Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In other words, C.I. seems to live for any opportunity he can find to smear Church critics.

Hilarious. There is no emoticon capable of representing how ironic that statement is.

There is, however, a nice little cartoon.

[_rcrocket]

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

I see. Your ethics. I deal in ethics all the time and I don't agree with your assessment.

You are not one to be spouting off on ethics -- using anonymity to hurt the professional standings of persons such as Dr. Peterson and, to a much lesser degree, myself.

[_skippy the dead]

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.)

It was my assumption; I made a leap of logic since Wyatt is reporting on the original post and the responding letter. Unless I knew Keyes personally, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble, unless I was intent on making a point. But to each his own, I suppose. I also thought it odd when DCP felt the need to report on GoodK's supposed activities to GoodK's family, although he was woefully incorrect.

I'm conflicted on the responding letter itself. If Keyes was providing ecclesiastical counseling to Tal, should he report on that publicly? I could accept him saying "Tal's recollection is incorrect." But I'm still thinking about the reporting of the substance of the discussion. Haven't made up my mind yet.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You're no doubt right. However, what's striking is the rather low extremes they were willing to go in an effort to score a point.

I don't think it is striking to very many people in general.

[_rcrocket]

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.

I'm sure you would. Strip off that thin veneer of urbanity you have and off you go.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Also:

This appears to be just another example of reading this board and being too "yellow" to confront directly.

Dear Bond,

Yes, it is always so civil when debating with Tal Bachman.

Signed,

Idiot, stupid, brainwashed, space cadet, etc.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm afraid I don't share you opinion on this matter. I believe the SP has every right to defend himself against defamation. The SP hasn't revealed anything that Tal hasn't already revealed, thus, I don't see how he broke any code of ethics regarding confidentiality.

Where I come from we call this the "voice of reason." Bravo.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

I don't see this as unethical at all. Tal spoke openly about the conversation and specifically used the name of his Stake President. In doing so opened the door for the SP to respond in public also.

I'm curious to see where this goes. I recall briefly reading Tal's comments before, and I quickly scanned the response from the SP. They both seem to recall common elements of the conversation each with a unique understanding on what was said or what was intended. It should be interesting to see where this goes.


Phaedrus

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

What is odd is how little preoccupied I am (and many of the people I know are) with how "righteous and loyal they look to other Mormons." I don't deny there are people in the Church that are that way, however.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

This isn't from MAD. It is from Alan Wyatt's blog.