Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

In that case it's probably a futile act meant to make them feel better than to humiliate Tal. I'm betting that Tal isn't going to knuckle under or change his views being an exmormon outside the Mormon chain of command..

I agree with this completely. This is about an SP and his wife looking bad to LDS authorities and their fellow Mormons. Since I have quit attending the LDS Church, and I have seen the effect this has had on people I know well, and it has struck me how preoccupied LDS people are with how righteous and loyal they look to other Mormons. There is real fear that they be construed as not fully on the right side of every issue, action, and attitude. I see the same concern written all over these two letters.

[_rcrocket]

I think you'll notice that the sort of concessional elements which I've bolded are wholly absent from the Keyeses' letters. This lends further creedence to the theory that the postings were intended to discredit and smear.

The word is "credence."

Although the Keyes' letters are way over the top (a simple denial would have sufficed, and I think that he would have been counseled by higher-ups to do nothing or little), at least from a legal perspective, the concept of confidentiality is waived when one side goes public with the conversation. That is particularly so when the other side has good reason to defend his reputation. Here, Pres. Keyes was portrayed as disparaging his faith; there would have been no breach of a confidentiality obligation under the law for Keyes to have come forward. Moreover, he wasn't receiving the conversation as a professional, but as a cleric. U.S. law, anyway.

As far as your observation is concerned about people closely inspecting this Board, my rejoinder is that you have an obsession with the MAD board that far transcends such a trivial assessment. At least on the MAD board they aren't continually treated to the goings-on over here. Really now, your conduct amounts to stalking. So much of what you say about Dr. Peterson is actionable as libel and is calculated to hurt him as a professional. All anonymously, I might add.

Dr. Peterson is not the Church you so fervently despise. He is just a man. In the vernacular: "Get a life, man."

[_Mister Scratch]

The conversation in and of itself ought to have been seen as confidential, no? What seems objectionable, in my opinion, is that Pres. Keyes is selecting items which are presumably meant to paint Tal in a negative light, e.g.:

I'm afraid I don't share you opinion on this matter. I believe the SP has every right to defend himself against defamation.

What do you feel was "defamatory" about Tal's comments? I doubt very much that anything Tal said would have much of an impact on his livelihood. The fact that he is sharing confidential material, on the other hand....

I felt that when I spoke of my spiritual confirmations your response was, “Yeah, but what about…” This was a dismissing of my views, and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly.

Here, he is portraying Tal as a rude interrupter who blithely treads over others' points, and, who lies about them to boot.

Well, is it an unfair portrayal?

The feeling I get is that the SP believes Tal misunderstood his points, not that Tal is lying about them.

But, Scottie: you are overlooking the portion of the letter that says, "nor have you reported them correctly." How can that be interpreted as anything other than, "You are a spin-meister. You are a liar." Certainly, the folks on MAD (including DCP and juliann) have interpreted it to mean precisely that.

Regarding your comments about my thoughts of being personally comfortable as a member of the Church, but it not necessarily being for everyone, I meant that not all people are ready for it. Not all people are ready for the commitment, rules and obligations that accompany Church membership.

Here, Tal is being portrayed as the stereotypical apostate who was "too weak" to meet the demands of Mormonism.

This statement wasn't even about Tal, as I read it.

Given the context, I'm not sure how/why it ought to be read any differently.

This, Tal, is my position and reality. I trust that you will now afford me the courtesy that I afforded you—to be understood.

This seems the very height of disingenuousness. Obviously, "to be understood" is now completely impossible since Keyes has essentially fingered Tal as a liar and a misrepresenter of the truth.

That's not how I interpret this statement. The SP is pleading with Tal to stop misrepresenting him on the message boards. I see it as the SP giving Tal the benefit of the doubt. Rather than calling Tal a liar, he is stating that Tal has misunderstood him.

I see what you're saying, Scottie, and I think you have a point to a certain extent. However, we have to remember that this letter wasn't sent to Tal privately. It was published, as an "open letter," on the very apologetic FAIR blog, of all places. Keyes could have contacted Tal via a letter; he could have registered at this site and sent Tal a PM; he could have made a phone call. There were any number of other avenues he could have pursued. Instead, he decided to "talk turkey" with Allen Wyatt and post the letter in a place were it would most certainly be interpreted as an assault on Tal's character and integrity. *You* may be charitable enough to interpret the letter and being about mere "misunderstanding," but many MADites are not, and, given the venue in which the letter appeared, I question whether Pres. Keyes would share your view. Of course, it's possible that he was being taken advantage of by Allen Wyatt. That's a possibility, too.

