Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Dr. Shades]

Wow Shades. How does it feel to be 'infamous'??

Oh, they've been calling me that for quite a while now, so I'm used to it.

Keyes strikes me as a man who is covering his ass. . . I think Keyes tried to look for common ground by sharing his own doubts, and then it backfired on him. Now, he has been made to look like a closet doubter, because Tal made the session public, and so he has to "set the record straight" by minimizing what he did in fact say. His reportage is actually quite vague. He never provides a detailed account of what happened, whereas Tal's story is pretty specific.

I agree with this and think that the bolded portions ought to be carefully considered. Let's look at the most serious accusation in Keyes's letter:

You also reported that I said that Joseph Smith “hadn’t told the truth” and that he “invented stories” and that he “deliberately took advantage of girls.” I never said these things, nor do I believe these statements. These are your statements, not mine. You have invented things I did not say.

Notice that he makes generalized claims about what he didn't say, but was completely silent on what he DID say?

More specifically, Tal gave us direct quotes from the conversations the two of them had. DIRECT QUOTES. Stake President Keyes never comes out and specifically states, "No, I never said that; here is what I ACTUALLY said."

Tal's recollection of the events is way, way too detailed and explicit to be dismissed out-of-hand. President Keyes's letter is far too vague to be counted as an adequate refutation.

(If I were to wager a guess, I think it within the realm of possibility that, since the church monitors 1,500 anti-Mormon websites, someone noticed the Stake President's name and passed the goings-on to the Strengthening the Church Members Committee. Perhaps President Keyes was given an ultimatum, then voila, the "refutation" magically appears.)

The addition of the wife's story does nothing to support the credibility of the husband's.

I wholeheartedly agree. If he really is a closet doubter, why on earth would he ever tell her?

[_Trevor]

Yes...the only deluded ones are at MAD. Let us wave our MormonDiscussions banner and laugh at their delusions. [*enormous eye roll*]

Nice job taking a specific accusation and generalizing it to the point of absurdity. Also, notice that this is not what I said.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Trevor, I don't care what you think of coggins overall, this particular post of his is completely lucid, rational and accurate. I am reading this thread in complete and utter wonderment. Almost disbelief. I am literally fighting off doubts that Ms. Scratch is a real person and not some weirdo getting her kicks.

I don't care who Scratch is or what Scratch's intentions are. I am interested in the issue of Keyes' attempt to refute Tal's account of his interaction with Keyes over Bachman's flagging faith. It seems to me that the apologists I am reading are counting this as a clear and persuasive refutation of Bachman, as often, simply because it now exists. I think a great deal more is at work here, as I discussed in a rather lengthy post that Crocket and Coggins repeatedly demanded that I write, and have now utterly ignored. Now Coggins devolves into his usual puerile accusations and insults about my intellect and suspected political leanings. He is the one who has not dealt with my work. That should tell you something, as eager as you are to hold his hand in solidarity.

Again, I referred you specifically to that one post by coggins. This thread, by and large, is laughable. There have been some people here that speak reasonably, however. The simple issue is Bachman made comments about a Stake President in public. The Stake President explained his side in public. Regardless of other people seeing this as "evidence" that Tal is a liar is beside the point. (I don't really see Tal as a liar, I see him as more of a fanatic. The "TBM" version of ex-mo's. But that is beside the point.)

[_Coggins7]

Leftism is in the dumpster of history

WTF does that even mean?

It means there is a stigma attached to it that many liberals do not want attached to them. Hence, many have become "moderates" or "centrists" to disassociate themselves from the stigma attached to "liberal" and "left".

The philosophy itself (leftism as a political and social body of thought) is also an utterly discredited failure, and as such, resides in the dumpster of history, along with all false doctrines and teachings.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

There is no suspicion, by the way, about Trevor's political leanings. See his recent post in the LDS racism thread.

Leftism is in the dumpster of history, and everyone knows it, even the Leftists.

psssst...I am voting for Obama if possible. Already did in the UT primary. ;)

[_bcspace]

No ethics were ditched and no smear was performed by the Stake Pres. or his wife.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'll have to leave it to others as to whether or not I've adequately answered this in simplest form. A man's honor is a man's honor. When his honor has been questioned, his good name has been besmirched.

Regards,
MG

Hi there, my dear friend MG. Are you saying that "a man's honor" is contingent upon his utter capitulation to the Church?

[_bcspace]

The philosophy itself (leftism as a political and social body of thought) is also an utterly discredited failure, and as such, resides in the dumpster of history, along with all false doctrines and teachings.

Correct. Problem is, it tastes good to many. We will be fighting the Cold War over and over because of the left.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee... You're not upset, are you MG? By the way: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Tal's postings constituted a "besmirch" on Pres. Keyes's character. Waiting, oh waiting, for you to offer up an explanation.

Scratchism: Since he doesn't really know Church history, or the scriptures, or even the inner-workings of how an academic journal works, he's limited to finding a hair to split on sheer rhetoric alone. And then demanding that his correspondent follow the split hair.

Tell you what, Scratch: Propose ten different 19th Century topics concerning Church history. I'll pick one you propose. We'll go mano-a-mano rapid fire on this board over a period of 30 minutes, and see how rhetoric falls when there is no substance.

Lol. Hey, Bob---why is it that you're keying in on 19th Century topics? Here's two other topics I'd love to discuss with you:

1) How, why, and in what ways the BYU "spy ring" was "instigated by students"
2) Your experience with and knowledge of the peer review process at FARMS Review

[_Mister Scratch]

Classic Ms. Scratch right here. When backed into a corner accuse the other of becoming "upset."

That is true, but he did push your button in a major way the other day. Never let them see you sweat.

Yeah. I got my "butt kicked." Totally. After citing examples of people blind submitting articles to the FARMS Review, which flew in the face of her theories. That's when the butt kicking occurred.

Ha! Gee, thanks, Bob. You know, it's funny---LoaP wants to deny his "upsetness," and yet what do we see? A parody thread, ala Wade, Coggins, and all sorts of other TBMs! It seems to be a kind of "stress release valve".

Furthermore, my dear LoaP, you *never* supplied evidence of "blind submitting articles." Your best evidence was your Kevin Christiansen examples, and in the end you were finally forced to admit that you didn't know whether any conversation had taken place beforehand. Things got rough for you, and so you had to "take a leave of absence." You went to recuperate on MAD, and now you're back, smarting yet again, and so bent out of shape that the best you can offer is parody threads. So sad!