LifeOnaPlate wrote:I think if Tal made comments about his Stake President with which the Stake President disagrees, said Stake President has every right to add his comments.
I actually have to agree with LOP here. Tal did name this stake president specifically. I think he had a duty to respond.
I'm just now dropping in on this thread late in the game. Didn't even know what was going on here until John Larsen bumped up my original thread that apparently played a part in initiating this hullabaloo.
I have to agree with GoodK. The SP has a moral responsibility to set the record straight. The fact that some of you guys are lambasting him for doing so says ALOT. Well, back to reading this interesting exchange...
Trevor wrote: 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.
I repeat. What is the basis for your assertion that the good SP Keyes is a liar? Just any basis; come on, you said he was bending the truth. I want you to justify your claim.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:I think if Tal made comments about his Stake President with which the Stake President disagrees, said Stake President has every right to add his comments.
I actually have to agree with LOP here. Tal did name this stake president specifically. I think he had a duty to respond.
I'm just now dropping in on this thread late in the game. Didn't even know what was going on here until John Larsen bumped up my original thread that apparently played a part in initiating this hullabaloo.
I have to agree with GoodK. The SP has a moral responsibility to set the record straight. The fact that some of you guys are lambasting him for doing so says ALOT. Well, back to reading this interesting exchange...
Regards, MG
Now, this is an even more foolish post. "Moral responsibility," now?
rcrocket wrote:I repeat. What is the basis for your assertion that the good SP Keyes is a liar? Just any basis; come on, you said he was bending the truth. I want you to justify your claim.
Good? What is your basis for calling him good? And liar is your word, not mine. I do not equate bending the truth about something in ways that are understandable with being a liar. If you do, then you have no sense of degree.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
John Larsen wrote: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.
And, this is also incorrect. There is no obligation of confidentiality between Stake President Keyes and Tal Bachman unless there is a priest/penitent confession. Stuff outside that umbrella is not confidential, particularly where one comes to resign from the Church and state his reasons. Whereas my post above talked about waiver just to keep things simple, there is really no such concept here. I think as a matter of judgment and discretion, the SP should not have been sucked into the tumult and should have kept things to himself. But, I'm not him and he's probably taking lots of heat.
rcrocket wrote:I repeat. What is the basis for your assertion that the good SP Keyes is a liar? Just any basis; come on, you said he was bending the truth. I want you to justify your claim.
Good? What is your basis for calling him good? And liar is your word, not mine. I do not equate bending the truth about something in ways that are understandable with being a liar. If you do, then you have no sense of degree.
I repeat. What is the basis for your belief that he was bending the truth. You said it. I see that as calling out a known person, with a name and a family, a liar. What is your basis?
"Good" is just an expression. OK. What is the basis for your calling the bad Pres. Keyes a liar.
rcrocket wrote:I repeat. What is the basis for your belief that he was bending the truth. You said it. I see that as calling out a known person, with a name and a family, a liar. What is your basis?
Man, another good example of the logical fallacy of "false dilemma." I do not accept your characterization of my position. I did not call him a liar. Until you back off of that and represent what I did say fairly, there is nothing to discuss.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
rcrocket wrote:I repeat. What is the basis for your belief that he was bending the truth. You said it. I see that as calling out a known person, with a name and a family, a liar. What is your basis?
Man, another good example of the logical fallacy of "false dilemma." I do not accept your characterization of my position. I did not call him a liar. Until you back off of that and represent what I did say fairly, there is nothing to discuss.
"I do think that he (Keyes) is bending the truth now"
Just as I thought. You have no basis for believing this or you are fearful of explaining your basis. Either way, you're thin.
Now, I may not be able to keep up with you in Classicism, but when it comes to right, wrong and courage, you're just thin. A sycophant to Scratch.
Here's a question for the peanut gallery (that means everybody): Does the location of the "open letter" make a difference in your evaluation of the situation? Would your evaluation have been different if the stake president had posted his reply directly to Tal in the thread in question (regardless of how he had heard of it)?
For me, I think having the open letter posted on a FAIR blog seems intended only to make a point with respect to Tal (i.e., to damage his credibility), and not as an honest response to him. For what that's worth.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
rcrocket wrote:Just as I thought. You have no basis for believing this or you are fearful of explaining your basis. Either way, you're thin.
Now, I may not be able to keep up with you in Classicism, but when it comes to right, wrong and courage, you're just thin. A sycophant to Scratch.
Nice try, Bob. But you aren't going to set the terms of the debate (on a false basis), and then declare victory when I dodge your pretty thinly veiled rhetorical scheme. Try it on a rube. It ain't gonna work with me.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”