I have to wonder: Did Pres. Keyes make an effort to first personally contact Tal? I mean, doesn't that seem like a far more reasonable tactic for a professional therapist to pursue? Why dive right into this Allen Wyatt-operated mud-slinging operation? Do they not know anything of Wyatt's history?

I don't know. Perhaps this wasn't the best way to approach it, but I don't know that it crosses the line into unethical.

I agree that the fact that Tal made mention of it in public puts something of a damper on the Stake Pres.'s behavior. However, as a professional therapist and Church leader, he should have known better. He should have known better than to give the letter to Allen Wyatt, too.

[_Trevor]

I may not agree with Scratch on the breach of confidentiality, but I am glad he let us know about this. I know I wouldn't waste my time on MAD, but it is nice to read some of the interesting goings on every now and then, and this certainly qualifies as interesting.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Having just read what Keyes had to say I am failing to see any combative spirit or ridicule or harassment by Keyes.

It seems clear that both Keyes and his wife (and Allen Wyatt, for that matter; and, while we're at it, the dogpile at MAD) are all very anxious to "stick it" to Tal, and to accuse him of being dishonest.

Actually, I think Keyes just wanted to set the record straight from his perspective, and I don't blame him. He even gave explanations as to why Tal may have misunderstood him, rather than saying "you're a liar, you liar!"

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Having just read what Keyes had to say I am failing to see any combative spirit or ridicule or harassment by Keyes.

It seems clear that both Keyes and his wife (and Allen Wyatt, for that matter; and, while we're at it, the dogpile at MAD) are all very anxious to "stick it" to Tal, and to accuse him of being dishonest.

While on the one hand I could see how someone might be interested in what is said about him, it's pretty odd for Wyatt to track down the man and point the post out to him to get the response.

First, do we know it was Wyatt who did so? Second, if he did, why is that odd? If that is how things went down he saw Keyes being misrepresented, informed him, and gave him the chance to clarify (in a very classy letter, by the way.)

[_Mister Scratch]

I think you'll notice that the sort of concessional elements which I've bolded are wholly absent from the Keyeses' letters. This lends further creedence to the theory that the postings were intended to discredit and smear.

The word is "credence."

Although the Keyes' letters are way over the top (a simple denial would have sufficed, and I think that he would have been counseled by higher-ups to do nothing or little), at least from a legal perspective, the concept of confidentiality is waived when one side goes public with the conversation. That is particularly so when the other side has good reason to defend his reputation. Here, Pres. Keyes was portrayed as disparaging his faith; there would have been no breach of a confidentiality obligation under the law for Keyes to have come forward. Moreover, he wasn't receiving the conversation as a professional, but as a cleric. U.S. law, anyway.

Keyes is not a lawyer (as far as I know). The question is one of ethics, not of legality.

As far as your observation is concerned about people closely inspecting this Board, my rejoinder is that you have an obsession with the MAD board that far transcends such a trivial assessment. At least on the MAD board they aren't continually treated to the goings-on over here.

Actually, they often are. By someone who "stalks" not one but six different boards.

Really now, your conduct amounts to stalking. So much of what you say about him is actionable as libel and is calculated to hurt him as a professional. All anonymously, I might add.

Are you referring to Keyes? If so, I would counter that my remarks have been aimed at a letter he himself allowed to be posted on a public messageboard.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't necessarily see anything confidential in that letter. What are you guys seeing that you feel is a breach of trust?

The conversation in and of itself ought to have been seen as confidential, no?

Apparently not to Tal, as he brought it up initially.

[_Trevor]

First, do we know it was Wyatt who did so? Second, if he did, why is that odd? If that is how things went down he saw Keyes being misrepresented, informed him, and gave him the chance to clarify (in a very classy letter, by the way.)

I would like to know the details of how this came about too.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

meh. I don't see the big deal. there's always 2 views to how a conversation went. We now know how tal thought it went, and how this other dude thought it went. there's probably some truth, and some embellishments, to both their statements.

I think "meh" is the appropriate reaction. Perfectly appropriate. What is humorous is the deluded crowing over on MAD.

Yes...the only deluded ones are at MAD. Let us wave our MormonDiscussions banner and laugh at their delusions. [*enormous eye roll*]