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?
Look up besmirched in Wikipedia and see if you can make the connection. Hint: when you plug in besmirch another word will come up.
Dirt+water=mud
A SP being dirtied up through false accusations and/or reporting of personal conversations not indirectly affecting the good name and reputation/influence of the church? C'mon.
Mister Scratch wrote:(And why he thought his wife should be dragged into it.)
People often mistakenly believe that the corroboration of a spouse will be mistaken for objective, third-party support.
“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.”
mbeesley wrote: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.
I actually attribute the choice of venue more to whoever solicited the letters in the first place. Until we get the background on how Tal's post was brought to Keyes' attention and how the responding letter was then produced, we can only surmise what happened. But it may be fair to assume that Wyatt or some other FAIR denizen contacted Keyes with the substance of Tal's post and graciously offered to host an open reply to him, without presenting the possibility that the response be made in the same place as Tal's post.
**edited to fix botched quote boxes
Last edited by Guest on Fri May 02, 2008 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
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)
skippy the dead wrote:I actually attribute the choice of venue more to whoever solicited the letters in the first place. Until we get the background on how Tal's post was brought to Keyes' attention and how the responding letter was then produced, we can only surmise what happened. But it may be fair to assume that Wyatt or some other FAIR denizen contacted Keyes with the substance of Tal's post and graciously offered to host an open reply to him, without presenting the possibility that the response be made in the same place as Tal's post.
Sounds like a fair guess.
“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.)
To clear his good name. Why is this so hard to see?
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?
Look up besmirched in Wikipedia and see if you can make the connection. Hint: when you plug in besmirch another word will come up.
Dirt+water=mud
You are not answering my question, my dear friend. Here is is again:
What, amongst the things Tal said, "besmirches", "dirties," or "muddies" Pres. Keyes's reputation?
Do you have an answer or not? Because if you don't, then all of this has just been a kangaroo court summoned up by Allen Wyatt & et. al. in order to attack and "besmirch" Tal.
mentalgymnast wrote:To clear his good name. Why is this so hard to see?
Regards, MG
Again: how had his name been "muddied"? as far as I know, the only thing Tal "accused" him of was being a closet doubter. How, by any measure, is that a "besmirch" against Keyes's character? I am unaware of anything in LDS doctrine which states that doubts are a bad thing, let alone a sin or a revelation about someone's poor character.
Mister Scratch wrote:Again: how had his name been "muddied"? as far as I know, the only thing Tal "accused" him of was being a closet doubter. How, by any measure, is that a "besmirch" against Keyes's character? I am unaware of anything in LDS doctrine which states that doubts are a bad thing, let alone a sin or a revelation about someone's poor character.
Seems close to an admission that doubting is not tolerated very well.
“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.”
Mister Scratch wrote:Again: how had his name been "muddied"? as far as I know, the only thing Tal "accused" him of was being a closet doubter. How, by any measure, is that a "besmirch" against Keyes's character? I am unaware of anything in LDS doctrine which states that doubts are a bad thing, let alone a sin or a revelation about someone's poor character.
Seems close to an admission that doubting is not tolerated very well.
Agreed. And, I have to say: the assertion by Mbeesley and others that Pres. Keyes's choice of publication venue was "a-okay" ought to remember that Jeffrey Neilson was sharply criticized by TBMs for taking his complaints public. Many TBMs insisted that he should have kept his concerns private, or within the confines of BYU administration. His choice of venue, these TBMs argued, meant that Neilson deserved to be punished and publicly flogged.
skippy the dead wrote: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.
Tal's story in one form or another is posted in multiple locations if I remember correctly. For the SP to cover the bases he may have felt he needed to post his response on a major forum so that it will/would leak out to the other forums where Tal's story is repeated.
Limiting his response to this forum and to the thread that I initiated would have limited the scope of influence as it relates to his rebuttal of Tal's remarks . Putting it on the FAIR blog helps to broaden that scope of influence.
After all, you guys found it, right?
by the way, the tone of the open letter from Pres. Keyes has the ring of an honest response, at least to me. I'm still interested in hearing from Tal on the matter though.