1) Somebody is apparently keeping a close tab on this site, no doubt in the hopes of culling information to later use against Church critics. (Note Wyatt's use of the derisive "infamous 'Dr. Shades'".)
Scratch continues to deteriorate on a daily basis, it seems. Somebody is keeping a close tab on this site? Well, they may be, as its a public message board anyone can peruse at any time as well as a hotbed of hostility to the Church, much of it offered by ex-Mormons, some of them publically prominent, like Tal Bachman. We shall, indeed, be judged out of the books that are written, including those texts existing in cyberspace. I'm sure "somebody" does follow the debates here (hmmmm, I'd better clean up my act then. Strictly Bill Buckley mode from now on, and no more songs...)
2) I find it intriguing that both Pres. Keyes and his wife were dragged into this.
Yes, it is interesting, isn't it?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
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?
Upon what basis, given the evidence, can you conclude that Tal is distorting the truth in any way here?
I'm not sure that given the he said/he said nature of the conflicting stories, I can. But, should not the burden of proof be on the one making a positive claim? Trevor, we're still waiting for a critical argument adducing the evidence of Keys' dishonesty.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Well, if he is being dishonest he ought to have it stuck to him. If he's not being dishonest he can come and stick up for himself and stick it right back. If Allen Wyatt and the Keyes had not rebutted Tal's comments then this thread wouldn't exist at all and things would remain status quo, wouldn't they? That would probably make some here happy. If Tal IS distorting the truth big time...shouldn't he be called out?
I'm interested in seeing him show up to clear his good name.
Coggins7 wrote:I'm not sure that given the he said/he said nature of the conflicting stories, I can. But, should not the burden of proof be on the one making a positive claim? Trevor, we're still waiting for a critical argument adducing the evidence of Keys' dishonesty.
Man, I was so close to replying when I read this nonsense about Keyes' dishonesty, which is also not what I claimed.
“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.”
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Well, if he is being dishonest he ought to have it stuck to him. If he's not being dishonest he can come and stick up for himself and stick it right back. If Allen Wyatt and the Keyes had not rebutted Tal's comments then this thread wouldn't exist at all and things would remain status quo, wouldn't they? That would probably make some here happy. If Tal IS distorting the truth big time...shouldn't he be called out?
I'm interested in seeing him show up to clear his good name.
Regards, MG
I, too, am interested in seeing Tal's response. I'm also interested in hearing why a professional therapist thought that this sort of thing would be productive and/or positive. (And why he thought his wife should be dragged into it.)
Last edited by Physics Guy on Fri May 02, 2008 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
5 pages here, only 3 on MAD. I guess this place went nuttier for the whole affair.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
LifeOnaPlate wrote:5 pages here, only 3 on MAD. I guess this place went nuttier for the whole affair.
Yep, it is easier to say nothing in a one-sided conversation.
“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.
Sure: all of this may hold true from a legal perspective. But from an ethical and moral perspective? Methinks not. What Keyes did was rotten.
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.
Maybe so. But his choice of publication venue says a lot about him and his intentions.