Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:07 am

Which experiences? It seems pretty clear---whether you are a TBM or not---that Joseph Smith did sometimes lie about his "experiences." The above quote does not specify whether the "experiences" in question have anything to do with Joseph Smith's prophethood. If fact, within the context of Tal's posts, I believe this is referring primarily to Joseph Smith's polygamous relationships.

Bachman wrote:

Literally days after Pres. Keyes admitted to me that he knew that Joseph Smith had invented his stories (if you can believe it, he also admitted that Joseph Smith had "deliberately taken advantage" of girls in his polygamous adventures), he came over to the Salt Spring Island branch to release me from being the second counselor and Gospel Doctrine teacher as per my request.

Tal explicitly separates Joseph's "experiences" from his claims regarding Polygamy, a practice which began long after the First Vision and other related "experiences".

What the heck is the "Fist Vision"? Whatever it is, I don't think I like the sound of it. Anyways, I think one can doubt certain facets concerning Joseph Smith and yet still remain a TR-carrying member of the Church.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit, a darkside."

The darkside is always there, waiting for us to enter, waiting to enter us. Until next time...try to enjoy the daylight!"

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:09 am

Mister Scratch wrote:
Gee... You're not upset, are you MG? By the way: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Tal's postings constituted a "besmirch" on Pres. Keyes's character. Waiting, oh waiting, for you to offer up an explanation.

Scratchism: Since he doesn't really know Church history, or the scriptures, or even the inner-workings of how an academic journal works, he's limited to finding a hair to split on sheer rhetoric alone. And then demanding that his correspondent follow the split hair.

Tell you what, Scratch: Propose ten different 19th Century topics concerning Church history. I'll pick one you propose. We'll go mano-a-mano rapid fire on this board over a period of 30 minutes, and see how rhetoric falls when there is no substance.

Post by **_Trevor** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:10 am

Coggins7 wrote:I have no lack of imagination.

I stand corrected. You clearly demonstrate how wild an imagination you do have in what follows:

Coggins7 wrote:What you seem to lack here, however, is simply critical thinking skills such that you, as Scratch, cannot follow a premise to its conspicuous logical, interential conclusion.

Either that, or the disingenuity on this board has reached crisis proportions. You exmos have two primary agendas: either destroy the Church outright, or turn it into a liberal Protestant social gospel country club. Both are doomed to oblivion, but the second requires torturous intellectual gymnastics that would be better avoided for the more well grounded position that, if Joseph lied about his experiences, the Church evaporates.

After all, anyone who thinks that a belief demonstrated false will lead to a complete abandonment of it by its adherents must have a fantastic imagination indeed! Also, anyone who imagines I have the agenda here attributed to me is clearly of fecund mental creativity. Too bad it is wasted here when you could be writing Jack Chick tracts.

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:10 am

mentalgymnast wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Yes. If his good name and the good name of his wife are being besmirched, Pres. Keyes as a moral right to stand up and be counted on to tell the truth. And especially if being dragged through the mud without cause also indirectly drags the church through the same mud hole.

Why do you consider this to be a foolish thing for me to say? Are you a moral authority on this subject?

Regards,
MG

Okay, okay---back up here. In what ways was Keyes "besmirched"? In what ways (for heaven's sake) was his wife besmirched? Further, how---in any was shape or form--does this "indirectly" affect the LDS Church?

Look up besmirched in Wikipedia and see if you can make the connection. Hint: when you plug in besmirch another word will come up.

Dirt+water=mud

You are not answering my question, my dear friend. Here is is again:

What, amongst the things Tal said, "besmirches", "dirties," or "muddies" Pres. Keyes's reputation?

Do you have an answer or not? Because if you don't, then all of this has just been a kangaroo court summoned up by Allen Wyatt & et. al. in order to attack and "besmirch" Tal.

Dear friend? I don't even know you.

If President Keyes is a TBM at his very core and yet he is being portrayed as a closet doubter, can you not see how this would muddy his reputation to those that he serves if the word got out? And in turn, can you not see how this would reflect poorly on the church to have a SP who is a non-believer acting in a hypocritical manner in a high profile calling?

Oh, the word did get out...didn't it?

But is the word TRUE?

To me, it's a no brainer why Pres. Keyes went public.

Truth will prevail.

Regards,
MG

I'll have to leave it to others as to whether or not I've adequately answered this in simplest form. A man's honor is a man's honor. When his honor has been questioned, his good name has been besmirched.

Regards,
MG

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:12 am

If I were to try to determine what is most likely to be the closest to the truth, I'd look at motivations. Tal wins in this case, the S.P loses. Tal is much less motived to make up that story of the S.P than the S.P is to deny it, especially if the S.P was tracked down for his statement by someone in the church. What choice does he have, when he's confronted and asked to respond. He could not comment but then he likely would have his wife wondering why and to the people tracking him down for comment it wouldn't look good. He also may have been caught off-guard. It serves no benefit to the S.P. admit any of Tal's take as true. So he's highly motivated to deny whereas Tal has little reason to make it all up. But this issue, is important to Mormons, it's important to the S.P for reasons of wanting to be at peace with the community he's a member of. One could predict it would happen, that the S.P would issue a public denial. How could Tal not expect him to eventually say something publically and deny.

In any event truth doesn't always work out to be what it may seem and one can only conjecture without any hard evidence.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:12 am

mentalgymnast wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I think it probably has to do with the fact that I see gray areas as gray, rather than strictly black and white.

Mark this ladies and gentlemen. Does this statement match Scratch's track record?

Just asking.

Regards,
MG

My answer? Absolutely, positively, no.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:12 am

Trevor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Gee... You're not upset, are you MG? By the way: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Tal's postings constituted a "besmirch" on Pres. Keyes's character. Waiting, oh waiting, for you to offer up an explanation.

Well, if you imagine that it is a smear to be identified as having doubts about the ludicrous stories and deplorable behavior of Joseph Smith, it must be a smear of the worst kind!

Look at the title of this thread. The topic is Scratch's efforts to smear Pres. Keyes.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:12 am

Mister Scratch wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I think it probably has to do with the fact that I see gray areas as gray, rather than strictly black and white.

Mark this ladies and gentlemen. Does this statement match Scratch's track record?

Just asking.

Regards,
MG

Gee... You're not upset, are you MG? By the way: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Tal's postings constituted a "besmirch" on Pres. Keyes's character. Waiting, oh waiting, for you to offer up an explanation.

Classic Ms. Scratch right here. When backed into a corner accuse the other of becoming "upset."

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:14 am

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I think it probably has to do with the fact that I see gray areas as gray, rather than strictly black and white.

Mark this ladies and gentlemen. Does this statement match Scratch's track record?

Just asking.

Regards,
MG

Gee... You're not upset, are you MG? By the way: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Tal's postings constituted a "besmirch" on Pres. Keyes's character. Waiting, oh waiting, for you to offer up an explanation.

Classic Ms. Scratch right here. When backed into a corner accuse the other of becoming "upset."

That is true, but he did push your button in a major way the other day. Never let them see you sweat.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Fri May 02, 2008 3:15 am

Trevor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Gee... You're not upset, are you MG? By the way: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Tal's postings constituted a "besmirch" on Pres. Keyes's character. Waiting, oh waiting, for you to offer up an explanation.

Well, if you imagine that it is a smear to be identified as having doubts about the ludicrous stories and deplorable behavior of Joseph Smith, it must be a smear of the worst kind!

Come on, Trevor. Ms. Scratch is clearly, clearly, CLEARLY straining at a gnat here.