecting him from sacrasm and abuse?  If you folks are going to attack people's faith you are naive not to expect a battle.

> However, you may visit our web site and read our statement
> regarding your concerns.

DWB:  I checked it out a few minutes ago and I could find nothing relating to the issues at hand.

> You may also be lucky enough to have one of your friends that are
> less sarcastic and abusive share our response with you.

DWB:  You are the web master for an organization, and apparent point man for its operator, which has intentionally misrepresented ("lied about" is the less politically correct term) my faith, castigated and impugned the integrity of my religious leaders, and then have the gall to whine about sarcasm and abuse, or me hassling you.  Astounding!

Dan Bachman

Mike,

Please forgive this one last intrusion on your time and patience, but I wanted to clarify one point in our discussion.  Yesterday I spoke of you defending Jim Robertson.  You took issue at that and wrote at 3:10 p.m. the following:

"I am not defending anyone.  If you read the emails that your friend copied you on, you will find I made statements to the effect that, I am not sure what article you are commenting on....."

Well, I'm compiling our correspondence for a friend's web site who will be posting all of our letters so the public will be able to judge for themselves the integrity of "Concerned Christians", so I did exactly as you suggested and I read them all over again.  I was interested in the following passage which you wrote to Dan Peterson on 6 January at 10:58 a.m.

"I read your reply and must restate that I am wasting my time and yours defending a man that does not need defending.

I'll let you know when and where the correspondence is posted.  If Jim would like to get his answer to our questions included, my friend has a policy to include all letters unedited and let them speak for themselves.  I encourage you to encourage him to do the right thing and publicly retract the falsehood he is pandering, so as to retain some semblance of credibility for his readers.

Dan Bachman

Dear Mr. Robertson

On Monday of this week I visited your web site and read your most recent newsletter.  I found some misrepresentations of the LDS Church which I called to your attention in a message left at your web page.  Subsequently your web master, Mike Burns, engaged me and Dan Peterson in debate about the matter.  Unfortunately Mike took offence at the way I said some things and has discontinued receiving my communications.  Please convey my regrets to him.  In any case it was his contention that we should be talking with you anyway since you are the one responsible for the following paragraph which he was trying to defend.

"My last item for this section deals with a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune.  Many Mormons are critical of the LDS leaders for the way they are rewriting LDS church history (again!)  This time in the new Priesthood/Relief Society Manual.  In this combined manual they are attempting to further their deception by saying that Brigham Young only had one wife and that polygamy was never officially sanctioned nor practiced by the LDS church.  This has the long time Mormons up in arms.  It is completely amazing to me that the LDS church leaders continue in their deception and their claim to be Christians."

I have the manual of which you speak in front of me and it does not say that Brigham Young only had one wife, nor does it say that polygamy was never officially sanctioned nor practiced by the Church.  You have greatly misrepresented the Church and its leaders with these allegations.  And I might add, you have gravely offended some of us who are LDS in so doing.  Since you have made these charges and I have the proof in front of me that it is false, I call on you to publicly retract them and issue an apology.  As proof of what I say, and as evidence of my sincerity, I would be glad to send you a copy of the manual.  Just provide me with your snail mail address and I well send it out immediately.

The burden of proof that the manual says what you claim is on you.  The integrity and credibility of "Concerned Christians" is at stake.  Therefore, it is fair to add that in my last message to Mike, which I don’t think he received, I told him that his correspondence with me and Dan Peterson is being prepared to be placed on a web site in an unedited fashion for all to see.  I encouraged him to encourage you to make an immediate retraction to be added to that collection.  Again, I invite your speedy correction of these false allegations.  I will be happy to see it is included with the correspondence being placed on the web site.

Sincerely,
Dan Bachman