Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

That's right. Tal paints the Stake President as a massive hypocrite -- going through the motions as a leader in a religion in which he does not believe. You just can't see any motivation by the stake president to defend himself against such charges to people who know him and trust him?

You know, Bob, this is interesting. I never took Keyes for a massive hypocrite. I took him as someone who, like Tal, struggled with certain things. Obviously, they went in quite different directions, and this is what struck me as true about it. Not that Keyes was a hypocrite, but that he dealt with these challenges in a different way. I do think that he (Keyes) is bending the truth now, but I am not sure he is even aware of that.

[_Scottie]

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....

Honestly, I don't know what Tal's comments were. I would be interested in reading them.

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.

Oh come now, Scratch. and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly means exactly that! If you misunderstand a view, and you post your misunderstanding, then you have not reported it correctly. There is no hint of him calling Tal a liar.

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.

True, the MADites are having a field day with this. Which, in turn, the critics here are having a field day with the MADites. When will the insanity end??

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.

If the letter were as scathing as you seem to be portraying it as, I would agree. In my opinion, it is very well written and simply refutes what Tal has said without any character assassination on his part.

[_Trevor]

My opinion about the circumstances is above, not in my post to you. Congrats. You can hold you cool sometimes.

Hey, Bob, I can't find the part where you shared your opinion about how these letters got posted on Wyatt's blog. Were you talking about something else?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Professor P. is a Professor of Middle Eastern studies. If you can find a single post of mine that is critical of his work as a professor of Middle Eastern studies, then I will permanently resign from the messageboards. Or, if he's willing to admit that he earns his livelihood doing Mopologetics, then I'll resign in that case as well.

If not, then I see nothing wrong in offering up commentary and criticism concerning his "hobby" of LDS apologetics.

[_Nightingale]

I don't understand why this SP had to post this letter on a blog. Why not just email Tal?

Why didn't you send your little diatribe above to the stake president directly, rather than post here publicly?

Diatribe?????? LOL

I thought my remarks were fair to both Tal and his SP, whom I do not know. I usually aim to find the moderate ground. Sorry you don't see it that way. Perhaps you're putting your own [mis]perceptions into your interpretation of what you read?

As for why I wrote a post here rather than a message to the SP, well, let's see:

1. Because I wasn't in a confidential discussion with a person who was seeking me out as a religious authority?

2. Because the SP doesn't know me from Eve and I don't know him from Adam so it would be fairly bizarre to contact him, especially on this matter in which I have no personal stake?

3. Because this is a message board and I, as an uninvolved party to the meeting between Tal and his SP, am on the outside looking in and participating in a discussion about it just like, let's see, YOU, for instance?

[_mbeesley]

It seems very strange that a profession therapist and ecclesiastical authority would post such a letter concerning the content of private interviews. It just shows that preserving the religion at all costs overrides profession and clerical codes of behavior.

The letter from his wife is way over the line and completely irrelevant.


that being said, I am also curious how Tal will respond.

President Keyes is seemingly being accused of violation a privilege on two fronts - the priest/penitent privilege and the doctor/patient privilege. Before accusing President Keyes of being unethical, you should perhaps review the legal rules that pertain to these privileges.

To start with, the privileges belong to the penitent/patient, in this case Bachman. In normal circumstances, he would be entitled to have the contents of his conversations with President Keyes remain confidential to the extent President Keyes was acting as his ecclesiastical leader or his therapist/doctor. Contents of conversations outside the parameters of these relationships would not enjoy the same presumption of privileges.

Next, while the privilege belongs to Bachman, it can be waived. Where Bachman has voluntarily disclosed in a public forum the contents of any privileged communication, he has waived the right to assert a privilege for any part of that communication.

It is disingenuous to suggest that President Keyes' response to Bachman should have been communicated via a private letter, phone call, or PM on a message board, as some have suggested in this thread. Bachman's disclosures were made very publicly, and President Keyes had every right to post his response in an equally public manner.

[_karl61]

It seems very strange that a profession therapist and ecclesiastical authority would post such a letter concerning the content of private interviews. It just shows that preserving the religion at all costs overrides profession and clerical codes of behavior.

The letter from his wife is way over the line and completely irrelevant.


that being said, I am also curious how Tal will respond.

President Keyes is seemingly being accused of violation a privilege on two fronts - the priest/penitent privilege and the doctor/patient privilege. Before accusing President Keyes of being unethical, you should perhaps review the legal rules that pertain to these privileges.

To start with, the privileges belong to the penitent/patient, in this case Bachman. In normal circumstances, he would be entitled to have the contents of his conversations with President Keyes remain confidential to the extent President Keyes was acting as his ecclesiastical leader or his therapist/doctor. Contents of conversations outside the parameters of these relationships would not enjoy the same presumption of privileges.

Next, while the privilege belongs to Bachman, it can be waived. Where Bachman has voluntarily disclosed in a public forum the contents of any privileged communication, he has waived the right to assert a privilege for any part of that communication.

It is disingenuous to suggest that President Keyes' response to Bachman should have been communicated via a private letter, phone call, or PM on a message board, as some have suggested in this thread. Bachman's disclosures were made very publicly, and President Keyes had every right to post his response in an equally public manner.

Welcome to the Board; looking forward to seeing more of your posts.

[_rcrocket]

That's right. Tal paints the Stake President as a massive hypocrite -- going through the motions as a leader in a religion in which he does not believe. You just can't see any motivation by the stake president to defend himself against such charges to people who know him and trust him?

You know, Bob, this is interesting. I never took Keyes for a massive hypocrite. I took him as someone who, like Tal, struggled with certain things. Obviously, they went in quite different directions, and this is what struck me as true about it. Not that Keyes was a hypocrite, but that he dealt with these challenges in a different way. I do think that he (Keyes) is bending the truth now, but I am not sure he is even aware of that.

OK. Here you are anonymous. And you are now calling Keyes, a known person with a reputation in the community, a liar. You see nothing

wrong

with that?

What is the basis for your conclusion? All you have is Tal's story and the SP's? I don't see it; either way.

[Guest]

OK. Here you are anonymous. And you are now calling Keyes, a known person with a reputation in the community, a liar. You see nothing

wrong

with that?

What is the basis for your conclusion? All you have is Tal's story and the SP's? I don't see it; either way.

You have a real talent for making a calm post look like an unjust smear. First you say that I see Keyes as a massive hypocrite. Nice projecting (I am guessing you would see him as such, if Tal's account is true), and I state quite clearly why I don't see him in this light. Having failed at that mischaracterization of my position, you accuse me of calling him a liar. Wrong again. I called him a human being, i.e. someone who likes to reimagine the past in ways that are more favorable and flattering of him. We all do it. And you often manage to do it in the space of 5 minutes or less, like on these MDB threads.

And by the way, I am using my real first name.

[_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.

Professor P. is a Professor of Middle Eastern studies. If you can find a single post of mine that is critical of his work as a professor of Middle Eastern studies, then I will permanently resign from the messageboards. Or, if he's willing to admit that he earns his livelihood doing Mopologetics, then I'll resign in that case as well.

If not, then I see nothing wrong in offering up commentary and criticism concerning his "hobby" of LDS apologetics.

"Nothing wrong" in your case means amoralism, if there is such a word. Unmask your cowardly anonymity and resign.